Easter Madness: Is your church an abomination?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Could you post one please?

Here's one source I looked at:

Easter
Its Pagan origins
http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Here's one source I looked at:

Easter
Its Pagan origins
http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm

Most of what I have read have questioned Bede's claims:

"There are several problems with the passage in Bede. In his book, The Stations of the Sun, Professor Ronald Hutton (a well-known historian of British paganism and occultism) critiques Bede's sketchy knowledge of other pagan festivals, and argues that the same is true for the statement about Eostre: "It falls into a category of interpretations which Bede admitted to be his own, rather than generally agreed or proven fact.""

"This leads us to the next problem: there is no evidence outside of Bede for the existence of this Anglo-Saxon goddess. There is no equivalent goddess in the Norse Eddas or in ancient Germanic paganism from continental Europe. Hutton suggests, therefore, that "the Anglo-Saxon Estor-monath simply meant 'the month of opening' or 'the month of beginnings,'" and concludes that there is no evidence for a pre-Christian festival in the British Isles in March or April."""

[Esaias]

Easter, the word is Germanic from Ostara and Oestre, and means Rising. From rising it came to mean the east (origin of our word "east") because the east is the direction of " rising" (of the sun). Came to be the German word for pesach or Pascha (passover) because the Paschal celebration included the rising or resurrection of Christ. So Easter is technically the Christian passover (pascha).

The date, however, is wrong. Welcome to the Quartodeciman Controversy.

The bunnies, eggs, and chocolate are a later admixture of fertility themes from pagan spring festivals, and a good dose of American marketing and consumerism.

Every assembly should celebrate Pascha/Easter/Passover (at the right time, of course) in celebration of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. If one does communion (with foot washing!) once a year, this would be the perfect time. (No idea why "new years day" would be chosen instead.)

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Easter, the word is Germanic from Ostara and Oestre, and means Rising. From rising it came to mean the east (origin of our word "east") because the east is the direction of " rising" (of the sun). Came to be the German word for pesach or Pascha (passover) because the Paschal celebration included the rising or resurrection of Christ. So Easter is technically the Christian passover (pascha).

The date, however, is wrong. Welcome to the Quartodeciman Controversy.

The bunnies, eggs, and chocolate are a later admixture of fertility themes from pagan spring festivals, and a good dose of American marketing and consumerism.

Every assembly should celebrate Pascha/Easter/Passover (at the right time, of course) in celebration of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. If one does communion (with foot washing!) once a year, this would be the perfect time. (No idea why "new years day" would be chosen instead.)

I suspect its to give people something constructive to do on NYE

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Easter, the word is Germanic from Ostara and Oestre, and means Rising. From rising it came to mean the east (origin of our word "east") because the east is the direction of " rising" (of the sun). Came to be the German word for pesach or Pascha (passover) because the Paschal celebration included the rising or resurrection of Christ. So Easter is technically the Christian passover (pascha).

The date, however, is wrong. Welcome to the Quartodeciman Controversy.

The bunnies, eggs, and chocolate are a later admixture of fertility themes from pagan spring festivals, and a good dose of American marketing and consumerism.

Every assembly should celebrate Pascha/Easter/Passover (at the right time, of course) in celebration of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. If one does communion (with foot washing!) once a year, this would be the perfect time. (No idea why "new years day" would be chosen instead.)

I've always wondered the same thing, why, New Year's Eve? It would make more sense to have the Lord's Supper during Passover.

Personally, from house churching, I believe the Lord's Supper should be celebrated more often. I know there's no rule on it, but it's very intimate. We had it every gathering, as we closed the Agape Meal. Much of the gathering was around the meal. It was beautiful.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Every assembly should celebrate Pascha/Easter/Passover (at the right time, of course) in celebration of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Is there a biblical injunction to observe Pascha/Easter/Passover? Or do you just feel it's a fitting time?

I've always found it interesting that every religion has a calendar and holidays clearly commanded in their scriptures. But Christianity really doesn't. Making it a rather spiritual and universal faith.

[Amanah]

Triumphal Entry, can't wait to see Messiah Drama!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Is there a biblical injunction to observe Pascha/Easter/Passover? Or do you just feel it's a fitting time?

I've always found it interesting that every religion has a calendar and holidays clearly commanded in their scriptures. But Christianity really doesn't. Making it a rather spiritual and universal faith.

I've got a thread or two around here somewhere on it.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I've got a thread or two around here somewhere on it.

Originally Posted by Esaias

from the keeping the sabbath thread

1 Corinthians 5:7-8 KJV (7) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: (8) Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.


1. They were to purge out the old leaven, as they were unleavened. From this it follows that "leaven" is being used in two senses. The first sense is the leaven they must purge out. The second sense is the way in which they were already unleavened. They cannot both be the same sense, for they cannot be both unleavened, and in need of purging out leaven, in the same exact sense. The first sense is clear from the context. The ekklesia was leavened with sin because of the fornicator. They were to expel the fornicator and thus "purge out the old leaven" (representing the one still living according to the old man). Just as during the Passover season every Israelite had to purge out or remove all leaven from his house, so the church was to remove all traces of the old man (the leaven of sin). So the first sense of being unleavened is metaphorical, and means they were to get rid of the fornicator. Since the first sense is metaphorical of their spiritual condition, the second sense must not be metaphorical, as it was already shown that the two uses of the term leaven must be distinct.

2. They were already unleavened in a certain sense, but not in the spiritual sense of having purged out sin. Therefore, "as ye are unleavened" does not refer to the presence of sin in the ekklesia. It must therefore refer to something else.

3. The word "as" is:

G2531

καθώς
kathōs
kath-oce'
From G2596 and G5613; just (or inasmuch) as, that: - according to, (according, even) as, how, when.

So they were to purge out the old leaven "as ye are unleavened". Or in other words, they were to purge out the old leaven "just or inasmuch as" they were already unleavened. This shows that they were unleavened in one sense, and needed to expel the fornicator in order to be unleavened spiritually "just as" they were already unleavened... (fill in the blank)

4. This indicates they were in fact keeping the feast of Passover/Unleavened Bread. They were already unleavened in the sense of having got rid of the actual leaven from their homes and dwellings, but now they needed to make that a spiritual reality by getting the "leaven" out of the assembly. This would be accomplished by expelling the fornicator.

5. "Let us keep the feast" indicates Paul was in fact telling them to keep the feast of Passover/Unleavened Bread, but they were to make sure they were not being hypocritical. If they were unleavened in the literal, physical sense, but still leavened spiritually, then they would not be keeping the feast in any meaningful spiritual sense. They needed to keep the feast SINCERELY, which would require the expelling of the fornicator. Failure to expel the fornicator would mean the church was tolerating sin ("leaven"). Thus they would be unleavened in the literal sense but leavened in the ecclesiastical sense, and thus hypocrites.

6. This spiritual unleavening was not limited to simply purging the fornicator from their midst, but they also needed to make sure they weren't doing it in malice, either. Paul was exhorting them to holiness and purity of heart, which is what the feast of Unleavened Bread signified - the removal of sin from the heart as well as the house.

7. In conclusion, this tells us the early apostolic Christians were in fact keeping Passover/Unleavened Bread, albeit in a New covenant sense. Christ being the Passover does not mean Christ was the Passover celebration or memorial, but the LAMB, the Passover Lamb. The Bible refers to the lamb that was to be slain and eaten on Passover as the Passover. And thus to keep the Passover was called "eating the Passover", that is, eating the lamb slain according to the prescribed ordinances of God at the appointed time. Christ is our Passover, that is, He is the Lamb that was slain to provide deliverance for us, the substitutionary sacrifice who died in our place. Because Christ our Passover has been offered for us, we are to keep the Feast. In other words, Christians are to keep the feast of Passover/Unleavened Bread because Christ, our Passover, has been offered for us. As Christians we are to keep the feast with sincerity and truth, purging out spiritual leaven from both our own personal lives and also from the corporate life of the assembly as well.

8. This ties in with Colossians 2:16, where Paul exhorts the Colossian believers to let nobody judge them in meat, drink, keeping of a holy day, or the new moon, or the sabbaths. The fact they were not to allow anyone to judge them "in" these things means they were in fact doing these things, and were also being judged for it. The Colossians were being judged (condemned, judged as being in error) by those who were attempting to entice them away from Christ. These enticers were either ignorant of or opposed to the truth that Christ is God Almighty Himself and were attempting to introduce obedience to the traditions of men, which Paul calls "philosophy and vain deceit". So the Colossians were being judged for (among other things) their keeping of holy days, new moons, and sabbaths, as though their keeping was defective. Why would it be seen as defective? Because they were keeping them in a New Covenant sense, with Christ as the center and focus, rather than according to the traditions of men.

9. Paul specifically says these various sabbaths etc were "shadows of things to come". This was written many years after the Ascension of Christ. Thus, he is not saying they were shadows of Christ and His redemptive Work. They were shadows of things that, when Paul wrote, were still "to come", ie still future. Thus, the argument that the sabbaths, feast days, holy days, etc are shadows of Christ and therefore done away with under the Christian dispensation is false. If the shadow remains until the thing signified by the shadow arrives, and if Christ had already come and died, resurrected, and ascended, and yet the sabbaths etc are shadows of things still to come, then it necessarily follows that the thing they were signifying was still future, and the shadow therefore remained.

10. Colossians 2:16-17 KJV 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: (17) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

The phrase "which are a shadow of things to come" is a parenthetical statement. He did not say "which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance of those shadows in the body of Christ". That would not make sense because the body of Christ is the church, and the church was not casting the shadow which was inaugurated as the new moons, sabbaths, etc. Rather, he said the church is to let no man judge them in these things BUT THE BODY OF CHRIST. The word "is" is italicised, meaning the KJV translators wanted us to know there was no corresponding word in the Greek text for it. Here is the Greek:

Col 2:17 ἅ ἐστι σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Literally, Paul said "Let no man judge you in meat, or drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths - which are a shadow of things to come - but the body of Christ."

That is, we are not to allow anyone judge us in these things except the body of Christ, meaning the church keeps the divine appointments according to the apostolic, new covenant sense, and nobody is to be allowed to judge us otherwise. The recurring issue that Paul continually had to deal with was the Pharisee party attempting to convert gentile believers to Pharisaism. This would include the Pharisees judging and condemning the gentile believers for not keeping the feasts in the Jewish and Pharisaic manner - an issue even Christ Himself ran into repeatedly.

Therefore, it is shown that the early, apostolic church kept not only the Passover but the other "appointments" as well, albeit in a New covenant context with Christ as the focus and purpose and reason, and not according to the halachah of the Pharisaic Jews.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I am reposting this from the debate section, since that area has been cluttered with an endless merry-go-round of nonsense, for some reason.

Just a quick blurb about this subject.

The Feasts or Appointed Times of the Lord have four levels of signification. The first of course is the historical. Passover was a commemoration of the Exodus from Egypt, for example. The second is Christological. The Passover looked forward to the cross as Christ became soteriological Passover Lamb accomplishing our deliverance, for example. The third is experiential. We must each of us have a personal Passover or Calvary experience, whereby not only do we 'eat' the Passover (the cross applied to our lives) but we must also take up our own cross and 'die to self' on our personal, God-ordained Golgotha, ie we identify with Christ in his death, for example. And the fourth is eschatological. Paul says the feasts are 'shadows of things coming', ie still future from when he wrote those words. (I understand this last point will be debatable by my preterist friends, but that's not what this thread is about, so bear with me a moment.)

Now, we know that Christ died on Passover. As such, he fulfilled the Passover. Yet, in Hebrews we read that Christ also fulfills the Atonement. Now, the Day of Atonement was in the fall, and did not take place during Passover. For years I had wondered 'Why, if Christ fulfills the Day of Atonement, did he not die on the day of Atonement?'

First of all, he had to die on a particular day, so it couldn't be both. It would have to be one or the other.

Second, the Day of Atonement was meant to secure the ongoing atonement of the nation. But without Passover there would be no nation to be atoned for. So, the Day of Atonement depends on the Passover.

Third, the Day of Atonement occurs in the seventh month. The Passover occurs in the first month. To determine the seventh month, one has to know when the first month is. Thus, again, Atonement depends on Passover.

Fourth, the Passover is merely part of a larger Feast, the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This feast is a seven day feast that actually spans eight days. The first day is the Passover day itself, when the lamb is killed and roasted. That night, the Lamb is eaten. This would be the 'first day of unleavened bread' properly speaking. This day was a Sabbath, and the day after that would be the presentation and waving of the 'omer' or 'sheaf of the firstfruits'. So the third day, technically speaking, of the whole festal period is the 'omer' day. Then, the last day, or seventh day of the week of Unleavened Bread, is also a Sabbath.

What we see here is a pattern: The first, the third, and the seventh. The first is when the Lamb is slain. The third is the presentation of the representative firstfruit. The seventh is the culmination or completion.

The Feasts themselves follow a similar pattern of first, third, and seventh. The first month is Passover/Unleavened Bread, the third month is Pentecost or feast of firstfruits, and the seventh month is Trumpets (announcing the beginning of the seventh month), Atonement, and Tabernacles (another 8 day feast).

So then, within the first Feast period of Passover/Unleavened Bread, there is contained in a seed form the entire cycle of yearly Feasts. Or to put it another way, the Passover/Unleavened Bread cycle is a typological representation or template for the entire Feast calendar for the whole year.

So, in conclusion, the Day of Atonement is contained in seed form within the Passover cycle, and is dependent upon the Passover for it's existence and timing. Thus, when Christ died at Passover, he fulfilled in typological form the entire yearly Feast cycle.

This corresponds not merely to the day he died, but to the entire week.

On Passover he died. He was in the tomb during the first Sabbath of Unleavened Bread. He rose the third day as the 'omer' of the resurrection, the proto-typical firstfruit signalling the Pentecost harvest of 'firstfruits' would be acceptable. Likewise, his resurrection is a type of the new life we receive by the gift of the Spirit, which was poured out on the feast of firstfruits aka Pentecost. He appeared to his disciples several times over the next week much to their amazement, signifying a 'Tabernacles' experience much as God tabernacled with Israel in the wilderness (which is what Tabernacles' historical purpose was to commemorate).

So, in a sense, the Passover week was a Christological fulfillment of the whole yearly Feast cycle. And thus, he was able to fulfill the Atonement without having to actually die on the actual Day of Atonement.

Note1: I realise some hold to either a Wednesday crucifixion or a Thursday crucifixion. This thread is not designed to debate that issue (we can do that in another thread if anyone wants?) but merely to point out how Atonement is satisfied even though his death was not on the Day of Atonement.

Note2: During the Exodus event, Israel wound up at Marah on or right about what would be the seventh day of Unleavened Bread. Then they arrived at Sinai shortly before the day of what would be Pentecost. Pentecost is fifty days from Passover (technically from the omer day). Jesus stayed with the apostles for forty days after his resurrection, leaving them ten days to wait in preparation and prayer until Pentecost when the Spirit was poured out. The time he spent with them he spoke to them about the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. Israel's history in those first fifty days between the Exodus and Sinai give interesting lessons concerning the kingdom of God: The tree making the bitter waters sweet, the twelve wells and seventy palm trees of Elim, the giving of manna in the wilderness of Sin, the striking of the Rock at Rephidim, the coming of Amalek, the appointment of lesser judges (governmental structure) after the arrival of Jethro, and the arrival at Sinai and preparations to receive the Law and Covenant.

Note3: Jesus was with his disciples forty days after his Passover. Israel wandered in Sinai for forty years after their Passover.

Note4: It is likely that when Jesus was baptised by John, he fulfilled much of the typology of the Day of Atonement. This by the way leads into the question of whether Jesus died in the middle of the seventieth week of Daniel, or at the end of the seventieth week. I am starting to see that Jesus did not die in the midst of the seventieth week, but that he was baptised in the midst of the seventieth week, thus (from God's perspective) ending all sacrifice and offering for sin, then completing the seventieth week with his death. I admit this is something I am not certain about, and may be a dead end rabbit trail, but I am currently looking into this to see where it goes.