Date of the Resurrection

[Pilgrimer]

Easter is derived from the name Eshtar, a pagan goddess.

Please offer some kind of proof for that, either an ancient document or an archaeological artifact that makes an etymological connection between Easter and Ishtar. In fact, please provide any historical textual documentation or archaeological artifact that shows that the worship of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar even continued after Babylon was defeated by the Persians in the sixth century B.C. I have studied mesotheology and from all the evidence it appears the cult of Ishtar died out shortly after Babylon was overthrown by Persia recorded in the book of Daniel. The Persians had their own religion, Zoroastrianism, and were in fact the only other monotheistic religion besides Judaism in the ancient world. By the time of Christ, the old Babylonian gods and goddesses were long forgotten and there is no record of Ishtar and Tammuz after the 4th century B.C.

Why does the church have a celebration of Jesus conquering death and not use HIS name?

Because the "mother tongue" of English is German, and the word Easter is the English equivalent of the German word "Oster" which derives from an old Teutonic word that means resurrection. So quite simply, Easter means resurrection.

No one has yet given a reasonable answer as to why the church continues to observe their cause for celebration on the same day and with the same name as a pagan goddess. We are free to do whatever we want to. But we can't expect that everything we want, is the same as what God wants.

Can you provide any textual or archaeological proof that the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox was ever a "pagan" holiday? Just one line from one ancient document or artifact?

But also, what about the connection between Easter and Passover? Have you never read that Jesus was crucified and raised during the week of Passover? And if you have, then how can you insist that Easter is based on some mythical pagan holiday when the very Bible itself says Jesus' resurrection occurred on the Sunday following the Jewish passover during the week long feast of Passover?

This isn't about what we want or what God wants, it's about the truth, and being able to offer some reasonable proof, not just making stuff up and throwing around claims about history without any type of historical support. Where are you getting your information? Do they provide any kind of citations of ancient documents or archaeological artifacts to support their claims? If not, you really shouldn't just accept their claims.

I simply asked a question and then gave the reasonings that I'm grappling with. I asked "why?".

Now that's not exactly true is it? Haven't you repeatedly stated that Christians are celebrating the resurrection of Jesus on the wrong day? And that the day we celebrate Jesus' resurrection is in fact a pagan holiday named after a pagan goddess? You didn't form your comments as questions or appear to be "grappling" with them but stated them as facts and criticized them as displeasing to God.

My illustration was what God brought to my attention when I posed the reasoning to Him that "that is not what it means to me God". I have imposed nothing on you or anyone else. Perhaps it's the Holy Spirit.

No, it's not the Holy Spirit.

The name Easter is derived from the name of a pagan goddess.

See? That's not posed as a question, it is stated as if it was a fact. And yet you offer not one solitary piece of evidence to support it. Perhaps simply stating it is enough to convince you, and perhaps I am just too demanding, but I require some kind of proof before I condemn as pagan a Christian belief or doctrine.

I'm not worried at all about the date. I'm just wondering why the church is choosing to do it on the pagan date with the same pagan name.

How can you say that you are not worried at all about the date and then turn around and claim that the date is a pagan holiday? It seems to me that the date is very much uppermost in your mind, and you are convinced it is the date of some pagan holiday for which neither you or your source can provide any kind of evidence.

Why did they not choose the third Sunday in July, calling it Resurrection Day? Why did they choose Easter and why do they call it Easter when Easter is a pagan goddess? I don't care whatever other date could have been chosen but they chose Easter....why?

Because Jesus was resurrected on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox (which is when the Passover was observed). He wasn't resurrected in July. And we call it Easter because that is the word William Tynndale translated the first English Bible into from the Greek using Luther's German translation wihch used Oster for the Day of Resurrection.

Here's another link that might help, but only if you are in fact open to the possibility that you might have been given some untrustworthy information:

Myth Busted: Easter Not Derived from a Pagan Holiday[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]The American Culture

Why is asking a question so threatening? It's very tough reasoning with people here. I'm not wanting a particular date to be celebrated I'm wondering why the date we do is the date it is?

Asking questions is not threatening, but repeatedly stating that Easter is a pagan holiday with a pagan name without any evidence to support it tends to aggravate people.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[gratefulgrace]

Great link thank you for posting it. gg

 

[Pilgrimer]

Great link thank you for posting it. gg

I don't know which link you might be referring to, but if it was the link about the etymology of the word Easter the link provided at the end of that article is also informative.

Easter and Good Friday: questions and answers

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[gratefulgrace]

Yes I read that one too.

 

[Torah]

The English word "Easter" is not the Greek word for Passover. The Greek word of Passover is πασχα, pascha.

The origins of the English word "Easter" are not real certain. Many Messianics claim that it is tied to the ancient fertility goddess, Ishtar, or Asharah, but this is far from certain. Bede derived it from the name of a goddess whose feast was celebrated at the vernal equinox, Ēostre, a variation of the Northumbrian Ēastre. But this pagan goddess was known as the goddess of the dawn, so the name itself may derive from German Austrōn, which is cognate with Sanskrit usrā meaning "dawn." Thus, some derive the name "Easter" from the word "East," i.e., the direction in which the sun rises, and connect it to the early morning when the women came to the tomb and found it empty.

It seems clear to me that the connection of eggs and egg laying rabbits with modern practices of the Christian Church and her celebration of Easter may have a connection with ancient fertility rites.

There is no doubt that much of what the Christian Church has incorporated into her celebration of "Easter" has pagan origins, but whether the name "Easter" itself derives from paganism is debated.

Lets not bring up December 25 as his birth.

 

[Pilgrimer]

The English word "Easter" is not the Greek word for Passover. The Greek word of Passover is πασχα, pascha.

Actually, that's not correct. The word pascha is Greek for the Hebrew word pesach. Passover is an English word for pesach/pascha that was coined by William Tynndale in his translation of the Bible into English. Tynndale only used the word "Easter" for post-resurrection use of pascha, for all pre-resurrection uses he translated them "passover," a word he made up.

The

origins of the English word "Easter" are not real certain.

That is the claim made by anti-Christian critics. But it's not true. William Tynndale first began to translate the Bible into English in 1522 after he received a copy of Martin Luther's translation of the Bible into German. Tynndale was forbidden to make the translation and fled to Hamburg, Germany where he worked closely with Martin Luther and made use of Luther's German translation. Luther used the word "Oster" throughout his German translation for the Hebrew/Greek "pesach/pascha" whereas Tynndale coined the word "passover" for pre-Christian and only used "Easter" for post Christian observance. Tynndale finished his English translation in 1524.

The words "Easter" and "passover" are not the only words Tynndale used to translate the Hebrew into English. He also coined the name "Jehovah," "scapegoat," "atonement," and directly borrowed other words from Luther such as "mercy seat" (German "Gnadenstuhl") which translates the Hebrew word "kapporeth." Tynndale also borrowed expressions from Luther's German such as "twinkling of an eye," "let there be light," "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak," and others.

So I don't think the etymological connection between the English "Easter" and the German "Oster" for the resurrection of Jesus is at all "uncertain."

Many Messianics claim that it is tied to the ancient fertility goddess, Ishtar, or Asharah, but this is far from certain.

Bede derived it from the name of a goddess whose feast was celebrated at the vernal equinox, Ēostre, a variation of the Northumbrian Ēastre. But this pagan goddess was known as the goddess of the dawn, so the name itself may derive from German Austrōn, which is cognate with Sanskrit usrā meaning "dawn." Thus, some derive the name "Easter" from the word "East," i.e., the direction in which the sun rises, and connect it to the early morning when the women came to the tomb and found it empty.

It seems clear to me that the connection of eggs and egg laying rabbits with modern practices of the Christian Church and her celebration of Easter may have a connection with ancient fertility rites.

There is no doubt that much of what the Christian Church has incorporated into her celebration of "Easter" has pagan origins, but whether the name "Easter" itself derives from paganism is debated.

How do you get from Easter "may have" pagan origins to there being "no doubt" that Christian have adopted paganism?

Are you aware that there are critics who use the exact same reasoning to claim that the Genesis account of the creation is an adoption of paganism based on the "Enuma Elish," the Babylonian creation account? And with no more evidence than the fact that there are some similarities between the two accounts? And they also claim that the Torah was an adoption of the earlier Code of Hammurabi based again on nothing more than the shaky grounds that there are some similarities? They also claim that the Mosaic festivals are adoptions of pagan spring and fall festivals simply because they occur at the same times of the year? Of course they fail to even acknowledge that both the Jewish and the Christian holy days do not actually occur ON the pagan holidays, but then they don't have to, it seems just saying they occurred at the same time of year is sufficient enough "proof" for critics.

We should be very careful to not judge such matters based on people's opinions of what "may have been" some assumed connection based on some similarity, and especially when those who are jumping to such unfounded conclusions are attempting in the process to discredit the Bible, or discredit either Judaism or Christianity.

Lets not bring up December 25 as his birth.

We have already brought up the subject although we did not even begin to address all the evidence but suffice it to say that there are no actual historical or scriptural grounds to reject the date that has such ancient support by Christians dating back to the 2nd century. But I love all the history surrounding the birth of Jesus so I am always happy to discuss it.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

I question why once enlightened we continue with it.

There has been no "enlightenment," only a gross mischaracterization of Christian history and belief and practice.

I also wonder why Passover and Feast of Tabrinacles which God commanded to be kept forever are considered Jewish? They are Gods feasts and are not exclusive to the Jewish but are for anyone desiring to please God.

They are considered "Jewish" for the simple fact that the commandments to observe those feasts were part of the Old Covenant that God made with the nation of Israel (the "Jewish" people).

That Old Covenant which God made with the Jewish people was fulfilled when Jesus came into the world and instituted the New Covenant which is for both Jews and Gentiles.

Now that Jesus Christ has come and has instituted the New Covenant, the only access to God, the only means of reconciliation with God, the only acceptable mode of worship and service to God, is through the New Covenant.

The New Covenant is in the spirit exactly what the Old Covenant was in the letter, down to the least jot and tittle.

If you seek true enlightenment, then seek to understand what the Old Covenant can teach you about what you already have under the New Covenant. Don't become entangled with laws and commandments which can no more keep you than they could save you in the first place.

You can't go up to old Jerusalem and dwell in a temporary shelter and ascend the Mount and enter the courts of the Lord's House to worship Him. Those things are passed away, removed by God Himself during the very generation which saw the coming of Jesus and the institution of the New Covenant, which in and of itself is undeniable proof that Jesus is the Messiah.

But what you can do is go up to the New Jerusalem, and even while living in a temporary earthly body you can ascend to the Mount and can enter the courts of the Lord's House in Heaven and pass into the Holy of Holies of Heaven itself and approach near to His Presence and stand before His very throne and worship God in person.

If you are waiting until Jesus returns to go up to Jerusalem and tabernacle with the Father, you may be too late.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

There has been no "enlightenment," only a gross mischaracterization of Christian history and belief and practice.



They are considered "Jewish" for the simple fact that the commandments to observe those feasts were part of the Old Covenant that God made with the nation of Israel (the "Jewish" people).

That Old Covenant which God made with the Jewish people was fulfilled when Jesus came into the world and instituted the New Covenant which is for both Jews and Gentiles.

Now that Jesus Christ has come and has instituted the New Covenant, the only access to God, the only means of reconciliation with God, the only acceptable mode of worship and service to God, is through the New Covenant.

The New Covenant is in the spirit exactly what the Old Covenant was in the letter, down to the least jot and tittle.

If you seek true enlightenment, then seek to understand what the Old Covenant can teach you about what you already have under the New Covenant. Don't become entangled with laws and commandments which can no more keep you than they could save you in the first place.

You can't go up to old Jerusalem and dwell in a temporary shelter and ascend the Mount and enter the courts of the Lord's House to worship Him. Those things are passed away, removed by God Himself during the very generation which saw the coming of Jesus and the institution of the New Covenant, which in and of itself is undeniable proof that Jesus is the Messiah.

But what you can do is go up to the New Jerusalem, and even while living in a temporary earthly body you can ascend to the Mount and can enter the courts of the Lord's House in Heaven and pass into the Holy of Holies of Heaven itself and approach near to His Presence and stand before His very throne and worship God in person.

If you are waiting until Jesus returns to go up to Jerusalem and tabernacle with the Father, you may be too late.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

God said:

Numbers 15:14 If a foreigner stays with you – or whoever may be with you, through all your generations – and he wants to bring an offering made by fire as a fragrant aroma for ADONAI, he is to do the same as you. 15 For this community there will be the same law for you as for the foreigner living with you; this is a permanent regulation through all your generations; the foreigner is to be treated the same way before ADONAI as yourselves. 16 The same Torah and standard of judgment will apply to both you and the foreigner living with you.’”
​

Verse 6 "Through ALL your generations". Verse 15 "permanent regulation".

Do we believe God or man?



Jesus said:

Matthew 5:18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the Torah -- not until everything that must happen has happened.
​

Heaven and earth have not passed away yet and not everything that has to happen has, therefore, it was not done away with when Jesus died on the cross. Do we believe Jesus or man?

The writer of Hebrews said:

Hebrews 6:13 When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, 14 saying, "I will surely bless you and give you many descendants." 15 And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised. 16 Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. 17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. 19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
​

God's nature is "unchanging". He cannot lie in regards to HIS oaths or HIS promises. So do we trust in God's unchanging nature or do we trust how man has interpreted the scriptures for us?

I do not trust in works or keeping the law in order to be saved. I am saved by the blood of Jesus who died for my sins and delivered me from the law of sin and death. However, I believe that when God said forever, HE meant it. If He didn't then the statement in Hebrews that HE's "unchangeable" in regards to His promises and oaths, is a lie.

PS I am a Christian, therefore, I am not anti-Christian. I have done study too and have come up with very different versions of history than you have. I guess we'll have to wait to the end to find out how it really went down.

 

[Simon_Templar]

I keep passover every sunday. The passover of Jesus Christ.

There is a lot more to this, but the key point is this. The orthodox religious Jews of Jesus time and even after believed that God was going to make a new covenant with Israel and that the new covenant would be like the old covenant but also different. They believed that a prophet would arise like Moses who would teach them a new law, lead them on a new exodus into a new promised land. They also believed that this new deliverer would deliver them from their sins as Moses had delivered them from Egypt, and that the promised land that he would lead them to was a place where they would "feast on the presence of God" (those exact words were used in Rabbinical tradition).

They also believed that this new deliverance of the new covenant would occur on the night of the passover feast.

When Jesus celebrated the last supper with his disciples, he was celebrating the passover with them, but he was doing more than just celebrating it. He was renewing it and instituting the passover of the new covenant.

In the traditional passover the head of the house explained the meaning of the passover, and explained the meaning of the bread (why it was unleavened etc). When Jesus explained celebrated the passover and instituted the new passover of the new covenant, he did the same thing.. but he explained that the bread was his body which was to be broken, and the wine was his blood which was to be 'poured out' for the forgiveness of sins.

The pouring out refers directly to the fact that the passover lamb was a sacrifice which had to be made by priests in the temple and when the priest sacrificed the lamb, it's blood was collected and then poured out on the alter.

Another key aspect of the passover was that God required the Jews to eat all of the lamb. Nothing of the lamb was allowed to remain uneaten, and if it couldn't be eaten then it had to be burned.
This key aspect was that the sacrifice was not complete, the passover was not complete until the people had eaten the flesh of the sacrificed passover lamb.

To a Christian this connection should be obvious to the fact that Jesus commanded us to eat the bread and drink the wine of communion, which he said are his flesh and blood.

Thus, the truth is, the passover will continue forever, and the Church does keep the passover. We keep the passover that Jesus Christ re-established and instituted as the inaugeration of the new covenant.. Just as God instituted the passover in Egypt to inaugerate the old covenant.

We also keep first fruits every time we celebrate easter sunday, but instead of celebrating the first fruits of barely, we celebrate the first fruits of the resurrection. We also keep shavout every time we celebrate pentecost... but again instead of celebrating the beginning of the wheat harvest, we celebrate the beginning of the harvest of the Church.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

I keep passover every sunday. The passover of Jesus Christ.

There is a lot more to this, but the key point is this. The orthodox religious Jews of Jesus time and even after believed that God was going to make a new covenant with Israel and that the new covenant would be like the old covenant but also different. They believed that a prophet would arise like Moses who would teach them a new law, lead them on a new exodus into a new promised land. They also believed that this new deliverer would deliver them from their sins as Moses had delivered them from Egypt, and that the promised land that he would lead them to was a place where they would "feast on the presence of God" (those exact words were used in Rabbinical tradition).

They also believed that this new deliverance of the new covenant would occur on the night of the passover feast.

When Jesus celebrated the last supper with his disciples, he was celebrating the passover with them, but he was doing more than just celebrating it. He was renewing it and instituting the passover of the new covenant.

In the traditional passover the head of the house explained the meaning of the passover, and explained the meaning of the bread (why it was unleavened etc). When Jesus explained celebrated the passover and instituted the new passover of the new covenant, he did the same thing.. but he explained that the bread was his body which was to be broken, and the wine was his blood which was to be 'poured out' for the forgiveness of sins.

The pouring out refers directly to the fact that the passover lamb was a sacrifice which had to be made by priests in the temple and when the priest sacrificed the lamb, it's blood was collected and then poured out on the alter.

Another key aspect of the passover was that God required the Jews to eat all of the lamb. Nothing of the lamb was allowed to remain uneaten, and if it couldn't be eaten then it had to be burned.
This key aspect was that the sacrifice was not complete, the passover was not complete until the people had eaten the flesh of the sacrificed passover lamb.

To a Christian this connection should be obvious to the fact that Jesus commanded us to eat the bread and drink the wine of communion, which he said are his flesh and blood.

Thus, the truth is, the passover will continue forever, and the Church does keep the passover. We keep the passover that Jesus Christ re-established and instituted as the inaugeration of the new covenant.. Just as God instituted the passover in Egypt to inaugerate the old covenant.

We also keep first fruits every time we celebrate easter sunday, but instead of celebrating the first fruits of barely, we celebrate the first fruits of the resurrection. We also keep shavout every time we celebrate pentecost... but again instead of celebrating the beginning of the wheat harvest, we celebrate the beginning of the harvest of the Church.

Simon, you've said nothing for me to argue with. I was just pointing out that according to scripture, (old and new) God does not change or go back on His promises and vows. Anyone who says "He's changed" is wrong. Period.

This is not about keeping rules and regulations and doing everything on the right day and stopping doing things on the wrong day. It's about the church teaching that God has changed His mind on things He said He did not like and that what He said were permanent and forever are done away with. I see that teaching as a contradiction of His word.

I'm not trying to force anyone to go along with anything. Scripture says we should work out our own salvation in fear and trembling. We each must respond in faith and trust to what the Holy Spirit is guiding us to do in regards to our own self.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Simon, you've said nothing for me to argue with. I was just pointing out that according to scripture, (old and new) God does not change or go back on His promises and vows. Anyone who says "He's changed" is wrong. Period.

This is not about keeping rules and regulations and doing everything on the right day and stopping doing things on the wrong day. It's about the church teaching that God has changed His mind on things He said He did not like and that what He said were permanent and forever are done away with. I see that teaching as a contradiction of His word.

I'm not trying to force anyone to go along with anything. Scripture says we should work out our own salvation in fear and trembling. We each must respond in faith and trust to what the Holy Spirit is guiding us to do in regards to our own self.

God does not change, but he does change how he interacts with us. Do we offer sacrifices of lambs and bulls any longer? Do we execute rebelious children?

The fact that God has changed the covenant by instituting the new covenant is undeniable.
Even if you don't accept the new covenant, the simple facts of reality are that the old covenant and all of its trappings have ceased. This is not a theological point, it is a readily observable reality of life. Where is the temple? Where are the priests? where are the sacrifices?

This is the irony for me when dealing with a lot of the 'messianic' sub-culture in christianity... the problem with it is not that its Jewish, the problem is that it isn't Jewish enough. It adopts the outward appearance, but it doesn't really understand the heart and the truth underneath. In a very real sense, biblical judaism has not existed for 2000 years. The Jewish religion of today is not biblical judaism, it is what evolved after it became impossible to practice biblical judaism anymore. Messianic Christians have the same problem.. the jewishness that they know and that they base themselves on is not real, biblical, judaism, but rather it is the judaism that came into being and developed over long centuries after the biblical, 'old testament' religion ceased to be.

You guys talk about keeping passover, and about the passover being eternal etc. Yet you ignore the most obvious reality that there has not been a true passover celebration (in the sense of the old testament passover) in nearly 2000 years.

No living Jew and no messianic Christian has EVER kept the old testament passover, and it is likely that none ever will again.

The reason for this is that the passover was first and foremost a sacrifice. The central feature of the passover was the sacrifice of the lamb, the pouring out of its blood, and the eating of its flesh.

From the time of Mt. Sinai on, this sacrifice could ONLY be performed by the Aaronic priesthood and it could only be performed in the tabernacle and later in the temple.

The passover that Jews keep today, is not the passover commanded by God. It does not fulfill what God commanded.

The reason that no Jew keeps the passover is because it is impossible to do so. It is impossible to sacrifice the lamb, and it is impossible to pour out it's blood on the alter, and thus it is impossible to eat the flesh of the sacrificed lamb. Without all of that, there is no true passover.

There is no longer an Aaronic priesthood and there is no longer a temple, or a tabernacle in which to offer the lamb.

The greatest irony for Christians, of course, is that even if there were, continuing to offer the lamb would be an act of sacrelige and blasphemy against Christ who is the lamb of God offered once for all.

This leaves messianic Christians in a position where they, first, can not keep the passover, and second, even if they could, to do so would effectively be denying Christ.

The idea that God was going to make a new covenant which would not be like the old, that he was going to change the things of the old covenant is an idea that is present in scripture, and in the commentaries and teachings of the Rabbi's as well.

The fact that God changes how he interacts with people, does not in the least mean that God has changed.

Nor does the fact that God established a new passover, I would say a renewed passover, mean that his original statement that the passover would be eternal has been denied.
The passover of the old covenant has ceased. This is not even an arguable point.. it is a fact, because it is impossible to keep it according to God's commands.
Yet the passover continues because the new covenant renewed the passover, just as it is renewing everything else.

Moreover, the point of the passover was to remember God's deliverance of the people from Egypt. In fact, more than just rememberance, it was perscribed that when the passover liturgy was recited by the head of the household, he was to say "on this night the Lord delivered me..." In other words, it was a rememberance, but in the memorial each person who participated also participating in the original deliverance of Israel.

Yet the deliverance from Egypt was ultimately a symbol, a foreshadowing of the greater deliverance which was to come. The greater passover was that which marked our deliverance from sin.

So this is another irony to me... the passover in egypt was 'just a symbol' of the passover when Jesus shed his blood, and marked us with his blood, delivering us from slavery to sin. Yet so many people view the old testament passover as the 'real' passover and communion as 'just a symbol'. They respect the symbol and denigrate the truth it symbolized.

 

[Strong in Him]

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?

I celebrate it every day.

If you are asking how the church decides when to tell the Easter story and sing specifically Easter hymns - I don't know.
But Jesus died so that we could be forgiven, have eternal life and be reconciled to God. Scripture says that every time we come to God we do so through Jesus. The Holy Spirit was sent after Jesus' ascension, (which obviously happened after the resurrection.)
So every time we come to God, pray, confess our sins, read the word which was inspired by his Spirit and ask that Spirit to work in us to help and transform us, we are celebrating Jesus' birth, crucifixion, resurrection and Pentecost.

That is the most important thing; personally I can't get that dogmatic about dates.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

God does not change, but he does change how he interacts with us. Do we offer sacrifices of lambs and bulls any longer? Do we execute rebelious children?

The fact that God has changed the covenant by instituting the new covenant is undeniable.
Even if you don't accept the new covenant, the simple facts of reality are that the old covenant and all of its trappings have ceased. This is not a theological point, it is a readily observable reality of life. Where is the temple? Where are the priests? where are the sacrifices?

This is the irony for me when dealing with a lot of the 'messianic' sub-culture in christianity... the problem with it is not that its Jewish, the problem is that it isn't Jewish enough. It adopts the outward appearance, but it doesn't really understand the heart and the truth underneath. In a very real sense, biblical judaism has not existed for 2000 years. The Jewish religion of today is not biblical judaism, it is what evolved after it became impossible to practice biblical judaism anymore. Messianic Christians have the same problem.. the jewishness that they know and that they base themselves on is not real, biblical, judaism, but rather it is the judaism that came into being and developed over long centuries after the biblical, 'old testament' religion ceased to be.

You guys talk about keeping passover, and about the passover being eternal etc. Yet you ignore the most obvious reality that there has not been a true passover celebration (in the sense of the old testament passover) in nearly 2000 years.

No living Jew and no messianic Christian has EVER kept the old testament passover, and it is likely that none ever will again.

The reason for this is that the passover was first and foremost a sacrifice. The central feature of the passover was the sacrifice of the lamb, the pouring out of its blood, and the eating of its flesh.

From the time of Mt. Sinai on, this sacrifice could ONLY be performed by the Aaronic priesthood and it could only be performed in the tabernacle and later in the temple.

The passover that Jews keep today, is not the passover commanded by God. It does not fulfill what God commanded.

The reason that no Jew keeps the passover is because it is impossible to do so. It is impossible to sacrifice the lamb, and it is impossible to pour out it's blood on the alter, and thus it is impossible to eat the flesh of the sacrificed lamb. Without all of that, there is no true passover.

There is no longer an Aaronic priesthood and there is no longer a temple, or a tabernacle in which to offer the lamb.

The greatest irony for Christians, of course, is that even if there were, continuing to offer the lamb would be an act of sacrelige and blasphemy against Christ who is the lamb of God offered once for all.

This leaves messianic Christians in a position where they, first, can not keep the passover, and second, even if they could, to do so would effectively be denying Christ.

The idea that God was going to make a new covenant which would not be like the old, that he was going to change the things of the old covenant is an idea that is present in scripture, and in the commentaries and teachings of the Rabbi's as well.

The fact that God changes how he interacts with people, does not in the least mean that God has changed.

Nor does the fact that God established a new passover, I would say a renewed passover, mean that his original statement that the passover would be eternal has been denied.
The passover of the old covenant has ceased. This is not even an arguable point.. it is a fact, because it is impossible to keep it according to God's commands.
Yet the passover continues because the new covenant renewed the passover, just as it is renewing everything else.

Moreover, the point of the passover was to remember God's deliverance of the people from Egypt. In fact, more than just rememberance, it was perscribed that when the passover liturgy was recited by the head of the household, he was to say "on this night the Lord delivered me..." In other words, it was a rememberance, but in the memorial each person who participated also participating in the original deliverance of Israel.

Yet the deliverance from Egypt was ultimately a symbol, a foreshadowing of the greater deliverance which was to come. The greater passover was that which marked our deliverance from sin.

So this is another irony to me... the passover in egypt was 'just a symbol' of the passover when Jesus shed his blood, and marked us with his blood, delivering us from slavery to sin. Yet so many people view the old testament passover as the 'real' passover and communion as 'just a symbol'. They respect the symbol and denigrate the truth it symbolized.

Obviously I'm just so inept at making a point that others continually miss it and only respond to my scroll icon with their responses and supply info that has nothing to do with anything I said. I'm not trying to be flippant, I'm just frustrated that my posts are continually shoved in a direction I was not going. I don't expect that people agree with what I point out, I just want to know that my point was understood. I'm unsubscribing and will try my best not to ask any more questions.

 

[lismore]

4 For the Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or household gods. 5 Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the LORD and to his blessings in the last days.

Hosea 3

 

[gratefulgrace]

4 For the Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or household gods. 5 Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the LORD and to his blessings in the last days.

Hosea 3

A big Hallelujah to that brother Hosea for writing it and Lis for posting it. I think some christians miss this point of scripture. Some Jews come to God just like gentiles because they are essentially gentile in their lack of faith. However I believe for an observant Jew the path to God although still through Jeshua often looks quite different than church revival times. gg

 

[Pilgrimer]

God said:

Numbers 15:14 If a foreigner stays with you – or whoever may be with you, through all your generations – and he wants to bring an offering made by fire as a fragrant aroma for ADONAI, he is to do the same as you. 15 For this community there will be the same law for you as for the foreigner living with you; this is a permanent regulation through all your generations; the foreigner is to be treated the same way before ADONAI as yourselves. 16 The same Torah and standard of judgment will apply to both you and the foreigner living with you.’”

​

Verse 6 "Through ALL your generations". Verse 15 "permanent regulation".

Do we believe God or man?

Jesus said:

Matthew 5:18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the Torah -- not until everything that must happen has happened.
​

Heaven and earth have not passed away yet and not everything that has to happen has, therefore, it was not done away with when Jesus died on the cross. Do we believe Jesus or man?

The writer of Hebrews said:

Hebrews 6:13 When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, 14 saying, "I will surely bless you and give you many descendants." 15 And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised. 16 Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. 17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. 19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

​

God's nature is "unchanging". He cannot lie in regards to HIS oaths or HIS promises. So do we trust in God's unchanging nature or do we trust how man has interpreted the scriptures for us?

I do not trust in works or keeping the law in order to be saved. I am saved by the blood of Jesus who died for my sins and delivered me from the law of sin and death. However, I believe that when God said forever, HE meant it. If He didn't then the statement in Hebrews that HE's "unchangeable" in regards to His promises and oaths, is a lie.

PS I am a Christian, therefore, I am not anti-Christian. I have done study too and have come up with very different versions of history than you have. I guess we'll have to wait to the end to find out how it really went down. [/quote]

I'd like to make three points to your comments. All of the commandments and ordinances of the Old Covenant were to be observed "owlam," meaning forever. That included not just the Passover, but all the feasts and fasts and sabbaths as well as all the commandents and ordinances including keeping the lamp supplied with oil and the light burning in the Holy Place forever (Exodus 27:20-21) and the clothing prescribed to be worn by the priests when they ministered in the sanctuary was an ordinance "forever" (Exodus 28:40-43), and the breast and the shoulder of Israel's peace-offering that became the wave- and heave-offering belonging to the priests was to be "forever" (Exodus 29:27-28), and the ordinance that the priests were to wash their hands and their feet at the brazen sea before ministering in the Sanctuary was to be "forever" (Exodus 30:17-21), and I could go on and on. But perhaps the most obvious is that the sacrifice of the goat "for Jehovah" and the sprinkling of it's blood to make atonement for sin on the Day of Atonement was also to be a sacrifice that was to be offered up to God "forever" (Leviticus 16:29-34)

So what changed? Because as Simon Templar rightly pointed out, all these sacrifices and ordinances obviously have ceased and there hasn't been a sacrifice made or an ordinance kept according to the Law since the generation in which Jesus instituted the New Covenant. So did God change His mind about all these things being "forever" as you are suggesting Christians teach?

No, and I don't know of any orthodox Christian church that teaches that. The truth is that Jesus has become the goat for Jehovah, the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, the tribute offering, the peace-offering, the thank-offering, the vow offering, the freewill offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, the wave-offering, the heave-offering, every single sacrifice and offering the Law required, Jesus has fulfilled, and now is. And since the body and blood of Jesus is now all of those sacrifices and offerings, and since he lives forever and stands in the presence of God forever offering himself a sacrifice forever, then truly all these sacrifices and offerings are no longer a temporary offering repeated daily and weekly and monthly and annually year after year after year, but a single, perpetual, never-ending, sacrifice offered up once to the Father "owlam," FOREVER!

And that is what God intended from the very beginning. All those gererations of lambs and bulls and goats and doves being sacrificed and their blood being sprinkled was only a temporary means of reconciling men with God until the time came for Jesus to appear and fulfill what they all pointed to. What? Do you think when God said these things would be forever that He meant lambs and goats and bulls and doves would be slain and their blood poured out year after year after year forever?

And this is true not only of the sacrifices and offerings, but of every jot and tittle of the Law. The whole point of the Law was to prepare the way for and teach about the coming and the person and the work of Jesus and the blessedness of service and fellowship with God that His children now enjoy through Christ. Do you think God changed his mind about how His priests are to be clothed when they enter His House to minister to Him? Of course not. That's why, as the New Testament teaches, we must be clothed with robes "washed in the blood of the Lamb," which are also called a "wedding garment" without which we cannot come to the wedding feast and sit at the Lord's Table and eat of the feast prepared for those that are called to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. And many other such things that we enjoy now that were foreshadowed in the Law with all it's commandments and ordinances that will forever be kept and observed, not according to the letter, "for the letter killeth," but are kept and observed according to the spirit, "for the spirit giveth life."

Which brings me to my second point: I think you are misreading what Jesus said about his coming and his fulfillment of the Law. He did not say that the Law would not pass away until heaven and earth pass away. He said as long as the heaven and earth stands, not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law until ALL the Law had been fulfilled.

So the only question is, has all the Law been fulfilled?

The truth is, yes. All the Law has been fulfilled, every jot and tittle. Had all the law not been fulfilled, then not one jot or tittle could have passed away, and as Simon said, look around, see for yourself, you don't need anyone to tell you if any of the jots and tittles of the Law have passed away ...

And third, saying that God has changed the way in which men can now be reconciled with Him, can serve Him, and even have fellowship with Him does not in any way mean that God Himself has changed. The unchangableness of God is a fundamental doctrine of orthodox Christianity and even goes back to the Nicene Creed which was formulated by the persecution-scarred church as a firm belief that not only the Father but the Son also is unchanging.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

God does not change, but he does change how he interacts with us. Do we offer sacrifices of lambs and bulls any longer? Do we execute rebelious children?

The fact that God has changed the covenant by instituting the new covenant is undeniable.
Even if you don't accept the new covenant, the simple facts of reality are that the old covenant and all of its trappings have ceased. This is not a theological point, it is a readily observable reality of life. Where is the temple? Where are the priests? where are the sacrifices?

This is the irony for me when dealing with a lot of the 'messianic' sub-culture in christianity... the problem with it is not that its Jewish, the problem is that it isn't Jewish enough. It adopts the outward appearance, but it doesn't really understand the heart and the truth underneath. In a very real sense, biblical judaism has not existed for 2000 years. The Jewish religion of today is not biblical judaism, it is what evolved after it became impossible to practice biblical judaism anymore. Messianic Christians have the same problem.. the jewishness that they know and that they base themselves on is not real, biblical, judaism, but rather it is the judaism that came into being and developed over long centuries after the biblical, 'old testament' religion ceased to be.

Well said! Judaism today is Rabbinic or more correctly Talmudic Judaism, not Biblical Judaism. The Talmud is the oral traditions that many Rabbis claim were handed down alongside the Torah and they claim are equally authoritative. But those are the "traditions" Jesus condemned as making void the Torah. The Pharisees, who believed the highest expression of holiness was the study of the Law through the synagogue, struggled with the ruling Saduccean party who believed the highest expression of holiness was through the ritual of the Temple cultus. Consequently, most of the priests were Saduccees while most of the Scribes were Pharisees. So with the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Temple cultus, the Saduccean party died out and the Pharisees gained absolute control over the development of post-Temple Judaism. Over the next centuries the "oral traditions" were collected and written down into two primary works, one composed in Palestine in the 4th century called the Jerusalem Talmud, and the other in Babylon about 500 C.E called the Babylonian Talmud. So modern day Judaism is far-removed from Biblican Judaism which is focused on the Temple as the center of Israel's worship and learning and has, since the end of the Temple cultus and the Jewish commonwealth, shifted to center on Rabbinic theology as expressed in the Talmudic oral traditions.

You guys talk about keeping passover, and about the passover being eternal etc. Yet you ignore the most obvious reality that there has not been a true passover celebration (in the sense of the old testament passover) in nearly 2000 years.

No living Jew and no messianic Christian has EVER kept the old testament passover, and it is likely that none ever will again.

The reason for this is that the passover was first and foremost a sacrifice. The central feature of the passover was the sacrifice of the lamb, the pouring out of its blood, and the eating of its flesh.

From the time of Mt. Sinai on, this sacrifice could ONLY be performed by the Aaronic priesthood and it could only be performed in the tabernacle and later in the temple.

The passover that Jews keep today, is not the passover commanded by God. It does not fulfill what God commanded.

The reason that no Jew keeps the passover is because it is impossible to do so. It is impossible to sacrifice the lamb, and it is impossible to pour out it's blood on the alter, and thus it is impossible to eat the flesh of the sacrificed lamb. Without all of that, there is no true passover.

There is no longer an Aaronic priesthood and there is no longer a temple, or a tabernacle in which to offer the lamb.

Well said. I also find myself often at odds with messianics (the vast majority of whom are actully gentiles) who claim to be keeping the passover and yet not once have they ever even obeyed the first and primary commandment for observing Passover, and that is that they must keep the Passover in Jerusalem. The only exceptions is if they are too poor, or if their health will not allow them to travel. During New Testament times travel for many of the Jews of the Diaspora meant weeks of travel to and from so it was understandable why so many were forced to celebrate the passover outside the land, but with modern air travel one can be in Jerusalem in a few hours and the cost is not at all exorbitant. Of course, I have had messianics point out that there is no temple or priest to bring their offerings to, but I have pointed out that since the Law required that the sacrifices and offerings be given into the hand of the preists and the tithe be spent in Jerusalem, that there are certainly plenty of orthodox Rabbis who would be more than happy to accept their yearly tithes and the equivalent of the cost of the lamb and the chagiga and all the other passover sacrifices. But it seems that the vast majority of messianics just don't want to take their "Torah observance" that far as to make even the minimal effort to actually obey the commandments respecting how to keep the passover. Donning a tallit and eating what passes for passover today does not even begin to fulfill what the Law requires.

The greatest irony for Christians, of course, is that even if there were, continuing to offer the lamb would be an act of sacrelige and blasphemy against Christ who is the lamb of God offered once for all.

This leaves messianic Christians in a position where they, first, can not keep the passover, and second, even if they could, to do so would effectively be denying Christ.

Which is why God took away the Temple cultus once it was fulflled, because there was no longer any efficacy in those things now that the One to whom they pointed had come and fulfilled them. It's like once the building was finished, there wasn't much use for the blueprint ... except as a study tool for understanding how the building was constructed.

The idea that God was going to make a new covenant which would not be like the old, that he was going to change the things of the old covenant is an idea that is present in scripture, and in the commentaries and teachings of the Rabbi's as well.

I would suggest that God didn't "change" the Old Covenant but rather that the New Covenant "fulfilled" everything the Old promised.

The fact that God changes how he interacts with people, does not in the least mean that God has changed.

Nor does the fact that God established a new passover, I would say a renewed passover, mean that his original statement that the passover would be eternal has been denied.
The passover of the old covenant has ceased. This is not even an arguable point.. it is a fact, because it is impossible to keep it according to God's commands.
Yet the passover continues because the new covenant renewed the passover, just as it is renewing everything else.

Moreover, the point of the passover was to remember God's deliverance of the people from Egypt. In fact, more than just rememberance, it was perscribed that when the passover liturgy was recited by the head of the household, he was to say "on this night the Lord delivered me..." In other words, it was a rememberance, but in the memorial each person who participated also participating in the original deliverance of Israel.

Yet the deliverance from Egypt was ultimately a symbol, a foreshadowing of the greater deliverance which was to come. The greater passover was that which marked our deliverance from sin.

So this is another irony to me... the passover in egypt was 'just a symbol' of the passover when Jesus shed his blood, and marked us with his blood, delivering us from slavery to sin. Yet so many people view the old testament passover as the 'real' passover and communion as 'just a symbol'. They respect the symbol and denigrate the truth it symbolized.

I agree, but then that too was foretold. David even prophesied it in the famous Messianic Crucifixion passage when he said, "let their table become a snare and a trap, that they bow down their back always," which Paul quoted when he wrote about how the majority of Jews would reject the Gospel because they were so blinded by the glory of the things of the Old Covenant that those things which God had provided for their good to bring them to Christ instead became a trap and a snare that would keep them bowed down under the yoke of the Law forever. Only a remnant of Jews would be saved. (Psalms 69:22-23, Romans 11:9-10). And so it is today, the vast majority of the Jewish people are blinded by the beauty and glory of the Law to the greater beauty and glory of Christ but as the Scripture says, if their hearts turn to Jesus, then God will remove the vail from their eyes and they will see. (2 Corinthians 3:15-16)

So it was written, so it was done.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Like I said, I'm obviously too inept to say what I mean so that others won't continually think I'm talking about laws.

Here is a quote though regarding keeping the laws.

From Judaism 101: "Many of these 613 mitzvot cannot be observed at this time for various reasons. For example, a large portion of the laws relate to sacrifices and offerings, which can only be made in the Temple, and which does not exist today. Some of the laws relate to the theocratic state of Israel, its king, its supreme court, and its system of justice, and cannot be observed because the theocratic state of Israel does not exist today. In addition, some laws do not apply to all people or places. Agricultural laws only apply within the state of Israel, and certain laws only apply to Kohanim or Levites".
​

First off I've never said that one must keep all the laws. I've just alluded to how some haphazardly explain away what God says with their rediculous interpretations that change throughout time, and vary depending on who is talking, as they are confronted with what God really said. I grew up in the church and even as a child could see through excuses vs real reasons.

Can we PLEASE get back to the OP. My question had nothing to do with Jewish law.

Here is the question again, paraphrased a bit:

Why do we not celebrate His resurrection on the date that scripture tells us it happened?
​

​

 

[Pilgrimer]

Like I said, I'm obviously too inept to say what I mean so that others won't continually think I'm talking about laws.

Here is a quote though regarding keeping the laws.

From Judaism 101: "Many of these 613 mitzvot cannot be observed at this time for various reasons. For example, a large portion of the laws relate to sacrifices and offerings, which can only be made in the Temple, and which does not exist today. Some of the laws relate to the theocratic state of Israel, its king, its supreme court, and its system of justice, and cannot be observed because the theocratic state of Israel does not exist today. In addition, some laws do not apply to all people or places. Agricultural laws only apply within the state of Israel, and certain laws only apply to Kohanim or Levites".​

Which rather makes the point that the New Covenant has fulfilled the Old Covenant. Under the New Covenant there is a sacrifice and offering, there is a Temple with a Holy of Holies and a Mercy Seat, there is a Priest and an Altar, there is a theocratic Kingdom, there is a King, there is a court of 24 judges, and a system of both mercy and justice, there are plentiful fruits to be gathered in and brought up to offer before the Lord, and all the New Covenant applies to everyone under the New Covenant for all are kings and priests. Once the New Covenant was instituted and all the promises and types and shadows of the Old had been fulfilled, the Old passed away.
​

First off I've never said that one must keep all the laws.

True, the Scripture says one must keep all the Law: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10

And Simon and I have simply pointed out that God Himself has rendered obedience to the Law impossible.

I've just alluded to how some haphazardly explain away what God says with their rediculous interpretations that change throughout time, and vary depending on who is talking, as they are confronted with what God really said. I grew up in the church and even as a child could see through excuses vs real reasons.

Are you suggesting that the views that Simon and I have offered are haphazard and rediculous? I don't know what kind of church you grew up in, but they don't sound like a very orthodox Christian church if that's what they teach. Or perhaps it was simply a pastor not well-versed in such matters, I know that can sometimes be the case in small churches.

Can we PLEASE

get back to the OP. My question had nothing to do with Jewish law.

Here is the question again, paraphrased a bit:

​

Why do we not celebrate His resurrection on the date that scripture tells us it happened?

​

We do celebrate Jesus' resurrection on the day that scripture tells us it happened ... the Sunday following the passover which began on the 14th day of the new moon of the spring.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[probinson]

Here is the question again, paraphrased a bit:

Why do we not celebrate His resurrection on the date that scripture tells us it happened?
​

Yet here we are, more than 6 weeks after resurrection Sunday 2011, and we're still debating the date it occurred.

Your question is a bit oversimplified; if scripture stated plainly, "Jesus rose from the grave on April 10", then you would have a very clear point. But as it stands and as anyone who reads the pages of this thread can see, there is much debate over what that actual date was.

Clearly, it's not as cut and dry as you're presenting it to be.

That's why I said way back at the beginning of this thread that the date was not nearly as important as why we celebrate in the first place. Otherwise, we just end up in endless debates and discussions.