Date of the Resurrection

[Yitzchak]

I am sorry they come across as sarcastic. They are not intended so. (the weakness of internet verses face to face) They are serious questions in my mind. You said names are important and we should rename the planets should we also rename the days of the week. What do you think. For me I am just taking your statements and progressing them forward to encompass all the situations that may displease God.
Of course you know I reject all of this and the reason I do is based on my understanding of grace vs works. The legalist will always find something wrong with anothers faith practise in my experience. And yes I have been in the role of legalist at times and have been corrected by the Holy Spirit about it. gg

I am very glad to hear it was just my misunderstanding. Sorry about that. maybe I was getting too defensive.

Anyway ,to answer your question , here is how I see it

First point - Our heart attitude matters.

I have told this story before. When I was in the Mennonite church they had a rule that people cannot wear ties. Now this rule was for members of their church only and so I would argue that is within their sphere of authority. At any rate , their reasoning was that a person should not be worldly. They should be humble and seperate form the world. That God should dictate your clothing , not the lost sinners who have a different goal in mind.

Fast forward a few years and I am now in an Assembly of God church and join the choir. They have a rule that choir members all have to wear a tie. The complete opposite of the Mennonite rule. Their reasoning is that you should wear your best to give honor to God whom you are representing. Also they felt it was a sign of unity for the choir to all dress alike.

Now I can honestly say that I agree with the spirit behind both rules . But I don't neccesarialy agree with the letter of the rule. So in my heart I was in agreement with honoring God and with being humble and seperate from the evil influences of the world.

This is where I believe that Romans 14 comes in. To walk in love means that I need to be very careful that I use my freedom wisely. My conscience does not bother me at all to wear a tie. I can still maintain the proper heart atttitude and wear a tie. But while I was a member of that church , if I would wear a tie to church , to them I was communicating it is o.k. to be worldly and proud and perhaps causing young believers to stumble in their efforts to follow Christ. because that is what they had been taught and me saying something different was not going to undo that. Not to mention that there is an issue of authority involved. Should I encourage them to go against their church leaders over such a minor issue that does not really matter ?



Second point...Which builds upon the first point. God ordains authorities and gives them limited authority. However the only unlimited authority is God.
These authorities make some rules and traditions which is not bad in and of itself.

Life is full of rules. Our parents , the government , school teachers , etc.Romans 13 and some other places says that God places these authorities and the rules that they force upon us for our own good. My point. Rules and authority are not bad.

Many people are sloppy about their definition of legalism though, in my opinion.( Unfortunately I have been too a few times ).Some people think that legalism means any time there is any rule or tradition.

But I believe that Legalism is when a rule gets out of control. It is when the spirit of the rule is lost and only the letter gets followed. Or when the rule exceeds it's authority.

For example, The police might give me a ticket for speeding. but they are under authority . they cannot just make up their own rules or exceed their authority. They need a search warrent to come into my home , they don't tell me what television programs I can watch , etc. their authority is limited. But valid within those limits.

Third point....Even God's rule have exceptions. The good Samaritan, healing and circumcising on the sabbath , getting a divorce because someone is abusive.

My view is what justifies breaking one of God's rules is when a situation arises where two rules collide and one must choose the higher rule. research it out in the Bible and you will find that the rule of the circumcision was given by God and so was the sabbath. One could not keep both when the 8th day fell on the sabbath. One had to choose.

Joh 7:21 Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.
Joh 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.
Joh 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

The lesson, even God makes exceptions. The law of love is higher.


My final point... God does make rules and he expects us to follow those rules from a right heart and motives. Those rules have their limits just like all rules do. Having and following rules is wise. Making those rules higher than they should be is foolish.

I used to explain it to my teenage son this way. If I told him to stay home and not leave the house until he finished his homework. I would enforce that rule if he broke it. I would be very upset if he disrespected me in that and I found out later that he had left the house without doing his homework. A rule.

But if the house caught on fire and he left the house without finishing his homework , I would be pleased with him that he broke my rule.

Now when I gave him the rule , I didn't go into a long list of exceptions. I just expected him to understand the spirit of the rule and not be legalistic to the point of stupidity about it. The rule would still stand. There are just common sense exceptions.

I told my son , it works that way with all authority in life including God. You are wise to listen and obey authority but have enough sense to know when to not listen.

Guess what , He learned that lesson well. He has the strength to stand up to me when I am wrong. Sometimes he makes a mistake but I value that in him.

I believe God works the same way with us. I believe it is a wrong teaching to say God no longer has any rules for us. I can back it up with scripture. But we also have a lot of freedom and God values that in us.

God will discipline us just as much as I would discipline my son if he didn't do his homework so he could go to the mall with his friends. Being responsible with freedom matters.


With regards to the Jewish tradition of guarding God's name. I agree with the spirit of it but not with the letter of it. It is their tradition and their rules. If I were to go and visit my brother and go to synagogue with him. ( he is orthodox Jewish and does not believe in Jesus ) Then I would honor their tradition from a pure heart because I do agree with the concept behind it so I can compromise on the details.

 

[gratefulgrace]

The message has not changed. Jesus did not say go ahead and keep doing what you're doing because I've got it covered. He said Repent. The message is still Repent.

And I would have no argument with this at all.gg

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

I am sorry they come across as sarcastic. They are not intended so. (the weakness of internet verses face to face) They are serious questions in my mind. You said names are important and we should rename the planets should we also rename the days of the week. What do you think. For me I am just taking your statements and progressing them forward to encompass all the situations that may displease God.
Of course you know I reject all of this and the reason I do is based on my understanding of grace vs works. The legalist will always find something wrong with anothers faith practise in my experience. And yes I have been in the role of legalist at times and have been corrected by the Holy Spirit about it. gg

Many who consider themselves free can be just as guilty of always finding something wrong with anothers faith practice. I use to go to a church where many of the leaders and attendees were quite proud of how "free" our services were. One time a Messianic brother started coming to the services. He continued to wear his tallit. One day the pastor walked up to him and said, "brother, we're free here, take that thing off". Obviously, they were not free enough.

I think it would be nice if we were not under a rule that had us living under the names of pagan gods and goddesses. It's not reality though. Praise God, when we are in the thousand year reign, we will be under God's rule and not the heathens.

I don't think it's wrong to celebrate the resurrection on any day one wants to. However, I'm still curious as to why, with 365 days to choose from we do it on the day that we do and also call it by the name that we do. It just strikes me as odd that believers would choose to stay under that date and name that initially was forced upon them, when they're now free to pick their own date and give Jesus His full due. Just my opinion though.

Concerning grace vs works: we are not saved by works, but our works will be judged.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

I think you're seeing defensiveness where there is none.

Also, it's not only your comments in this thread, so I would say that some of my response (to you) was influenced by other's comments as well, and not by things you said directly.

The truth is, this issue doesn't bother me in the least. I'm quite assured that God has no issue with me getting up on Easter Sunday and, on that day especially, remembering His Love sacrifice. But I've run across people who feel unnecessarily condemned and made to feel inferior by others because they don't celebrate Passover, or because they color Easter eggs, or because they give their kids a chocolate bunny....

With all of that in mind, I remember this verse;

Romans 14:5 (AMP)
One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike [sacred]. Let everyone be fully convinced (satisfied) in his own mind.
​

This has long been my position on matters like this. This scripture seems to say pretty clearly that each person should be convinced or satisfied in his own mind. IOW, it's not really that big of a deal what days we esteem and which ones we don't. Each person is granted the grace and liberty to be fully convinced in their own mind of such matters.

Note that it's not wrong to esteem one day higher than another, nor is it wrong to esteem all days equally. But the key here is that each person should be convinced in their own mind, not that they push that conviction on someone else.

That's why I say that scripture is quite clear that there is some liberty in these matters. Some people would argue that it's wrong to observe Passover (because it's part of the "law''). I disagree. As long as you're convinced in your own mind that this is what God wants you to do, then do it for His glory. Some people would argue that it's wrong to observe Easter. I disagree. As long as you're convinced in your own mind that this is what God wants you to do, then do it for His glory.

As long as you're convinced in your own mind that this is what God wants you to do, then do it for His glory.

 

[Yitzchak]

So to apply it to our discussion. If I perceive that we agree in spirit but have different traditions , then it is good. We can respect our differences.


The problem comes in when the perception is that the other one does not share the same value and that is the root of the difference.

For the sake of illustration , let's say I abstain from Halloween and I tell you it is because God wants me to be holy and I am doing it to be holy. In my illustration , you say to yourself ," Holy , my foot! He isn't any more holy than the rest of us. This legalistic stuff gets on my nerves . "

Now on the other side , I hear that you are celebrating Halloween. You say that you are showing the love of Christ by fellowshipping with friends and family and sometimes it even provides a chance to witness. In this illustration , I say " fellowshipping my foot! She is just using witnessing as an excuse to party with the sinners. There hasn't been a single soul saved through that method in twenty years. "

Romans 14 says don't judge harshly on the one side and on the other side don't assume the other one is just legalistic, they might be very sincere in following God from their heart.

I think that most of us can agree on this part.

Where the problem comes in is that sometimes a person really is legalistic. And on the other side sometimes someone really is worldly and holiness is the last thing on their mind.







There is such a thing as taking it too far.

For example , let's say that my church has a group of young single men that meet together for a small group. These believers decide it is their new thing to go and sleep with prostitutes and then after they spend a few minutes witnessing to them about Christ. They have fun doing it and meet a carnel need and they also get to witness. Win , win situation , they say.

Now I say they have exceeded their freedom in Christ and gotten into an area where they need instruction on holy living. Whether some of them are sincere and really that ignorant concerning holy living , I am not sure. but I suspect they might have some impure motives mixed in. At any rate , I do not believe it is being legalistic to correct them and I do not believe it is being judgmental to judge what they are doing as wrong.

I believe that this type of situation no longer fits the category of Romans 14. The difference being that Romans 14 speaks about conscience issues that are not sin in and of themselves.





An example on the other side , This same singles group a few months later. They have matured a bit and gotten over their lack of holy living. The weary Pastor assigns them the task of reading the bible from cover to cover. he figures , "how much trouble can they get into with a bible study ?

They start in Genesis and reach Genesis 17 where God gives Abraham the covenant of circumcision.But now they have started to get a little extreme on the other end of things. They start having ritual circumcisions of the adult males and have taken their show on the road again. They now start going door to door asking random guys if they have been circumcised and if not they can perform the ceremony right on the spot. They have their Bible with them and open it to Genesis 17 to show them proof that this is the will of God. When the offer is rejected they tell them they are going to hell and then stand out side their door yelling condemning threats for several minutes.

The weary pastor gets a phone call once more to go and deal with his singles group.



I know that these examples sound extreme , but read the stories from the Bible. The first example resembles some of the things that happened at the church of Corinth. The second examples some of the things that happened at the church of Galatia . Do you suppose Paul got grey hair over these things ?


It is possible to have a misunderstanding and both have a right heart. It is also possible to get off into error on both sides of the issue.


We need to remember that not everyone who exercises their freedom in Christ and takes it a little too far is a Corinthian ( some say that is what the modern Charismatic church resembles ). On the other hand not everyone who emphasizes holy living and sets some rules is a Galatian ( some say that the baptist fundamentalists fit this well )



So is Easter freedom and acceptable differences ? Is it a Romans 14 thing ? Or is it error and a Corinthian type error from worldly Christians who have little respect for holiness and purity ? I mean why bother having any rules. just do whatever you want whenever you want and attach God's name to it.




On the other side. Is opposing Easter an acceptable conviction and an attempt to correct error in the church ? Or is it Galatian type Christianity. Why take it half way ? Let's assign a mohel and get these Gentiles circumcised ? We better hurry because if some accident happens before we get to it , and they die , they will be in hell.




An interesting article on the subject of legalism versus license.

Legalism

 

[Yitzchak]

I believe that Christmas and Easter are issues that exceed the boundaries of what Romans 14 speaks about. At least in the way that they are celebrated today in the church. I do think some of the principles from Romans 14 , apply in the sense of whatever we do should be out of a faith perspective with a heart intent to glorify God. I believe many who celebrate these holidays do so with a good intention.

But I have a few reasons why I think it is wrong the way that it is done.

Reason number one ... it is a corporate thing that the church is taking the initiative in promoting. That takes it out of the realm of Romans 14 which is speaking to individual conscience issues.

Take for example , drinking wine. The church has taken the position that if you drink wine , that is to be done in our homes or at least outside of the church. In the church and at church events , they usually serve grape juice. With the way the holidays are done today , the church is forcing them upon the entire congregation.

I think whether something is corporate or individual makes a difference. Correcting false doctrine is different than correcting conscience issues , in my view.

I think that the celebration of the holidays , the way that they are commonly done , contains sufficient error that they need to be corrected for the sake of pure doctrine.


Second reason.....While we have freedom , there are limits to that freedom. Taking the rest of scripture outside of Romans 14 , we see that God qualified this freedom to follow your conscience. Clearly some believers are offended by it. As one poster pointed out , why not change the date and remove some of the pagan symbols and then all could partake together with a clear conscience ? The way it is handled now is only taking the half of the Romans 14 teaching and using it to give license to do whatever they want with no regard for those offended.

The bible talks about buying and eating meat sacrificed to Idols. I'm not 100% sure if this is what Romans 14 is talking about when is discusses eating meat, but I think it probably is.

What was happening in the early church is the pagans would sacrifice animals to their false gods in a religious ritual and then after they were done they would set the left over meat out for sale at a cheap price. Families on a budget were complaining that they had to pay double for their meat in order to avoid eating this meat sacrificed to idols. It also would come up because some families in the church bought the meat and others did not. One family would invite another family over for a meal and serve the meat and people were getting offended at each other.

This is the context of Paul's discussions about eating meat. For some , there might also have been the issue of kosher eating , but I think the primary meaning is concerning meat sacrificed to idols.

1Co 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
1Co 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
1Co 8:3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
1Co 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
1Co 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
1Co 8:7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
1Co 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

My interpretation is this. Get off your high horse about how much you think you know. Instead use the knowledge that you do have to help one another not stumble in your walk with the Lord.

1Co 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
1Co 10:26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
1Co 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
1Co 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
1Co 10:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?

My interpretation. Go ahead and eat. But if it crosses the line where an idol worship says to you come on and let's eat together to worship this false god , then don't do it. Because you are preaching the wrong message by doing that.

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

My interpretation. Limiting our freedom with rules is biblical sometimes. While we have freedom , there is a time where it is wrong for a Christian to do certain things. I think this applies to eating in the sense of worshiping together with.

Which brings me to reason number three.

Reason number three... The scripture clearly draws the line when these things are offered in worship. Neutral objects like meat or fruit or wine can be rededicated to God. Buying Easter candy that is on sale after the holiday falls into this category , in my view. I can buy the candy and eat it without celebrating Easter.

But mixing pagan worship with christian worship is another category as far as I am concerned. The scripture is full of symbols. The Hebrew culture is full of concrete symbols to assist in worship. Christians use them too. The communion uses the bread and the wine. We don't just say remember that Jesus died. We have a ritual , a ceremony which uses objects /food to help us fully experience that worship. Foot washing , Baptism , etc.

The pagans used similar methods. Those concrete symbols and rituals are the history of many of the Easter , Christmas and birthday traditions.

Just one example is birthday candles. Ever hear that if you tell your wish it won't come true ? Or you have to blow out all the candles ? These have their roots in false worship.

My point is that these methods were used and are still used. Who is to say where worship begins and ends. According to what God set up , eating the bread and wine is a part of communion. I happen to think that worship has many facets. People wave flags in worship , some paint paintings. Some have even built Cathedrals. Of course God looks at the heart but worship is a lot more than just singing a song.

Maybe it is more clear to me because of my Jewish back round. God set up the biblical holidays and every detail has a spiritual meaning. God set up the temple and every detail has a spiritual meaning.

It baffles me why the church would want to include unholy symbols as a part of their worship ??

 

[Yitzchak]

On a more personal and less theological / intellectual note -

Just from the heart here.

I can think of only a few good memories of Christmas and Easter and a whole bunch of bad ones. I mostly associate these celebrations with bad memories and deep emotional wounds.

 

[probinson]

As long as you're convinced in your own mind that this is what God wants you to do, then do it for His glory.

On that, we completely agree.

 

[gratefulgrace]

On a more personal and less theological / intellectual note -

Just from the heart here.

I can think of only a few good memories of Christmas and Easter and a whole bunch of bad ones. I mostly associate these celebrations with bad memories and deep emotional wounds.

Sorry to hear that but Christmas in my life was always a very bright light in a very dark reality. I always loved the scripture in Isaiah and Matthew that says
Mat 4:16 The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, And upon those who sat in the region and shadow of death Light has dawned." It gave me hope. gg

 

[Pilgrimer]

The actual date of the resurrection of Jesus was the Hebrew calender date, Nissan 18 (Passover begins at sundown on Nissan 15). Why do we not celebrate His resurrection on that date?

Actually, the date for the resurrection of Jesus was Nisan 17, 3790 by the Jewish calendar, which was Sunday, April 7, 30 A.D. by our Gregorian calendar.

The reason we do not celebrate his resurrection on Nisan 17 (whatever day of the week that might fall) is because his resurrection occurred on a Sunday, the "8th" day of the Jewish calendar, which was held by Jews and by Christians to be the day on which God would begin the "new creation." The Christian Passover does not fall on or commemorate the ancient date when God delivered the Jews from bondage in Egypt, but on the actual day when Christ delivered men from sin and death. Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 that Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us and it is that sacrifice, and the resurrection which followed, that Christians commemorate and keep Holy. The Old Covenant Passover was but a shadow that pointed to the greater Passover feast that would be open to all men, Jew and Gentile.

There is nothing pagan about Easter, it is based entirely on historical Christianity. I cannot post a link until my post count reaches 50 so I refer you to YouTube and the video "Why We Should Not Passover Easter."

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Yitzchak]

Actually, the date for the resurrection of Jesus was Nisan 17, 3790 by the Jewish calendar, which was Sunday, April 7, 30 A.D. by our Gregorian calendar.

The reason we do not celebrate his resurrection on Nisan 17 (whatever day of the week that might fall) is because his resurrection occurred on a Sunday, the "8th" day of the Jewish calendar, which was held by Jews and by Christians to be the day on which God would begin the "new creation." The Christian Passover does not fall on or commemorate the ancient date when God delivered the Jews from bondage in Egypt, but on the actual day when Christ delivered men from sin and death. Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 that Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us and it is that sacrifice, and the resurrection which followed, that Christians commemorate and keep Holy. The Old Covenant Passover was but a shadow that pointed to the greater Passover feast that would be open to all men, Jew and Gentile.

There is nothing pagan about Easter, it is based entirely on historical Christianity. I cannot post a link until my post count reaches 50 so I refer you to YouTube and the video "Why We Should Not Passover Easter."

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

While I do not agree with your conclusion. I have to admit that your perspective is quite edifying. Jesus is the passover lamb to whom the Passover celebration points. I am willing to hear you out. You have an interesting perspective.

 

[Pilgrimer]

The date many churches celebrate on actually coincides with a pagan celebration of which many even use the same pagan name (Easter) and use bunny's, chicks, and eggs as part of their celebration to apply to the resurrection when the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

I'm not claiming to be perfect but when we are made aware of such a glaring error why do we continue in that error?

That's not true. Almost every pagan religion the world over celebrated festivals on the various astronomical events, such as the spring and fall equinox, and the summer and winter solstices, as well as new moons, full moons, lunar and solar eclipses, planetary alignments, meteors, comets, and every other event that occurred in the skies. But the spring equinox ALWAYS occurs on March 20/21 whereas both the Jewish Passover and the Christian Resurrection never occur on the Spring Equinox but, in the case of the Jewish Passover, on the 14th day after the first new moon after the spring equinox, or in the case of Christianity, the first Sunday following the first full moon following the spring equinox. At no time does either the Jewish Passover OR the Christian Easter occur at the time of the spring equinox, which is what all pagan's celebrated. In all my studies of ancient religions, particularly those of the near east and Mesotheology, no pagan religion ever celebrated anything on the ancient Jewish and Christian holy days of Passover or Easter.

And as for the traditions of Easter baskets filled with candy and colored eggs, etc., these have nothing to do with paganism. They are very old Catcholic traditions that actually only date back to at most the 1600's. You see, Catholics observe the 40 days before Easter as a season called Lent which was spent in fasting and instrospection in preparation for Easter Sunday. It was very common to fast from eating eggs, candy, and of course alcohol during Lent, among other things. So when Easter Sunday arrived, the time to fast was over because Easter was to be a time of joy and celebration. Coloring and hiding eggs and filling baskets with Easter eggs and candy was nothng more than an attempt to mark the resumption of partaking of these things as a joyous occasion for children. Of course, after the Protestant reformation, Protestants took with them the old traditions, but since Protestants don't observe Lent or practice fasting, the reason for the Easter eggs and baskets of candy being part of the Easter celebration was lost along the way. But it has nothing to do with paganism.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

I seem to recall there was a great debate in the first few centuries in the church over the date for Easter. Although the intent was make it never to coincide with the actual Passover, the Eastern and Western Orthodox churches ended up with different ways to calculate Easter each year so it would always end up around the same time of the year, but never line up with the Passover holiday.

Unfortunately, I can't recall details except this was no small thing within the church at the time and I'm thinking it had a lot to do with the replacement theology absurdity, that the church was the new Israel, which became very popular thanks to men like Augustine. We don't line up with Passover by design.

Sorry I can't recall exactly what went on. So, some of my facts might be off a bit.

The only debate was over whether or not Easter should be celebrated according to Jewish reckoning, that is, on the third day after Passover, whatever day of the week that might fall on, or if Easter should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the Paschal moon, the actual day that it historically occurred. There was nothing anti-Semitic in the decision, nor did it have anything to do with replacement theology. Easter and Passover do occassionally "line up," and more often than not Easter occurs during the week of Passover, this year for example Passover was April 19 - 26 and Easter was on April 24, during Passover week.

The issue was actually of secondary import to the church at the council of Nicea, the primary issue they addressed was the question of the divine nature of Jesus.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

I agree and I keep Passover anddo not celebrate Easter for the reasons set forth. What I find interesting is that God established Passover as one of the feasts that is forever to be celebrated. We will be celebrating it in the Millenial. Nowhere does it say to keep Easter. The church keeps to manyy thoughts ideas and opinions that are not biblical and in fact have pagan roots. Wonder who wanted that interjected into the church to throw off Gods timetable?

But if the Old Covenant Passover and the deliverance of Israel from bondage in Egypt was a type of the New Covenant Passover and the deliverance of the church (Jew and Gentile) from the bondage to sin and death, why would God have us go back to commemorating and celebrating what was only a shadow of a greater event? That would be like going back to offering up the blood of bulls and goats as though the blood of Christ is somehow not sufficient. God's "timetable" was about the coming of salvation. The Good News of the Gospel is that God's salvation has come.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

God's covenants, salvation, the importance of Jesus, all depend on your view of Israel and the Jews.

Might I suggest that you have that backwards? Our understanding of the covenants, salvation, and the importance of Israel and the Jews depends on our understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ. What do you think the Jews were chosen for? To be the recipients of salvation? Or to be the people through whom God would bring salvation to the whole world, Jew and Gentile?

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[psalms 91]

But if the Old Covenant Passover and the deliverance of Israel from bondage in Egypt was a type of the New Covenant Passover and the deliverance of the church (Jew and Gentile) from the bondage to sin and death, why would God have us go back to commemorating and celebrating what was only a shadow of a greater event? That would be like going back to offering up the blood of bulls and goats as though the blood of Christ is somehow not sufficient. God's "timetable" was about the coming of salvation. The Good News of the Gospel is that God's salvation has come.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Take it up with God as He is the one who said eternally

 

[Pilgrimer]

So my question is mainly, when we know that the name Easter is named after the goddess Ishtar and technically has nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus, why do we continue to celebrate His resurrection on the same day as the celebration of Ishtar (even though that's not who we're celebrating) yet calling it by her name and oft times even using the same stuff (eggs, chicks, and bunny's) when there really is another actual date that we could celebrate it instead? To me it just appears as if we're just trying to blend in with the world on days that really should not be shared with another...period!

I'm not against celebrating THE Resurrection or His birth (which is not Dec 25). I just don't like the idea that we're teaching the world that pagan activity can be mixed with Holy activity and that God does not care.

Ishtar was an ancient Babylonian goddess whose cult effectively died out when the Babylonian Empire fell to the Persians 500 years before the advent of Christ and the beginnng of the Christian religion.

Easter is an old German word derived from the Teutonic form of the word for resurrection, not from any pagan source. Nor do any of the Christian customs of Easter derive from any pagan sources. Indeed, truth to tell, it is the other way around, it is pagans who through the centuries have adopted Christian holidays and customs and adapted them to their own use, which is self-evident to your own eyes, look around the world at all the peoples of other religions even today who celebrate Christmas even though they do not worship Christ.

And as for December 25 not being the date of his birth, I would challenge you to offer up some historical evidence to document all these claims you are posting before you accuse Christendom of mixing paganism with the Christian faith.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

Take it up with God as He is the one who said eternally

I have long since wrestled with God over these things and am at peace. I am asking you to defend your comments.

God also said that the atonement sacrifices of bulls and goats would also be "for ever." Leviticus 16:29-30. Are you suggesting that God intends for bulls and goats to again be slain and their blood sprinkled on an altar by a Levitical High Priest to atone for the sins of His people as though the blood of Christ and his ministry as our High Priest is not sufficient?

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

Since many Christians do not believe we should follow the old testament, it should not be surprising that the day is wrong.

We are not to follow the Old Testament, but the New Testament ...

"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinking the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works to serve a living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the old testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." Hebrews 9:13-15

It is through the new testament that we receive an internal inheritance in heaven, so why would you suggest that we follow the old which could only speak of an inheritance, promise it, point forward to it, fortell it, and foreshadow it through types and symbols and figures but could never provide it?

Perhaps the confusion is on your part.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Markus6]

Hey Pilgrimer! Thanks for your contribution to this thread. You definitely seem to have studied this quite a bit. I do have a couple of points though.

The only debate was over whether or not Easter should be celebrated according to Jewish reckoning, that is, on the third day after Passover, whatever day of the week that might fall on, or if Easter should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the Paschal moon, the actual day that it historically occurred. There was nothing anti-Semitic in the decision, nor did it have anything to do with replacement theology. Easter and Passover do occassionally "line up," and more often than not Easter occurs during the week of Passover, this year for example Passover was April 19 - 26 and Easter was on April 24, during Passover week.

Actually there were two stages of the debate. The first was between those who celebrated the resurrection on Nisan 14 (quartodecimans) and those who wanted to keep Sunday day and so celebrated on the Sunday after Nisan 14. The Sunday celebraters (not sure if they have a catchy name) won out.

The second stage was detaching the date from the Jewish calculation. There was a forumla but the Jewish council could delay the date (by adding the month of Adar I (I think - this is just from memory)) if spring had not sprung. There was a certain amount of bitterness (reflected in some of the quotes posted earlier in thread) about having to rely on the Jews for the date.

Ishtar was an ancient Babylonian goddess whose cult effectively died out when the Babylonian Empire fell to the Persians 500 years before the advent of Christ and the beginnng of the Christian religion.

Easter is an old German word derived from the Teutonic form of the word for resurrection, not from any pagan source.

The word Easter comes from the Germanic name for the month in which Easter fell, Eostur-monath. The month was named after the goddess Eostre although at this point the only source is Bede so you have to trust his study completely.