Easter is not a biblical holy day so I don't celebrate it at all. I celebrate the days that God said to and that Jesus Christ did.
But the celebration of Easter was celebrated since the first century
Easter has been celebrated long since then. It became associated with the resurrection of Christ shortly after biblical times through the influence of Satan.
Yes, but these particular practices were unknown to Christians who established the recognition of Easter, so it is ridiculous to say that Easter stems from those practices
Nonsense. Rome wished to convert pagans so they used symbols and concepts which pagans were familiar with in order to convert them. From the article:
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).
He commanded his followers that God died? Of course not! the good news is that through his death, Christ conquered death, and established that there is life afterward! Look to the examples of the apostles! Did they preach that Christ died, or did they preach that he died and was resurrected? Where did their hope lie? In his death, or in his resurrection? For without the resurrection, his death is mere tragedy; Paul says we'd have to be fools to practice Christianity without remembering his resurrection!
I honestly don't care what arguments you use to disobey the clear instructions of God and the practices and words of Christ. Yes, the resurrection was wonderful. But no, it's not a holy day and it's not how God wanted to be worshipped.
Do you celebrate Pesach?
Vine's work is noteworthy for its scope, not its accuracy. He starts his research already convinced religiously of the premise that the entire Western culture is in apostasy, and has been for 1600 years. He is of no particularly impressive linguistic education. His work is of note because of its exhaustiveness, not its excellence. And he didn't come to his flaky beliefs as a result of his work, rather, he initiated his work to support his flaky beliefs.
Vine is writing in 1985, (according to you; I believe he was long dead by then, actually), and obviously belongs to a crackpot sect, given his labelling of the entirety of Western Christianity as apostate. Using a source who starts from the premise that most of Christianity is apostate to define a term which you think demonstrates that most of Christianity is apostate does not grant Vine much credibility.
So, we must look at Vine's assertions. Where does he get his ideas? Unfortunately, Vine was not scholarly enough to tell us. "Chaldean" refers to a region of the northern Persian gulf. The only ancient reference to Eostre is in the writings of a 7th-century historian in England. How can Vine possibly know the two are related? Certainly Ashtereth and Eostre are not obviously linked by their names.
What then? What so filled Vine that he could declare apostate most of Christianity, and also make the completely unfounded leap to declare that Eostre was Astarte? Their names are hardly that similar.
It's also interesting that Vine chose to relate Eostre to Astarte, and not any of the other gods who have been suggested to be related to Astarte, such as Ishtar (which seems more similar to Eostre), Ashtoreth, and even Aphrodite. Could it be because Astarte was a name used by Satanic cults? Could Vine be pushing (*gasp*) an agenda?