Parallel of RC/KJVO

robycop3:

"And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also (then was the days of unleavened bread.)"- Acts 12:3 (KJV)

Are the days of unleavened bread Passover? No! Herrod wasn`t waiting for fear of the Jews. The Jews wanted him to continue. He was waiting for the pegan holiday to pass.

Bob

 

More of the same old same old.

What evidence do you have that this "pegan [sic] holiday" was observed in Judaea, let alone by Herod?

 

The KJV disagrees with you. Once again here is what you favorite Bible version says on Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread.

Ezekiel 45:21
In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

Luke 22:1
Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

And FYI, it's pagan and not pegan.

 

Gina,

I agree that it sounds like some people are a little strong on their bias about the KJV.
But, I notice that you came out of a cult ... Does a KJV only theology help when bringing people out of that past?

Wayne

 

Bob Rogers said "Are the days of unleavened bread Passover? No!"

Luke says Yes! Luke 22:1. Luke called "the feast of unleavened bread" (which is the entire week if you look it up in the OT) "Passover".

Bob Rogers said "Herrod wasn`t waiting for fear of the Jews."

Correct. He didn't fear the Jews. However, he did want to please them (verse 3).

Bob Rogers said "He was waiting for the pegan holiday to pass."

No he wasn't. Luke wrote "pascha".

 

--------------------------------------------------
No he wasn't. Luke wrote "pascha".
--------------------------------------------------


To which God preserved as "Easter" in our English language scriptures. Easter is not passover. Therefore pasha is not passover in this verse.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle, the final authority that God preserved in 1610 said "Passover".

 

Strange,my 1599 facsimile Geneva Bible says Easter..

 

Anti-Alexandrian said "Strange,my 1599 facsimile Geneva Bible says Easter.."

That is not strange. The 1599 Geneva was not the final authority in 1610. The 1599 is an updated edition, there was a final authority prior to 1599 that wasn't made unfinal in 1599.

 

Strange that you would bring up the Geneva Ant-Alexandrian! Now since you are so "up" on the Geneva perhaps you would care to note this:

Psalm 12:6-7 6 The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes, as the siluer, tried in a fornace of earth, fined seuen folde. 7 Thou wilt keepe them, O Lord: thou wilt preserue him from this generation for euer. Geneva 1599

Yes Anti-A, I know I know....the 1769 corrects everything! Ex Cathreda occured in 1769! I'm sure that your silence will prove my point.


Anyway back to the Romanism and KJVOism:

I had a KJVO tell me that Ex Cathreda generally referred to something new when I bought this issue up about KJVO Ex Cathreda. This excuse was used to slide away from the question that I raised about the 1769 KJV. If this KJVO is right(by the way he was not refer to Ex Cathreda etc...) then something new did happen in 1769 when Blayney corrected and updated the AV1611!

KJVO Ex Cathreda occured in 1769 therefore the 1769 KJV is the be all end all of English bibles! The 1769 can correct the Hebrew and Greek! The 1769 KJV correct all older English bible including all the editions of the AV1611.

KJVOist have more in common with Rome than they are willing to admit!

 

Michelle:To which God preserved as "Easter" in our English language scriptures. Easter is not passover. Therefore pasha is not passover in this verse.

I see...the AV men, by their power, changed what Luke actually wrote to suit your tastes.

Or, Luke was wrong, and had to be corrected by the AV men. We see...

 

--------------------------------------------------
KJVO Ex Cathreda occured in 1769 therefore the 1769 KJV is the be all end all of English bibles! The 1769 can correct the Hebrew and Greek! The 1769 KJV correct all older English bible including all the editions of the AV1611.

--------------------------------------------------

To the above statement in bold. It is rather that the KJB corrects the men of today who claim the Greek and Hebrew say or mean something opposite or contrary to the English preserved word of God. You see, the KJB CORRECTS the modern day scholars, not the texts it comes from. I am afraid you do have it backwards.


--------------------------------------------------
KJVOist have more in common with Rome than they are willing to admit!
--------------------------------------------------


And this is FAR FROM THE TRUTH and in your own fevered imagination.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

One word for you Mithelle:

Ex Cathreda!

 

Bob Rogers:Are the days of unleavened bread Passover? No! Herrod wasn`t waiting for fear of the Jews. The Jews wanted him to continue. He was waiting for the pegan holiday to pass.

Bob

With all due respect:

The word Luke wrote here was 'pascha', which is correctly rendered "Passover" in the KJV every other time it's found in the Greek. In Luke's day, pascha meant only 'Passover'. it was coined from the Hebrew "p'sach", which means Passover and nothing else. Since you apparently know some Jews, just ask any of them. And besides that, Easter did NOT exist in Luke's or Herod's time.

And remember, Herod was trying to PLEASE the Jewish religious leadership. (Just read a history of the Herods as compiled by Josephus, a contemporary of the last Herods.) Abd interrupting their religious observance with a govt. matter would NOT have pleased them, to put it mildly.

He whacked James, & that pleased them, so he was gonna please'em more by letting them have Peter as their prisoner, to do with as they wished, to let THEM whack him if they desired...but NOT UNTIL PASSOVER WEEK WAS OVER.

 

Bob Rogers:Are the days of unleavened bread Passover? No!

From the KJV:

Ezekiel 45:21 In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the **passover, a feast of seven days**; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

Luke 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.


Now, we know Jesus had eaten the Passover meal, with the paschal lamb the previous evening, as had every other Jew in the area. And we know the Jews began their new day at sunset, rather than at midnight as we do. So, WHAT OTHER PASSOVER does the following verse refer?

John 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might **eat the passover**.

It refers to the unleavened bread to be eaten during the entire week. SAME PASSOVER, lasting all week.

There's SCRIPTURAL PROOF that passover lasts ONE WEEK, and is NOT just the paschal meal. Again, you know some Jews. If ya don't believe ME, just ask THEM.

 

I'm sorry, but the Greek word pascha means "passover." It comes from the Hebrew word pesach, which means "passover." In *every* known instance where it is used in ancient Greek, pascha *always* refers to the Jewish passover and *never, ever* refers to a pagan festival.

 

--------------------------------------------------
And remember, Herod was trying to PLEASE the Jewish religious leadership. (Just read a history of the Herods as compiled by Josephus, a contemporary of the last Herods.) Abd interrupting their religious observance with a govt. matter would NOT have pleased them, to put it mildly.
--------------------------------------------------


Then please explain to us, why it did not seem to bother the jews for the crucifiction of our Lord Jesus Christ? Besides the scriptures say that Herod the King stretched forth HIS HANDS to VEX certain of the church. This was Herods intention, not the jews. His intention is made very clear. He intended to kill Peter, just as he had killed James to PLEASE THE JEWS. He waited. The waiting had nothing to do with the jewish observence of the days of unleavened bread. It had to do with Herods intentions. The scriptures also say, that when Herod would have brought him forth, and sought for him, and found him not, he examined the keepers and COMMANDED that they be put to death. He was ANGRY. He was the one who sought him, and who was to bring him forth. This had nothing to do with the Jews, except for the fact that Herod was going to use killing Peter to gain the favor of the Jews. We see also in this same chapter, that the Lord smote him for not giving God the glory, and making it seem he himself was a god, as the people there were worshipping him. He was going to kill Peter for his own vain glory. This was Herod's evil intention, and the only thing that would have kept him from this was his own religious belief. It was this religious belief, that brought him ultimately to his death, that the Lord smote him for.

I have also heard a different interpretation of this which also seems possible, in that Easter means the resurrection. There are possible reasons for this also. Will Kinney had a very good explanation for why Herod would have not killed Peter on the resurrection day. But Easter is clearly the word that God chose for us in our English language no matter which interpretation one believes.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle:To the above statement in bold. It is rather that the KJB corrects the men of today who claim the Greek and Hebrew say or mean something opposite or contrary to the English preserved word of God. You see, the KJB CORRECTS the modern day scholars, not the texts it comes from. I am afraid you do have it backwards.

For someone who claims to not have read Rucky, you sure do mimic his crazy ideas!

The KJV is an English Bible translation, made by men, same as any other valid translation. And you just said the KJV changes pascha, as written by Luke to whom Easter was unknown, to Easter, which WAS known to the AV men, and defined by them as the anniversary of the resurrection of Our Lord, thereby changing what Luke wrote. This is a plain acknowledgement that you believe the false, heretical, unScriptural doctrine of ADVANCED REVELATION, as proclaimed by Ruckman.

If the subject weren't so serious, you'd be a real laff-riot, Michelle!

 

--------------------------------------------------
The KJV is an English Bible translation, made by men, same as any other valid translation. And you just said the KJV changes pascha, as written by Luke to whom Easter was unknown, to Easter, which WAS known to the AV men, and defined by them as the anniversary of the resurrection of Our Lord, thereby changing what Luke wrote. This is a plain acknowledgement that you believe the false, heretical, unScriptural doctrine of ADVANCED REVELATION, as proclaimed by Ruckman.

--------------------------------------------------

I didn't say this robycop, you did, and many others have. I have never said this. What I have said, and will continue to stand by, is what God has preserved in the English scriptures for generations of English speaking believers, that the correct and accurate word in our English language in Acts 12:4 is Easter.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle:Then please explain to us, why it did not seem to bother the jews for the crucifiction of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Simple...They had the ROMANS do it. Thus, they thought to keep their hands clean.


Besides the scriptures say that Herod the King stretched forth HIS HANDS to VEX certain of the church. This was Herods intention, not the jews.

And plainly, he was sending up a TRIAL BALLOON to see how the Jews would react. Doubtlessly, he'd received complaints about them darned ole Christians from the Jewish leadership. he busted Peter ONLY after he saw whacking James had pleased'em.


His intention is made very clear. He intended to kill Peter, just as he had killed James to PLEASE THE JEWS.

If that'd been his intention, he would've carried it out at once, unless God had stopped him.


He waited. The waiting had nothing to do with the jewish observence of the days of unleavened bread.

The SCRIPTURES plainly say otherwise.


It had to do with Herods intentions.

Herod's intention plainly was to BRING HIM FORTH, as Scripture says. Bring him forth to WHOM? Why, the Jewish leadership, of course! The ROMANS had nothing against Peter.


The scriptures also say, that when Herod would have brought him forth, and sought for him, and found him not, he examined the keepers and COMMANDED that they be put to death. He was ANGRY. He was the one who sought him, and who was to bring him forth. This had nothing to do with the Jews, except for the fact that Herod was going to use killing Peter to gain the favor of the Jews.

Plainly, Herod intended to turn Pete over to the Jews; otherwise he woulda simply told his soldiers to find him & kill him.


We see also in this same chapter, that the Lord smote him for not giving God the glory, and making it seem he himself was a god, as the people there were worshipping him. He was going to kill Peter for his own vain glory.

Wrong. Plainly, he was gonna hand Pete over to the Jews. He busted Pete to make it official, that Peter was a prisoner being turned over to the jews for breaking Jewish law...and that the Jews could do with him as they would.


This was Herod's evil intention, and the only thing that would have kept him from this was his own religious belief.

A statement utterly without merit.


It was this religious belief, that brought him ultimately to his death, that the Lord smote him for.

Actually, it was his LACK of belief, which has NOTHING to do with the thread.

I have also heard a different interpretation of this which also seems possible, in that Easter means the resurrection.

Completely wrong. Luke saw and spoke with the resurrected Christ. The only observance of Christ's resurrection in those days was what WE celebrate...THE FACT THAT IT OCCURRED. they did NOT try to observe the DATE. and all such argument is ended by the FACT that LUKE wrote pascha, a word that meant PASSOVER ALONE to him. He did NOT write "anastasis", which means, "resurrection".


There are possible reasons for this also. Will Kinney had a very good explanation for why Herod would have not killed Peter on the resurrection day.

As are most of Will's articles, that one's about half-right. But it's also half-WRONG.


But Easter is clearly the word that God chose for us in our English language no matter which interpretation one believes.

Michelle, you simply don't know what you're talking about. The AV TRANSLATORS chose Easter. Luke, who actually walked/talked with Jesus, and was one of His apostles, and who actually SAW many of these events, and who wrote under God's influence, wrote PASCHA. And when he wrote pascha, it meant PASSOVER, AND PASSOVER ONLY. Easter didn't exist at the time.

Your incredible refusal to recognize plain, clear, undeniable FACT, clearly and carefully presented to you, leads us to not have too much respect for your reasoning ability.