Easter-Truely A Christian Holy Day

Because "Easter" was 16th-century synonym for the Jewish feast, Passover.

 

Because "Easter" was 16th-century synonym for the Jewish feast, Passover. </font>[/QUOTE]Did The Jews celebrate the Easter?

 

Yes, they certainly did celebrate the Passover.

 

To Glory2God and those who support his error:

1. Easter didn't exist when Luke wrote Acts. That fact alone makes it automatically wrong. The AV translators knew the difference between Easter and Passover, as they include Easter in their list of Holy days. I have twe repro AV 1611s, so I know what I'm talking about.

2. The AV man translated pascha as 'Passover' in every other instance. Therefore, there's no valid excuse for rendering it "Easter" that one time.

3. Mr Kinney is a member here. However, he hasn't posted for awhile. I suspect it got too hot so he left the kitchen. His views were constantly and successfilly challenged here.


4. Here's a little study I wrote awhile back. Feel free to try to prove any of it wrong:

_________________________________________________

"Easter" in the KJV's Acts 12;4 is a Booboo!

by Cranston P.Roby

Time to put the "Easter" issue in Acts 12:4 in the KJV to rest once and for all. It is at best an anomaly, at worst a careless error, but in any case, incorrect. The main proof I shall use is by proving from KJV Scripture that the entire seven days of unleavened bread are Passover, and not just the paschal lamb meal that opens Passover week. That's the view of today's Jews as well as those of Jesus' day, a view founded upon GOD'S CLEAR COMMANDS concerning Passover. We shall see the KJV's rendering of these commands.

First, let's see some historical backgrounds. Luke wrote Acts no earlier than AD 62, as Paul was sent to Rome in 60 AD and Luke mentions Paul's ministering for 2 years while under house arrest in Rome, and as the results of Paul's hearing before Caesar aren't mentioned, it wasn't written too long after that time, either...almost certainly it was written before AD 68, the end of Nero's reign. It's important to establish the approximate date of the writing of Acts because Easter did not exist any earlier than C.155 AD and certainly didn't exist when Acts was written.

The theory that Luke was referring to a feast of Ishtar that Herod was observing is pure imagination. There's not a shred of Scriptural nor secular historical evidence that Herod or anyone else in that area worshipped Ishtar at that time. Besides that, Ishtar was then known as PALLAS ATHENE among the Greeks and the QUEEN OF HEAVEN among the Jews. The Greek word 'pascha' was NEVER a name for Ishtar or any ceremony associated with it.

Everywhere else the Greek word 'pascha' appears in Scripture, it's translated 'Passover'. This word is the Greek form of the Hebrew 'pesach', which means'Passover' and nothing else. There's simply no valid reason for the AV translators to have rendered this word 'Easter' in this one case.(Tyndale coined the word "Passover" in the 1530s when he made his translation of the New testament. Most earlier English translations simply said, "paska, paschal, pask",etc. or left the word untranslated.)

But is this enough to establish that Easter in the KJV's Acts 12:4 is wrong. No. So, let's let the KJV itself uncover its own goof.

First, let's see God's rules He gave when He established Passover.(I shall leave out verses not pertinent to this study.)(The month referred to is Nisan in the Jewish calendar, their first month of the year, roughly corresponding to April on the Gregorian calendar.)

Exodus 12: 1And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt saying 2This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. 3Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: 6And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. 14And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. 15Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. 16And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you. 17And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. 18In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.

Here, God establishes the exact dates, starting time, and ending time for the entire observance...and in V.18,He establishes that the people are to eat only unleavened bread from the time of the paschal meal until the end of the observance. (It's a gimme that the people could eat other foods long as they were unleavened also, as the LAMB certainly isn't bread!)Please keep in mind the time of the first holy convocation in V.16 as I'll be referring to it later.

Next...Did Passover consist ONLY of the paschal meal, with the rest of the week, the days of Unleavened Bread, being considered a separate observance? NOT ACCORDING TO GOD! Here's what God said to Ezekiel.(His writings began in the 30th year of the Jews' exile in Babylon.)

Ezekiel 45:21 In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover(Hebrew pesach), a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

I don't believe God could have been any plainer. According to Him, the ENTIRE WEEK of unleavened bread is Passover, NOT just the paschal meal. And it is GOD'S Passover, not Israel's! God could have called it anything He chose, and He chose pesach/pascha.And He established its beginning and ending times, and the specific acts within the observance to be performed by the people, as He chose, as He set forth to Moses, whose writings of these commands of God became our Exodus 12.

We see this command obeyed in the New Testament, although many Jews by then had begun to come to Jerusalem to observe the paschal meal, instead of observing it in their homes. Obviously God permitted this because Joseph & Mary, & JESUS HIMSELF followed that practice.

The New Testament Scriptures clearly establish that Passover and the days of unleavened bread are synonymous:

Matthew 26:17
Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
Mark 14:1
After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.
Mark 14:12
And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?
Luke 22:1
Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

Luke was a gentile, but remember, a gentile could observe passover long as he/she followed the same rules as the Israelis did. Definitely, Luke observed the paschal meal with Jesus. Now, how did the Jews who arrested Jesus that night view the entire observation? Remember, those Jews were highly-legalistic men who believed Jesus was rebelling against the law as given to Moses. They were so absorbed with this that they missed all the prophecies about Messiah that Jesus fulfilled. They saw the gnat but missed the camel. Let's see:

John 18:28
Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

Now we know Jesus had eaten the paschal meal the previous evening before he was arrested & taken before Annas & Caiaphas. After He was seen by Caiaphas, the events of the above verse occurred. Knowing the paschal meal had already happened, to what was John referring when he said, "eat the passover"? Why, the special meals consisting entirely of unleavened bread and other unleavened foods, of course. He had hearkened to God when He had said the ENTIRE WEEK was Passover.

Now, there are some who say there were TWO DATES for observing the paschal meal, and that John was referring to the second one in Ch. 18 & 19, but this is entirely without foundation & entirely against God's commands in Exodus 12. Remember, John had eaten the paschal meal with JESUS the evening previous to the events about which he wrote in Ch.18-19 and he knew exactly what the correct time for the paschal meal was. And those legalistic Jews who'd arrested Jesus certainly wouldn't have observed Passover contrary to God's commands! They knew not to defile themselves by not entering a gentile govt. building, so it's a gimme that they knew all the other Passover commands.

Even the Roman Pilate believe this! Pilate also knew the paschal meal was over. However, he said:

John 18:39
But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

Even Pilate called the whole observance Passover!

Did John contradict himself when he wrote:
John 19:14
"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!"?

Of course not. This is simply more proof that Passover consists of the ENTIRE WEEK OF UNLEAVENED BREAD. But for what part of Passover were the Jews preparing? Why, the HOLY CONVOCATION DECREED BY GOD IN EXODUS 12:16, OF COURSE! This convocation was a HIGH SABBATH(John 19:31), in which all the rules of the regular weekly Sabbath were observed, plus the special rules for that particular holy day. Therefore on Preparation Day the Jews were doing all the mundane work ahead of time that they could. They washed all their clothes and themselves, thoroughly cleaned their homes, prepared their meals for the next day as far as they could, made sure to have enough fuels for the next day, etc.(Feel free to ask any Jew what a High Sabbath is. It is any special Holy day, whether it falls upon a regular weekly sabbath or not.)


I believe the Scriptures as found in the KJV establish beyond a doubt that the entire week of unleavened bread is Passover. GOD HIMSELF said as much to Ezekiel, and the Jews were following this decree in the time of Jesus, Luke, and John. IT WAS GOD WHO ESTABLISHED PASSOVER TO BEGIN WITH, AND WHO DECREED THE WHOLE WEEK OF UNLEAVENED BREAD TO BE PASSOVER!

This brings us to the actual boo-boo in Acts 12. Here's Verse 3: And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

Plainly, the events of Acts 12:1-19 occurred during a Passover week. In the KJV, the words "then were the days" do NOT mean the days of UB FOLLOWED the events narrated in these verses. Please check the GREEK to see it was DURING these days. The sentence could easily have read, "The days of unleavened bread were then." At any rate, the days of unleavened bread here referenced were PASSOVER.

Therefore Verse 4 has to be referring to PASSOVER, as the events took place during the days of unleavened bread, which was Passover, Easter didn't then exist, & the Greek word pascha then meant ONLY Passover & nothing else. Rendering 'pascha' as 'Easter' here is clearly incorrect. Everywhere else 'pascha' appears in the Greek, the AV men(and every translator who followed) rendered it "Passover". If Luke had been referring to anything else, he would have used another word or words besides 'pascha'.

Conclusion: "Easter" in the KJV's Acts 12:4 is incorrect.

As always, I encourage everyone to read the verses surrounding those which I quoted, and to verify the history which I stated from any good encyclopedia.

In Christ,

Cranston P. Roby

 

Natters & others:

The KJVOs MIGHT have had a case IF the AV men hadn't written 'Passover' for pascha in every other instance where it appears in the Greek...and if they hadn't included Easter in their list of Holy days, even defining it as Our Lord's resurrection...but they didn't include PASSOVER in their list.

Passover was given ONLY TO ISRAEL, as Israel was the only nation "passed over" by God's angel. As a perfect, sinless Jewish man, JESUS observed Passover exactly according to His Father's rules, even though He added COMMUNION for Christians. But the actual Pesach thingy is for ISRAEL ALONE.

Obviously the AV men knew the difference, and the fact they said Passover everywhere else shows they simply blew it in Acts 12:4.

 

AVBunyan,

Cheap? Maybe.

True? Definately.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

1. May I respecfully suggest you read Hislop's "Two Babylons" for the history on Easter.

2. Again, don't you think the translators discussed this? You think they blew it - all 46 or so of them? And we are smart enough to see they "blew it" and they couldn't see it? You think those men just walked in off the street and joined the committee? Again, it appears you and others believe man rules and reigns in teh affairs of men and can overule the God of the universe.

3. To hot??? You flatter yourself. To hot??? And you think bro. Will can't take the heat? OH, you live in a dream world and refuse to wake up because you can't. Not speaking for bro. Will but maybe he felt you just can't flog a dead horse and this forum wasn't a good use of his time. But to say he couldn't handle the heat - what heat?

 

I don't know but he was not an inspired author. The romish word should be translated in the only meaning it could have had by Luke the author of the Book of Acts

The Church of England was heavily affected by their parent the Church of Rome "Easter" is a Romish word related to "Ishtar" (in spite of all denials).

Just because many other English Bibles both before and after 1611 used an invented word derived from heathenism doesn't make it right.

Yes. just like they got so many other things wrong. remember they were "baby sprinklers" and apostolic successionists via the Anglo-Catholic unscriptural office of "Bishop", etc.

No, most/many of them were educated in the Universities of the Church of Rome and the Church of England. Several of them had been involved in the flip-flop of England between their allegiance to the Anglo vs Roman Catholic Church, thus their theological confusion. On the other hand, yes it is true, men often do appear to overrule in the affairs of God but as you know that's all it is is an appearance.

An example is that King Henry 8th (as well as King James) felt that the Church was subservient to the state. This resulted in the persecution, torture and even death of our anabaptist forefathers by the Church of England as well as Puritans and Dissenters who felt that this was an unscriptural teaching by the established Church of the English Crown.

The ultimate result : The United States of America and the Baptist distinctive of the Separation of Church and State.


HankD

 

HankD;
You just raised a can of worms. I don't know if it has been dealt with before, but meet me in the history forum.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Why not right here?

"Easter" (as opposed to Resurrection Day) and all it's trappings (eggs, bunnies, hot cross buns) are of Anglo/Roman Catholic derivation and related to this thread.

HankD

 

HankD;
I thought asking you to meet me in the history forum would be a pretty good hint.

It has nothing to do with this thread's topic.

It has to do with your last comment.
"The ultimate result..."

See ya there!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Done!

HankD

 

quote:Originally posted by robycop3:
[QB] To Glory2God and those who support his error:

1. Easter didn't exist when Luke wrote Acts.

2. The AV man translated pascha as 'Passover' in every other instance. Therefore, there's no valid excuse for rendering it "Easter" that one time.

3. Mr Kinney is a member here. However, he hasn't posted for awhile. I suspect it got too hot so he left the kitchen.

1. May I respecfully suggest you read Hislop's "Two Babylons" for the history on Easter.

I HAVE, Sir. Hislop made many errors, which have been discussed in other threads. But you evidently overlooked THIS paragraph:

(Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, Chapter III,festivals, Section II, Easter)


2. Again, don't you think the translators discussed this? You think they blew it - all 46 or so of them? And we are smart enough to see they "blew it" and they couldn't see it? You think those men just walked in off the street and joined the committee?

First, we've presented a truckload of other evidence PROVING Easter is wrong. Next, not every translator read every other translator's work. Next, those men were human as you and I, thus subject to human error same as you and I.

Again, it appears you and others believe man rules and reigns in teh affairs of men and can overule the God of the universe.

No, that would be the Onlyist, who denies that God presents His word in the forms HE chooses, whether WE agree with Him or not. Not to mention the SELECTIVE BELIEVING of the very translators you're supporting here. this was proven in the Psalm 12:7 thread where almost every KJVO who responded acted as if he didn't believe the translators' marginal note concerning this verse. METHINX I SMELL A DOUBLE STANDARD!(Torques up his 2500 watt linear amplifier) Breaker, Breaker, Ed Edwards...How about it, Skipland, Skipland! DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT!

3. To hot??? You flatter yourself. To hot??? And you think bro. Will can't take the heat?

The evidence speaks for itself. He useta make his versions comparisons here, until he found out there are quite a few here who THINK FOR THEMSELVES and actually work to verify or disprove his statements, the latter being the finding 90% of the time. What evidence? He's quite active in other boards as "Brandplucked", and to my knowledge he hasn't been banned here.


OH, you live in a dream world and refuse to wake up because you can't. Not speaking for bro.

No, I'm quite wide awake. It's the KJVO who's dreaming. He/she believes a false, man-made myth that's been proven wrong time and time again.


Will but maybe he felt you just can't flog a dead horse and this forum wasn't a good use of his time.[/i]

Which is a euphemism for "I am clueless".

But to say he couldn't handle the heat - what heat?

I've managed to stay two steps ahead of YOU on every board we're both on, Captain! Again, Will's a big boy & should to be able to defend himself.

 

Glory2God: Not reinspiration, preservation. The original greeks who actually knew original greek knew it meant Easter.

No, they didn't in Luke's time, when he wrote 'pascha'. Easter didn't then exist. You may consult any reference book on earth to try to disprove that.

 

Askjo: Did The Jews celebrate the Easter?

No more than the RCC celebrated Passover.

 

LOLOLOLOLOL!!

Good one, Roby!

 

To me, a good one is the KJVOs' justifying the Easter thingy when it simply didn't exist in Luke's time. The first known celebrations of the date believed to have been Jesus' Resurrection Day was no earlier than C. 155.

The idea that this refers in any way to Ishtar is patently absurd.

 

But, but, Roby, I keep telling everyone why : "Advanced Revelation" This is the Only way to explain how the Greek word "pascha-Passover" was transformed into the English word "easter" - via Advanced Revelation.

HankD

 

Thanx, Hank...I flunked "Advanced Revelation 101". Shore am glad ya set me straight 'fore Prof. Ruckman smacked my hand w/a ruler.

 

I feel foolish for even responding to you Roby - but I've learned my lesson - much to your delight I am finished with you here or on any other forum I happen to find you on in the future. Continue your mockings and one-liners without me.

I think I've finally had my fill of this forum once and for all - never should have come back - will not bother you folks again - to some I've enjoyed chatting - you are cordial and reasonble fellas - to others, as mentioned above, I feel foolish for even responding to you.

God bless