The Word “Easter” IS NOT Derived from Ishtar – the KJV is Right!

bulldog

 

According to Murray, the word “Easter” should not be in the bible. He reasons that since the word Ishtar (or Astarte) and the word “Easter” sound the same then the KJV translators were in error. Thus proving that the KJV lacks inspiration.

It’s mere presence is just one more proof of the inter-generational Kenite conspiracy.

He implicates those pesky and subversive scribes for placing that word in there in place of the Passover, who knows what else they changed!

let’s take a look to see if it should be in there…

Part of Murray’s standard bag of tricks is taking words that sound similar to words in another language and haphazardly using that as an etymological proof for his wack-a-doodle theology. You see him do this with reckless abandon to prove British-Israelism.

And since he’s been studying the Hebrew and Greek since Moby Dick was a minnow, who are you to question him?

But does the word Easter derive from Ishtar? No. No. NO!

The origin of the word “Easter” has nothing to do with pagan fertility rights. The correct etymology of comes from the German word for “east” which is “ost”. Easter in German is “Ostern”. It is a Christian word.

Our word “east” refers to the direction in which the sun rises, hence the similarity in east and Easter…

“But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings;” – Malachi 4:2

The word “Easter” is the perfect Christian word referring to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the Greek the word for Easter is pascha or the Hebrew Passover, the day that Jesus was crucified. The KJV translators knew what they were doing.

Easter Does NOT Refer to a Pagan Holiday

My recent position was that Easter referred to a pagan holiday. That position can be seen reflected in the comments below. When I am wrong I admit it.

The main point from the start is, the KJV is inspired and “Easter” should be in the bible. I will give my old argument (which is common) for this and show why it’s not correct.

In Acts 12. James the brother of John was killed by Herod. When Herod saw that it pleased the Jews and he proceeded to take Peter.

And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 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 to bring him forth to the people. – Acts 12:3-4

Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread. The days of unleavened bread, they argue, compasses the week AFTER the Passover.

They reason, if Easter should be interpreted as Passover then why does it say Herod intended to bring him out after if Easter if it is to be  translated as the Passover. They use this text to support their position…

“In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD’s passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.” – Leviticus 23:5,6

By their reasoning, Passover had already taken place once Herod arrested him so Acts must have been referring to the pagan observation.

Struggle as I might I could never find anything in any historical account to suggest that there was a separate pagan observance also referred to as “Pascha”.

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

So as we can see, the whole feast including unleavened bread is called the Passover – and this is what is happening in Acts 12:4. Pascha refers to the whole feast that lasts a week and begins with the Passover on the first day.

There was a pagan festival that was celebrated by the ancients that took place on the Spring equinox that eventually came to be associated with the Christian Easter but there is nothing to suggest that the Christian Easter derived from paganism.

So why do Christians commemorate the resurrection day, Easter, on different days of the year each year?

Easter, a Christian observance was recognized from the earliest times of the church. Another article would have to be written to explain why but it has nothing to do with paganism.

It was determined long ago by the Catholic church for Easter to be observed on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. It mostly had to do with Sunday worship – as Passover fell on a different day of the week each year.

Early on Christians observed Easter on the Passover.

So is there anything wrong with commemorating on this day? No. On Easter we commemorate the Lord’s resurrection not a pagan deity. And besides that we never celebrate Easter on the vernal equinox, the day of the pagan observance.

Murray uses false teachings like the ones concerning Easter to try to implicate that regular Christians are part of the Babylonian system… because they observe Easter, eat sugar coated peeps, chocolate bunnies and let their kids go Easter egg hunting! It’s really a sinister plot!

Advertisements

Author: Timothy Campbell

Independent researcher exposing Joel's Army / Latter-Rain Movement, Christian evangelist and helping to expose the plot of the ages - the church will be here during the great tribulation (or Golden Age of Gaia) and will have resist the beast and his mark...

131 thoughts on “The Word “Easter” IS NOT Derived from Ishtar – the KJV is Right!”

  1. Your article Title was spot on. But then I got to reading the post and I feel the need to respond. I hope you don’t mind.

    I am not going to debate the origin of the word Easter, as that debate is fruitless. We all know that whoever brought forth that word, that it was intended to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, not to celebrate an equinox. Catholics celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, regardless of any pagan origin of the word.

    Having said that, we should also be reminded that the Greek word used, when translated to English, is Passover. I think we all know that, for anyone who has studied this topic.

    Now, in regards to Passover:

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

    Take this all the way back to Exodus and Leviticus and you will see that the feast of unleavened bread is the Passover celebration. It isn’t just a one day thing, it is a 7 day thing.

    On the first day of the feast, the lamb is killed.

    Again, according to Luke, he states it plainly that the feast of unleavened bread is called the Passover. They are synonymous.

    And, if they are synonymous, then those two words can be used interchangeably.

    Next, and MOST important is the word “AFTER”. The definition of that word is misapplied. It’s definition is “amid”, which means, “in the middle”, or “during”.

    Take for example the following:

    Mark 8:31
    And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

    Matthew 27:63
    Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

    Now lets see how YOUR use of after is used.

    Did Jesus rise from the dead ON the third day, or on the 4th day?

    Matthew 16:21
    From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

    Matthew 20:19
    And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

    Mark 10:34
    And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.

    Now, we know that Jesus was raised the 3rd day, and we see in Mark 8:31 that it states “after” 3 days.

    The word “after” is “amid” according to Strong’s Concordance, and “amid” is “during” or “in the middle of”.

    Next:

    The Apostles/Disciples of Christ were preaching Jesus, right? What is an important aspect of the gospel? Christ risen, right?

    What is the 3rd day of the feast of Unleavened Bread? Or, I can ask, What is the 3rd day of the Passover?

    The 3rd day of the Passover is what WE Christians celebrate as Easter…Christ risen. Now, I know that the celebration of Easter on the Calendar is out of sync with the Jewish Calendar of Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread, but that’s not the point. The point is, the translators are attempting to show that the Apostles were going to be killed on the anniversary of the resurrection of Jesus…AMID (during/after) the Passover, the 3rd day, or as some might say, “after 3 days”. They both mean the same thing.

    Ed Chapman

    Like

    1. Thanks for your response – I will go back and look over everything and respond soon. I appreciate the distinction – I was referring to Passover in the sense of the Passover feast that took place on the first day of unleavened bread. So you are saying that the “Easter” of the text is referring to Passover week and not the commonly observed pagan celebration? If that is the case then “Easter” is an incorrect translation – in which case your initial comment is incorrect… are you Catholic?

      Like

    2. “In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD’s passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.” (Leviticus 23:5,6)

      I understand where you’re coming from but the pagan Easter festival does happen shortly after the end of unleavened bread. There are a few passages that use the term “passover” to refer to the whole observance and there a lot of passages that refer to passover as distinct from the feast of unleavened bread.

      You are saying that Easter points to the totality of the Hebrew passover and week of unleavened bread. This would suggest that Easter is a mistranslation. I’m not sure I’m convinced that this isn’t talking about the pagan observance in which case it would be a proper translation.

      I’m not saying you’re wrong but if I take your argument then we have a mistranslation.

      Like

    3. Okay, I’ve read all of your response – I can’t agree with your interpretation of the word “after” as meaning “during”. I don’t think the text means what you’re having it say – the first point was a little more believable but this last point isn’t. Herod intended to bring him forth AFTER EASTER – NOT DURING THE PASSOVER WEEK.

      Like

      1. Timothy, I hate to inform you, but I really don’t hate to inform you, that the Greek word used for the word “after” is defined as “amid”. Now, I am a former sailor, and we used the term “amid-ships” a lot. And that means “in the middle of the ship”. It does not mean after passover is over, it means during Passover. And, we are not discussing a pagan holiday, as Peter was of the generation of the Jews that saw Jesus crucified. The Jews were PLEASED. Why would they be pleased? Because Peter and the other apostles were preaching that Christ rose from the dead. What would be a better day to kill Peter than on the anniversary day of the resurrection of Jesus? DURING…DURING passover, on the third day of the Passover. That’s why it would please the Jews. But again, here is the definition of the word “after” in Acts 12:4

        3326 META
        a primary preposition (often used adverbially); properly, denoting accompaniment; “amid” (local or causal)

        Take a look at this website for further explanation of the word META. This website does a great job at explaining it.

        http://www.olinrevelation.org/NewWebsite/MeaningOfMeta.htm

        Thanks for taking the time to research this from my initial post. I’m just bringing in a different perspective, as I have NEVER seen anyone delve into this topic before. The ONLY thing that I ever come across is the discussion of a pagan holiday. I could care less about that. The first century Peter and Jews did not celebrate a pagan holiday, so it had nothing to do with it at all. But the third day of the passover is indeed the anniversary of the resurrection of Christ, and Peter would have been preaching Christ risen as part of the gospel.

        The Pagan Holiday thing (Easter) didn’t come about for many years later by the Catholics, and we all know that is not in sync with Passover. Jewish believers in the first century would have celebrated Easter on the third day of the Passover. It wasn’t a pagan holiday for them. No no no.

        Thanks again Timothy,

        Ed Chapman.

        Like

      2. Your last sentence perplexes me, Timothy. You said:
        “Herod intended to bring him forth after EASTER, NOT DURING THE PASSOVER WEEK.”

        I have to say, huh? I suppose that you didn’t know that the word Easter is ONLY in the KJV. The actual word used in the Greek was the Greek word indicating Passover. The translators of the KJV are the ones who SUBSTITUTED the word passover for the word Easter. There was no Easter in the days of Peter. It was Passover only.

        My point of this is that there is a REASON that the translators chose to substitute the word Passover for the word Easter. That point is to show, or to indicate that Herod intended to kill Peter AMID/META/DURING/IN THE MIDDLE OF Passover, on the third day, which is the same as saying AFTER three days of the passover.

        It doesn’t sound like you are aware that the word Easter was a substituted word. Look at your Strong’s Concordance, if you have one.

        So, we have two words of vital importance here. 1. Easter, which is actually the word passover, and 2. After, which is the word META, defined as “amid”, or “in the middle of”.

        Ed Chapman

        Like

    4. I don’t wish to write a lengthy statement, but, it is quite possible that there is a pagan meaning as well. Agrippa I, was a partying sex hound, and very likely a buggerer who had been raised in Rome and had, in a very short version, a “special” relationship with Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, or Caligul for short. I bring this up because of the strange similarity of them both dressing up as gods. Caligul likened himself to Jupiter, and thought himself to be the Sun God of some sort and with that in mind Agrippa one day goes out dressed in some all silver outfit in the morning hours and the sun reflected off of him with such brilliancy, the people started shouting out that he was a god…with no argument from him. OF ourselves we know he was eaten of worms from inside out. I found out that it was a rare disease and it started in the lower regions, if you know what I mean, and I won’t plague you with a visual description, but it was a nasty death. Dig for info on Gaius and Agrippa I, individually, and then as a single search…a website, not Christian, discusses/reveals the disease Agrippa had. Needless to say, they were worshippers of the sex goddess and total sexual deviants. God, striking down Agrippa for his blasphemous deed at Easter, in this manner really makes sense to me…mind you, it is my own research to understand why the KJV commitee used Easter in translation, and passover in the margin….lastly, passover was originally coined by Tynsdale. Wycliffe, though using Vulgate, still had the task of translating paske. There was and essentially still is no English equivalent so we are stuck with Tyndale’s passover, but, it must have been a very good choice, or the KJV commitee would have changed it. Just something more to think about, I haven’t totally settled on my own research yet, as I also wonder about the 3rd Day idea…have believed that one for a while now.

      Like

  2. I’m aware of the Greek word for easter, pascha – how do you know that this is not a reference to a pagan observance? Was this pagan festival referred to in the ancient world as “pascha”? Among the apostate jews it would be. I have read about this but I don’t have any sources currently. Recall that the apostate jews substituted God’s ordained feast days for the Babylonian – and naturally they would call it pascha, though its the pagan form.

    So, was there any type of observance of this pagan ritual in Judea among the people living there during the time of Herod Agrippa… though I don’t have any historical sources on hand I recall this OT passage…

    Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods. (Jeremiah 17:17-18)

    Ashthoreth worship was the rage in Israel – I doubt it passed out of significance during the early days of the church.

    I looked up META in the KJV and it is used 473 times:

    AV — with 345, after 88, among 5, hereafter + 5023 4, afterward + 5023 4, against 4, not tr 1, misc 32

    The context determines the translation. If the text is referring to the pagan observance meta is rightly translated. If “Easter” is referring to the passover week then it could possibly be as you say. Not saying you’re wrong but I’m going to side with the translators for now.

    Meta is not always translated as “in the midst of”.

    Like

    1. To answer your first question, absolutely not. Jews did not celebrate any pagan holiday.

      To answer your final comment in regards to the word meta, yes it does always mean “in the midst of”.

      Part of that definition indicates that the word is accompanied by another word, and the website that I gave you shows how the accompanied word shows “in the midst of”. The definition is “amid”. Point blank.

      Yes, the context does determine the translation. But I am convinced that your context is different than my context.

      There was NO pagan holiday in Judea called Easter. Whatever Herod celebrated is not discussed. Herod was PLEASING THE JEWS. Unbelieving Jews celebrate Jewish holidays, not pagan holidays.

      Let’s get into a Jewish mindset, not a Gentile mindset.

      Ed

      Like

    2. Also, there is no indication in the days of Jesus that anyone was sacrificing to other gods, otherwise it would have been noted. Jesus states that salvation is of the Jews. Jesus states that they, the Jews KNOW who they worship, for salvation is of the Jews. The Apostle Paul states that there is MUCH advantage at being a Jew, in that they hold the oracles of God. The book of Isaiah, and the Apostle Paul states that the Jews are a light to the Gentiles. Referencing Jeremiah as your basis of a pagan holiday does not equate to our conversation, because sacrificing to idols, we all do that each and every day when we sin, and we do sin each and every day. We are no different than the Jews. They sinned, so have we. They continue to sin, so do we. But this has nothing to do with our topic at hand.

      Ed

      Like

      1. From Wiki concerning Greek meta: The prefix comes from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-), from μετά,[1] which meant “after”, “beside”, “with”, “among” (with respect to the preposition, some of these meanings were distinguished by case marking). Other meanings include “beyond”, “adjacent” and “self”, and it is also commonly used in the form μετα- as a prefix in Greek, with variants μετ- before vowels and μεθ- “meth-” before aspirated vowels.

        How can you say that meta always means in the midst of?

        Well, the jews were notorious syncretists – mixing the holy and profane. That text in Jeremiah is one among a myriad of examples indicating that the jews had a predilection for Ishtar. Did this magically get better during the NT era? Maybe it did.

        I’m merely suggesting that the greek pasca was referring to a paganized version of the passover celebrated later in the month and not the passover ordained in scripture. This is the only thing that would make sense of the KJV translation. Otherwise you have to say they completely got it wrong.

        Like

    3. Timothy,

      You had said:
      “Was the Jewish passover paganized among the apostate jews in any way at the time of the early church?”

      My response:
      Apostate Jews? I hate to say this but does scripture say “For all have sinned”? We are all apostate.

      But, that has nothing to do with Acts chapter 12 during the life of Peter, the Apostle. So the answer is NO. Absolutely not.

      Ed

      Like

      1. Apostate meaning, those who rejected Christ and proceeded to pervert the things of God. Not Jewish converts. You say there was no such influence of pagan rituals upon the jewish system of worship when the old testament is replete with it. Every page drips with syncretism. But you are suggesting that such syncretism was absent in the first century.

        http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/meta.html — I still can’t understand how you say meta always means in the midst of.

        Like

      1. Did they celebrate a paganized form of the passover? The apostate jews of the OT did, we have many examples. Did they observe the unadulterated pagan feasts? Not likely, but my question is pasca referring to a paganized version of the jewish passover. If not, the the word Easter shouldn’t be in the bible.

        Like

      2. The word Easter is in the Bible for a reason, and it has NOTHING to do with a pagan holiday. The translators were indicating the third day of the passover. That is MY take on it. And to indicate the third day of the passover, they used the word Easter. They were indicating the anniversary of the resurrection of Jesus, not indicating a pagan holiday. That is MY take on it. Take it or leave it.

        Ed Chapman

        Like

    4. First off, you are really stuck on this “apostate Jews” thing. Stop! We are no different than they. Apostate Jews? Come on dude! We are apostate Gentiles. Can you admit that? We sin each and every day.

      Next, it appears to me that you went to wikki instead of the web site that I provided, but this I will say. The Strong’s Concordance indicates that Meta is defined as amid, and amid is defined as “in the midst of”.

      It sounds to me that you wish to dismiss that. If that is what you want to do, then dismiss it. I will not dismiss it, because it is used several times and I gave examples.

      Jesus did say that AFTER 3 DAYS HE WOULD RISE FROM THE DEAD.

      JESUS DID SAY THAT HE WOULD RISE ON THE THIRD DAY.

      Base on your logic, Jesus rose on the 4th day. Based on the word META, the third day IS after 3 days.

      Take it or leave it, dude!

      Ed Chapman.

      Like

      1. Not really – I’m making a distinction between devout jews that are unconverted (who try to follow the law), converted jews who believe in Christ and jews that are wicked and have profaned their system of worship and rejected Christ – and probably would have no problem with Ashtoreth worship. Calling them “apostate” is a nice way of putting it.

        I’m not an apostate gentile, I actually believe in Jesus Christ.

        I’m reading about meta right now but I can’t agree with you that it ALWAYS means in the midst because it has multiple meanings depending on context.

        You are trying to argue that the word Easter was incorrectly substituted into the bible. I’m merely suggesting that the KJV translators need a little more credit than what people give them. But maybe they’re wrong and you’re right?

        Like

    5. You had said:
      “Apostate meaning, those who rejected Christ and proceeded to pervert the things of God. ”

      I suppose that you didn’t know this, but God planned for the Jews to reject Christ. The Jews are blinded to not see Jesus as Messiah.

      Let me ask you this: If Jesus was believed by the Jews, Jesus would not have been crucified on the cross. And if that didn’t happen, what would be our state? Jesus had to be crucified. And the only way that could happen was for God to HIDE, or blind the Jews to NOT see Jesus as the Messiah.

      Let me give an example…I will post that in the next comment, so that I know that you are still here:

      Ed

      Like

      1. I’m still here but you’re missing my point – were there jews in the first century who observed a paganized version of the passover. They would have naturally called it pasca. It would have been observed at the time of the pagan Easter.

        God ordained that he would use their unbelief – but He could have saved us apart from their unbelief if he wanted to do it that way.

        Like

    6. Luke 9:44-45
      44 Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.

      45 But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.

      Jesus tells them to understand. Jesus is God, right? Jesus tells them to understand, but God hid it from their understanding.

      Luke 18:31-34

      31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.

      32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:

      33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

      34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

      Luke 19:42
      Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.

      And, if you go all the way back to Moses, Moses tells the children of Israel that God has NOT given them ears to hear, eyes to see, and he states, to this day, which means NEVER.

      So to say that the Jews are apostate, as if it is their own fault, is wrong. God has hid things from them, including the identity of Jesus, and it is for a reason. Prophesy cannot happen if they know.

      But they have good news coming to them in the end. God is the one who blinded them, and it is God who will unblind them, giving them mercy.

      Saying otherwise, disparages the Jews, and comes close to antisemitism. The Apostle Paul warns us to not thing that we are better than the Jews, and warns us to not talk bad about them, because God has NOT cast them away.

      Ed

      Like

      1. Apostasy = rebellion. How is that terminology a problem? Their apostasy is their responsibility. Unbelief is their decision. My point is the jews that rejected Christ in the first century and remained in unbelief would pervert the OT worship system.

        Actually I have some ideas about what you’re referring to that you would probably consider to be antisemitic and it amounts to this:

        Only a remnant will believe in the end.

        Like

    7. As I have already said, my mind is made up, that Meta always means, “in the midst of”, or “amid”. I gave examples of it’s use.

      It’s your choice to take it or leave it. It seems to me that you have made up your mind, even when you say that sometimes it means amid, and at other times it doesn’t. You have made up your mind that in regards to Acts 12, that it does not mean amid.

      But I disagree. I believe that it does mean amid in Acts 12. You are quickly dismissing it, without considering it. I consider it to always mean in the midst of. If it means anything other than that, there are other Greek words used for our English word “after” that means what you want it to mean. There are!!!!

      Ed

      Like

    8. You said:
      “Unbelief is their decision. My point is the jews that rejected Christ in the first century and remained in unbelief would pervert the OT worship system.

      Actually I have some ideas about what you’re referring to that you would probably consider to be antisemitic and it amounts to this:

      Only a remnant will believe in the end”

      Unbelief is NOT their decision. God blinded them. Their unbelief is God’s decision. They cannot believe unless God unblinds them, or takes the blinders off. In addition, they had sacrifices under the law, so no matter what they did in regards to sin, they sacrificed to cover their sins. For us, Jesus is the last and only sacrifice ever needed.

      Your “only a remnant will believe in the end” does not take into account those before them who didn’t believe because God blinded them. God unblinds those who he blinded. He heals the blind. That wasn’t just a carnal situation. That is a spiritual unblinding.

      The remnant is UNBLINDED, as well.

      Do not disregard the Jews, do not dismiss the Jews, do not disparage the Jews. IF you haven’t read Romans, where Paul warns us about these things, then read it again. We are not to talk about the Jews the way that you do.

      Ed

      Like

  3. You had said:
    “God ordained that he would use their unbelief – but He could have saved us apart from their unbelief if he wanted to do it that way.”

    My response:
    No, he couldn’t. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth. That is in the Book of Revelation. That means that everything was planned from the beginning. It is stated that God declared the END from the Beginning. Spiritually speaking, if you want to know the end of the story, we can find it in the beginning.

    So, God cannot go against his word. So he would not have saved us apart from their unbelief. Abraham is the key to all of that.

    Ed

    Like

    1. If in the beginning He wanted to save us apart from their unbelief He could have – if He wanted to have had a world without the fall He could have. I said He ordained it – that obviously means he did it from the foundation of the world. But it’s more like God foresaw their unbelief and ordained that He would use it. He saw that they would reject Christ and murder Him and decided to ordain it… and for those who are guilty and die in an unrepentant state they go to an eternal fiery hell. He could have done all this differently if he wanted. Don’t glorify their unbelief.

      Like

      1. No, Timothy, he would not have done it that way. He doesn’t make his decisions based on a foreseeing. I have to glorify their unbelief, because God is the one who blinded them. That Glorifies God. That is the part that you are not getting. It is God who blinded them to not believe. IT is so stated, that God HID things from them. If God wanted them to believe, then Jesus would NOT have been the lamb slain from the foundation. That had nothing to do with forseeing. Jesus had to die on that cross. And the only way that he could, is for Jews to have him crucified. Peter tried to defend Jesus. Peter didn’t want Jesus to die or suffer. But Jesus scolded Peter. Satan didn’t want Jesus to die on the cross. Satan tried and tried and tried to prevent the birth of Jesus.

        Ed

        Like

      2. It is in the realm of possibility for God to have arranged this whole thing any way that He wanted. In the realm of actuality He would have only done it the way we find it.

        Many of the Jews do believe and their repentance does bring God glory – many of the Jews reject Christ and will never accept Him; this doesn’t glorify God. He will be glorified by them eventually though as will everyone who rejects Christ, in judgment when He sentences them to hell.

        They are responsible for their unbelief otherwise God would not be just in sentencing them to eternal judgment.

        God does base his decisions on foreknowledge, the scripture states it clearly. I don’t glorify the Jews unbelief… nor do I glorify any other sin. God may use Israel’s unbelief but it’s God’s will is that all come to repentance, that brings Him glory.

        Like

  4. And how can you say they don’t believe? Scripture states that many of the Hebrews do believe. The elect of Israel have attained salvation. The fullness of the gentiles coming in is the manner in which Israel shall be saved. Are you suggesting that ALL of Israel will be saved in the end? As in every single Jew? Romans 9 says only a remnant will be saved. ALL is to be translated as IN THIS MANNER.

    Like

  5. The deliver came out of Sion when Christ died on the cross – at least that’s my understanding. Through his sacrifice Jacob is turned from unrighteousness WHEN they believe. The gentiles being brought in is the manner in which God brings in Israel. The blindness is only in part. The elect, the predestined to salvation have attained salvation or will. The non-elect will never be saved.

    Like

  6. The story of Joseph and his brethren is the story of Jesus and the Jews. I would suggest getting back to the beginning (Genesis) and put on spiritual lenses when reading the story of Joseph and his brothers. The brothers represent the Jews. Joseph represent Jesus. Joseph reveals himself to his brethren. Jesus reveals himself to the Jews. They will see the one that they pierced. And just like Joseph said to his brethren, what they meant for evil, God meant it for good, and he forgave them, and he embraced them, and he loved them, and he cried with them.

    Your side of your theology shows no mercy to the Jews who do not believe. Joseph was not recognized by his brothers. Jesus is not recognized by his “brethren”, the Jews.

    That is what is called, spiritually discerning, when you see Jesus in every story of the Bible before the NT writings.

    Ed

    Like

    1. I’m being realistic. ANYONE who remains in a state of unbelief until death is eternally lost regardless of their ethnicity. What about those Jews who take the mark of the beast in the end, will they be saved? You’re appealing to heredity – I’m looking beyond that. God is no respecter of persons. The individual who dies in unbelief is 100% responsible and they will bare their judgment. You’re trying to acquit them of responsibility on the basis of heredity. Yes, some Hebrews will be saved in the end but only a remnant.

      Like

      1. That is NOT TRUE. Romans 11 indicates otherwise. You keep ignoring who is responsible for their unbelief. You state that the Jews are responsible for their unbelief. That isn’t true. God is responsible. And this God shows mercy. I also showed you Joseph and his brothers as an example. You ignored that, too. You cannot ignore these things, while referencing other things. IT all has to be in harmony with each other.

        No, the Bible does not say that a remnant of Israel will be saved “IN THE END”. It states AT THIS PRESENT TIME.

        Ed

        Like

  7. You said:
    “And how can you say they don’t believe? Scripture states that many of the Hebrews do believe. The elect of Israel have attained salvation. The fullness of the gentiles coming in is the manner in which Israel shall be saved. Are you suggesting that ALL of Israel will be saved in the end? As in every single Jew? Romans 9 says only a remnant will be saved. ALL is to be translated as IN THIS MANNER.”

    My response is that it is discussing in the actual lifetime of the Jew, because Romans 11:5 states this:
    Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

    This present time. If God blinded them to not believe, then God is responsible for unblinding them. If God does not unblind them, then if they wind up in hell, it isn’t their fault. And since God is full of mercy, I would place my life on the fact that God will show those whom he blinded mercy.

    You are referencing Chapter 9 of Romans. Look at all of Chapter 11. Mercy. Blinded.

    Ed

    Like

    1. David says, “…Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back always” – as in forever.

      He blinded them because of their unbelief or they don’t believe because of their blindness. Sounds like the chicken and the egg thing.

      From the NLT: “Did God’s people stumble and fall beyond recovery? Of course not! They were disobedient, so God made salvation available to the Gentiles. But he wanted his own people to become jealous and claim it for themselves.”

      Some of those who have been blinded have or will eventually believe, but only a remnant.

      Like

      1. NO…NOT A REMNANT. The REMNANT is Jews in THIS LIFE that believe…when the BLIND UNBELIEVERS DIE, they will get mercy, so ALL of Israel is saved. Paul wants Israel to be saved in THIS life, but only a remnant will, UNTIL the fullness of Gentiles comes in. After that, ALL ISRAEL will be saved. That also means those who were blinded LONG BEFORE JESUS WAS ON THE SCENE, AND AFTERWARDS. You have NO MERCY in your discussion. You have judgment, but no mercy. Romans 11 shows mercy.

        My goodness man, read ALL of Romans 11.

        Also, Romans 2:14-16 shows that the IGNORANT will be judged by their conscience, too. And Paul calls that GOOD NEWS. The ignorant are not saved in this life…but after they die, based on their conscience.

        Ed

        Like

  8. I didn’t ignore your type, but we can read these types into the text all day. I want to know what the scripture means.

    In the end or at this present time, only a remnant will be saved.

    Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. – Romans 9

    Like

    1. Romans 11 continues the “remnant” conversation, a conversation that didn’t stop from Romans 9. You like context, so I will say that context is several chapters, not just one verse.

      Like

  9. You say, “when the BLIND UNBELIEVERS DIE, they will get mercy, so ALL of Israel is saved.” — I can say that I uncategorically cannot agree with you. A landslide of scripture refutes this so I won’t even try it. Mercy doesn’t override God’s justice and what he has already decreed is the result of unbelief.

    Are you saying that ALL hereditary Hebrews will be saved if not in this life then afterwards? It seems like that’s what you’re saying. Because if it is I think you’re way off.

    Are there Jews who are unbelievers and not blind who subsequently end up in hell? Listen, your position is becoming more and more untenable – balance what you’re saying with the other scriptures.

    Like

    1. Romans 11 states specifically that “ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED”. So how can you disagree with me when it is a quote?

      Now, to show that Israel is NOT the church being discussed:

      Romans 11:7
      “7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”

      Notice the word “Israel”? It is discussing Jews, not the church.

      All Jews will be saved. Israel began with Jacob. Spiritually speaking, our spiritual heredity is Abraham, Isaac, Jesus, YOU. We bypass Jacob. Carnal heredity is Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel, which biblically is defined as “struggles/wrestles with God and PREVAILS, AND the children of Jacob, otherwise known as the children of Israel.

      Ed

      Like

    1. Negative. All Israel will be saved, not a remnant of Israel will be saved. Romans 11 states all, not remnant.

      Verse 26 of Chapter 11
      26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

      Remember, Jacob is Israel.

      Ed

      Like

      1. That sounds like universalism for the jews – then it’s salvation by heredity for them and salvation by grace for the gentiles… at least that’s what it sounds like you’re saying. “AND SO ALL” is to be translated “IN THIS MANNER”.

        In this manner shall Israel be saved – in what manner? Go back and read the context.

        What you’re saying isn’t consistent with what the rest of scripture says about the fate of unbelievers. Your position sounds like the dual covenant heresy.

        Like

  10. Hi Timothy,

    No, it isn’t universalism. I do not discuss ‘ism’s’. I present the Bible, in that God is the one responsible for blinding them.

    I do not buy into your “is to be translated” sentence.

    What I said is indeed consistent. I showed you examples that God “HID” things from even his own disciples, while also telling them to understand what he said. But how can they understand if it was hid from them to understand? You seem to see it as all black and white, that they should have understood. Why?

    How can you believe something if it is hidden from you to believe in that same something?

    It isn’t the fault of the Jews that they do not believe. That is the part that you just do not comprehend. You actually refuse to conclude that they are blinded, not because of anything that they did, or didn’t do, but because it was God’s plan.

    It’s in the Bible, that you indicate that you read. But you seem to be doing what you despise in that false teacher, Arnold Murray, which I think Arnold was a whack job, too. You made up “is to be translated” sentence to force it to say something that it doesn’t.

    By the way, I would love to continue to debate this issue with you, but we seem to have gotten off on a tangent here that has nothing to do with Easter anymore.

    I am going to be extremely busy working for the next few days, so if you respond, it may take me a bit to get back to you. Hope you don’t mind.

    Ed Chapman

    Like

    1. Didn’t make it up… houtō(s) = in this manner, look it up. Salvation is conditional upon belief in Jesus Christ, not race, the bible is very clear. That’s a Zionist concept and it’s the fruit of a dispensational framework.

      Also, there are several notable bible translations that translate it as such.

      11:25-26 is indicating that unbelieving Israel would be saved through the gentiles being brought in. In this manner all Israel shall be saved… in what manner? Through the gentiles being brought in.

      Like

    2. Ed, you are teaching multiple modes of salvation, you realize that right? I’m not disagreeing that God blinded them but maybe you and I have different notions about what this means? How do you say I’m a false teacher? Because I translated “so” as “in this manner”? Or because I don’t agree with you? Like I said, look it up for yourself.

      Like

  11. I think what you are missing Timothy Campbell, is that the word “Easter” is not in the Greek text. The word used in Acts 12:4 should be translated as “Passover”, not “Easter”, as the word “pascha” occurs 29 times in the New Testament. Greek word 3957.

    So where does the word “Easter” originate? For the most part, nobody can say for sure.
    1) Some claim that word “Easter” comes from an old Anglo-Saxon word “Eostre” – a pagan Anglo-Saxon Goddess This mythical figure is said to have been the goddess of the sunrise and the spring. She is the Teutonic goddess of the dawn. The direction of the sunrise, East, is named for her. In Norse mythology, the name is spelled Eostare. Another considered the Norse/Saxon goddess of spring is Ostara. Eastre is believed to be an ancient word for spring.
    2) Some claim that it is a Latin form of the “Ishtar”, which was a Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian goddess of fertility, love, war and sex.

    It is true that the word “Easter” has come to mean the day that the resurrection of Jesus is celebrated by most of Christianity. But with that celebration, we also have eggs, bunnies etc, which are also symbols of fertility, hence why some believe that the word “Easter” comes from “Ishtar” The question should be asked, why are eggs and bunnies part of the “Easter” celebration when it does not seem to have anything to do with the resurrection of Christ? Is this a demonic infiltration into the true aspect of the “Easter” celebration? Perhaps!

    The same question could equally be asked about Christmas: what do decorated pine trees, Santa Claus, reindeer, and spending tons of money on gifts (treasures on earth) have to do with the birth of Christ? Not much! Not to mention we can get in a big debate of the actual birth day and date of Christ.

    One has to remember that much of our current understanding of Christianity and the words used in Christianity all come through 1200 years of Roman Catholic domination and control of “Christianity”. A control that precluded the average person from having direct contact with the Word of God. it is actually somewhat coincidental that the printing press shortly preceded the Reformation (or is it providence?)

    Remember that the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Within that temple was not just the tabernacle of God, but also the genealogies of the Levite priests. When Constantine declared “Christianity” as the religion of Rome, Constantine believed he had to make “Christianity” acceptable to many pagan Romans. What most people don’t realize is that the pagan polytheistic religions of the Roman Empire also had a priesthood. Yet, the apostles in the New Testament refer to all Christians as “saints” and “part of a royal/holy priesthood”.

    There were rituals in Rome, Greece, Babylon, and throughout the “barbaric” tribes of northern Europe; such that if you eat your god/goddess or some aspect of the god/goddess you become more like your god/goddess. Goddesses were as popular as many of the male gods, but there were no goddesses in Judaism or the first Christians…right?

    Are you starting to get the point here?

    It was not until the Reformation that some of these pagan rituals were removed from some of the Protestant denominations, such that even today many Protestants (denominations and non-denominational) claim that Roman Catholicism is not “Christian” at all.

    I have no idea when eggs and bunnies entered into the modern “Easter” celebration. I could guess, but I could be wrong. I do know that there are many misconceptions related to Halloween. I do know that the costumes and trick-or-treating ritual is less than 100 years old. Heck, 200 years ago, in some countries, people dressed up in costumes for Christmas and did something something similar to the modern trick or treating ritual during Christmas. Some have even tied December 25th and some of its rituals to pagan Winter Solstice celebrations.

    Any Christian should be able to recognize that the many pagan rituals of modern Easter (and Christmas) do much to take people’s eyes and hearts away from the MAIN purpose of these celebrations. Whether Christ was born on December 25th or sometime in September on the Feast of Trumpets is not as important as taking the time to celebrate the events themselves and to remember WHY we are celebrating them.

    If you study, you will find that God does seem to like to do things on certain days. Is it just coincidence the week of Passover celebrations coincide with the death of Christ and the Resurrection? Is it coincidence that Pentecost coincides with the day Moses received the 10 Commandments?

    With that last paragraph in mind, maybe the day we celebrate these things does matter? Maybe the names also matter? I am not going to make that judgment. There are still people claiming to be Christian arguing over the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day.

    If Arnold Murray claimed that “Easter” is the wrong word for the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ, that is his opinion. Based on the oldest Greek manuscripts, he is correct. I have no clue as to why the King James editors inserted “Easter” into the English version of the text when in the Greek manuscripts it should have been “Passover”. Perhaps just a gentle nod of the editors to Roman Catholicism and their traditions. The rituals we see today surrounding that celebration are also suspect and do have affiliations with pagan rituals. Based on what you originally wrote, Murray is/was right about that too.

    You must remember that the many of the Apostles were still teaching mostly in Jewish synagogues. According to the book “Jews, God and History” by Max Dimont, there were more converts to Judaism throughout the Mediterranean than Christian conversions during the first 100 years of Christianity and therefore synagogues were common in many Mediterranean cities outside of Judea. This Jewish evangelism was one of the many contentions between the Pharisees and the Saduccees of the time.

    As hard as it is to read the KJV in the Old English of that time when compared to modern English, I still use it to study ONLY because the Strong’s Concordance is tied to the KJV.

    Like

  12. Ed Chapman is definitely teaching “universalism” for the Israelites. I don’t care that he doesn’t like “isms”. For good or bad “isms” do have meanings that allow people to communicate.

    I have a problem with the way people use the word “Christianity”, when a more accurate word would be “Christendom” which I define as the man-made institutions that claim to be “Christian” or claim to be a part of “Christianity”. Just because one claims to be “Christian” does not necessarily mean they are.

    My problem with Ed Chapman’s rhetoric is that he uses “Israel” and “Jew” interchangeably. Not all Jews are Israelites (of the 12 tribes of Israel), aka “the chosen people”.

    In claiming that all of Israel shall be saved, might be true, but would contradict the words of Christ Himself.

    Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
    20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

    If Ed Chapman is correct, then the above begs the question of whether or not the scribes and Pharisees were from the tribes of Israel. If they were, then Ed Chapman has to be wrong in his interpretation of Romans 11 that ALL of Israel shall be saved..

    All of Matthew 23 shows Christ being pretty hard on the Pharisees, Saducees, and scribes: In particular:
    Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

    Here is another passage showing Christ talking to JEWS before it was revealed to Paul to bring in the Gentiles:
    Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
    22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
    23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    No doubt that if God was to provide salvation to ALL of Israel, it would show that God has a lot of mercy and grace to give. But it would also contradict the words of Christ above.

    One might be able to make the case that Israel belongs to God the Father, and the Christians belong to Christ. I am alluding to John 17:24 part of the prayer Christ prays to God the Father:
    John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

    Like

  13. Easter? The correct translation? Ask ANY Messianic Rabbi and he’ll tell you head on that you’re WRONG, Timothy. If you’re belief is right then WHY wasn’t the queen james translators CONSISTENT in using the word EASTER all throughout the New Testament where the Greek Pascha (Hebrew Pesach) was found? Can the Greek word Christos be translated as jumping rope, or any word OTHER than Christ? I hope you get THE point. But apparently you’re blinded by your IDOLATROUS belief in the queen james version. As if HISTORY doesn’t know who the REAL king james is in person. ONLY his blind fanatical followers like YOU would rewrite history to prove it is not so. Call in JChick. Oh hes dead, btw. (: http://etb-history-theology.blogspot.com/2012/03/king-james-was-gay.html

    Like

      1. As you know, I’ve commented before. I do not, I repeat, do not concentrate on the origin of the word “Easter”. Why? Because normal Christians know that the word “Easter” to them as NOT a representation of a pagan holiday, but as the day that Jesus rose from the dead. And when did Jesus rise from the dead? During the Passover, on the 3rd day of the passover.

        That is what I concentrate on. I concentrate on the 3rd day of Passover, for which we designate as Easter.

        I explained, at least I hope that I did, that the word “after” in the Acts 12 reference, is defined as “after” passover begins, but before it ends. The Greek word is META, which means “amid”. That means “in the middle of”, not the end of.

        It is the word “after” that is being confused, more than the word “Easter”. If people are uncomfortable with the word “Easter”, cross it out, and replace it with, “The Third day of Passover”, or “The resurrection day of Jesus”.

        Think of it this way. Why are we allowed to eat meat that was sacrificed to other gods, aka pagan gods?

        Because we know that there is only one God, and our conscience is clear. We can eat if we want, or not eat if we don’t want. The same goes with what some claim as a pagan holiday. It’s not a sin to call it Easter.

        In order to make fun of the gospel that stated that Jesus rose from the grave after 3 days, which is another example of the word “after” meaning “in the midst of”, it would please the Jews to have James and John killed on the 3rd day of Passover.

        And that day was designated as the word Easter in Acts 12.

        If Jesus rose from the dead on the 4th day, instead of the 3rd day, then I would conclude that the word “after” in Acts 12 is when Passover had concluded, rather than, in the midst of.

        Luke 22:1 shows that the feast of unleavened bread, which is a 7 day feast, is the Passover. Hence, Passover is a 7 day feast, not a one day thing.

        Ed Chapman

        Like

      2. Okay Ed, we’re in agreement – I amended the article a while back, if you go to check the text of it you’ll see it matches your position. Unfortunately, you’ll have a very hard time convincing the readers here about the validity of usage of the term “Easter” to denote “pascha”.

        Like

  14. Simple. Because theyre deceived, like the scribes (writers) on Jeremiah 8:8 who handled GOD’s word deceitfully. In the same way that some people around the globe nowadays are deceived by thinking that Jesus or Yahushua spoke English.

    Like

    1. This is where we disagree. I believe that these men were genuine Christians inspired in their work by the Holy Spirit. They were not of the same spiritual character as the men you referenced in Jeremiah 8:8. Are you insinuating that these men were Kenites?

      Like

      1.  Are you insinuating that these men were Kenites? Amusing question, Timothy. Well why do we use John 3:16 as well in evangelizing to many? Are WE Nicodemus? You seem to forget the simple fact My friend, that the Word of GOD speaks NOT only to those men living in those days but even in OUR times.

        Like

      2. I guess it is an amusing question, not sure if I understand your response. I’m aware that the word of God speaks to us today, why else would I read it? You didn’t answer my question so I’ll just assume you don’t believe it was a Kenite conspiracy based on your response… I guess my question still would be, why did they translate the word improperly?

        Like

      3. why did they translate the word improperly? I already answered THAT question before by saying they are deceived. Why do you wish to hear it again? Don’t you know HOW to READ?

        Like

      4. That’s fine if you believe they were deceived – it’s a long way from believing they were inspired by the Holy Spirit in their work. It kind of begs the question what else did these deceived translators botch?

        Like

      5. And to emphasize, in case you HAVEN’T noticed, I used the word “like” … and I DIDN’T say anything suggesting that these men are “kenites” … do you understand what like means, My friend? Being like your mother doesn’t mean you have a sexual organ like her.

        Like

      6. Well that’s good – as long as you don’t believe there are literal offspring of Satan running around causing havoc then I don’t really have any problem with what you say. But then again, you wouldn’t be a Shepherd’s Chapel devotee.

        Like

    1. It only appears to be a mistranslation if you don’t understand the history of the word and in what sense it was used. I used to be of your position then came to understand the rendering of pascha as “Easter” by the KJV translators is acceptable. I personally would have simply called it Passover – but the translators wanted to stress the significance of the Lord Jesus Christ’s work. So they used “Easter”.

      Like

      1. Well Tim, TRUTH and ACCURACY means more to Me than perverted history. I’m well aware you know the “history” of the devil as well. (:

        Like

      2. You don’t think truth and accuracy mean a lot to me? If you more accurately understood the meaning of the term “Easter” and why it was used then I’m sure you wouldn’t be upset with its usage.

        Like

      3. Yes, but Tim. Tim… as Mr. Chapman did wrote: We all know that the original Greek word is the English transliteration “Passover”. So why use a translation which is LESS accurate? PURE words, remember? Not ONE drop of poison on it. I prefer the way the NKJV renders it. At least they have a TEACHABLE spirit … for he who hates correction is STUPID. (Proverbs 12:1)

        Like

      4. Here’s the thing – I read a bunch of different translations to see how each group has gone about rendering the text. You see all kinds of things, some good some bad. I prefer the NASB because I was brought up in the Church of Christ and it is familiar to me. (I am no longer Church of Christ) – it renders the word as Passover. Wonderful, good for them. The KJV translators render it as Easter – not necessarily the choice that I would have made but I now understand that this was their way of honoring Jesus Christ and I think they did a good job of it.

        Like

    2. Rai,
      We all know that the original Greek word is the English transliteration “Passover”. And we all know that the translators knew it as well. To me, that is not the issue at all.

      This issue is as to “why”. That answer is easy to determine, once a little bit of Bible study is done in regards to every detail from the whole bible in regards to the passover.

      Ed

      Like

      1. Well, Chap for YOU. But to GOD It IS. Since you “know that the original Greek word is the English transliteration “Passover” WHY not use it, fight for it and defend the TRUTH? Do YOU prefer man’s MIStranslated word OVER GOD’s PURE Word? You see, a MIS Translation of HIS Word (NOT Ours) can deceive many EVEN millions. MIS translating a word from the original to the common language would be similar to the bystanders and IGNORANT spectators MIStranslating Jesus’ cry on the cross to mean He’s calling forth for ELijah on the cross when in fact EL means GOD and NOT Elijah. Do you get THE point? Accuracy, My friend. ACCURACY. Psalms 12:6 tells us, “The words of the LORD are PURE words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified SEVEN times.” So WHY not apply the same principle in digging up the truth about the correct and MOST accurate rendition of the word to separate the chaff from the wheat and take away dross from the silver? (Proverbs 25:4) Fine. We consider the Bible to be GOD’s Word to man. BUT whenever we find a mistranslated text “as silver tried in the furnace” we should PURIFY it to RESTORE its ORIGINAL meaning. That way it can be TRULY called “PURE” without any mistranslation whatsoever. Ok. I think I’ve done enough expounding. By the way you also mentioned that nominal or “normal Christians know that the word “Easter” to them as NOT a representation of a pagan holiday, but as the day that Jesus rose from the dead.” Well, yes maybe. For nominal, normal and APOSTATE Christianity who use terms coined and customs perpetuated by the PAPACY but NOT for REAL and Bonafide Christians like Me. Allow Me to share with you links from JEWISH Believers on the subject that can be of help. As Gentiles, and wild olives, we should know our rightful PLACE in GOD’s arrangement. For Salvation is of The Jews. Who are Israelites; to whom pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of GOD, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (John 4:22 & Romans 9:4-5) So, on to the links. (1) http://www.mayimhayim.org/Rabbi%20Mike/How%20Passover%20became%20Easter.htm AND (2) http://messianicfellowship.50webs.com/wrongeaster.html. GOD BLESS YOU.

        Like

      2. I know this is your response to Mr. Chapman but I want to interject a passage of scripture and a thought…

        “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.” – Romans 14:5-6

        These people who are truly honoring Christ on Easter are accepted in God’s sight. You can honor Christ by not observing Easter if you like… the scripture is very clear you are not to stand in judgment of them for it. I applaud your desire to want to uphold a pure translation of the text but there is more going on here.

        It only seems to be an issue if you ascribe a pagan connotation to the word “Easter”. The word is a Christian word from the German “Ostern”. It has to do with the rising of the sun in the east…

        “But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.” – Malachi 4:2

        Easter in reference to this, the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, which coincides with Passover. The KJV translators were honoring Christ by the usage of Easter.

        Like

      3. Rai,

        I have no problem changing the word back to Passover. But like I said, that isn’t the issue. The issue is “What DAY of the Passover is being discussed?”

        That is important all due to the word, “after”, which I also stated. The word “after” is NOT indicating once Passover ends. The Greek word for that is “meta”. Meta is defined as “amid”, and “amid” is defined as “in the middle of”.

        Take for example all of the bible verses that state that Jesus will rise again on the “third” day.

        Matthew 16:21
        From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

        Matthew 17:23
        And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again.

        Matthew 20:19
        And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

        Then consider the word “after” in the following:

        Matthew 27:63
        Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

        Mark 8:31
        And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

        This is all showing that Jesus did not rise on the 4th day, but the third day, which is also known as “AFTER 3 days”.

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

        So, since the word “after” is used in Acts 12, as in “after passover”, this is indicating that it was DURING the 7 day feast.

        Which day? Can you answer that?

        Now, in regards to the word “Easter”, we don’t celebrate Passover as Christians. We celebrate the day Jesus rose from the dead. What day of the Passover is that considered as?

        So, the question is NOT about the word Easter. The question is what day of Passover would please the Jews to want to have James and John killed?

        Of course it would be the 3rd day of the passover, which represents that Jesus rose from the dead, because this is what they were preaching. And that is why the word “Easter” was used.

        And, if you wish to state that the word Easter is about Ishtar, the goddess of fertility, well, Jesus is gaining new children every day.

        Are we allowed to celebrate Easter?

        YES. Based on what? Romans 14.

        Romans 14:5-8, 10
        5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

        6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

        7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

        8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.

        10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

        So, who are you again?

        Ed Chapman

        Like

  15. But one thing you’re forgetting Tim, is that you’ve TWISTED Paul’s words on Romans to mean what it DOESN’T mean. To put it STRAIGHT with you, just WHERE on the ENTIRE chapter of Romans 14 does it suggest that DAYS refer to PAGAN holidays OR words (such as easter) that are completely AND totally FOREIGN in those days? Fine then. Can one also justify celebrating Xmas and Valentines day “to the Lord” USING that text in Romans you’ve just quoted? You see My friend, although the Word of GOD speaks to ALL men in ALL times, we should understand HOW the writer AND the reader understood Paul’s words in THOSE days and NOT how we understand it in OUR times. Hence PROPER Context, My friend. There can be a DANGER in twisting Paul’s words you know. (2 Peter 3:16)

    Like

    1. Rai,

      According to the Bible, we are allowed to eat meat that was offered to idols of pagan gods. The only restriction is when someone else with lack of faith considers it a sin, and we are not to trip them up. But no one is to order us to not eat the meat. We can eat if we want to.

      The same goes with Holidays. That is what Romans 14 is about as well as 1 Cor 8. Freedom. The OT laws forbid eating meat offered to pagan gods. Not anymore.

      So, your argument against celebrating Easter is void of any substance

      Ed Chapman

      Like

      1. Just so you know, Im NOT one of Jehovahs Witnesses because FACT is, they’re NOT the only Christian group in the world who don’t celebrate Xmas, Easter and Halloween. Messianics DON’T. Even a number of Baptists also DON’T and thank GOD a LOT of Born-Again groups who are acknowledging the ROOTS of their Faith also.

        Like

    2. Rai, from the position of those who observe Easter and honor Christ on that day, it is a holy day. Paul may have had other days in mind – like the Jewish feast days, et al. but Romans 14 is about Christian liberty and it fits precisely with what we are discussing. Nothing has been twisted.

      Like

      1. Yes. True. What we are discussing TODAY February 22, 2015 … NOT 50, 70 or 90 AD or CE. So IS the thought FAR from how we MAY think it today. Its as far and as FUNNY and TWISTED as the Roman Catholics and some protestants observe the Lord’s SUPPER in the MORNING. No wonder EVEN children are confused and turn atheist later in life. Mommy, why do we observe the Lord’s SUPPER at datime? Well son, that’s because santa claus says so. LOL. Let’s STOP this NON-sense and return to our Jewish ROOTS, brethren!

        Like

      2. You would love Shepherd’s Chapel then (which is what this blog exposes). In his cracked out wack-a-doodle theology the white people are actually the tribes of Isreal. Why let the Jews have all the fun when you can be one yourself?

        Like

      3. Rai,

        I am not a Jew, nor am I obligated to pretend to be a Jew. I don’t have Jewish roots. Christianity is an extension of Judaism, but I am not to act like a Jew. We don’t celebrate Jewish feasts. The Jewish feasts are a representation of prophecy of Jesus, not a command for Gentiles to eat and drink and do rituals for. Therefore, I, as an individual, do not have Jewish roots. But, my best friend is a Jew turned Christian. And guess what? He love pork chops.

        Ed

        Like

    1. I am as anti Roman Catholic as you can get… my disdain for it was so great that I was unable to change my understanding about this very subject we are dealing with for a very long time. This has nothing to do with Catholicism…

      Like

      1. In the early church Christians celebrated Christ’s crucifixion/resurrection on the Passover (some, not all). This happened on different days of the week every year. The early church decided to have the celebration of Christ’s resurrection fall on the same day as the Lord’s Day, Sunday. That’s how we got what we have today. Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox. And like I said, this was to have the memorial of the resurrection and the Lord’s Day fall on the same day every year.

        Bare in mind the pagan festival IS the vernal equinox, March 21st. So if the Catholics wanted to do their dirty work they would have made Easter fall on March 21st every year… but Easter NEVER falls on March 21st! Passover always fell after this date. They wanted Easter to fall after the date of the Passover every year on Sunday.

        Like

      2. But Rai,

        It doesn’t matter if the Catholics started it or not. The fact is, we do not celebrate a pagan holiday. Our conscience states that it is the day that Jesus rose from the dead. And for that alone, we are free. That goes with the same concept of eating meat that is offered to idols. We can eat the meat.

        Ed Chapman

        Like

      3. Fine then, Tim. Using your text on Matthew 18:18 to defend your stance, can we also apply the same on Pagan Halloween? You see, My friend you seem to be forgetting the cardinal rule. Scripture INTERPRETS Scripture. A little here and a little there (Is. 28:19). The CORRECT and PROPER interpretation of the passage you’ve cited from Matthew is found on Jesus own statement on John 20:23 Whosoever’s sins you remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever’s sins you retain, they are retained. 

        Like

      4. The early church decided to institute the celebration of Christ’s resurrection on Easter. They came together in agreement over this and they still do so to this day. To chose Pagan Halloween as the day to celebrate the resurrection would be an unscriptural application of that passage.

        Like

      5. Rai,

        Oh, you have a problem with candy? All I’m trying to do on Halloween is to score a kit-kat bar. And you think that is evil? Come on, dude, really?

        And again, in regards to your disdain for Easter, we have the freedom, and you don’t. So, don’t celebrate Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, Birthdays, and be like a Jehovah’s Witness. Just make sure that if you ever get into a fist fight, and your mouth gets bloody, DON’T SWALLOW.

        Ed

        Like

      6. I would be referring to the early Catholic church many of whom were Christians. And many of those that made ecclesiastical decisions were Christian. And at that time they settled a problem that existed concerning the observance Lord’s Day and the celebration of the Resurrection – but I don’t expect you to grasp that.

        Like

      7. You don’t accept that God used the Catholic church and the councils and that’s fine – but God is sovereign, he used the Christians within the Catholic church to accomplish his will. You choose not to acknowledge that and that’s your decision. I see how God used the Catholic church especially early in it’s history.

        Like

      8. You don’t think the ecumenical councils of the early Catholic church were of God? You simply lack discernment friend. Christians were battling severe heresies and confusion over central tenets of the faith like Gnosticism, the deity of Christ and the nature of the Godhead. Eventually that church became more apostate but you don’t seem to make any distinction…

        From wiki:

        “The First Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council of the Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy—the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.”

        One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son in his relationship to the Father: in particular, whether the Son had been ‘begotten’ by the Father from his own being, with no beginning, or rather, begotten in time, or created out of nothing, therefore having a beginning. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two agreed to sign the creed and these two, along with Arius, were banished to Illyria).”

        I like how they settled on this issue and banished the heretics… that’s what I call getting it done. God’s will was accomplished in this matter. The early Catholic church decided unanimously against the heresy and were 100% right. Case closed.

        Side with the Arians if you like.

        So before there was a bible this is what they agreed upon concerning the Christian faith:

        Nicene Creed
        We believe in one God,
        the Father almighty,
        maker of heaven and earth,
        of all things visible and invisible.

        And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
        the only Son of God,
        begotten from the Father before all ages,
        God from God,
        Light from Light,
        true God from true God,
        begotten, not made;
        of the same essence as the Father.
        Through him all things were made.
        For us and for our salvation
        he came down from heaven;
        he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
        and was made human.
        He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
        he suffered and was buried.
        The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
        He ascended to heaven
        and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
        He will come again with glory
        to judge the living and the dead.
        His kingdom will never end.

        And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
        the Lord, the giver of life.
        He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
        and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
        He spoke through the prophets.
        We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
        We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
        We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
        and to life in the world to come. Amen.

        Oh, but they were all apostates, I forgot… No. Many of these were genuine Christians. Your pride won’t allow you to acknowledge that.

        You are not discerning the body of Christ, the sovereignty of God and the outworking of His kingdom in history. Today, yes the Catholic church has become very apostate and has been that way since the council of Trent when they condemned Sola Fide. Even so, there are many members of the body of Christ within that very organization. Would I like for them to separate? Yes, most definitely but that is in God’s hands.

        Maybe some of them will never separate… the blood of Christ redeems them as well as it does you and I. They are not saved on the basis of church affiliation.

        I have met many Christians caught up in error, sin, false teaching, et. al. – if they have accepted Christ then it doesn’t matter.

        Like

      9. Another issue decided upon at the council of Nicaea was when to celebrate Easter, the most important day of the year within the church. Here is a statement by the church of Alexandria at that time:

        “We also send you the good news of the settlement concerning the holy pasch, namely that in answer to your prayers this question also has been resolved. All the brethren in the East who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe the custom of the Romans and of yourselves and of all of us who from ancient times have kept Easter together with you…”

        So that’s it. One group was celebrating the holy pasch on Passover which fell on different days every year – the other on the Lords day. For the sake of unity they came to a consensus because of the confusion it was causing.

        I’m sorry you don’t like what they did but I am convinced they acted wisely and scripturally in these matters. I am 100% in agreement with their decision at that time. You are free to observe Passover and other Hebrew feast days if you like – I won’t judge you, but I don’t feel compelled to do it.

        If you value God’s word please don’t judge other Christians for celebrating Easter – otherwise you will be in sin. Christ accepts them and their worship.

        Like

      10. Look at HOW ecumenical they are today with the Pope allowing the reading of the Quran inside the Vatican. I DONT believe any “Christian” today OR before who are in allegiance with Rome and their “councils” are of GOD.

        Like

      11. You wrote…
        “I’m sorry you don’t like what they did but I am convinced they acted wisely and scripturally in these matters. You are free to observe Passover and other Hebrew feast days if you like – I won’t judge you, but I don’t feel compelled to do it.”

        I understand your position but consider this passage…

        “And it shall come to pass, that everyone that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whosoever will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt goes not up, and comes not, they will have no rain; there shall be the plague, with which the LORD will smite the nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.” – Zechariah 14:16-19

        Last time I checked, NOTHING like it ever happened it human history for this would only occur AFTER the Final Battle of Armageddon and between Good and Evil. (Revelations 20:7-9)

        Like

      12. That’s an interesting passage, but a rule of thumb for interpreting scripture is to use the New Testament to interpret the old, not vice versa. The new testament informs us that Christ fulfilled the Passover.

        “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” – Colossian 2:16-17

        So how are we to interpret this passage in Zechariah in light of New Testament revelation?

        Like

      13. Eherm … excuse Me Timothy but have you noticed the phrase:

        Which are a shadow of things TO come?

        Is that in the PAST tense?

        Definitely NOT but a CONFIRMATION of what is to take place in the future AFTER The FINAL Conflict between good and evil. One of it is the prophecy in Zechariah which is YET to be fulfilled NOT unless ou can prove to Me WHEN in the ENTIRE history of man has GOD plagued a nation who has NOT kept Sukkoth or The Feast of Tabernacles.

        WHEN?

        Like

      14. New or Old, Old or New and Vice-Versa, it makes NO difference because the ENTIRE Scriptures is GOD’s Word and Revelation to man. Now let’s look at the Scriptures and NOT someone else’s commentary to gain A PROPER understanding of the passage you’ve quoted from Colossians:

        Let The Scriptures SPEAK!

        Isaiah 66:22-23 For as the NEW (not old but NEW) heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one NEW MOON to another, and from one SABBATH to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

        “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of THINGS TO COME (not of things that has already passed); but the body is of Christ.” – Colossian 2:16-17

        There you have it. NONE from My own. ALL from the Scriptures. If you feel the need to disagree do so but know that you DONT diasgree with Me BUT with The ALMIGHTY. For those are HIS Words NOT Mine.

        Like

      15. Do you plan on sacrificing animals again in the future too? It’s in the Old testament. Your position is absurd and deadly wrong – do you know what a Judaizer is? It was someone who required gentiles to be circumcised in addition to having faith in Christ to be saved. What you advocate is no different. You require people to keep obsolete old covenant observances in order to be in right standing with God. THAT IS HERESY, THAT IS A CULT.

        Jesus Christ IS the shadow of things to come – He came. Those things in the OT were to come.

        Here’s a different angle on the passage from the NLT

        “For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality…”

        Like

      16. You are using OT prophecy written by those under the law, to interpret NT revelation. You must interpret the OT in light of NT revelation – otherwise you get this Hebrew roots stuff and bondage to the elements of old covenant Judaism. You want to deprive people of the freedom they have in Jesus Christ. Thank God I don’t have to adhere to this stuff you promote.

        Like

      17. I invited you to discuss the scripture without the ad hominem remarks and insults which was too much for you. Everything that needs to be said has been said – comments are closed on this article.

        Like

    2. Non denomination here, Rai. I am not a Catholic. I am not a protestant, either, as I was never a Catholic to protest anything Catholic. I belong to NO denomination. I go to two non-denomination church’s on Sunday’s.

      Ed

      Like

      1. Oh yes, it DOES matter, Chap. You just said you’re NOT a Roman Catholic and belong to no denomination but somehow you’re “defending” Catholicism in saying “it DOESN’T matter.” Well for Me and according to the Scripture it DOES. What concord hath Christ with Belial? Name the text. I know you know it. Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? NOT one.

        Like

      2. Keep this passage in mind as well Rai…

        “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

        Christians come together in agreement to honor Christ on Easter and God accepts it.

        Like

      3. Well, if it matters to you…ROMANS 14…you have lack of faith, so for you, it is a sin, but to us, we allow it, and it is not a sin. Anything that is not of faith, is sin…ROMANS 14…all of it.

        Like

  16. Consider this. IF the REAL Apostle Paul would come to life these days and would READ our discussions, would he give his approval ACCEPT your argument on Romans 18:5, 8-10 as VALID? That a day dedicated to The Lord could mean the days AND holidays we have today … again TODAY? But IS that how Paul AND his readers understood his words before? I could just imagine Paul saying … easter—WHAT? Try talking to him about airplanes and tablets, dudes. Brothers, brothers … THINK!

    Like

    1. Rai,

      Do not twist MY words. My argument to change the word back to passover has conditions that you are unwilling to meet. And yes, we are allowed to celebrate anything that we want, even creating a new holiday that has yet to be named. There are no restrictions.

      Oh, and your reference of Corinthians about “keep the feast”, it is not discussing a feast of Passover as in meat and drink, etc., it is discussing “morals”, not a feast, and that Jesus is our passover that took away the yeast (sin).

      1 Cor 5:8
      Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

      Ed

      Like

      1. And WHY should I meet YOUR conditions, Chap? Are YOU The Most High GOD? Shame on YOU, mortal. I would rather submit to GOD more than YOU. (Acts 5:29) You wrote: “we are allowed to celebrate anything that we want, even creating a new holiday that has yet to be named. There are no restrictions.” Sorry, but there ARE restrictions and you’re crossing the line. Scripture tells us on 1 Corinthians 4:6 NOT to think beyond the things which are written, that none of you be puffed up against one another. Are there restrictions? According to the Scriptures? There IS.

        Like

      2. 1 Cor 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast … YES. Right. BUT what feast was Paul referring to? “anything that WE want, even creating a new holiday that has yet to be named?” In CONTEXT My friend. Lean NOT on YOUR own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5)

        Like

      3. Have you even read my conditions? And, according to the Bible, we are to “submit” to one another. Again, I reiterate, there are no restrictions. You are taking that 1 Corinthians 4:6 thing out of context, because it does NOT state what you stated.

        1 Cor 4:6
        .not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

        You left out the words “OF MEN”

        Ed

        Like

      4.  It’s in the Greek Manuscripts. But I’ve just given you a LINK in the Greek, silly. Lol. Have I quoted from the Watchtower version? See. Your ignorance is showing.

        Like

    1. Yes, there is. Study what I laid out, on a serious bases, not as a joke, or mockingly, but just out of a desire. Iron sharpens iron. If you are serious about your positions, then be serious about ours, and do your best to ask the tough “why” questions, instead of thinking that you have all the answers without the “why” questions.

      Ed

      Like

  17. I have to admit that I have not yet read everything on this page, but I wonder if you have considered Ezekiel 45:21 in which the Lord Himself described Passover as a feast of seven days. This would seem to remove the need for the one-day/seven-day argument and would imply that the intentions of Herod were for after the “holidays”. Also, since the resurrection day is the first-day-of-the-‘weeks’ ( “Sunday” ) after Passover, how could that day ever fall on a day nearly an entire month before Passover (2016 date for Easter was March 27, but Passover was not until April 22, so Resurrection day celebration would necessarily be after that)?

    Like

    1. Glen,

      I agree that Passover is a 7 day feast.

      The problem with most people is in the use of the word “after”. We know that scripture states that Jesus rose ON the third day, not on the 4th day. Scripture also states that “after 3 days, I will rise again”. That is not the 4th day, that is the 3rd day.

      Now, most people seem to state that the word “after” is in regards to “after” Passover is completely over. There are many examples in the Bible where the word “after” is inclusive from the time an event begins, but before it ends, aka “amid”, or, in the middle of.

      But, when you consider WHAT DAY that it would please the Jews to kill the Apostles, what day would mean the most to those apostles? The 3rd day of the Feast, which is the anniversary of the resurrection of Jesus, and it is the resurrection of Jesus that they preached, for the resurrection is part of the gospel.

      Now, in regards to the DAY the we celebrate Easter, vs. the actual time of the year that Passover is, we are Gentiles, and I could care less if Easter was in August, or December. To me, celebrating or not celebrating is neither here, nor there…but there is reason to celebrate, regardless, no matter if, when, or how you wish to do it. But, this is tradition, just like Thanksgiving, or even Columbus Day, or Mothers Day. Always observed on a Monday or Sunday, regardless of the actual day.

      Some denominations want to blast the Catholics for all sorts of things. But…

      In my non-denomination world, we are not legalists that think that Jewish Holidays are for us Gentiles. There are prophecy meanings to them, and that is about as far as we go.

      I agree that Passover is a 7 day feast. But, the Lord Rose from the dead on the 3rd day of the Feast. Sunday, or the first day of the week, is an irrelevant mention. The 3rd Day of the Feast can be on any day of the week in most years.

      So, which day of the Passover would please the Jews the most to have the Apostles killed? Remember, the word “after” is not discussing “after” the Passover is completely over and done with.

      And for reference again, “after 3 days I will rise again” vs. “I will rise on the 3rd day”. Both of those is the 3rd Day. The first one is not the 4th day. It is after the 3rd day begins, but before it ends, showing that “after” Passover is after the 7 day feast begins, but before it ends.

      I hope that makes sense. It took me a long time to figure that out.

      Ed Chapman

      Like

  18. Ed, as I mentioned in my first post, I had not read everything in this discussion. I jumped in and asked a couple of questions/made comments without knowing the details of the discussions. I just read the entire thing and have to say that I will bow out of this discussion (if it is still going on).

    I agree with the substance of what Dirk Potters and Rai have said above. I think most of the disagreement is affected by the modern theological viewpoints based on current “love-based” interpretations of what people WANT the word to say rather than what it really says and means. I detect a theme of “well as long as I love everyone, I can believe and do what I want and it’s OK with God” and “I am just ‘Christianizing’ the pagan ritual by using it to worship Jesus”. People seem to forget what God said in Deuteronomy 12:4, Deuteronomy 12:31,Jeremiah 10:2, and other places, so creating and accepting reasons to disobey just makes the waters murkier.

    I do want to compliment you one at least one thing. Most of the opinion sites do not add a button or email address that allows others to comment on their offerings in a timely manner, but you have done so. Congratulations and I commend you. You believe what you say and are willing to defend it in full view. Well done.

    Like

    1. Hey, Glen,

      This is not my blog, but I comment on it from time to time. But, not sure what you mean by “love-based”. I take things based on definitions of the word. The word “after” is my main issue.

      I sure hope you are not one of those, “What’s Love Got to Do With it” kinda guys!!

      Just kidding!

      Have a Great Day, Glen

      Ed

      Like

    2. Oh, one more thing, Glen,

      We, as Christians, whether we celebrate Easter or not, we are not celebrating anything pagan.

      I know that is hard to fathom from the legalists point of view.

      I supposed you didn’t know that we can really eat meat offered to idols, right? We can. Why? Because we know that those idols are not God. That’s in the book of Romans.

      Same concept of Easter. We are not celebrating anything pagan. We are celebrating Jesus raised from the dead. We don’t celebrate his death. We Remember his death. We celebrate Life Eternal.

      I hope you are not one of those legalist kinda guys!!

      Ed Chapman

      Like

    3. Glen,

      And, one more one last thing…the Holiday of Purim, that was not a Holiday instituted by God.

      In addition, the reference in Corinthians about keeping the feast…it was a metaphor, The word “leaven”, is in reference to the word “sin”, not yeast.

      That passage is not telling us to “Keep the feast” as the way that you understand it. There is no such thing as yeast being “of malice and wickedness”.

      Ed Chapman

      Like

edify

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s