Why Easter Is Important

[marksman]

Cover you face with your hands for a
sense of privacy and tell God you have never yet measured up to His
standards and you're pretty sure you never will

Where does it say to do this in scripture?

 

[marksman]

On the contrary, all over Scripture tells us to remember the Sabbath Jesus was resurrected on

I have the feeling you are reading into it what is not there.

 

[marksman]

On the contrary, all over Scripture tells us to remember the Sabbath Jesus was resurrected on.

They were remembering the Sabbath long, long before Jesus was resurrected.

 

[marksman]

On the contrary, all over Scripture tells us to remember the Sabbath Jesus was resurrected on. The Old Testament highlights Genesis 3:8-24, Exodus 14,15,20 Isaiah 56,57,58; New Testament highlights Luke 4,13 Matthew 12, 27:62 to 28:1-4 Colossians 2, Acts 2, 13, 17
View attachment 30612

I am sure you love all this colour and underlining but it is bad practice to get your point over.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

I think you will find that it was not done away with, it was fulfilled.

When God instituted the law covenant, it was a covenant made between him and the people he lead out of Egypt. It wasn't a law covenant that God instituted to those people he lead out of Egypt and all the other nations of the world. So the Sabbath day law had nothing to do with all the other nations of the world, it only app!led to Israel, to those people that God led out of Egypt. So when Jesus instituted the Memorial of his death he wasn't commanding that Israel and all the other nations of the world to observe some Sabbath day law.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Readers here, I want you to know, I could not have written a better refutation of Barney Bright's brilliant thesis than his own right here.

Unfortunately, Barney's "thesis" is historical HOGWASH.
His claim that "Easter got it's first official start on 325AD which was long after Jesus resurrection" is nonsense.
Time for a History Lesson . . .

First off - all we need to do to refute this fairy tale is to point to the 2nd century Pope, Victor I in his ruling on the Quartodecimen Controversy.

The Quartodecimens were Early Christians who celebrated the Resurrection of Jesus on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan (the same day as that on which the Jews celebrated their Passover), without regard to the day of the week. This group claimed to have gotten their tradition from the Apostles John and Philip.
To make a long story short – it was decided the Easter was to be commemorated on Sunday.

This had absolutely NOTHING to do with Constantine or pagan goddesses – and it happened in the 2nd century – NOT the 4th.

The idea that Easter was named after a pagan goddess named "Ishtar" or some other goddess named "Oestra", "Eoster", etc. is nonsense for serious linguistic students who understand that English is a relatively NEW language on the world stage.

Some sources point to the idea that Ostern/Easter is most likely derived from "erstehen", which is the old Teutonic form of "auferstehen/auferstehung" meaning "resurrection".

According to one scholarly linguistic source -
"More recent studies seem to indicate that Easter may be derived from the Latin phrase "hebdomada alba", the old term for Easter week based upon the wearing of white robes by the newly baptized. The octave of Easter, the following week, was known as "post albas", the time when the white robes were put away....Easter may thus mean "white" and be named from early Christian baptismal practices."
("Easter", The Dictionary of Bible and Religion, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1986) 287)

Don't forget - in all of the Latin and Middle Eastern languages - the word sounds NOTHING like "Easter",

So, IF Easter is derived from Eostra/Ostara, that would only prove a pagan influence on Christians who spoke Germanic tongues. NOT all Christians call the Feast of the Resurrection "Easter". Byzantine Christians use the Greek term "Pascha", a transliteration of the Hebrew word "Pesach", or Passover. "Pascha" is also the name of this feast in Latin, the official language of the Roman Rite. The Romance languages reflect this usage; the Italian word "Pasqua", the French "Paques" and the Spanish "Pascua" each derive from "Pascha", and ultimately from "Pesach".

So, it's absurd to assume that "Easter" comes from "Ishtar" or "Eostra" or "Ostara" - or ANY other such nonsense.

 

[DJT_47]

Unfortunately, Barney's "thesis" is historical HOGWASH.
His claim that "Easter got it's first official start on 325AD which was long after Jesus resurrection" is nonsense.
Time for a History Lesson . . .

First off - all we need to do to refute this fairy tale is to point to the 2nd century Pope, Victor I in his ruling on the Quartodecimen Controversy.

The Quartodecimens were Early Christians who celebrated the Resurrection of Jesus on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan (the same day as that on which the Jews celebrated their Passover), without regard to the day of the week. This group claimed to have gotten their tradition from the Apostles John and Philip.
To make a long story short – it was decided the Easter was to be commemorated on Sunday.

This had absolutely NOTHING to do with Constantine or pagan goddesses – and it happened in the 2nd century – NOT the 4th.

The idea that Easter was named after a pagan goddess named "Ishtar" or some other goddess named "Oestra", "Eoster", etc. is nonsense for serious linguistic students who understand that English is a relatively NEW language on the world stage.

Some sources point to the idea that Ostern/Easter is most likely derived from "erstehen", which is the old Teutonic form of "auferstehen/auferstehung" meaning "resurrection".

According to one scholarly linguistic source -
"More recent studies seem to indicate that Easter may be derived from the Latin phrase "hebdomada alba", the old term for Easter week based upon the wearing of white robes by the newly baptized. The octave of Easter, the following week, was known as "post albas", the time when the white robes were put away....Easter may thus mean "white" and be named from early Christian baptismal practices."
("Easter", The Dictionary of Bible and Religion, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1986) 287)

Don't forget - in all of the Latin and Middle Eastern languages - the word sounds NOTHING like "Easter",

So, IF Easter is derived from Eostra/Ostara, that would only prove a pagan influence on Christians who spoke Germanic tongues. NOT all Christians call the Feast of the Resurrection "Easter". Byzantine Christians use the Greek term "Pascha", a transliteration of the Hebrew word "Pesach", or Passover. "Pascha" is also the name of this feast in Latin, the official language of the Roman Rite. The Romance languages reflect this usage; the Italian word "Pasqua", the French "Paques" and the Spanish "Pascua" each derive from "Pascha", and ultimately from "Pesach".

So, it's absurd to assume that "Easter" comes from "Ishtar" or "Eostra" or "Ostara" - or ANY other such nonsense.

What is "hogwash" is that Easter, irrespective of the origin of the word, is man-made tradition and not scriptural as you pointed out above, and the Greek word, pascha, means passover, which is found in the scriptures, not Easter nor any scriptural basis for the resurrection being celebrated and referred to as such.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What is "hogwash" is that Easter, irrespective of the origin of the word, is man-made tradition and not scriptural as you pointed out above, and the Greek word, pascha, means passover, which is found in the scriptures, not Easter nor any scriptural basis for the resurrection being celebrated and referred to as such.

Are you of the belief that "If it's not in the Bible- we can't celebrate or observe something"?
Can you show me where this is taught in the Bible?

Chapter and Verse, please . . .


PS - and Barney's post IS hogwash, as I amply proved . . .

 

[DJT_47]

Are you of the belief that "If it's not in the Bible- we can't celebrate or observe something"?
Can you show me where this is taught in the Bible?

Chapter and Verse, please . . .


PS - and Barney's post IS hogwash, as I amply proved . . .

Believe and celebrate whatever you like, but I'll stick to the scriptures as my guide.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Believe and celebrate whatever you like, but I'll stick to the scriptures as my guide.

You're DODGING the question - so I'll asj you again:
Are you of the belief that "If it's not in the Bible- we can't celebrate or observe something"?
Can you show me where this is taught in the Bible?

Chapter and Verse, please . . .

 

[DJT_47]

You're DODGING the question - so I'll asj you again:
Are you of the belief that "If it's not in the Bible- we can't celebrate or observe something"?
Can you show me where this is taught in the Bible?

Chapter and Verse, please . . .

The bible is the complete word of God right? So if it is, and such days that have been devised by man aren't in it, i.e., Easter, Christmas, is it really right? Do such man-made so-called religious holidays really deserve reverence as such, as though God demanded reverence or unique observation of them? I don't think so, but ad I said, do what you like, but I'll adhere to the scriptures and not something added to them by man. My comments were consistent with Romans 14:5-9. Regard whatever days you like.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The bible is the complete word of God right? So if it is, and such days that have been devised by man aren't in it, i.e., Easter, Christmas, is it really right? Do such man-made so-called religious holidays really deserve reverence as such, as though God demanded reverence or unique observation of them? I don't think so, but ad I said, do what you like, but I'll adhere to the scriptures and not something added to them by man. My comments were consistent with Romans 14:5-9. Regard whatever days you like.

You don't see the utter hypocrisy of your post?

First of all - NOQHWERE dies the Bible ever purport to be the "compleye" Word of God. As I stated earlier - God's people have ALWAYS received His revelation through BOTH the Scriptures AND Tradition. For YOU to claim it is His "cimplete" word - YOU need to provide the verse(s) to support it.

Secondly - by rejecting Tradition of His Church - YOU are disobedient to the very Scripture YOU purport to be youer SOLE Authority.
Matt 16:19, Matt. 18:18
WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

 

[DJT_47]

You don't see the utter hypocrisy of your post?

First of all - NOQHWERE dies the Bible ever purport to be the "compleye" Word of God. As I stated earlier - God's people have ALWAYS received His revelation through BOTH the Scriptures AND Tradition. For YOU to claim it is His "cimplete" word - YOU need to provide the verse(s) to support it.

Secondly - by rejecting Tradition of His Church - YOU are disobedient to the very Scripture YOU purport to be youer SOLE Authority.
Matt 16:19, Matt. 18:18
WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

The bible supports that it is complete by inference via warnings in both the OT and NT regarding adding to, taking away, or preaching different than, as found in Deuteronemy 4:2, 12:32, Proverbs 30:5-6, Gal 1:6-9, Rev 22:19.

Tradition can only be consistent with his word and not outside or beyond it.

And the other scriptures you cited are out of context; who was Matthew 16 and 18 addressed to? Not us and not meant for today.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The bible supports that it is complete by inference via warnings in both the OT and NT regarding adding to, taking away, or preaching different than, as found in Deuteronemy 4:2, 12:32, Proverbs 30:5-6, Gal 1:6-9, Rev 22:19.

Tradition can only be consistent with his word and not outside or beyond it.

And the other scriptures you cited are out of context; who was Matthew 16 and 18 addressed to? Not us and not meant for today.

WRONG.

First of all - thgose warnings are for those Books ONLY.
They do not apply to ALL pof Scripture - NOR do they imply that God Can ONLY communicate through the Scriptures.

As for the context of Matt. 16:19 and Matt. 18:18, Jesus is instructing the LEEADERS of His Church.

As for Tradition - Paul makes it crystal-clear that we are to adhere to it as readily as we do the written Word (2 Thess. 2:15).

 

[DJT_47]

WRONG.

First of all - thgose warnings are for those Books ONLY.
They do not apply to ALL pof Scripture - NOR do they imply that God Can ONLY communicate through the Scriptures.

As for the context of Matt. 16:19 and Matt. 18:18, Jesus is instructing the LEEADERS of His Church.

As for Tradition - Paul makes it crystal-clear that we are to adhere to it as readily as we do the written Word (2 Thess. 2:15).

Your logic is not sound. In other words, it's OK or it was OK back then to deviate from God's word except for the books only in which the warnings were noted. That's dumb. God's word us everlasting and unchanging and certainly cannot be abridged by man simply because his warnings were not explicitly stated, over and over and over and over. Makes zero sense.
Jesus wasn't instructing the leaders of his church in Mat 16 and 18 because his church is his body and he wasn't dead yet and thus the church hadn't been yet established. He was speaking to his disciples.

And lastly, you said it. Tradition = the written word. They must be consistent or one is wrong and we know for sure it aint the bible (the written word) that's wrong. God does not contradict himself nor does his word.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your logic is not sound. In other words, it's OK or it was OK back then to deviate from God's word except for the books only in which the warnings were noted. That's dumb. God's word us everlasting and unchanging and certainly cannot be abridged by man simply because his warnings were not explicitly stated, over and over and over and over. Makes zero sense.

Rev 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from THIS SCROLL OF PROPHECY, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

This warning pertains to THIS SCROLL (Revelation)

Deut. 4:2
Do not add to WHAT I COMMAND YOu and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

This warning pertains to THIS SCROLL (Deuteronomh)

Prov. 30:5-6
“Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

NO mention of the written Word (Scripture) at all

Gal. 1:6-9
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Again – NOTHING to do with Sola Scriptura.
Just a warning not to pervert the Gospel message.

Jesus wasn't instructing the leaders of his church in Mat 16 and 18 because his church is his body and he wasn't dead yet and thus the church hadn't been yet established. He was speaking to his disciples.

And lastly, you said it. Tradition = the written word. They must be consistent or one is wrong and we know for sure it aint the bible (the written word) that's wrong. God does not contradict himself nor does his word.

WROING.

A universal hermeneutical rule:
When Jesus instructs the corwd, it generally pertains to ALL of us
When Jesus instructs His inner circle - it generally pertains to the LEADERS of His Church.

In Matt. 16:18, Matt. 1:8:15-18, Kuje 19:16, John 16:12-15 and John 20:21-23, Jesus is givinh special instructions tg His inner circle - the LEADERS of His Church.

In 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Cor. 2:10, 2 Cor. 5:18-20 and elsewhere - Paul reminds his readers of this distinction between the Authority of the Church hierarchy over the laity.

1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you,

1 Tim. 5:17
Let the elders that RULE WELL be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

1 Cor. 12:28
Some people God has designated in the church to be, FIRST, apostles; SECOND, prophets; THIRD, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.

 

[DJT_47]

Rev 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from THIS SCROLL OF PROPHECY, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

This warning pertains to THIS SCROLL (Revelation)

Deut. 4:2
Do not add to WHAT I COMMAND YOu and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

This warning pertains to THIS SCROLL (Deuteronomh)

Prov. 30:5-6
“Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

NO mention of the written Word (Scripture) at all

Gal. 1:6-9
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Again – NOTHING to do with Sola Scriptura.
Just a warning not to pervert the Gospel message.

WROING.

A universal hermeneutical rule:
When Jesus instructs the corwd, it generally pertains to ALL of us
When Jesus instructs His inner circle - it generally pertains to the LEADERS of His Church.

In Matt. 16:18, Matt. 1:8:15-18, Kuje 19:16, John 16:12-15 and John 20:21-23, Jesus is givinh special instructions tg His inner circle - the LEADERS of His Church.

In 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Cor. 2:10, 2 Cor. 5:18-20 and elsewhere - Paul reminds his readers of this distinction between the Authority of the Church hierarchy over the laity.

1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you,

1 Tim. 5:17
Let the elders that RULE WELL be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

1 Cor. 12:28
Some people God has designated in the church to be, FIRST, apostles; SECOND, prophets; THIRD, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.

Believe what you like and break God's word wherever it's convenient for you to do so since it's not stated to keep it all the time. Goodbye

 

[Illuminator]

Unfortunately, Barney's "thesis" is historical HOGWASH.
His claim that "Easter got it's first official start on 325AD which was long after Jesus resurrection" is nonsense.
Time for a History Lesson . . .

First off - all we need to do to refute this fairy tale is to point to the 2nd century Pope, Victor I in his ruling on the Quartodecimen Controversy.

The Quartodecimens were Early Christians who celebrated the Resurrection of Jesus on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan (the same day as that on which the Jews celebrated their Passover), without regard to the day of the week. This group claimed to have gotten their tradition from the Apostles John and Philip.
To make a long story short – it was decided the Easter was to be commemorated on Sunday.

This had absolutely NOTHING to do with Constantine or pagan goddesses – and it happened in the 2nd century – NOT the 4th.

The idea that Easter was named after a pagan goddess named "Ishtar" or some other goddess named "Oestra", "Eoster", etc. is nonsense for serious linguistic students who understand that English is a relatively NEW language on the world stage.

Some sources point to the idea that Ostern/Easter is most likely derived from "erstehen", which is the old Teutonic form of "auferstehen/auferstehung" meaning "resurrection".

According to one scholarly linguistic source -
"More recent studies seem to indicate that Easter may be derived from the Latin phrase "hebdomada alba", the old term for Easter week based upon the wearing of white robes by the newly baptized. The octave of Easter, the following week, was known as "post albas", the time when the white robes were put away....Easter may thus mean "white" and be named from early Christian baptismal practices."
("Easter", The Dictionary of Bible and Religion, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1986) 287)

Don't forget - in all of the Latin and Middle Eastern languages - the word sounds NOTHING like "Easter",

So, IF Easter is derived from Eostra/Ostara, that would only prove a pagan influence on Christians who spoke Germanic tongues. NOT all Christians call the Feast of the Resurrection "Easter". Byzantine Christians use the Greek term "Pascha", a transliteration of the Hebrew word "Pesach", or Passover. "Pascha" is also the name of this feast in Latin, the official language of the Roman Rite. The Romance languages reflect this usage; the Italian word "Pasqua", the French "Paques" and the Spanish "Pascua" each derive from "Pascha", and ultimately from "Pesach".

So, it's absurd to assume that "Easter" comes from "Ishtar" or "Eostra" or "Ostara" - or ANY other such nonsense.

Good point.
Astarte/ Ishtar/Ashtaroth have nothing whatever to do with Easter. They are Semitic goddesses from the Middle East, goddesses of war and sex.

Eostre was a Germanic goddess from Northern Europe and had to do with spring (presuming she actually “existed” — there is only one ancient mention.)

The name, Eostre, is related to other Indo European (not Semitic) terms, like aurora, and other words having to do with “dawn” (*aus- *aur-). There is evidence that Indo-European groups apart from the North Sea Germans, worshipped goddesses with those names, so the idea of a goddess named Eostre is plausible.

There is no record at all of Ostara before linguistic writings in the 19th Century — the name was postulated by the Grimm brothers, based on the German term Ostern and The Venerable Bede’s report that Easter occurred during a period known as Eastormonaþ, when there had formerly been celebrations in honour of Eostra.

All of this is easily researchable using online sources.

Easter was celebrated for several hundred years before the Germanic tribes got to England, and, everywhere but England and Germany (and parts of the Netherlands) it long had another name before anything like “Easter” was attached to it.

The other name was derived from Aramaic pesach (“passover”), which is why Russians call the season paskha, and French call it pâques, The early Christians were Jews, they celebrated pesach, and, because they associated the pesach meals with Jesus and the last supper, their pesach meal was part of their “Easter” celebration where they now remembered not only the escape from Egypt but also the death and resurrection of Jesus.

As more Gentiles became Christians, they continued sharing a “pesach meal”, even though they were losing the more Jewish features.

Dyed hardboiled eggs were a Mesopotamian introduction before the 3rd century (again, nothing to do with the Germanic tribes!) partly as a way to preserve eggs during the Lenten fast, when eggs were forbidden, and partly to make them part of the Easter celebration.

Hares were a traditional part of continental German spring celebrations, first recorded in the 15th Century. As there is no record of Ostara, there is no record of any association between Ostara and hares, but, by the 18th Century, Lutheran migrants to the US were talking about the Osterhase (Easter hare).

Easter Rabbits first appear in writing in English in 1880 and the Easter Bunny was mentioned in 1902.

Eggs and rabbits are very much an afterthought and had nothing at all to do with the Easter traditions applying in the ferociously anti-pagan early church.

All this talk of Eostra and rabbits and eggs is just confected nonsense and religious legend invented mainly in the 19th and early 20th century to undermine the history of Christian origins.
by Peter Green, Quora

 

[BreadOfLife]

Believe what you like and break God's word wherever it's convenient for you to do so since it's not stated to keep it all the time. Goodbye

I adhere ti God's Word.
I just don't pretend - as YOU do - that His complete Word is represented ONYY in what is written.

What is written doesn't evewn support that idea . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Good point.
Astarte/ Ishtar/Ashtaroth have nothing whatever to do with Easter. They are Semitic goddesses from the Middle East, goddesses of war and sex.

Eostre was a Germanic goddess from Northern Europe and had to do with spring (presuming she actually “existed” — there is only one ancient mention.)

The name, Eostre, is related to other Indo European (not Semitic) terms, like aurora, and other words having to do with “dawn” (*aus- *aur-). There is evidence that Indo-European groups apart from the North Sea Germans, worshipped goddesses with those names, so the idea of a goddess named Eostre is plausible.

There is no record at all of Ostara before linguistic writings in the 19th Century — the name was postulated by the Grimm brothers, based on the German term Ostern and The Venerable Bede’s report that Easter occurred during a period known as Eastormonaþ, when there had formerly been celebrations in honour of Eostra.

All of this is easily researchable using online sources.

Easter was celebrated for several hundred years before the Germanic tribes got to England, and, everywhere but England and Germany (and parts of the Netherlands) it long had another name before anything like “Easter” was attached to it.

The other name was derived from Aramaic pesach (“passover”), which is why Russians call the season paskha, and French call it pâques, The early Christians were Jews, they celebrated pesach, and, because they associated the pesach meals with Jesus and the last supper, their pesach meal was part of their “Easter” celebration where they now remembered not only the escape from Egypt but also the death and resurrection of Jesus.

As more Gentiles became Christians, they continued sharing a “pesach meal”, even though they were losing the more Jewish features.

Dyed hardboiled eggs were a Mesopotamian introduction before the 3rd century (again, nothing to do with the Germanic tribes!) partly as a way to preserve eggs during the Lenten fast, when eggs were forbidden, and partly to make them part of the Easter celebration.

Hares were a traditional part of continental German spring celebrations, first recorded in the 15th Century. As there is no record of Ostara, there is no record of any association between Ostara and hares, but, by the 18th Century, Lutheran migrants to the US were talking about the Osterhase (Easter hare).

Easter Rabbits first appear in writing in English in 1880 and the Easter Bunny was mentioned in 1902.

Eggs and rabbits are very much an afterthought and had nothing at all to do with the Easter traditions applying in the ferociously anti-pagan early church.

All this talk of Eostra and rabbits and eggs is just confected nonsense and religious legend invented mainly in the 19th and early 20th century to undermine the history of Christian origins.
by Peter Green, Quora

Yup.
It's funny how theser people believe that English is the only language that ever existed . . .