Nondenominational Christianity

[gadar perets]

“Easter” is an English word, whereas, other cultures base their word for that day on the LATIN word “Pascha.” In Greek, it is “Pascha”, in French, it is “Pâques”, in Spanish, “Pascua” and so on.

According to historian Nicholas Sayers from his article “Why We Should Not Passover Easter”, he states:
“Our word Easter is of Saxon origin and of precisely the same import with its German cognate Ostern. The latter is derived from the old Teutonic form of auferstehen / auferstehung, that is - RESURRECTION.”

The Greek word πασχα (pascha) does not mean Easter or resurrection. It means Passover and refers to the day of Messiah's death, not the day of his resurrection. The same word (πασχα) was used throughout the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word פסח (pesach/Passover). The KJV got it wrong in Acts 12:4, plain and simple.

 

[CoreIssue]

The Greek word πασχα (pascha) does not mean Easter or resurrection. It means Passover and refers to the day of Messiah's death, not the day of his resurrection. The same word (πασχα) was used throughout the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word פסח (pesach/Passover). The KJV got it wrong in Acts 12:4, plain and simple.

Strong's Number: 3957

Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
pavsca of Aramaic origin cf (06453)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Pascha 5:896,797
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pas'-khah Noun Neuter
Definition

1. the paschal sacrifice (which was accustomed to be offered for the people's deliverance of old from Egypt)
2. the paschal lamb, i.e. the lamb the Israelites were accustomed to slay and eat on the fourteenth day of the month of Nisan (the first month of their year) in memory of the day on which their fathers, preparing to depart from Egypt, were bidden by God to slay and eat a lamb, and to sprinkle their door posts with its blood, that the destroying angel, seeing the blood, might pass over their dwellings; Christ crucified is likened to the slain paschal lamb
3. the paschal supper
4. the paschal feast, the feast of the Passover, extending from the 14th to the 20th day of the month Nisan

 

[BreadOfLife]

Easter was added to the Bible by Catholics. It was not in the originals and Israel never celebrated, ever.

I really don't care what the Catholics try to call the books of the Apocrypha to make them sound more acceptable. They are still Gnostic.

The books of Esther and Daniel are not Gnostic and are in the Bible.

Israel never celebrated it because Israel rejected Christ, Einstein.

As for the Deuterocanonical Books - your abject ignorance of Jewish history is your "core issue" here.
ALL Seven Books were included in the OPEN Jewish Canon.
ALL Seven Books were part of the Septuagint.
ALL Seven books were quoted or referred to in the New Testament.

Finally - PARTS of Daniel and Esther in YOUR Protestant Bible have been deleted.
NONE of them were "Gnostic" works but works of Seventy Jewish Scholars, Einstein . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Greek word πασχα (pascha) does not mean Easter or resurrection. It means Passover and refers to the day of Messiah's death, not the day of his resurrection. The same word (πασχα) was used throughout the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word פסח (pesach/Passover). The KJV got it wrong in Acts 12:4, plain and simple.

Exactly - Christ is our PASCHAL LAMB.

"Easter", as I educated BOTH of you is not derived from "Ishtar" as Alexander Hislop so stupidly posited.
He was an ignoramus who didn't understand languages and assumed that EVERYBODY spoke English all throughout history.

The KJV DIDN'T get it wrong because it was written in ENGLISH. - and the etymology of the word "Easter" means "RESURRECTION".

ONE more time, Einstein:

According to historian Nicholas Sayers from his article “Why We Should Not Passover Easter”, he states:
“Our word Easter is of Saxon origin and of precisely the same import with its German cognate Ostern. The latter is derived from the old Teutonic form of auferstehen / auferstehung, that is - RESURRECTION.”

 

[CoreIssue]

Israel never celebrated it because Israel rejected Christ, Einstein.

As for the Deuterocanonical Books - your abject ignorance of Jewish history is your "core issue" here.
ALL Seven Books were included in the OPEN Jewish Canon.
ALL Seven Books were part of the Septuagint.
ALL Seven books were quoted or referred to in the New Testament.

Finally - PARTS of Daniel and Esther in YOUR Protestant Bible have been deleted.
NONE of them were "Gnostic" works but works of Seventy Jewish Scholars, Einstein . . .

Dodge away.

Getting back to my point, Catholics added Easter to the Bible. It is not in Matthew, which predates the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, because the actual word in Matthew is Passover, not Easter.

So, Einstein, Easter is not absent from Matthew because the Jews rejected Christ, it is absent because he was still alive at that time.

Gnostic means it was not from God, which Catholicism isn't either.

 

[gadar perets]

Exactly - Christ is our PASCHAL LAMB.

"Easter", as I educated BOTH of you is not derived from "Ishtar" as Alexander Hislop so stupidly posited.
He was an ignoramus who didn't understand languages and assumed that EVERYBODY spoke English all throughout history.

The KJV DIDN'T get it wrong because it was written in ENGLISH. - and the etymology of the word "Easter" means "RESURRECTION".

ONE more time, Einstein:

According to historian Nicholas Sayers from his article “Why We Should Not Passover Easter”, he states:
“Our word Easter is of Saxon origin and of precisely the same import with its German cognate Ostern. The latter is derived from the old Teutonic form of auferstehen / auferstehung, that is - RESURRECTION.”

I don't know what kind of past history you have with CoreIssue that you reply to him so rudely, but please do not project your rudeness on me as well.

If "Christ is our PASCHAL LAMB", that means he is our "Passover Lamb" (slain on Passover). "Easter" refers to resurrection day by those who use the word "Easter". Therefore, Passover and Easter refer to two DIFFERENT days (death day and resurrection day). So for the KJV to use "Easter" leads one to believe that Herod would release Peter after the day Christians supposedly celebrated the resurrection. However, the truth is that Herod intended to release Peter after the anniversary of Yeshua's death, not his resurrection. The KJV is WRONG.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Dodge away.

Getting back to my point, Catholics added Easter to the Bible. It is not in Matthew, which predates the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, because the actual word in Matthew is Passover, not Easter.

So, Einstein, Easter is not absent from Matthew because the Jews rejected Christ, it is absent because he was still alive at that time.

Gnostic means it was not from God, which Catholicism isn't either.

Really??

Show me the word "Easter" in the Latin Vulgate.
The KJV is a PROTESTANT translation.

Do your homework.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't know what kind of past history you have with CoreIssue that you reply to him so rudely, but please do not project your rudeness on me as well.

If "Christ is our PASCHAL LAMB", that means he is our "Passover Lamb" (slain on Passover). "Easter" refers to resurrection day by those who use the word "Easter". Therefore, Passover and Easter refer to two DIFFERENT days (death day and resurrection day). So for the KJV to use "Easter" leads one to believe that Herod would release Peter after the day Christians supposedly celebrated the resurrection. However, the truth is that Herod intended to release Peter after the anniversary of Yeshua's death, not his resurrection. The KJV is WRONG.

Christ's death AND resurrection are tied to God's salvific plan. One without the other is pointless. It is in this spirit that the KJV was NOT wrong. Believe me, I am NOT a fan of the KJV, but I understand it's use of this word.

As for CoreIssue - he came to this site with his anti-Catholic manure from day ONE when he left his own dying forum. Until he starts behaving, he will be treated as the lying, ignorant anti-Catholic that he is.

As for YOU - we've had our run-ins in the past, but I'd be willing to start over if YOU are willing to have charitable dualogue.

 

[CoreIssue]

Really??

Show me the word "Easter" in the Latin Vulgate.
The KJV is a PROTESTANT translation.

Do your homework.

You do your homework. The largest group in the so-called translators were Catholic.

The documents they used for the KJV were all under Catholicism.

The early Protestants were more Catholic doctrine than biblical.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You do your homework. The largest group in the so-called translators were Catholic.
The documents they used for the KJV were all under Catholicism.
The early Protestants were more Catholic doctrine than biblical.

The KJV was translated from the GREEK - not the Latin Vulgate - and it was a work of PROTESTANT scholarship.
It was translated for the Church of ENGLAND.

Study your history, junior . . .

 

[gadar perets]

Christ's death AND resurrection are tied to God's salvific plan. One without the other is pointless. It is in this spirit that the KJV was NOT wrong. Believe me, I am NOT a fan of the KJV, but I understand it's use of this word.

Luke was not concerned about the plan of salvation when he wrote Acts 12:4. He was simply referring to a specific time identifier for when Peter would be released. Pascha (Passover) identifies that specific day. As such, Peter's release could have occurred after Passover, but prior to "Easter". However, to write "Easter" means Peter's release could not happen until after "Easter". No matter how one looks at it, "Easter" cannot be an acceptable translation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Luke was not concerned about the plan of salvation when he wrote Acts 12:4. He was simply referring to a specific time identifier for when Peter would be released. Pascha (Passover) identifies that specific day. As such, Peter's release could have occurred after Passover, but prior to "Easter". However, to write "Easter" means Peter's release could not happen until after "Easter". No matter how one looks at it, "Easter" cannot be an acceptable translation.

HUHH??
How do YOU know what Luke was “interested” in??

EVERY NT writer was interested in salvation. That’s the ENTIRE point of the New Testament.
GOD is the Author – THEY were the writers.

EVERY Gospel, EVERY Epistle, EVERY Letter was about salvation.

 

[CoreIssue]

HUHH??
How do YOU know what Luke was “interested” in??

EVERY NT writer was interested in salvation. That’s the ENTIRE point of the New Testament.
GOD is the Author – THEY were the writers.

EVERY Gospel, EVERY Epistle, EVERY Letter was about salvation.

Catholics are taught everything, especially in the NT revolved around Peter.

Which is funny, considering there's no evidence he was ever even in Rome ever. He didn't like working with Gentiles.

Catholicism is built on lies and pagan religion.

If a Catholic wants to dispute my post they need to provide evidence. Not from Catholic sources, since so many old Catholic documents have been proven forgeries.

Forged Documents and Papal Power - Berean Publishers

 

[farouk]

My personal faith is non-denominational. However, in order to fellowship with other Christians I belong to a church, which is part of a 'denomination'.

I guess Acts 2.42 is quintessentially non-denominational....

 

[BreadOfLife]

Catholics are taught everything, especially in the NT revolved around Peter.

Which is funny, considering there's no evidence he was ever even in Rome ever. He didn't like working with Gentiles.

Catholicism is built on lies and pagan religion.

If a Catholic wants to dispute my post they need to provide evidence. Not from Catholic sources, since so many old Catholic documents have been proven forgeries.

Forged Documents and Papal Power - Berean Publishers

HUHH??
We were discussing LUKE and Acts in regards to Easter. This has NOTHING to do with Peter and the Gentiles.

Leave it to an angry little anti-Catholic likeYOU to completely miss the whole point of the conversation.
PAY ATTENTION . . .

 

[CoreIssue]

HUHH??
We were discussing LUKE and Acts in regards to Easter. This has NOTHING to do with Peter and the Gentiles.

Leave it to an angry little anti-Catholic likeYOU to compete miss the whole point of the conversation.
PAY ATTENTION . . .

It had everything to do with Easter seeing as it is a Catholic invention which are trying to defend.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It had everything to do with Easter seeing as it is a Catholic invention which are trying to defend.

The KJV was a PROTESTANT translation, Einstein.
Add ignorance to your uncontrollable anger . . .

 

[gadar perets]

HUHH??
How do YOU know what Luke was “interested” in??

EVERY NT writer was interested in salvation. That’s the ENTIRE point of the New Testament.
GOD is the Author – THEY were the writers.

EVERY Gospel, EVERY Epistle, EVERY Letter was about salvation.

Fine. If you want to read into his words the thought of salvation, whatever. The fact remains that Easter and Passover refer to two different days and therefore pascha cannot possibly be translated "Easter".

 

[CoreIssue]

The KJV was a PROTESTANT translation, Einstein.
Add ignorance to your uncontrollable anger . . .

The KJV is based on Catholic documents and I do not use it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Fine. If you want to read into his words the thought of salvation, whatever. The fact remains that Easter and Passover refer to two different days and therefore pascha cannot possibly be translated "Easter".

As i already showed you, the different languages PROVE my point.
Paques, Pasche, Pascua, Passcha, etc. are ALL names for Easrer in other languages.