Article: Easter or Passover by Scott Jones - Revision history

Beza 1598 at 03:49, 9 March 2016

2016-03-09T03:49:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:49, 9 March 2016
Line 478:		Line 478:
	* [[Passover]]		* [[Passover]]
	* [[Scott Jones]]		* [[Scott Jones]]

			{{Donate}}

Nick: /* Footnotes */

2011-04-19T12:20:34Z

Footnotes

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:20, 19 April 2011
Line 468:		Line 468:
	* 12. Ibid., p 196-197		* 12. Ibid., p 196-197

	*
	13. Ibid., p 198		* 13. Ibid., p 198


	* 14. Edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, The Literary Guide to the Bible, Harvard University Press, Copyright 1987, p 663-665		* 14. Edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, The Literary Guide to the Bible, Harvard University Press, Copyright 1987, p 663-665


	==See Also==		==See Also==

Nick at 22:01, 14 January 2011

2011-01-14T22:01:16Z

Show changes

Nick at 21:56, 14 January 2011

2011-01-14T21:56:34Z

Nick: /* Footnotes */

2011-01-14T21:53:14Z

Footnotes

Nick: /* Footnotes */

2011-01-14T21:50:32Z

Footnotes

Show changes

Nick: /* Footnotes */

2011-01-14T21:47:17Z

Footnotes

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:47, 14 January 2011
Line 216:		Line 216:

	==Footnotes==		==Footnotes==
	:1) [[Alexander Hislop]] in the early 20th century prosecuted his theory concerning the origin of [[Easter]], and he did so by making an assertion that neither he nor anybody else has ever provided a SHRED of evidence for --		* 1. [[Alexander Hislop]] in the early 20th century prosecuted his theory concerning the origin of [[Easter]], and he did so by making an assertion that neither he nor anybody else has ever provided a SHRED of evidence for --

	:"What means Easter? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing less than Astarte..." Hislop, The Two Babylons, p 103.		:"What means Easter? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing less than Astarte..." Hislop, The Two Babylons, p 103.
Line 276:		Line 276:
	:In summary, the [[EASTER]] celebration was PURELY Christian, a SINGULAR celebration of the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST in fulfillment of the [[Old Testament]] prophecies and types, instituted BY THE APOSTLES, and any assertion claiming that born again Christians adapted the EASTER celebration - that is, the RESURRECTION celebration - to a pagan festival is condemned on its own face by both the Word of God and the Holy Ghost also bearing witness.		:In summary, the [[EASTER]] celebration was PURELY Christian, a SINGULAR celebration of the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST in fulfillment of the [[Old Testament]] prophecies and types, instituted BY THE APOSTLES, and any assertion claiming that born again Christians adapted the EASTER celebration - that is, the RESURRECTION celebration - to a pagan festival is condemned on its own face by both the Word of God and the Holy Ghost also bearing witness.

	:* 2) Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Translated by C. F. Cruse, Hendrickson Publishers, p 437		* 2. Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Translated by C. F. Cruse, Hendrickson Publishers, p 437

	:For a discussion and demonstration on vowel morphologies and how they dropped or added to words in transitions between Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Old German, Old English, et. al., see Old English And Its Closest Relatives, Orrin W. Robinson, Stanford University Press.		:For a discussion and demonstration on vowel morphologies and how they dropped or added to words in transitions between Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Old German, Old English, et. al., see Old English And Its Closest Relatives, Orrin W. Robinson, Stanford University Press.
Line 284:		Line 284:
	:In short, while it is difficult to trace all of our cognates to an archetype in particular, we can nevertheless with absolute certainty demonstrate the relationship between our languages and their cognates. This is what makes the naked assertions of the critics so foolish, for they speak without a speck of evidence, whereas the etymological evidence opposing them is simply undeniable.		:In short, while it is difficult to trace all of our cognates to an archetype in particular, we can nevertheless with absolute certainty demonstrate the relationship between our languages and their cognates. This is what makes the naked assertions of the critics so foolish, for they speak without a speck of evidence, whereas the etymological evidence opposing them is simply undeniable.

	:* 3) [[Alfred Edersheim]], The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Hendrickson Publishers, Book 5, Chapter 10, p 817		* 3. [[Alfred Edersheim]], The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Hendrickson Publishers, Book 5, Chapter 10, p 817

	:* 4) Ibid., Book 3, Chapter 2, p 222		* 4. Ibid., Book 3, Chapter 2, p 222

	:* 5) Ibid., Book 5, Chapter 17, p 917-918		* 5. Ibid., Book 5, Chapter 17, p 917-918

	:* 6) [[Philip Schaff]], History of the Christian Church, Vol II, Chapter 5, Footnote 320		* 6. [[Philip Schaff]], History of the Christian Church, Vol II, Chapter 5, Footnote 320

	:* 7) [[John Owen]], The Works of John Owen, A Discourse Concerning Evangelical Love, Church Peace, and Unity, p 185-186		* 7. [[John Owen]], The Works of John Owen, A Discourse Concerning Evangelical Love, Church Peace, and Unity, p 185-186

	:* 8) [[Philip Schaff]], History of the Christian Church, Vol I, Chapter 9, p 385		* 8. [[Philip Schaff]], History of the Christian Church, Vol I, Chapter 9, p 385

	:* 9) The critics have tried to manufacture ammunition against the Authorised Version from Luke's statement in Luke 22:1 - "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover." This attempt against the Authorised Version is a classic example of eisegesis - that is, of reading into the text what isn't there. The critics have based their argument on what they wished Luke had said instead of what Luke actually said.		* 9.) The critics have tried to manufacture ammunition against the Authorised Version from Luke's statement in Luke 22:1 - "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover." This attempt against the Authorised Version is a classic example of eisegesis - that is, of reading into the text what isn't there. The critics have based their argument on what they wished Luke had said instead of what Luke actually said.

	:The context is pre-resurrection. Luke related that the feast of unleavened bread was called the Passover. It is certainly true that Jews referred to the entire feast in its broad - or general - sense in this manner, as Josephus also remarks. However, when the word is used in a specific context, the matter is entirely different, as God himself demonstrated in Leviticus and Numbers. Luke did not use the word in a specific context in Luke 22:1. Luke did use the word in a specific context in Acts 12:4.		:The context is pre-resurrection. Luke related that the feast of unleavened bread was called the Passover. It is certainly true that Jews referred to the entire feast in its broad - or general - sense in this manner, as Josephus also remarks. However, when the word is used in a specific context, the matter is entirely different, as God himself demonstrated in Leviticus and Numbers. Luke did not use the word in a specific context in Luke 22:1. Luke did use the word in a specific context in Acts 12:4.
Line 308:		Line 308:
	:Context always takes precedence. Luke's references to pascha in his Gospel are all pre-resurrection. In Acts 12:3-4 the context is post-resurrection, and he who does not consider that fact as utterly paramount has grave theological deficiencies.		:Context always takes precedence. Luke's references to pascha in his Gospel are all pre-resurrection. In Acts 12:3-4 the context is post-resurrection, and he who does not consider that fact as utterly paramount has grave theological deficiencies.

	:* 10) [[John Burgon]], [[The Revision Revised]], p 187-188		* 10. [[John Burgon]], [[The Revision Revised]], p 187-188

	:* 11) Ibid., p 188-189, 191, 196		* 11. Ibid., p 188-189, 191, 196

	:* 12) Ibid., p 196-197		* 12. Ibid., p 196-197

	:* 13) Ibid., p 198		* 13. Ibid., p 198

	:* 14) Edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, The Literary Guide to the Bible, Harvard University Press, Copyright 1987, p 663-665		* 14. Edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, The Literary Guide to the Bible, Harvard University Press, Copyright 1987, p 663-665

	==See Also==		==See Also==

Nick at 09:26, 6 August 2010

2010-08-06T09:26:20Z

Show changes

Nick: /* Tyndale invented Passover */

2010-02-21T11:45:13Z

Tyndale invented Passover

Nick: /* Footnotes */

2010-02-21T11:43:03Z

Footnotes

Show changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:56, 14 January 2011
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:"And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the [[Passover\|PASSOVER]] of the LORD. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten." [[Numbers 28:16]]-[[Numbers 28:17\|17]]		:"And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the [[Passover\|PASSOVER]] of the LORD. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten." [[Numbers 28:16]]-[[Numbers 28:17\|17]]

	:"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\|~~EASTER~~]] to bring him forth to the people." [[Acts 12:4]]		:"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\|Easter]]''''' to bring him forth to the people." [[Acts 12:4]]

	Everything that God has ever said, everything that God is saying now, and everything that God ever will say, can be summed up in the resurrection of [[Jesus]] Christ.		Everything that God has ever said, everything that God is saying now, and everything that God ever will say, can be summed up in the resurrection of [[Jesus]] Christ.
Line 49:		Line 49:
	To wit: the critics of the Authorised Version condemn its translation in [[Acts 12:4]]. The critics of the Authorised Version, with their habitual rabidity and gross blindness in the things of God, complain that the [[Greek]] word PASCHA cannot be translated as [[Easter]] in the above passage. This criticism usually takes the form of an assertion that goes something like this --		To wit: the critics of the Authorised Version condemn its translation in [[Acts 12:4]]. The critics of the Authorised Version, with their habitual rabidity and gross blindness in the things of God, complain that the [[Greek]] word PASCHA cannot be translated as [[Easter]] in the above passage. This criticism usually takes the form of an assertion that goes something like this --

	:"Everybody knows that PASCHA means [[Passover\|PASSOVER]], not [[Easter\|~~EASTER~~]]."		:"Everybody knows that PASCHA means [[Passover\|PASSOVER]], not '''''[[Easter\|Easter]]'''''."

	Such an assertion is especially disconcerting when it comes from those who proclaim themselves Bible scholars and thus familiar with the Greek language. In fact, they only demonstrate once again that they are by no means familiar with the Greek language.		Such an assertion is especially disconcerting when it comes from those who proclaim themselves Bible scholars and thus familiar with the Greek language. In fact, they only demonstrate once again that they are by no means familiar with the Greek language.

	Ask one hundred NATIVE GREEKS what the [[Greek]] word PASCHA means, and ONE HUNDRED out of ONE HUNDRED native Greeks will proclaim resoundingly that the Greek word PASCHA means [[Easter\|~~EASTER~~]], the exact opposite of the critics.		Ask one hundred NATIVE GREEKS what the [[Greek]] word PASCHA means, and ONE HUNDRED out of ONE HUNDRED native Greeks will proclaim resoundingly that the Greek word PASCHA means '''''[[Easter\|Easter]]''''', the exact opposite of the critics.

	But then, native Greeks actually understand their own language, as well as the semantic rollover from the Old Testament to the New - unlike modern critics who's deprecation of the Authorised Version in this passage demonstrates not only their ignorance of Greek, but also their additional ignorance of English etymology, not to mention a rapturous unfamiliarity with both theology and church history, but especially theology, as we shall see.		But then, native Greeks actually understand their own language, as well as the semantic rollover from the Old Testament to the New - unlike modern critics who's deprecation of the Authorised Version in this passage demonstrates not only their ignorance of Greek, but also their additional ignorance of English etymology, not to mention a rapturous unfamiliarity with both theology and church history, but especially theology, as we shall see.
Line 63:		Line 63:
	In contrast to the bankrupt and literally absurd allegations that swarm around modern Christendom like locusts, here are the facts - the English word Easter is derived from Saxon and Germanic roots. This was ably noted by many scholars in the past. For example, examine C. F. Cruse's absolutely accurate declaration in 1850 AD regarding the etymology of our English word Easter --		In contrast to the bankrupt and literally absurd allegations that swarm around modern Christendom like locusts, here are the facts - the English word Easter is derived from Saxon and Germanic roots. This was ably noted by many scholars in the past. For example, examine C. F. Cruse's absolutely accurate declaration in 1850 AD regarding the etymology of our English word Easter --

	:''"Our word [[Easter\|~~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."'' 2		:''"Our word '''''[[Easter\|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."'' 2

	Very briefly, the German word Ostern, which means Easter, is a cognate of Ost (east, or rising of the sun), and as Cruse noted, pools from the older Teutonic forms of erster (first), stehen (stand), which then became erstehen (resurrection - older form), and which in turn became auferstehen (resurrection - current form). Thus, ESTER in English, which later morphed into ~~EaSTER~~, became the equivalent of OSTER which morphed into OSTERN in German.		Very briefly, the German word Ostern, which means Easter, is a cognate of Ost (east, or rising of the sun), and as Cruse noted, pools from the older Teutonic forms of erster (first), stehen (stand), which then became erstehen (resurrection - older form), and which in turn became auferstehen (resurrection - current form). Thus, ESTER in English, which later morphed into '''''[[Easter\|Easter]]''''', became the equivalent of OSTER which morphed into OSTERN in German.

	Neither word was attached in any way to a pagan goddess, and as Hislop admitted --		Neither word was attached in any way to a pagan goddess, and as Hislop admitted --
Line 97:		Line 97:
	This was all perfectly understood by Luke and the other Apostles, as [[Alfred Edersheim]] observed --		This was all perfectly understood by Luke and the other Apostles, as [[Alfred Edersheim]] observed --

	"Thus the Sadducees would have interpreted Lev. 23:11, 15, 16, as meaning that the wave-sheaf (or, rather the Omer) was to be offered on 'the morrow after the weekly Sabbath' - that is, ON THE SUNDAY IN ~~EASTER~~ WEEK - which would have brought the Feast of Pentecost always on Sunday (Lev. 23:15, 16); while the Pharisees understood the term 'Sabbath' of the festive Paschal day. Connected with this were disputes about the examination of the witnesses who testified to the appearance of the new moon, and whom the Pharisees accused of having been suborned by their opponents." 4		"Thus the Sadducees would have interpreted Lev. 23:11, 15, 16, as meaning that the wave-sheaf (or, rather the Omer) was to be offered on 'the morrow after the weekly Sabbath' - that is, ON THE SUNDAY IN '''''[[Easter\|Easter]]''''' WEEK - which would have brought the Feast of Pentecost always on Sunday (Lev. 23:15, 16); while the Pharisees understood the term 'Sabbath' of the festive Paschal day. Connected with this were disputes about the examination of the witnesses who testified to the appearance of the new moon, and whom the Pharisees accused of having been suborned by their opponents." 4

	This was no small dissension, for not only was pascha considered the greatest of all the feasts, but the Pharisees and the Sadducees were constantly at each other's throats over matters of doctrine and interpretation of the law. There is not the slightest doubt that Luke was cognizant of this and that he took it fully into consideration when he narrowed the semantic range of pascha by inserting the qualifier - "then were the days of unleavened bread." In Luke's view, it was paramount that his readers understand that he was referring to the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST - regardless of which sabbath a person adhered to, for the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST had replaced the Old Testament type, and Luke was writing to Christians, and his context was post-resurrection.		This was no small dissension, for not only was pascha considered the greatest of all the feasts, but the Pharisees and the Sadducees were constantly at each other's throats over matters of doctrine and interpretation of the law. There is not the slightest doubt that Luke was cognizant of this and that he took it fully into consideration when he narrowed the semantic range of pascha by inserting the qualifier - "then were the days of unleavened bread." In Luke's view, it was paramount that his readers understand that he was referring to the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST - regardless of which sabbath a person adhered to, for the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST had replaced the Old Testament type, and Luke was writing to Christians, and his context was post-resurrection.
Line 137:		Line 137:
	The RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST occurred during the days of unleavened bread, and God's lexicon takes precedence over man's lexicon.		The RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST occurred during the days of unleavened bread, and God's lexicon takes precedence over man's lexicon.

	The day Jesus Christ rose from the dead, the Apostles ceased celebrating the Jewish pascha, which was only a type, and instead began to celebrate the Christian pascha, which was the fulfillment. That's why Christians to this very day celebrate the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST, and that's why it's called ~~EASTER~~, for ~~EASTER~~ means - and has always meant - RESURRECTION.		The day Jesus Christ rose from the dead, the Apostles ceased celebrating the Jewish pascha, which was only a type, and instead began to celebrate the Christian pascha, which was the fulfillment. That's why Christians to this very day celebrate the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST, and that's why it's called '''''[[Easter\|Easter]]''''', for '''''[[Easter\|Easter]]''''' means - and has always meant - RESURRECTION.

	This matter was so universally known among primitive Christians that although a dispute arose in the second century over exactly which day the resurrection of Jesus Christ ought to be celebrated on, there was never the slightest disagreement about the fact that it should be celebrated, as John Owen so carefully disclosed in his knowledgeable discourse on this matter --		This matter was so universally known among primitive Christians that although a dispute arose in the second century over exactly which day the resurrection of Jesus Christ ought to be celebrated on, there was never the slightest disagreement about the fact that it should be celebrated, as John Owen so carefully disclosed in his knowledgeable discourse on this matter --
Line 157:		Line 157:
	[[William Tyndale]] INVENTED the English word [[Passover\|PASSOVER]]. As the [[Trinitarian Bible Society]] noted --		[[William Tyndale]] INVENTED the English word [[Passover\|PASSOVER]]. As the [[Trinitarian Bible Society]] noted --

	:"When he [Tyndale] began his translation of the [[Pentateuch]], he was again faced with the problem in [[Exodus 12:11]] and twenty-one other places, and no doubt recognizing that [[Easter\|~~EASTER~~]] in this context would be an anachronism he coined a new word, [[Passover\|PASSOVER]], and used it consistently in all twenty-two places. It is, therefore, to Tyndale that our language is indebted for this meaningful and appropriate word."		:"When he [Tyndale] began his translation of the [[Pentateuch]], he was again faced with the problem in [[Exodus 12:11]] and twenty-one other places, and no doubt recognizing that '''''[[Easter\|Easter]]''''' in this context would be an anachronism he coined a new word, [[Passover\|PASSOVER]], and used it consistently in all twenty-two places. It is, therefore, to Tyndale that our language is indebted for this meaningful and appropriate word."

	[[William Tyndale]] did not use his own word in Acts 12:4. William Tyndale employed the word ESTER in his translation of Acts 12:4. He invented the other word - PASSOVER - yet, he determined that his own word did not accurately represent the Greek word PASCHA in Acts 12:4. That's because William Tyndale, like the Apostles before him and the Authorised Version translators after him, was also jealous for the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.		[[William Tyndale]] did not use his own word in Acts 12:4. William Tyndale employed the word ESTER in his translation of Acts 12:4. He invented the other word - PASSOVER - yet, he determined that his own word did not accurately represent the Greek word PASCHA in Acts 12:4. That's because William Tyndale, like the Apostles before him and the Authorised Version translators after him, was also jealous for the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.
Line 216:		Line 216:

	==Footnotes==		==Footnotes==
	* 1. [[Alexander Hislop]] in the early 20th century prosecuted his theory concerning the origin of [[Easter]], and he did so by making an assertion that neither he nor anybody else has ever provided a SHRED of evidence for --		* 1. [[Alexander Hislop]] in the early 20th century prosecuted his theory concerning the origin of '''''[[Easter\|Easter]]''''', and he did so by making an assertion that neither he nor anybody else has ever provided a SHRED of evidence for --

	:"What means [[Easter]]? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing less than Astarte..." Hislop, The Two Babylons, p 103.		:"What means [[Easter]]? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing less than Astarte..." Hislop, The Two Babylons, p 103.
Line 274:		Line 274:
	:"For I call God to record against the day we shall appear before the Lord Jesus, to give a reckoning of our doings, that I never altered one syllable of God's Word against my conscience, nor would this day, if all that is in the earth, whether it be pleasure, honour, or riches, might be given me." Alexander McClure, Translators Revived, p 26		:"For I call God to record against the day we shall appear before the Lord Jesus, to give a reckoning of our doings, that I never altered one syllable of God's Word against my conscience, nor would this day, if all that is in the earth, whether it be pleasure, honour, or riches, might be given me." Alexander McClure, Translators Revived, p 26

	In summary, the '''''[[Easter\|Easter]]''''' celebration was PURELY Christian, a SINGULAR celebration of the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST in fulfillment of the [[Old Testament]] prophecies and types, instituted BY THE APOSTLES, and any assertion claiming that born again Christians adapted the ~~EASTER~~ celebration - that is, the RESURRECTION celebration - to a pagan festival is condemned on its own face by both the Word of God and the Holy Ghost also bearing witness.		In summary, the '''''[[Easter\|Easter]]''''' celebration was PURELY Christian, a SINGULAR celebration of the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST in fulfillment of the [[Old Testament]] prophecies and types, instituted BY THE APOSTLES, and any assertion claiming that born again Christians adapted the '''''[[Easter\|Easter]]''''' celebration - that is, the RESURRECTION celebration - to a pagan festival is condemned on its own face by both the Word of God and the Holy Ghost also bearing witness.

	* 2. Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Translated by C. F. Cruse, Hendrickson Publishers, p 437		* 2. Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Translated by C. F. Cruse, Hendrickson Publishers, p 437

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:53, 14 January 2011
Line 218:		Line 218:
	* 1. [[Alexander Hislop]] in the early 20th century prosecuted his theory concerning the origin of [[Easter]], and he did so by making an assertion that neither he nor anybody else has ever provided a SHRED of evidence for --		* 1. [[Alexander Hislop]] in the early 20th century prosecuted his theory concerning the origin of [[Easter]], and he did so by making an assertion that neither he nor anybody else has ever provided a SHRED of evidence for --

	:"What means Easter? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing less than Astarte..." Hislop, The Two Babylons, p 103.		:"What means [[Easter]]? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing less than Astarte..." Hislop, The Two Babylons, p 103.

	Not only does both the New Testament and church history demolish this false assertion concerning Easter - an assertion without a SHRED of actual EVIDENCE behind it, an assertion based on 100% SUPPOSITION - but the etymology of our word ~~EASTER~~ is also devastating to this lie, for - as you'll soon see - the word [[~~EASTER~~]] is derived from the German word for RESURRECTION!		Not only does both the New Testament and church history demolish this false assertion concerning Easter - an assertion without a SHRED of actual EVIDENCE behind it, an assertion based on 100% SUPPOSITION - but the etymology of our word '''''[[Easter\|Easter]]''''' is also devastating to this lie, for - as you'll soon see - the word '''''[[Easter\|Easter]]''''' is derived from the German word for RESURRECTION!

	Notice also that Astarte is merely the [[Greek]] translation of Ashtoreth, a Canaanite goddess found in the [[Old Testament]], and there is no linkage at all between either Ashtoreth or Astarte with the Saxon word Easter. None whatsoever.		Notice also that Astarte is merely the [[Greek]] translation of Ashtoreth, a Canaanite goddess found in the [[Old Testament]], and there is no linkage at all between either Ashtoreth or Astarte with the Saxon word Easter. None whatsoever.
Line 234:		Line 234:
	Moreover, when speaking of the primitive church's celebration of the resurrection, Hislop admitted --		Moreover, when speaking of the primitive church's celebration of the resurrection, Hislop admitted --

	:"That Festival agreed originally with the time of the Jewish Passover, when Christ was crucified, a period which, in the days of Tertullian, at the end of the second century, was believed to have been the 23rd of March. That festival was not idolatrous, and it was preceded by no Lent." Ibid., 104.		:"That Festival agreed originally with the time of the Jewish [[Passover]], when Christ was crucified, a period which, in the days of Tertullian, at the end of the second century, was believed to have been the 23rd of March. That festival was not idolatrous, and it was preceded by no Lent." Ibid., 104.

	Hislop further noted --		Hislop further noted --
Line 242:		Line 242:
	Hislop then ties this whole event to the adjustment of the calendar by Dionysius in the SIXTH CENTURY AD. In other words, five hundred years AFTER Christianity. Further still, neither Hislop nor anybody else has ever actually produced any EVIDENCE to sustain the assertion that any TRUE Christian body fell prey to this heresy.		Hislop then ties this whole event to the adjustment of the calendar by Dionysius in the SIXTH CENTURY AD. In other words, five hundred years AFTER Christianity. Further still, neither Hislop nor anybody else has ever actually produced any EVIDENCE to sustain the assertion that any TRUE Christian body fell prey to this heresy.

	In fact, the evidence goes the opposite way, as the 17th century Puritan scholar John Owen noted --		In fact, the evidence goes the opposite way, as the 17th century Puritan scholar [[John Owen]] noted --

	:"Besides, if the only prevalent religion in Brittany were, as you fancy, that which came from Rome, how came the observation of Easter, both amongst the Britons, as Beda manifests, and the Scots, as Petrus Cluniacensis declares, to be answerable to the customs of the Eastern church, and contrary to those of the Roman? Did those that came from Rome teach them to do that which they judged their duty not to do? But what need we stay in the confutation of this figment?" John Owen, The Works of John Owen, A Vindication Of The Animadversions on Fiat Lux, p 394		:"Besides, if the only prevalent religion in Brittany were, as you fancy, that which came from Rome, how came the observation of Easter, both amongst the Britons, as Beda manifests, and the Scots, as Petrus Cluniacensis declares, to be answerable to the customs of the Eastern church, and contrary to those of the Roman? Did those that came from Rome teach them to do that which they judged their duty not to do? But what need we stay in the confutation of this figment?" John Owen, The Works of [[John Owen]], A Vindication Of The Animadversions on Fiat Lux, p 394

	Thus destroying all notions of the pagan origin of the word Easter in one fell swoop, for Rome had no connection with early Christianity in Britain, as all of the early testimony affirms, and this is the backbone of Hislop's entire fable.		Thus destroying all notions of the pagan origin of the word Easter in one fell swoop, for Rome had no connection with early Christianity in Britain, as all of the early testimony affirms, and this is the backbone of Hislop's entire fable.
Line 252:		Line 252:
	:"...and as the British churches were in the first century independent of the Roman see, had the same forms of worship, and observed Easter at the same TIME WITH THE CHURCHES OF GAUL, which doubtless had an Asiatic origin, the evidence is very strong that the gospel reached us originally by a course exclusive of Rome." John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Volume 14, Footnotes, p 667		:"...and as the British churches were in the first century independent of the Roman see, had the same forms of worship, and observed Easter at the same TIME WITH THE CHURCHES OF GAUL, which doubtless had an Asiatic origin, the evidence is very strong that the gospel reached us originally by a course exclusive of Rome." John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Volume 14, Footnotes, p 667

	The only thing Hislop is successful in doing is showing that various pagan practices have attached themselves to the Easter celebration many centuries later, LONG AFTER the Easter celebration had its beginning, for Easter has ALWAYS been celebrated during the season of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We not only have the testimony of the New Testament itself on this matter, but Polycarp (a disciple of the Apostle John), Irenaeus, and others proclaimed that this was so, and that the ~~EASTER~~ celebration - that is, the RESURRECTION celebration - was INSTITUTED BY THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES. Thus, if any type of amalgamation took place, it was the PAGAN festivals that ADAPTED THEMSELVES to Easter - NOT the other way around.		The only thing Hislop is successful in doing is showing that various pagan practices have attached themselves to the Easter celebration many centuries later, LONG AFTER the Easter celebration had its beginning, for Easter has ALWAYS been celebrated during the season of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We not only have the testimony of the New Testament itself on this matter, but Polycarp (a disciple of the Apostle John), Irenaeus, and others proclaimed that this was so, and that the '''''[[Easter\|Easter]]''''' celebration - that is, the RESURRECTION celebration - was INSTITUTED BY THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES. Thus, if any type of amalgamation took place, it was the PAGAN festivals that ADAPTED THEMSELVES to Easter - NOT the other way around.

	Unfortunately, some of our modern dictionaries and encyclopedias, along with rationalistic bible dictionaries such as ISBE, etc., have swallowed this blasphemous perpetration concerning the word Easter hook, line, and sinker, and all without an iota of proof. Not an IOTA. Indeed, the world truly hates the Lord Jesus Christ, as it is written --		Unfortunately, some of our modern dictionaries and encyclopedias, along with rationalistic bible dictionaries such as ISBE, etc., have swallowed this blasphemous perpetration concerning the word Easter hook, line, and sinker, and all without an iota of proof. Not an IOTA. Indeed, the world truly hates the Lord Jesus Christ, as it is written --

	:"The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil." John 7:7		:"The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil." [[John 7:7]]

	Hislop himself is apologetic about his forays into heresy on this matter, as well as conceding yet again that his dissertation is fabricated out of nothing but supposition, for he remarks --		Hislop himself is apologetic about his forays into heresy on this matter, as well as conceding yet again that his dissertation is fabricated out of nothing but supposition, for he remarks --
Line 274:		Line 274:
	:"For I call God to record against the day we shall appear before the Lord Jesus, to give a reckoning of our doings, that I never altered one syllable of God's Word against my conscience, nor would this day, if all that is in the earth, whether it be pleasure, honour, or riches, might be given me." Alexander McClure, Translators Revived, p 26		:"For I call God to record against the day we shall appear before the Lord Jesus, to give a reckoning of our doings, that I never altered one syllable of God's Word against my conscience, nor would this day, if all that is in the earth, whether it be pleasure, honour, or riches, might be given me." Alexander McClure, Translators Revived, p 26

	In summary, the [[~~EASTER~~]] celebration was PURELY Christian, a SINGULAR celebration of the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST in fulfillment of the [[Old Testament]] prophecies and types, instituted BY THE APOSTLES, and any assertion claiming that born again Christians adapted the EASTER celebration - that is, the RESURRECTION celebration - to a pagan festival is condemned on its own face by both the Word of God and the Holy Ghost also bearing witness.		In summary, the '''''[[Easter\|Easter]]''''' celebration was PURELY Christian, a SINGULAR celebration of the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST in fulfillment of the [[Old Testament]] prophecies and types, instituted BY THE APOSTLES, and any assertion claiming that born again Christians adapted the EASTER celebration - that is, the RESURRECTION celebration - to a pagan festival is condemned on its own face by both the Word of God and the Holy Ghost also bearing witness.

	* 2. Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Translated by C. F. Cruse, Hendrickson Publishers, p 437		* 2. Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Translated by C. F. Cruse, Hendrickson Publishers, p 437
Line 306:		Line 306:
	:"When the traitor returned from [[Jerusalem]] on the Wednesday afternoon, the [[Passover]], in the popular and canonical, though NOT IN THE BIBLICAL SENSE, was close at hand." [[Alfred Edersheim]], The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Hendrickson Publishers, Book 9, Chapter 5, p 805.		:"When the traitor returned from [[Jerusalem]] on the Wednesday afternoon, the [[Passover]], in the popular and canonical, though NOT IN THE BIBLICAL SENSE, was close at hand." [[Alfred Edersheim]], The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Hendrickson Publishers, Book 9, Chapter 5, p 805.

	Context always takes precedence. Luke's references to pascha in his Gospel are all pre-resurrection. In Acts 12:3-4 the context is post-resurrection, and he who does not consider that fact as utterly paramount has grave theological deficiencies.		Context always takes precedence. Luke's references to pascha in his Gospel are all pre-resurrection. In [[Acts 12:3]]-[[Acts 12:4\|4]] the context is post-resurrection, and he who does not consider that fact as utterly paramount has grave theological deficiencies.

	* 10. [[John Burgon]], [[The Revision Revised]], p 187-188		* 10. [[John Burgon]], [[The Revision Revised]], p 187-188

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:45, 21 February 2010
Line 179:		Line 179:
	In Burgon's day, however, he literally rejoiced when describing the grace and brilliance of the translators of the Authorised Version. Commenting on the various semantic shades and varying contexts of seemingly static words, a concept which must be thoroughly understood before one even begins to translate God's Word, Burgon noted --		In Burgon's day, however, he literally rejoiced when describing the grace and brilliance of the translators of the Authorised Version. Commenting on the various semantic shades and varying contexts of seemingly static words, a concept which must be thoroughly understood before one even begins to translate God's Word, Burgon noted --

	"The Translators' of 1611, towards the close of their long and quaint Address 'to the Reader,' offer the following statement concerning what had been their own practice - 'We have not tied ourselves' (say they) 'to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done.' On this, they presently enlarge. We have been 'especially careful,' have even 'made a conscience,' 'not to vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places.' But then, (as they shrewdly point out in passing,) 'there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere.' And had this been the sum of their avowal, no one with a spark of Taste, or with the least appreciation of what constitutes real Scholarship, would have been found to differ from them." 10		"The Translators' of 1611, towards the close of their long and quaint Address 'to the Reader,' offer the following statement concerning what had been their own practice - 'We have not tied ourselves' (say they) 'to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done.' On this, they presently enlarge. We have been 'especially careful,' have even 'made a conscience,' 'not to vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places.' But then, (as they shrewdly point out in passing,) 'there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere.' And had this been the sum of their avowal, no one with a spark of Taste, or with the least appreciation of what constitutes real Scholarship, would have been found to differ from them." <sup>[10]</sup>

	It is clear from that statement what Burgon would think of modern "scholarship." He continues --		It is clear from that statement what Burgon would think of modern "scholarship." He continues --

	"But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound - shall we not rather say a prophetic? - consciousness, that the fate of the English Language was bound up with the fate of their Translation... Of all this, the great Scholars of 1611 showed themselves profoundly conscious... Verily, those men understood their craft! 'There were giants in those days.' As little would they submit to be bound by the new cords of the Philistines as by their green withes. Upon occasion, they could shake themselves free from either. And why? For the selfsame reason: viz. because the Spirit of their God was mightily upon them." 11		"But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound - shall we not rather say a prophetic? - consciousness, that the fate of the English Language was bound up with the fate of their Translation... Of all this, the great Scholars of 1611 showed themselves profoundly conscious... Verily, those men understood their craft! 'There were giants in those days.' As little would they submit to be bound by the new cords of the Philistines as by their green withes. Upon occasion, they could shake themselves free from either. And why? For the selfsame reason: viz. because the Spirit of their God was mightily upon them." <sup>[11]</sup>

	The truly born-again believer can only say, "Amen and amen!"		The truly born-again believer can only say, "Amen and amen!"
Line 189:		Line 189:
	Burgon's wise words must be allowed yet one more hearing. After exposing the abhorrent translation of Westcott & Hort, whose deplorable quality and tastelessness and inaccuracies have been reproduced ad nauseam in modern bibles without exception, Burgon made this observation --		Burgon's wise words must be allowed yet one more hearing. After exposing the abhorrent translation of Westcott & Hort, whose deplorable quality and tastelessness and inaccuracies have been reproduced ad nauseam in modern bibles without exception, Burgon made this observation --

	"Our contention, so far, has been but this - that it does not by any means follow that identical Greek words and expressions, wherever occurring, are to be rendered by identical words and expressions in English... The truth is - as all who have given real thought to the subject must be aware - the phenomena of Language are among the most subtle and delicate imaginable: the problem of Translation, one of the most many-sided and difficult that can be named. And if this holds universally, in how much greater a degree when the book to be translated is the Bible! Here, anything like a mechanical leveling up of terms, every attempt to impose a pre-arranged system of uniform rendering on words - every one of which has a history and (so to speak) a will of its own - is inevitably destined to result in discomfiture and disappointment. But what makes this so very serious a matter is that, because holy scripture is the Book experimented upon, the loftiest interests that can be named become imperiled; and it will constantly happen that what is not perhaps in itself a very serious mistake, may yet inflict irreparable injury." 12		"Our contention, so far, has been but this - that it does not by any means follow that identical Greek words and expressions, wherever occurring, are to be rendered by identical words and expressions in English... The truth is - as all who have given real thought to the subject must be aware - the phenomena of Language are among the most subtle and delicate imaginable: the problem of Translation, one of the most many-sided and difficult that can be named. And if this holds universally, in how much greater a degree when the book to be translated is the Bible! Here, anything like a mechanical leveling up of terms, every attempt to impose a pre-arranged system of uniform rendering on words - every one of which has a history and (so to speak) a will of its own - is inevitably destined to result in discomfiture and disappointment. But what makes this so very serious a matter is that, because holy scripture is the Book experimented upon, the loftiest interests that can be named become imperiled; and it will constantly happen that what is not perhaps in itself a very serious mistake, may yet inflict irreparable injury." <sup>[12]</sup>

	And then speaking of the mastery of the Authorised Version, Burgon discloses --		And then speaking of the mastery of the Authorised Version, Burgon discloses --

	"There are, after all, mightier laws in the Universe than those of grammar. In the quaint language of our Translators of 1611: 'For is the Kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free?'" 13		"There are, after all, mightier laws in the Universe than those of grammar. In the quaint language of our Translators of 1611: 'For is the Kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free?'" <sup>[13]</sup>

	Here is irony - most everyone admits that the English of the Authorised Version is unsurpassable. The Authorised Version has been called the "Monument Of English Prose," and many other noteworthy and well-deserved appellations. In short, the English language has never shined anywhere as brightly as it shines in the Authorised Version, and even its critics begrudgingly concede this inescapable fact. Simply put, the Authorised Version is far and away the most glorious representation of the English language that has ever existed, or ever will. And yet, the critics still cannot understand the simplest of contingencies relative to that basic truth - namely, that the skill that it took to produce the English must perforce have been equally as great in the underlying languages!		Here is irony - most everyone admits that the English of the Authorised Version is unsurpassable. The Authorised Version has been called the "Monument Of English Prose," and many other noteworthy and well-deserved appellations. In short, the English language has never shined anywhere as brightly as it shines in the Authorised Version, and even its critics begrudgingly concede this inescapable fact. Simply put, the Authorised Version is far and away the most glorious representation of the English language that has ever existed, or ever will. And yet, the critics still cannot understand the simplest of contingencies relative to that basic truth - namely, that the skill that it took to produce the English must perforce have been equally as great in the underlying languages!
Line 203:		Line 203:
	A relatively recent publication by Harvard University Press entitled, The Literary Guide To The Bible, made similar observations. After comparing numerous passages between the Authorised Version and modern bibles, the following conclusions are drawn --		A relatively recent publication by Harvard University Press entitled, The Literary Guide To The Bible, made similar observations. After comparing numerous passages between the Authorised Version and modern bibles, the following conclusions are drawn --

	"All these examples can be seen to have doctrinal or theological implications, but they also have one distinct literary implication: that the Authorized Version's translators were artful and, in the best Renaissance sense, witty, contriving to make what they wrote have a variety of meanings. In their view the translator's task was not to assume that there is one clear meaning to which the text should be reduced, but instead to open out the text to include as much as possible... Many modern versions eschew anything which smacks of imagery or metaphor... The loss is measurable not only in terms of aesthetics but also in terms of meaning. Particularly in the narrative sections of the Bible the Authorized Version emerges from comparison with twentieth-century versions as more attractive and more accurate... At its best, which means often, the Authorized Version has the kind of transparency which makes it possible for the reader to see the original clearly. It lacks the narrow interpretive bias of modern versions, and is the stronger for it... Through its transparency the reader of the Authorized Version not only sees the original but also learns how to read it." 14		"All these examples can be seen to have doctrinal or theological implications, but they also have one distinct literary implication: that the Authorized Version's translators were artful and, in the best Renaissance sense, witty, contriving to make what they wrote have a variety of meanings. In their view the translator's task was not to assume that there is one clear meaning to which the text should be reduced, but instead to open out the text to include as much as possible... Many modern versions eschew anything which smacks of imagery or metaphor... The loss is measurable not only in terms of aesthetics but also in terms of meaning. Particularly in the narrative sections of the Bible the Authorized Version emerges from comparison with twentieth-century versions as more attractive and more accurate... At its best, which means often, the Authorized Version has the kind of transparency which makes it possible for the reader to see the original clearly. It lacks the narrow interpretive bias of modern versions, and is the stronger for it... Through its transparency the reader of the Authorized Version not only sees the original but also learns how to read it." <sup>[14]</sup>

	"Verily, those men understood their craft!"		"Verily, those men understood their craft!"

	Modern bibles proclaim the "OLD pascha" in a post-resurrection context in Acts 12:4.		Modern bibles proclaim the "OLD pascha" in a post-resurrection context in [[Acts 12:4]].

	The Authorised Version proclaims the "NEW pascha" in a post-resurrection context in Acts 12:4. Yea, the Authorised Version proclaims the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.		The Authorised Version proclaims the "NEW pascha" in a post-resurrection context in [[Acts 12:4]]. Yea, the Authorised Version proclaims the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.

	"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." Colossians 2:16-17		"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." [[Colossians 2:16]]-[[Colossians 2:17\|17]]

	Farewell.		Farewell.