Posted on 04/08/2006 7:12:48 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Easter is one of the most popular religious celebrations in the world. But is it biblical? The word Easter appears only once in the King James Version of the Bible (and not at all in most others). In the one place it does appear, the King James translators mistranslated the Greek word for Passover as "Easter."
Notice it in Acts 12:4: "And when he [King Herod Agrippa I] had apprehended him [the apostle Peter], 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."
The Greek word translated Easter here is pascha, properly translated everywhere else in the Bible as "Passover." Referring to this mistranslation, Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible says that "perhaps there never was a more unhappy, not to say absurd, translation than that in our text."
Think about theses facts for a minute. Easter is such a major religious holiday. Yet nowhere in the Bible—not in the book of Acts, which covers several decades of the history of the early Church, nor in any of the epistles of the New Testament, written over a span of 30 to 40 years after Jesus Christ's death and resurrection—do we find the apostles or early Christians celebrating anything like Easter.
The Gospels themselves appear to have been written from about a decade after Christ's death and resurrection to perhaps as much as 60 years later (in the case of John's Gospel). Yet nowhere do we find a hint of anything remotely resembling an Easter celebration.
If Easter doesn't come from the Bible, and wasn't practiced by the apostles and early Church, where did it come from?
Easter's surprising origins
Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, in its entry "Easter," states:
"The term ‘Easter' is not of Christian origin. It is another form of Astarte, one of the titles of the Chaldean goddess, the queen of heaven. The festival of Pasch [Passover] held by Christians in post-apostolic times was a continuation of the Jewish feast . . . From this Pasch the pagan festival of ‘Easter' was quite distinct and was introduced into the apostate Western religion, as part of the attempt to adapt pagan festivals to Christianity" (W.E. Vine, 1985, emphasis added throughout).
That's a lot of information packed into one paragraph. Notice what the author, W.E. Vine—a trained classical scholar, theologian, expert in ancient languages and author of several classic Bible helps—tells us:
Easter isn't a Christian or directly biblical term, but comes from a form of the name Astarte, a Chaldean (Babylonian) goddess known as "the queen of heaven." (She is mentioned by that title in the Bible in Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:17-19, 25 and referred to in 1 Kings 11:5, 33 and 2 Kings 23:13 by the Hebrew form of her name, Ashtoreth. So "Easter" is found in the Bible—as part of the pagan religion God condemns!)
Further, early Christians, even after the times of the apostles, continued to observe a variation of the biblical Passover feast (it differed because Jesus introduced new symbolism, as the Bible notes in Matthew 26:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-28).
Moreover, Easter was very different from the Old Testament Passover or the Passover of the New Testament as understood and practiced by the early Church based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles.
And again, Easter was a pagan festival, originating in the worship of other gods, and was introduced much later into an apostate Christianity in a deliberate attempt to make such festivals acceptable.
Easter symbols predate Christ
How does The Catholic Encyclopedia define Easter? "Easter: The English term, according to the [eighth-century monk] Bede, relates to Eostre, a Teutonic goddess of the rising light of day and spring, which deity, however, is otherwise unknown . . ." (1909, Vol. 5, p. 224). Eostre is the ancient European name for the same goddess worshipped by the Babylonians as Astarte or Ishtar, goddess of fertility, whose major
celebration was in the spring of the year.
The subtopic "Easter Eggs" tells us that "the custom [of Easter eggs] may have its origin in paganism, for a great many pagan customs, celebrating the return of spring, gravitated to Easter" (ibid., p. 227).
The subtopic "Easter Rabbit" states that "the rabbit is a pagan symbol and has always been an emblem of fertility" (ibid.).
Author Greg Dues, in his book Catholic Customs and Traditions, elaborates on the symbolism of eggs in ancient pre-Christian cultures: "The egg has become a popular Easter symbol. Creation myths of many ancient peoples center in a cosmogenic egg from which the universe is born.
"In ancient Egypt and Persia friends exchanged decorated eggs at the spring equinox, the beginning of their New Year. These eggs were a symbol of fertility for them because the coming forth of a live creature from an egg was so surprising to people of ancient times. Christians of the Near East adopted this tradition, and the Easter egg became a religious symbol. It represented the tomb from which Jesus came forth to new life" (1992, p. 101).
The same author also explains that, like eggs, rabbits became associated with Easter because they were powerful symbols of fertility: "Little children are usually told that the Easter eggs are brought by the Easter Bunny. Rabbits are part of pre-Christian fertility symbolism because of their reputation to reproduce rapidly" (p. 102).
What these sources tell us is that human beings replaced the symbolism of the biblical Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread with Easter eggs and Easter rabbits, pagan symbols of fertility. These symbols demean the truth of Christ's death and resurrection.
Easter substituted for Passover season
But that's not the entire story. In fact, many credible sources substantiate the fact that Easter became a substitute festival for the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread. (To learn more about what this Feast represents, see "What Does the Feast of Unleavened Bread Mean for Christians?".)
Notice what The Encyclopaedia Britannica says about this transition: "There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the apostolic Fathers . . . The first Christians continued to observe the Jewish festivals, though in a new spirit, as commemorations of events which those festivals foreshadowed . . .
"The Gentile Christians, on the other hand, unfettered by Jewish traditions, identified the first day of the week [Sunday] with the Resurrection, and kept the preceding Friday as the commemoration of the crucifixion, irrespective of the day of the month" (11th edition, p. 828, "Easter").
Easter, a pagan festival with its pagan fertility symbols, replaced the God-ordained festivals that Jesus Christ, the apostles and the early Church observed. But this didn't happen immediately. Not until A.D. 325—almost three centuries after Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected—was the matter settled. Regrettably, it wasn't settled on the basis of biblical truth, but on the basis of anti-Semitism and raw ecclesiastical and imperial power.
As The Encyclopaedia Britannica further explains: "A final settlement of the dispute [over whether and when to keep Easter or Passover] was one among the other reasons which led [the Roman emperor] Constantine to summon the council of Nicaea in 325 . . . The decision of the council was unanimous that Easter was to be kept on Sunday, and on the same Sunday throughout the world, and ‘that none should hereafter follow the blindness of the Jews'" (ibid., pp. 828-829).
Those who did choose to "follow the blindness of the Jews"—that is, who continued to keep the biblical festivals kept by Jesus Christ and the apostles rather than the newly "Christianized" pagan Easter festival—were systematically persecuted by the powerful church-state alliance of Constantine 's Roman Empire .
With the power of the empire behind it, Easter soon became entrenched as one of traditional Christianity's most popular sacred celebrations. (You can read more of the details in our free booklet Holidays or Holy Days: Does It Matter Which Days We Keep? )
Christianity compromised by paganism
British historian Sir James Frazer notes how Easter symbolism and rites, along with other pagan customs and celebrations, entered into the established Roman church:
"Taken altogether, the coincidences of the Christian with the heathen festivals are too close and too numerous to be accidental. They mark the compromise which the Church in the hour of its triumph was compelled to make with its vanquished yet still dangerous rivals [the empire's competing pagan religions].
"The inflexible Protestantism of the primitive missionaries, with their fiery denunciation of heathendom, had been exchanged for the supple policy, the easy tolerance, the comprehensive charity of shrewd ecclesiastics, who clearly perceived that if Christianity was to conquer the world it could do so only by relaxing the too rigid principles of its Founder, by widening a little the narrow gate which leads to salvation" ( The Golden Bough, 1993, p. 361).
In short, to broaden the appeal of the new religion of Christianity in those early centuries, the powerful Roman religious authorities, with the backing of the Roman Empire, simply co-opted the rites and practices of pagan religions, relabeled them as "Christian" and created a new brand of Christianity with customs and teachings far removed from the Church Jesus founded.
The authentic Christianity of the Bible largely disappeared, forced underground by persecution because its followers refused to compromise.
Easter does not accurately represent Jesus Christ's suffering, death and resurrection, though it appears to do so to those who blindly accept religious tradition. In fact, it distorts the truth of the matter. Easter correctly belongs to the Babylonian goddess it is named after—Astarte, also known as Ashtoreth or Ishtar, whose worship is directly and explicitly condemned in the Bible.
The ancient religious practices and fertility symbols associated with her cult existed long before Christ, and regrettably they have largely replaced and obscured the truth of His death and resurrection.
When confronted with these facts about Easter, many professing Christians might raise this question to justify its continuance: With hundreds of millions of well-meaning Christians observing Easter, doesn't this please Jesus Christ? Yet He has already answered this question in Matthew 15:9: "In vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." How will you choose to worship Him—in spirit and in truth, or in fraud and in fable? GN
That is certainly a creative mistranslation of the Greek.
Strong's notes the word "epiphosko" as meaning "to grow light, to dawn", and the word derives from Greek words meaning to shine upon, to appear or become visible, etc. We derive our word "Epiphany" from the same root. Nothing to do with dusk at all!
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?search=2020&version=kjv&type=eng&submit=Find
How do you explain 3 days in the tomb if He is crucified and buried on Friday and rises from the dead on Saturday?
First Century Christians were not practicing Midrashic and Talmudic nostrums, such as those concerning meals to welcome and bade farewell to "the Queen of the Sabbath", seeing how strongly Jesus had condemned these myths (St. Matthew 15 and 23).
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/s/shabbat_hamalka.html
We can see from reading about these things, that the Lubavitch Hasidim still practice faithfully, precisely what Jesus was confronting and condemning when he fought the Pharisees over their traditions of men.
Matthew summarized the resurrection events. For the full details you need to go to John. For the precise statement concerning the day of Jesus resurrection see Mark 16:9.
Even the Douay-Rheims says "On the first day of the week.....". You realize, of course, that the day began at sunset for the Hebrews, the Apostles and the early church. Evening and morning....(evening comes first), one day. The beginning of the day for the New Testament church was at sundown....and the meal being described is simply that....a meal (not a communion) and Paul spoke until midnight as he was planning on leaving the next day......the Sabbath now being past.
In all of these translations only one gives the slightest hint of something other than a regular meal.
Your Aramaic Bible can say what it wants but The Greek says "on the first of the week." Notice it doesn't even say [DAY]...that is added.....and the first of the week would be Saturday evening, shortly after sunset. The Book of Acts was written by Luke....in Greek and by a Greek.
The Christians met once per week at this time. if they were meeting to collect money, it was part of their weekly worship meeting.
This collection, as I specified before, was for the Saints in Jerusalem and was not a tithe. If you notice Paul says he is coming to get this "Gift" and will if need be deliver it himself. This is a gift to the Jerusalem Church and is not a Sunday morning collection that you would like it to be. They are to set it aside and save it up.
So what day then is "the Day of the Lord"? Wednesday?
Day of The Lord This day is never called Sunday anywhere in scripture.....or called...the first day of the week!
Matthew 28:1 You'll notice that most of these translations say something like "In the end of the Sabbath", or "Late on the Sabbath" and if you scroll down on the right the word "Epiphosko" also means to dawn, or draw on such as you see in Luke 23:54 as the Sabbath was about to begin.
The dawning of something can also mean the beginning of something and that is what Matthew 28:1 is talking about....the beginning of the first day of the week.....and my friend, the beginning of God's Days start at sunset!
You can also say just as easily "When Jesus arose, early on the first day of the week he appeared........" There is no punctuation in the Greek!
Actually, that would not be correct. Only the Jewish nataion began their day at sunset. To be precise they began thir night at sunset and their day at sunrise. The rest of the Roman world began their day at Midnight. The Gospel of John was written using Roman, not Jewish, time. Any event taking place outside of the nation of Israel would be using Roman time. Thus, when the scriptures say that the Christians came together on the first day of the week it means after midnight which began the first day. Your understanding is a common folly based on incorrect teaching.
You need to read Mark 16:9
It reads the same in every translation. Nice try, but no cigar. The Jehovah Witnesses like to rearrange the punctuation to support their doctrine also.
Your proof of which is nothing but your own wild assertions.
Your Aramaic Bible can say what it wants but The Greek says "on the first of the week."
The Aramaic version of Acts was translated early in the second century AD. Apparently, you believe you today, almost 1900 years later, have a better grip on what "break bread" meant than they did.
This day is never called Sunday anywhere in scripture.....or called...the first day of the week!
The word "Sunday" was not in common useage among Greek and Latin speaking Romans yet at the time Scriptures were written. If you had any familiarity at all with history, you'd be aware of this. But you don't, so you are not.
Again, what day of the week is "The Day of the Lord" if it is not Sunday?
Thought you would never ask. The crucifixion took place on this Wednesday or on this Wednesday.
It did not take place on this Wednesday as the Mainstream church would have you believe. It does not square with Matthew 12:40. we also know that the Hebrew idiom that counts part of any day as a full day does not qualify here because both days and nights are mentioned.
Our Saviour was crucified on the Passover, the 14th of Nisan, the first month of the Hebrew calendar. [Leviticus 23:5]
Okay...you prove that it is a communion.
The Aramaic version of Acts was translated early in the second century AD. Apparently, you believe you today, almost 1900 years later, have a better grip on what "break bread" meant than they did.
The Greek version of Acts was written in the first century by Luke and takes preference over your version. Apparently you have never read 2 Peter 2:1. A good example of this is your Aramaic Bible!
Again, what day of the week is "The Day of the Lord" if it is not Sunday?
The day Sunday is not, never has been, or ever will be a Holy Day of God!
Wrong again I cannot speak for the Jehovah's Witnesses....sorry.
That may be true but the first day of the week is the day on which the 1st century Christians came together to take communion and give of their means. It is also the day Jesus was resurrected and is referred to in scripture as "the day of the Lord."
This should read "It did not take place this year...." 33 a.d.
"Ophe de sabbaton te ephiphosko eis mian sabbaton" - "After" (NOT IN) "the Sabbath" means after 6 pm Saturday.
The dawning of something can also mean the beginning of something and that is what Matthew 28:1 is talking about....the beginning of the first day of the week.....and my friend, the beginning of God's Days start at sunset!
Only in your upside down world can sunset be the dawn.
St. Matthew says plainly "Now after the Sabbath, when it began to dawn on the first day of the week ..." The first day is what we call Sunday. Dawn is the time shortly before when the sun rises - sometime around 4 to 5 am at that latitude and time of year, with sunrise occuring around 6 am - when the sky is yet dark, but light makes its first appearance on the horizon.
St. Mark confirms this in 16.2 with the phrase "anateilantos tou eliou" - "the Sun having risen". The Sun does not rise at 6 pm on Saturday in March. In fact, the Sun never rises at any time but in the morning.
As does St. Luke in 24.1 with the phrase "Te de mia ton sabbaton orthron batheos" - "And on the first day of the week, very early in the morning". 6 pm on Saturday is not early in the morning. Nor is 9 pm on Saturday.
St. John 20.1 says "erchetai proi skotias eti ouses" - "came early, it being yet dark".
Harmonizing the four, it appears Mary Magdalene, Mary of Cleophas, and Salome left at dawn's first light, very early in the morning while it was still dark, and arrived at the tomb right around sunrise.
Didn't say that you were speaking for the Jehovah'w witnesses, just that you are using the same method as they for using punctuation to change the meaning of scripture.
You need to read Mark 16:9, not try to change the meaning of it.
Read post 144 for a definition of "The Day of The Lord". There is no communion....only a yearly Passover celebration that the Mainstream church has been trying to destroy for 1700 years!
There is absolutely no Biblical scripture that shows the early church meeting for a "communion" on ANY of the week....they celebrated the Passover ( yearly) and continued this celebration well into the third century.
Should obviously say "any day of the week!"
I'm getting tired and you are giving me another headache. I'm going to bed.
Well....I guess that will do it. I had forgotten that God changed the beginning of the days to midnight. Silly me.
Try Acts 20:7 and I Cor 16:2.
they celebrated the Passover ( yearly) and continued this celebration well into the third century.
And your authority to support this would be? Seeing as how celebration of the Passover required the sacrafice of a lamb in the temple, and the temple was destryoed in AD 70, this would be highly improbable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.