Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
I think most of us agree that Easter is the correct word in Acts 12:4 but for different reasons. Take a look at the myths that people present and also see what I believe is the correct view in the article in the link: Easter has always been a Christian word for the Resurrection of Christ; http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/easter-or-passover-in-acts-124
Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hello John

In your OP, you added....  “but for different reasons.”
Well, my reason for believing that Easter is the correct word, rather than “Passover”, is because of who the Bible(and the book of Acts), is aimed at!

God(in His wisdom), knew that over the centuries after the English language was established and an English Bible was produced, that mainly Gentiles would be reading it;

And that most new Gentile converts would not know what time of year the Passover was being celebrated.

Therefore, it makes perfect sense, to translate this word as Easter!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Oh, by the way... In English the word “easter” means.... “From the East!”
Even though it may mean something else in another language(some false god).

And as we all should know, our Lord is soon going to break the “Eastern sky”!

"For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matthew 24:27)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Donald hit it on the head for the meaning of Easter.   Easter celebrates the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  According to Paul the resurrected Christ proves he will come back or. else our faith is in vain, we are yet in our sins, those who are dead in Christ are  perish, and we are in jeopardy every hour.  Jesus Christ's return is our Hope. Jesus will come from the east.

Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

 

1 Corinthians 15 :1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

1 Corinthians 15 :2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

1 Corinthians 15 :3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1 Corinthians 15 :4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

1 Corinthians 15 :5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

1 Corinthians 15 :6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

1 Corinthians 15 :7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

1 Corinthians 15 :8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

1 Corinthians 15 :9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

1 Corinthians 15 :10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

1 Corinthians 15 :11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

1 Corinthians 15 :12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

1 Corinthians 15 :13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

1 Corinthians 15 :14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

1 Corinthians 15 :15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

1 Corinthians 15 :16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

1 Corinthians 15 :17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

1 Corinthians 15 :18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

1 Corinthians 15 :19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

1 Corinthians 15 :20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

1 Corinthians 15 :21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

1 Corinthians 15 :22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15 :23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

1 Corinthians 15 :24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

1 Corinthians 15 :25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

1 Corinthians 15 :26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

1 Corinthians 15 :27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

1 Corinthians 15 :28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

1 Corinthians 15 :29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

1 Corinthians 15 :30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

1 Corinthians 15 :31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

1 Corinthians 15 :32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

1 Corinthians 15 :33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

1 Corinthians 15 :34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

1 Corinthians 15 :35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

1 Corinthians 15 :36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

1 Corinthians 15 :37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

1 Corinthians 15 :38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

1 Corinthians 15 :39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

1 Corinthians 15 :40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

1 Corinthians 15 :41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

1 Corinthians 15 :42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

1 Corinthians 15 :43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

1 Corinthians 15 :44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15 :45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1 Corinthians 15 :46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

1 Corinthians 15 :47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

1 Corinthians 15 :48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

1 Corinthians 15 :49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

1 Corinthians 15 :50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

1 Corinthians 15 :51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

1 Corinthians 15 :52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1 Corinthians 15 :53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

1 Corinthians 15 :54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

1 Corinthians 15 :55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

1 Corinthians 15 :56  The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

1 Corinthians 15 :57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 15 :58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

My Bible has the word "Passover".

What we think it should be can be explained by looking at Bibles of the past.

Many of the Old English/Middle English Bibles, since Tyndale, used, interchangeably, the words 'Passover' and 'Easter'. Some use Easter in the OT instead of Passover even.

A good Google search will show that. So whether it says Passover or Easter, it isn't that important of an issue.

Different times called the 'day' different names. 'Pascha' is the same word in the text for both words.

And that is from Scriveners Textus Receptus, of Bezas 1598 Greek text, the text underlying the KJB.

(My Bible was originally published in 1560. So it's not a MV.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It is important.  Once again folks take the simple and confound it.  The Passover precedes the days of unleavened bread.  So it cannot be passover because that date has already passed.  The guy was waiting for Easter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
 

The word Easter is mentioned but once in the Authorized (KJV) Version of Scripture Acts 12:4. There it is being observed by the pagan King Herod not by any Christian.

Easter in Acts 12 is not a reference to Herod's Holy day. It was a reference to the Resurrection of Christ which the church was going to celebrate after Passover. Harod was going to hold Peter until the Christian celebration of Christ's resurrection because he wanted to vex the church and please the Jews. On the day of Christ's resurrection, Easter, he was going to bring him forth probably as a mockery. A sort of Anti-resurrection.But instead the guards lost Peter just as they lost Christ. Also on Easter day Harod dies and "the word of God grew and multiplied."

Easter is an English Saxon word which means "the sun rise in the East" and is from an older Christian church word "Pesach" (hebrew p "esach") which was always used to refer to the morning Christ arose.

The confusion over the word is from when the bible writers transliterated the Hebrew concept "Passover" into Greek. The Greeks did not have a word for Passover so the christian writers transliterated the Hebrew word "pesach" into "pascha" to refer both to the Hebrew Passover and to the Christian resurrection as it was the closet equivalent concept and occurred ruffly at the same time. The concept for the resurrection came first to Greek then the concept for Passover came second and for the Christian the Passover culminated with the Resurrection of Christ our Passover Lamb so in time the Passover became simnomenus with the Easter event.

Where as  the word "pesach" (east dawn/morning) originally only referred to the resurrection event commonly today became the word for the whole Passover holiday week. Both concepts Passover and Easter were introduced in Greek writing by Christians who taught Christ resurrection as being the main event and the Passover that was merely the starting of that event. Later Wycliffe created the word "Passover" to distinguish it from Easter so that he could use "Passover" instead of the Easter which had not yet happened in the OT. 

That's essentially what the article bares out but in more detail.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Brethren,

It may behoove all of us to re-read the article that John Young referenced to in his original post. After reading the article, if you find fault with the article, give us the exact reason why the article is in error. Here is the link to the article again for your convenience: http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/easter-or-passover-in-acts-124

John Young,

Again, thank you for your research and boldness. :goodpost: The article, the scriptures and detailed word studies contained in the article, and the mistakes that Alexander Hislop (and other well-meaning men), made are evident. My hat is off to you. :th_tiphat:

The King James Version of Acts 12:4 is correct. To change the word, "Easter," to "Passover," is an error.

Alan

Edited by Alan
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
 

My Bible has the word "Passover".

What we think it should be can be explained by looking at Bibles of the past.

Many of the Old English/Middle English Bibles, since Tyndale, used, interchangeably, the words 'Passover' and 'Easter'. Some use Easter in the OT instead of Passover even.

A good Google search will show that. So whether it says Passover or Easter, it isn't that important of an issue.

Different times called the 'day' different names. 'Pascha' is the same word in the text for both words.

And that is from Scriveners Textus Receptus, of Bezas 1598 Greek text, the text underlying the KJB.

(My Bible was originally published in 1560. So it's not a MV.)

I understand that your Bible, the Geneva Bible, is not an MV, but, the King James version translators were correct in the useage of the word, 'Easter,' and not, 'Passover.'

Now that you are in America (Indiana), and you are not in the Middle Ages, and you have a more better translation, (the King James Version), maybe now is the time to 'switch.' 

Alan 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Wait, so you really think Herod was celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Seriously? No, Herod celebrated the celebration of Ishtar. It was the rembrance of Tammuz and his death at the hands of a wild boar. This was a well-established Spring celebration, preceeded by 40 days of fasting for Tammuz, which the Catholic church 'christianized' and called Easter. This is where the 40 days of Lent came from, the weeping for Tammuz, one of the abominations of Israel, and why they went into captivity. And another, the worship of the sun which rises in the 'east'. Also, Easter is often held at a different time from the Passover, when Jesus died. So yes Easter WAS the correct word, it just wasn't the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. Remember it was Herod who chose to wait until after Easter-it was in reference to Herod, not believers. There are no New Testament feasts-they have all been established by the Roman Catholics.   

 

Okay, having now read the article, let me make what may be a sounder argument.   First, I see the author of the article goes to some length to speak on the word in the Greek. And here I thought most of us disregarded making our primary arguments based on the Greek, since the 'original Greek' doesn't exist, hence we are assuming the Greek we have today in the various Greek New testaments, (most of which were produced by theological liberals and textual critics) is questionable, and we put our faith in the Lord preserving His word in the English. So I am going to go off the Bible, KJV, period, and make my arguments based therein.

 One comment the author makes is that since the word was used by Luke, the only gentile who wrote some of the New Testament, we can assume he was not speaking of Passover, since he didn't keep Passover, not being a Jew. That would be fine, except Luke, the non-Jew, also mentions in the same context "(Then were the days of unleavened bread.)" So if there was no reference here to Passover since he was a Gentile, why is he then mentioning the days of unleavened bread, the seven-day feast the JEWS kept after the day of Passover? So this argument makes no sense.

He also says that by Luke's writing of Acts, 'Pashcal' WAS 'Easter', ie, the Christian celebration of Jesus' resurrection, is not to be found in scripture. There is not one word anywhere that believers ever kept a special yearly feast of 'The East', to memorialize Jesus' resurrection. Context says that it was Herod who intended, after Easter, to bring Peter forth before the people. Pashcal was a term that referred to both the day of Passover and the feast of unleavened bread-here Easter is used because it was NOT Passover, but something entirely different.

Next, as I mentioned in my first reply but I will expand upon a bit, one of the great abominable sins the Jews committed that brought about their Babylonian captivity, was  praying to the rising sun (rising in the east, sunrise service? Eze 8:16) and weeping for Tammuz (Eze 8:14). Tammuz was closely associated with Ishtar, his consort. So it would be no surprise if some of these activities continued on.

One problem, as seen in the article, and as well, in any article you will read on Eostre or Ishtar, or Astarte, some of the idols that have been associated with pagan Easter, is that there is little clear information on any of them. That they are actual ancient worshipped idols is pretty clear, but beyond that, their characteristics, their powers, their associations, their symbols, seem to evolve and change over time and places, to the point that to give any real clear yea or nay on whether any of them were directly or indirectly associated with Easter is difficult, if not impossible to say. Thus to say that Easter is NOT influenced by any of these things is just not possible to say. And, in fact, since Eostre WAS associated with rabbits and eggs, and part of the mythology was that Eostre turned a phoenix into a rabbit to protect it, but still by nature a bird, the phoenix laid brightly colored eggs, somehow makes some connections that are hard to ignore.

AS for Easter meaning 'east', it is interesting that there is no Greek or Hebrew word that was translated Easter, rather an old Germanic or Saxon word was used instead, for which there is apparently NO Greek version. Luke did not use any form of 'Easter' here-it was replaced with something completely foreign to the word used by Luke. It was used to show that, whatever Herod was celebrating, it had nothing to do with the Passover OR the feast of unleavened bread-if it was referencing some special celebration of Jesus' resurrection, well, he being the Passover Lamb of God, it would have been appropriate for that word to have been used, since Pashcal could refer to the entire 8 days of the two feasts, or the one day of Passover. But since Passover was over, (and thus, the time they would have celebrated Jesus' resurrection) and it was during the time of unleavened bread, it was, I believe, referring to something else, something related to Herod, and again, Herod I doubt would have been celebrating Jesus' resurrection, as I somehow doubt he believed in it.

Anyways, that's all I got for now. FWIW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Just a point connected to this, " Herod I doubt would have been celebrating Jesus' resurrection, as I somehow doubt he believed in it."

We know from the celebrations in our own time that most people who celebrate the holiday don't believe in what the holiday is said to be for. Most who celebrate Christmas aren't actual Christians and know very little of anything to do with the birth of Jesus or the history of the Christmas holiday. The same for Easter, St. Patricks Day, and even things like Memorial Day and Independence Day.

I'm not speaking to the point at hand, just to the point that whether a person believes in a holiday's supposed purpose or meaning has little to do with whether or not they celebrate in some fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hello  Ukulelemike

I found your last posting here very interesting.  We can learn lots of lessons from it.
It is clear, that Satan is still hard at work, keeping everybody as far away from the true meaning of the “Easter” as he can.
But there are some things that bother me about your post.
------------------------
First you said......
“And here I thought most of us disregarded making our primary arguments based on the Greek, since the 'original Greek' doesn't exist......”

This is true, but it is “a lie”: The lie, that unbelievers have been feeding us for a little over 100 years now.  Although the original autographs do not exist, God’s Word has not been lost: God preserved it in the thousands of “reliable copies” that He saw to it, were kept for us in the “Majority Texts”.  These are God’s preserved Word!  And they are not “questionable”!  God has preserved His Word in Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic!
------------------------
Next you said......
“So I am going to go off the Bible, KJV, period, and make my arguments based therein.”

This is a gutsy and bold statement, that I have made myself over the years.  But it’s Dangerous, bordering on “double inspiration”.  For sure the KJB, is “God’s Word”, but for English speaking people only!  Our love for the KJB, must not cause us to go off into error.
------------------------
Next you quoted this other “author”.......
“Since the word was used by Luke, the only gentile who wrote some of the New Testament, we can assume he was not speaking of Passover, since he didn't keep Passover, not being a Jew.........”

I have some “serious problems” with this statement; And I didn’t see you address them, so I will.
(1)First, this assumption, that Luke was a gentile; Is Biblically unsound.....
Romans 3:1-2
V.1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?
V.2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

and
John 4:22
“Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.”

(2)And secondly(and more importantly), this statement shows a disrespectful attitude toward God’s Word.  Luke, was simply a “pen”, used by God to write God’s Word!  Although his writing style can be evaluated, because God used words from Luke’s own vocabulary, to write His Word.  The words Luke penned, were God’s Words; Therefore the idea that Luke injected his own personal views or prejudices is error.
------------------------
All of us, need to be careful(in these last days), and be dogmatic about our stands and attitudes about God’s Word!

 

Edited by Donald
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
 

Brother Ukulelemike, I critiqued Your statements below. If they sound like attacks on you they are not. They are mostly directed towards the soures which promted the wrong ideas about Easter. I hope my thoughts and statements can help. 

 

Wait, so you really think Herod was celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Seriously?

No Herod was not celebrating anything. He was trying to please the Jews by Holding Peter until after Easter. Remember this was almost one year after the resurrection and the church was growing rapidly and the Jews were losing their power over the people as they were all becoming Christian. Herod decided to "VEX CERTAIN OF THE CHURCH" and when he saw it pleased the Jews he took Peter also. The context is clearly to persecute the church by bringing out Peter to the people for some demonstration "after Easter". Herod wanted the people to see he had Peter "after Easter". If Easter was simply Herod's pagan day then It would not matter to the people when he had Peter. The people could care less about some pagan's day and if anything that would make them angry and would not be a benefit to Herod or the Jews. This was a "show down" between Herod and the Church to show the people which was greater. The Church had been preaching for almost a year that Christ had risen from the dead on the first day just after Passover week/days of unleavened bread. Herod wanted to show the people he could hold Jesus' greatest Apostle until after the resurrection morning, after Easter.

No, Herod celebrated the celebration of Ishtar. It was the rembrance of Tammuz and his death at the hands of a wild boar. This was a well-established Spring celebration, preceeded by 40 days of fasting for Tammuz, which the Catholic church 'christianized' and called Easter. This is where the 40 days of Lent came from, the weeping for Tammuz, one of the abominations of Israel, and why they went into captivity. And another, the worship of the sun which rises in the 'east'. Also, Easter is often held at a different time from the Passover, when Jesus died. So yes Easter WAS the correct word, it just wasn't the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. Remember it was Herod who chose to wait until after Easter-it was in reference to Herod, not believers. There are no New Testament feasts-they have all been established by the Roman Catholics.   

I'm pretty sure you did not derive the above about Easter from any context of scripture. Its only source connecting  the above to the biblical "Easter" of Acts 12:4 is mostly if not all from "Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop (his connecting proof for everything was essentially "because I say so")  and another book "Babylon Mystery Religion" by Ralph Woodrow (his connecting proof was "because Hislop said so) in which the above narrative of events is now "mostly disavowed"(*) in the later book "Babylon connection?" by Woodrow. (*According to AIG, I haven't compared the books lately to see exactly what had been disavowed,  Source: https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/easter/is-the-name-easter-of-pagan-origin/)

Additionally no reputable historian or etymologist would ever connect "Easter" (Saxon word meaning "East Morning/Dawn") with "Ishtar" (Babylonian word meaning "Leading one/chief") as they are completely different in origin, language and any historical context. The only connection they have is the similar sound in English, an atheist mime circulating on the internet and well meaning (but wrong) Christians who repeat the made up connection as if it were true. If you were to remove English (which did not exist at the writing of the bible) from the equation and use the Greek underlining the KJV, say Pascha and Ishatar, then connection between the two is completely lost.


Okay, having now read the article, let me make what may be a sounder argument.   First, I see the author of the article goes to some length to speak on the word in the Greek. And here I thought most of us disregarded making our primary arguments based on the Greek, since the 'original Greek' doesn't exist, hence we are assuming the Greek we have today in the various Greek New testaments, (most of which were produced by theological liberals and textual critics) is questionable, and we put our faith in the Lord preserving His word in the English. So I am going to go off the Bible, KJV, period, and make my arguments based therein.

The originals do not exist but copies do and the KJV translators compared the Greek variants and surmised the correct Greek text underlining our English Bible. So while the originals do not exist we do know what the originals did say in the Greek and Hebrew and etc. At any rate I am not aware of any Greek variant of Acts 12:4 which does not use the Greek word "Pascha", "πασχα" in Acts 12:4.

 One comment the author makes is that since the word was used by Luke, the only gentile who wrote some of the New Testament, we can assume he was not speaking of Passover, since he didn't keep Passover, not being a Jew. That would be fine, except Luke, the non-Jew, also mentions in the same context "(Then were the days of unleavened bread.)" So if there was no reference here to Passover since he was a Gentile, why is he then mentioning the days of unleavened bread, the seven-day feast the JEWS kept after the day of Passover? So this argument makes no sense.

I do not know whither Luke was a Gentile or simply a Hellenized Jew. Statements for or against are basically assumptions because the bible does not come out and tell us but I do not think it really matters because I do know Luke was a Christian and had "perfect understanding of all things from the very first"(Luke 1:1-4). 

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,2 even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."


He also says that by Luke's writing of Acts, 'Pashcal' WAS 'Easter', ie, the Christian celebration of Jesus' resurrection, is not to be found in scripture. There is not one word anywhere that believers ever kept a special yearly feast of 'The East', to memorialize Jesus' resurrection. Context says that it was Herod who intended, after Easter, to bring Peter forth before the people. Pashcal was a term that referred to both the day of Passover and the feast of unleavened bread-here Easter is used because it was NOT Passover, but something entirely different.

Not "feast of the East" rather Easter means "East morning" East is simply reference to the location of the rising sun. Its not a feast but a word to indicate the morning event of the resurrection. Context does not say Herod was doing anything "on Easter" but rather "after Easter". 

Next, as I mentioned in my first reply but I will expand upon a bit, one of the great abominable sins the Jews committed that brought about their Babylonian captivity, was  praying to the rising sun (rising in the east, sunrise service? Eze 8:16) and weeping for Tammuz (Eze 8:14). Tammuz was closely associated with Ishtar, his consort. So it would be no surprise if some of these activities continued on.

Yes there are references to Jewish sun worshipers in the bible and Jewish pagans but so are there scriptures telling true worshipers of God "shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings" (Malachi 4:2) and that they should "let the day star arise in their hearts" (2 Peter 1:19). Just because the bible references Jewish sun and Tammuz worshipers does not make all references to the sun wrong. Additionally Easter does not mean "East Sun" or the like. It means "East Morning/dawn" as in "the dawning of that day". Again as I pointed out above, in etymology and history, English Easter, Greek Pascha and, the Hebrew pesach, are not connected at all with Ishtar so cannot at all be linked with Tammuz either. 

One problem, as seen in the article, and as well, in any article you will read on Eostre or Ishtar, or Astarte, some of the idols that have been associated with pagan Easter, is that there is little clear information on any of them. That they are actual ancient worshipped idols is pretty clear, but beyond that, their characteristics, their powers, their associations, their symbols, seem to evolve and change over time and places, to the point that to give any real clear yea or nay on whether any of them were directly or indirectly associated with Easter is difficult, if not impossible to say. Thus to say that Easter is NOT influenced by any of these things is just not possible to say. And, in fact, since Eostre WAS associated with rabbits and eggs, and part of the mythology was that Eostre turned a phoenix into a rabbit to protect it, but still by nature a bird, the phoenix laid brightly colored eggs, somehow makes some connections that are hard to ignore.

As a Christian I could care less about what the pagans happen to celebrate. Sure the Easter tradition has some added sanitized previously pagan activities associated with it. Which Christian holiday tradition to day does not? However the eggs and Bunny were not Babylonian traditions but rather later European traditions from far later dates so they do not factor in to the Acts 12:4 Easter in any way. To say that not a lot is known  about these pagan gods is true but to say that is proof that there could be a link to  the word Easter as used in Acts 12:4 is no proof at all.

AS for Easter meaning 'east', it is interesting that there is no Greek or Hebrew word that was translated Easter, rather an old Germanic or Saxon word was used instead, for which there is apparently NO Greek version. Luke did not use any form of 'Easter' here-it was replaced with something completely foreign to the word used by Luke.

The Saxon word Easter is our English word as well. We got it from them when we were forming English. Their is a Greek word "pascha" they got it from the Hebrew "Pesach" after the resurrection of Christ. The etymology of Easter is pretty clear. English words "Passover" and "Easter" have the same etymology. Both come from the Hebrew root word Pesach in Hebrew originally "to go over". The sun starting from the east to "go over".

It was used to show that, whatever Herod was celebrating, it had nothing to do with the Passover OR the feast of unleavened bread-if it was referencing some special celebration of Jesus' resurrection, well, he being the Passover Lamb of God, it would have been appropriate for that word to have been used, since Pashcal could refer to the entire 8 days of the two feasts, or the one day of Passover. But since Passover was over, (and thus, the time they would have celebrated Jesus' resurrection) and it was during the time of unleavened bread, it was, I believe, referring to something else, something related to Herod, and again, Herod I doubt would have been celebrating Jesus' resurrection, as I somehow doubt he believed in it.

Again Acts 12 does not say Herod was celebrating anything. Easter has always been a major Christian event and Luke is writing to Christians about the second Easter involving Peter. In the Christian mind they see the correlation between what Luke is explaining here in Acts 12 (the second Easter) and the resurrection of Christ (the first Easter). Christ was bound in the tomb with guards watching, Peter is bound in prison with guards watching, Christ rises again and an angel roles the stone away, Peter escapes with the help of the angel who opens the prison doors. Christ shows himself to the disciples, Peter shows himself to the disciples. The guards lost Christ, the guards lost Peter. Satan is cast down, Herod is cast down, etc. The people also see the resemblance to the resurrection of Christ from the year before and "the word of God grew and multiplied." The parallels are endless.

Anyways, that's all I got for now. FWIW

"So I am going to go off the Bible, KJV, period, and make my arguments based therein."

Brother, little if anything which you stated about Easter is based on the context of Scripture, history, or etymology. The sources your position comes from was based on shoddy research, questionable sources, and connections made mostly on feelings of the authors who were overzealous to find anything disparaging the Pagan Roman Catholic church that they were willing to sacrifice a Perfectly good Christian word coined by the Early Christians to describe the most important event in human history.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
 

"So I am going to go off the Bible, KJV, period, and make my arguments based therein."

Brother, little if anything which you stated about Easter is based on the context of Scripture, history, or etymology. The sources your position comes from was based on shoddy research, questionable sources, and connections made mostly on feelings of the authors who were overzealous to find anything disparaging the Pagan Roman Catholic church that they were willing to sacrifice a Perfectly good Christian word coined by the Early Christians to describe the most important event in human history.

So then your argument is that Herod would wait til after Easter for the sake of the Jews, who didn't celebrate the resurrection of Jesus. This whole things smacks of ultimately making little sense.

Easter is a later word used by the translators. Luke used the word Pascha, based off the Hebrew Pesach, later changed to Passover to refer to the feast of Passover. So, during the feast of Unleavened bread, a seven-day Jewish feast, Herod was going to wait until after Easter, supposedly already a Christian feast that is not called for or ever seen as being celebrated, which should be only one day in the middle of Unleavened Bread, to please the Jews, who would not recognize any Easter feast, and kill Peter, a Christian, in the middle of their Feast of unleavened Bread. No, I don't buy it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Bro, John,

If the word "Easter" is a perfectly good Christian word, how could it have been used or observed by Christians before the resurrection happened if the word pertains to The Resurrection?

Easter is a Pagan word derived from the Pagan word Ishtar. It was celebrated by Pagans long before the time of Christ. The only so called Christians that ever observed it was the Roman Catholic Church that adopted all things Pagan. The Roman Catholic Church, as we know, is not Christian at all.

Personally, I think this whole thread is "straining at a gnat". The prime point of the resurrection is that He did in fact rise again as Scripture foretold and is verified by Scripture as well as history.
I personally think of every Sunday as "Resurrection Sunday"

I'm with Bro. Mike on this one, Easter is not the correct word for the resurrection day. In Acts 12:4 the Scripture is referring to the pagan holiday which Herod was waiting for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I see no fault in Uke's use of just using the English. After all, we are English speaking folk, and as such, God knew we would be here and need his word in our own language to know how to follow him.

That said, I would like to point out my view on why "Easter" is equal to "Passover".

Just using the text.

If you read the chapter, you will notice some things - vs. 1 - Herod vexed the Church by killing James, and in vs. 3 - he saw it pleased the Jews, so he planned to kill Peter. Then way down in verse 11 - Peter points out who the Lord delivered him from - Herod - and the Jews.

I think the word "Easter" is another English word used to describe "Passover" because Herod was seeking to please the Jews. He was focusing on them, not himself nor his religion. Why would he wait to kill Peter by waiting after a so called pagan holy day if he were trying to please the Jews? He was waiting for the Jews to celebrate their 'reason for the season', and then he was gonna get in real good with them, by killing someone who preached against their Judaism religion.

The text is clear to me. I may be wrong, but I doubt it matters to the Lord which word was used, since whatever it means, Herod was waiting til it was over, to accomplish his deed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
 

Easter is a later word used by the translators. Luke used the word Pascha, based off the Hebrew Pesach, later changed to Passover to refer to the feast of Passover. 

 

I see no fault in Uke's use of just using the English. After all, we are English speaking folk, and as such, God knew we would be here and need his word in our own language to know how to follow him.

 

If the word "Easter" is a perfectly good Christian word, how could it have been used or observed by Christians before the resurrection happened if the word pertains to The Resurrection?

Easter is a Pagan word derived from the Pagan word Ishtar. It was celebrated by Pagans long before the time of Christ. The only so called Christians that ever observed it was the Roman Catholic Church that adopted all things Pagan. The Roman Catholic Church, as we know, is not Christian at all.

Pascha in no way could possibly mean a pagan holiday in Acts 12:4 or anywhere else because it is the same word used for the Passover week in the NT. So wither it was translated Passover or to Easter in the English it is connected with the Jewish and the Christian events and in no way pagan. The people who make a pagan connection to Pascha are mistaken and need to take the time to properly study the etymology and history. Contextually Easter of Acts 12:4 can only be referring to a Passover event. It cannot at all support the pagan myth. This AIG article is pretty good at showing the origins of the pagan myth and I highly recommend reading it: https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/easter/is-the-name-easter-of-pagan-origin/

Easter here was not referring to the feast itself but to the Christian observance at the end of the feast. Easter is the English word which was originally used for translating all instances of Greek and Hebrew words in the bible regardless of what it referred contextually, but after Tyndale created the specialized English word Passover, the Greek and Hebrew were changed to more accuratly translate the word into english. It was translated to Passover for the feast and Easter was retained in Acts 12:4 For the Christian observance which occurred just after the end of the Passover week. 

Matthew 26:2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

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. 

Luke 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. 

Luke 22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. 

Acts 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter [after Pascha] to bring him forth to the people.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 5 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...