Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4

[Jim_Alaska]

3 hours ago, Heir of Salvation said:

No one is being "sarcastic"..............

Sarcasm from me would play right into your hands, and I'm not falling for it.

You said that I made "accusations" against Dave........(your words)

I'm simply asking you to state precisely what "accusations" I've made against him.

 

That isn't "sarcasm" Jim, that's me asking you to show me where exactly I've "accused" Dave (your word) of anything.

 

What did I "accuse" him of?

Am I now being accused by a moderator of accusing people??????

I'll repent..........publically, and unreservedly as soon as you show mere where I've erred in falsely "accusing" (your word) my brother.

False accusations are unacceptable and they can't stand.  No one should be permitted them.

If I've accused Dave falsely, show me where, please, so that I might refute, retract and apologize for that grievous error.  I know not where I've accused him, but if I have I'd love to know where, so, please show me that I may repent.

 

 

HOS, I very clearly quoted your accusations against brother Dave in my reply to you. They are accusations and you did write them.

The little "do tell" that you inserted in your reply to me is dripping with sarcasm.

But that aside, I am not playing your little game here. I very plainly stated in my reply to you that the subject was not up for debate, argument, or discussion. You chose to ignore that with this reply.

Please do not consider my reply as license to continue this discussion with me. This is not a debate, it is a moderator action.

If you choose to continue with the original subject, your comments will be welcomed and appreciated by all and the discussion may go on in a brotherly manner regarding the original subject.

Thank you for your careful consideration of this reply.  

 

[Heir of Salvation]

On 6/5/2016 at 0:02 AM, Jim_Alaska said:

HOS, I very clearly quoted your accusations against brother Dave in my reply to you. .

In no sane Universe were those "accusations".  They were harsh words, challenging perhaps, not conducive to good conversation.......perhaps they were confrontational, or even contentious.........

That would be true.....but they weren't "accusations".

If it were an "accusation" you could explain what it is, exactly I accused him of.....like say........theft, tax evasion, grand larceny, racketeering, imprudence, or simply being a bi-ped......(I do accuse him of being a biped actually)...maybe he'll admit to it.

I asked You WHAT exactly I accused him of..........and you don't know....you have no idea.......because I didn't level any "accusations" on him.  If I've "accused" someone....you can name what accusation I've leveled  (other than his status as a biped) and you can't.  

You have, for instance, leveled an "accusation" against me, and that would be that you are accusing me of leveling unfair or unnecessary or false "accusations" against Dave.  But, although challenged to explain what those are........you don't know.  You won't tell me.  I know why....that's because I haven't "accused" him of anything.  You may be as much a moderator as the day is long, but you are also either a false accuser of the brethren or someone who simply doesn't know what the word "accuse" means.....If I've "accused" him, you can tell me what I've "accused" him of.  You fail to do so.

They are accusations and you did write them.

I wrote them.....I don't deny that.

But, they aren't "accusations" and, I think you know it.

The little "do tell" that you inserted in your reply to me is dripping with sarcasm.

No, it was dripping with contempt....not sarcasm....You should get a better command of the English language.  Contempt for perjury, Contempt for lies, it was "dripping"....with contempt....not sarcasm. It's apparent that you don't understand two English words......"accuse" and "sarcasm".....(hence my "contempt").

That' wasn't a "sarcastic" statement it was a direct challenge for you to stop being a false accuser of the brethren and tell me precisely which crime you accuse me of.....namely, which accusation I leveled against Dave....again...DO TELL

Truth is, I've "accused" him of nothing and you have falsely accused me repeatedly, and you won't even show me where I'm guilty of what you allege.....admittedly, I have "contempt" for that.  But, there's no "sarcasm".  I'm couching my feelings for your perjury and false accusations in no uncertain terms....no need for sarcasm.  IFB's rarely understand sarcasm when it slaps them in the face, there's no doubt I'd not bother even trying to nuance anything with you.

Perhaps I'm quite quilty of some things:

I was harsh on Dave......rude perhaps......unnecessarily contentious.....judgemental.......my words were perhaps seasoned with not salt but rather cayenne pepper mixed with vinegar......perhaps I indeed owe Dave an apology.  I don't deny it.  I owe Dave my sincerest apologies for some shortness, rudeness, contentiousness.....I deny none of that and I'm guilty of all of it......but I didn't "accuse" him of anything.....that's a falsehood Jim, and it remains a falsehood even if  moderators on this site considered themselves Papist gods and their word as the laws of the Medes and the Persians....or the Pope.....

It's still false.  I accused him of NOTHING...you claim I did, and that's NOT TRUE.

You see, that would be fair, I'll admit to that.  I wasn't particularly uplifting or Christian towards Dave, and I should have been more edifying.  Instead I was short and rude.  

You could have said:

"HOS, you are being:"

1.) Overly contentious

2.) Unedifying

3.) Short

4.) Rude

5.) Your words are not seasoned with salt and Dave is a brother who deserves more respectful treatment.....

That would all be true......... 

Dave deserves an apology from me.  I sincerely hope he knows how guilty I feel for how I've been short with him.

But I "accused" him of nothing.  Absolutely nothing.   That's not true no matter what you say.

You can't show me where, because I haven't.

I accuse YOU <-----(of something specific that I can name unlike you) of bearing false witness  ...... inasmuch as you are alleging that I leveled "accusations" that I have not and you refuse to show precisely which "accusations" I leveled against him.....again, Jim, "DO TELL".

This isn't "sarcasm"....Jim.  It's me saying I don't "accuse" Dave of anything....I "accuse" you of  something specific...."bearing false witness against the brethren"...

That's "accusation"........in short, I say, you accuse me of falsely accusing a brother....

and I say.........HABEUS CORPUS...

Show me the body JIM.....

I will show where you have accused me of Perjury...and I will demonstrate that you have YET to show anyone where I've "accused" Dave of anything....

I "accuse" Dave of nothing.  I accuse you of bearing false witness.

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2016 by Heir of Salvation

[Heir of Salvation]

On 6/5/2016 at 9:52 PM, DaveW said:

Thank you for the Scripture reference Jordan.

It always helps when people use Scripture rather than just saying "because I say so".

But Acts 12:3 uses the phrase "days of unleavened bread" to speak of this feast time. That would incate that the "easter" in Acts 12:4 is not talking about the feast of unleavened bread, but something else.

Oh, and BTW....I was in let's say a rare form the other day....overly stressed by a myriad of things....I was short with you Dave.  I do apologize brother, please forgive me.

I was rude and short with you.  Please forgive me.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Brother "Heir of Salvation,"

I have entered into this thread discussion somewhat late, primarily because I myself do not care a great deal about the word "Passover" or "Easter" as employed in the translation of Acts 12:4.  Therefore, I do not intend to engage concerning that matter.

On the other hand, I have taken significant notice concerning the side-matter of "accusations," as presented in this thread.  In fact, I even read over your postings in relation to Brother DaveW in order to understand the context of that side-matter.  On this matter of "accusation," I do wish to engage with you, if you will receive it.

I am NOT a moderator of this forum; therefore, I do not possess any moderating authority in that sense.  However, I am a fellow brother in Christ; therefore, I am burdened over the contention, and I believe that I have some "peacemaking" responsibility.  You have acknowledged that you sinned against Brother DaveW by not communication with grace, kindness, and edification.  I appreciate your humility in publicly confessing that sinful unrighteousness, and I pray that you will receive the forgiveness which the Lord our God desires and requires.  

Yet you have defended yourself with the claim that you did not make any accusation against Brother DaveW.  From my perspective as an observer of the discussion, I believe that your defense is not an accurate assessment of the case.  The verb "accuse" means "to find at fault, blame."  It indicates the action of finding fault for offenses of varying gravity, such as -- to accuse someone of murder, which would be of significant moral and criminal gravity, or to accuse someone of a typographical error, which would be of much less significance, having no moral or criminal character at all.  I believe that in the following statements you did indeed accuse Brother DaveW of fault --

On 6/4/2016 at 5:22 PM, Heir of Salvation said:

They knew something about philology and the ancient languages and you don't.

. . . But, then again, you don't know a fig about either Greek or Hebrew, and you never will.

Not that you would know.....I can tell from the outset you have a cursory knowledge of neither Greek nor Hebrew...

It shows.

On 6/4/2016 at 5:51 PM, Heir of Salvation said:

I can tell you have only a very cursory and imprecise knowledge of English.  It's no leap in logic to know you don't know anything about any ancient language.............

On 6/4/2016 at 7:37 PM, Heir of Salvation said:

Don't play games...you know nothing about either one.....I do have knowledge.....I know something about ancient languages....and I can smell when someone does, or doesn't know anything about them.

Let's make this clear.........YOU, DAVE W. KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EITHER GREEK OR HEBREW.  I know it, you know it, you aren't going to trick me by saying something like "well, we don't otherwise know one another, so, there's no way you could have learned that about me".............

Stop being a pretender.........It's not that I know you It's simply that I know what someone who knows something about linguistics, ancient languages or philology sounds like, and you ain't it...........

Tell us, Dave....do you know Hebrew?

Do you know Greek then?

No, you don't...........I know you don't, and I can tell you don't.........much like my mechanic knows I'm full of junk every time I try to explain what's wrong with my engine.

I know what I don't know, so does my mechanic, and you don't know a fig about Hebrew or Greek.....let it die.

I would contend that throughout these quotations you are accusing Brother DaveW of ignorance -- of ignorance concerning philology, concerning New Testament Greek, concerning Old Testament Hebrew, and even concerning the English language.  Now, I will acknowledge that this is not an accusation concerning a sinful unrighteousness, and thus would not be an accusation concerning a fault of moral severity.  However, I would contend that this is an accusation concerning a fault at least in relation to the discussion and debate at hand.  Furthermore, by telling Brother DaveW that he did not "know a fig about either Greek or Hebrew," and that he "never" would, you also presented an accusation of "stupidity" (? - for lack of a better word at the moment) against him, indicating that he could or would never possibly come to the knowledge which you claimed that he lacked.  Finally, by instructing Brother DaveW to "stop being a pretender" in relation to the Hebrew and Greek of Scripture, you also presented an accusation of deception against him, which is indeed an accusation concerning a moral (and thus, more severe) fault.

Now, I myself do not necessarily believe that an accusation of ignorance against another is always worthy of a rebuke, because I do not believe that such an accusation is always wrong to express.  However, the accusation of "stupidity" against Brother DaveW and the accusation of deception against him may indeed have been worthy of a rebuke.  Furthermore, as you yourself have now acknowledged, I would agree that your attitude and tone in communication toward Brother DaveW was sinfully unrighteous, and thus worthy of a rebuke (even as it was worthy of your humble confession).

In addition, if in fact Brother DaveW does know more than "a fig" concerning Old Testament Hebrew and/or New Testament Greek, then your accusation that he does not is actually a false accusation against him, which would also be a sinful unrighteousness on your part (even as you have claimed that a moderator has committed against you).  (By the way, exactly how much knowledge of a subject does the measurement of "a fig" encompass?  And yes, some sarcasm is intended in that question.)

In conclusion, I pray that this posting will be received with the grace and love in which I intend it.

[Heir of Salvation]

On 6/7/2016 at 11:43 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

In conclusion, I pray that this posting will be received with the grace and love in which I intend it.

It is.

Blessings

[Tyndale]

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 6:13 AM, DaveW said:

 

In verse 3 we find that it was the days of unleavened bread.

The Passover ALWAYS preceeded the days of unleavened bread see.....ummm Lev 23.

Passover Nisan14, unleavebed bread 15 Nisan for 7 days.

Vs 4 CANNOT be taking of the Passover for by God's  command the Passover is finished once the days of unleavened bread starts.

 

Are you perhaps neglecting to consider other verses in the KJV?

In the book of Ezekiel, the word "Passover" is evidently used for a feast of seven days--the feast of unleavened bread, and not only just for a one day feast as it was used in Exodus.

Ezekiel 45:21

In the first month, in the fourteen day of the month, ye shall have the Passover, a feast of seven days, unleavened bread shall be eaten

 

I think that another poster pointed out Luke 22:1 where the feast of unleavened bread is called the Passover.

Luke 22:1

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.