Christian definitives for older words and their definitions

Mary did on the 3rd day when she realized He wasn't the gardner, so when was this lapse of time they didn't?

If this sin't the case, then why did Mary run, was she scared?:laugh:

 

So you are accusing all Christians of being ignorant of Judaism and perhaps other religions as well. Christians are knowledgeable about Christianity and only Christianity. This is your view?

To put it into modern terms: No Christian today would understand what lent is to a Catholic, what Ramadan is to a Muslim, what the Passover is to the Jew, or what the winter solstice means to the Wiccans. No, sir, Harold, we Christians are just all ignoramuses when it comes to the other religions of the world.
And this is what you are accusing Luke and the other Apostles, who had a Jewish background, also--that they didn't know what "pascha" meant, that they didn't know it meant Passover! You really believe that the Apostles "completely misunderstood this concept because it was Jewish."

Have you ever heard of the Pastoral Epistles? It is primarily from those books that we get our ecclesiology from, not from Acts. The Book of Acts is a history book. History books record events; their purpose is to tell the story, not to teach doctrine. That is why the Charismatics love the Book of Acts. The Oneness Only cannot demonstrate their view of salvation outside the book of Acts. They believe that speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation, but they need the book of Acts to prove it. Thus they cannot give the salvation just using the Book of Romans, or the Gospel of John, or 1Corinthians. They need the Book of Acts, a history book, where Scripture is taken out of context. You do the same thing.

History is history. It is neither pagan or Christian. It is history. Luke wrote of the acts of the Apostles, their history.

Paul rebuked Peter for his association with the Jews only. He shunned going to the Gentiles. For this he was rebuked. He was being hypocritical.
Here is the sin that he was caught up in:

Galatians 2:12-13 For before some people came from James, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in his hypocrisy; so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. (WEB)

This has nothing to do with an intermingling of Judaism and Christianity.

It seems as your doctrine of ecclesiology is woefully lacking as well as your methods of hermeneutics.

There is no decision to make. Decide if you want to "rightly divide the word of truth." Acts 12:4 has nothing to do with Christianity. It has to do with proper hermeneutics, the translation of a word, that in the KJV was wrongly translated. The context "in the days of unleavened bread" clearly points to the passover.

 

The passover has to do with the death of a lamb. Go study about it in the book of Exodus. It has nothing to do with the resurrection.

You know Harold, I have studied a lot of English. I have studied five languages and can speak three of them fluently. How about you? In studying another language you learn more about the English language than you ever did before. So if I were you, I wouldn't go down this road.

Harold, I never denied that picture. But what does it have to do with either Easter or the Resurrection? Nothing!

This remark ought to be reported to the other moderators, if not the administration. To call one "anti-Christ" is about as serious an offence that you can make.

I simply would like you to see what the Scripture says. The word pascha means passover. What is so difficult about that fact.

The vernal equinox? Sounds like an important date of the pagans; speaking of which Easter is a pagan holiday--has nothing to do with Christianity; no one ever heard of it until 900 years after the resurrection.

No one ever asked you to.

 

Why, because I say that Easter is pagan filled with rituals like easter eggs and easter bunnies. Look around you. It is true isn't it. Do they observe those rituals in your church, since you celebrate Easter? It is a pagan festival that I do not observe.

Then why would you celebrate Easter, with which those pagan rituals are associated?

And did Luke use an English dictionary? Again let me emphasize: The English does not correct the Greek!

It doesn't matter who observed it. Acts is a history book. Acts 12:4 was pointing to a historical event--the passover. It was not pointing to Ramadan, Eid-ul-Ibraham, Purim, Christmas, Lent, Ash Wednesday, etc. It was pointing to "pascha", the Passover. That is the only possible event that the context and the Greek word could mean. It doesn't matter who observed what. What matters is the Greek word that Luke recorded which is the word for Passover, and the context in which he used it in. It was not used in a Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Catholic, or Shinto, context. The context is Acts 12:3--"the days of unleavened bread" or the feast of the Passover.

It has nothing to do with ecclesiology; it has to do with history. It has to do with translation. It has to do with hermeneutics. It has nothing to do with ecclesiology.

The Book of Acts is called: The Acts of the Apostles, which means it is a history book of works and acts of the Apostles of Christ. If that history happens to include some of the Jewish feast days then God intended it to be that way in spite of what Harold says.

I don't have a bias Harold. It is a simple fact: "Pascha" means "Passover."
You refuse to accept that.

 

You may not realize it, but the Geneva Bible commentators apparently did:

 

Not to derail, but why do people say the "angel of death" went through Egypt? The Bible says it was God.

Exd 12:23 For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite [you].

 

So, let me get this straight. In your, line of thinking, Mary tells people that Jesus rose from the dead, and that's "celebrating Easter"; therefore "Easter" is the correct translations of "pesach". Talk about egg on one's face, you've got a dozen.:laugh::laugh: At least it will make up for the lack of meat in your meat offering :laugh:

Thankfully, :godisgood: despite KJVOist doctrine.

 

Regardless of how dogmatic those of you are and how you are determined to stay stuck in the past, Easter is the day we as Christians celebrate the Resurrection of Christ.

Jesus is The Passover Lamb of God.

If there is anything wrong with making that statement ecclesiastically or hermanuetically, p-lease, show me where He isn't Risen!

To insist on saying pascha hasn't changed in meaning for the Christian is just plain ignorance.

It is sacrilege to give credence to something that was a shadow of things to come and not admit ythe fulfillment of that prophecy in the bodily Resurrection of Christ.

"Pascha" was the passover week which we now know as Easter on that Sunday as the vernal equinox.

I have given the truth and will not continue feeding the carp so thye can just argue,argue,argue.

many know pashca is now easter, some will continue in their ignorance and say it isn't.

 

Any adherence to dogma is clearly yours, and yours alone. "Pascha" doesn't mean "passover" any more than "minchah qorban" means an offering of flesh, or "chayah melek" means "God save the king".

 

No it isn't. It hasn't changed its meaning. That is your problem. And even if it had changed its meaning 900 years or more later, that wouldn't have changed the meaning in Luke's time which is what we are dealing with.

What does the word "pascha" mean in Acts 12:4? "In the days of unleavened bread," it can only mean passover. Luke was not writing about a future event that was about to happen a millenia later. How can you take such an absurd view?

 

Most of the references I see show easter and Pascha as the same today and you sound confused.

It is a choice according to ecclesiology to give a current Bible according to Christian principles.

The one most important prInciple in the New TESTAMENT IS WRITTEN TO THE BELIEVER and the believer doesn't hold to an O.T. word which has no longer a true and current meaning to him.

Evangelicals try to convert the Bible into a Gospel message to evangelize the world and forget that all the Epistles are not written for that purpose but to instruct the church.

Acts is a transitional Book not subject to languages and the people who are dgmatic about former meanings of antiquated words.

This topic has proven to point out the hypocrisy of those who want a current Bible in today's language and then they say we should have a Bible with past words proven to be antiquated by the fulfilling of that past tradition.

The Passover doesn't exist to the Christian in his reverencing anything of Christ, yet many here will hold to a practice found ONLY in Judaism and then argue for it against something so decidedly Christian this day as Easter.

Go ahead and link up easter eggs and bunny rabbits, but the fact is some of us know better!:sleep:

 

Oh, so pascha meaning passover and the Resurrection put an end to the passover and we now call it Easter has nothing to do with pascha.

Do you always come across like a termite in a yo-yo?

 

I challenge you to back up what you say. There are 29 references in the Bible to the word "pascha."
You demonstrate how any one of them, other than Acts 12:4 refers to Easter. You say most of the references refer to Easter. Here is your chance to prove yourself.

 

I learned long ago not to bother with certain posters. They have worldly attitudes. :smilewinkgrin: Don't let it get to you.