Is Easter Pagan?

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:Passover was actually a "shadow" of Christ's death and resurrection. He became the Lamb of God through his sacrifice, as he was the unleavened bread because he was without sin. Therefore, we are redeemed through his blood, as God "passes over" our sin and punishment (death) to eternal life, just as he passed over the Israelites by the blood on their doorposts, thereby saving them from death. He was the first resurrected to eternal life thereby fulfilling the Feast of First Fruits as well. He became our blood sacrifice, therefore, he changed that part of ALL the Feasts. The blood sacrifice of innocent animals is no longer needed! Think about it, why would God tell them they needed to bring sacrifices to the temple during the Feasts he told them to keep for all generations, when he knew the temple would be torn down? Because, thanks to Christ, we no longer need sacrifices as he became our only needed sacrifice and because of the gift of the Holy Spirit (fulfilled at the Feast of Pentecost) we are now God's temple!

I actually agree with all that.And what you pasted after however then I don't understand why you wrote the following

Quote:Not only is there a connection between Christ and the Passover, as he fulfilled it totally, but Passover is commanded and instituted by God as a forever statute for Israel. (not just the Jews which at the time of the exodus were PART of Israel as there were still 12 tribes, by Jesus' time the 10 tribes had been gone a long time and mostly Jews were left(the Levites were lumped in with the Jews). Gentile believers in Jesus are made part of Israel, as Paul explains in Romans 11:17-24. Since we as Gentile believers are part of Israel, I take Passover as still a command we should keep as Christ himself kept it and instituted the celebration of his resurrection in the memory of himself through the bread and wine (the Christian's communion) at the Passover Seder. There is no connection between Easter (its true meaning, not what the church turned it around to be) and Christ, and you will not find God does not command us to now keep Easter instead of Passover!

What Christ instituted was not the seder done by jews today.At the time of Christ the Temple stood and though we don't know for sure what Christ and the dsiciples did we know that Israelites were required to obtain a lamb on the tenth of nisan and on the fourth day have it killed .We cannot keep Passover today that way redsleigh.
Paul talks of keeping Passover metaphorically where he says

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

Paul was speaking to the church at Corinth and wasn't speaking of Passover there as the event that involved the slaughter of lambs at the Temple but rather referring to Christ as the Paschal lamb and to the matzah as representative of sincerity and truth.

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:The reason Easter and Passover are so closely connected by season is because God's statutes and times are based on agriculture. Passover is celebrated at the first crop of spring (Barley). Easter was celebrated by the pagans as they worshiped the sun god and after the spring equinox the days get longer and hence they saw it as a resurrection of the sun! You can see how it was very easy for the Catholic church to teach about Christ through their pagan worship! Unfortunately, the church never corrected the pagan teachings and they became the tradition for all Christians.

Here I see that we have a case of what is fit for the gander isnt being made fit for the goose
You seem to say that Passover is based on the agricultural festival yet Easter,which is based on Passover, you say is based on the pagan worshipping of a sun god.
Please give me a break LOL..Easter is all about Christ's resurrection and all to do with Passover too ...in non english contries as we said earlier its called Pascha,Pascua.

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:Easter does not mean resurrection either as you suggest. You will only find it in the KJV where it is a mistranslation of Passover. All the later versions correctly say Passover. Pesach actually means passover. Easter is actually the English rendition of the fertility goddess Ishtar, who the pagans worshiped on Easter Sunday!

When I read about Ishtar and the fertility godess thing I cannot help but giggle.Ishtar is also the name of a really cool singer but is that relevant to Easter??

[YYZ Skinhead]

Great, after reading this thread a few times I have a craving for pickled eggs--the kind pickled with those chartreuse hot peppers, though I usually think eggs are gross because they are one giant cell. I love matzah crackers as well.

[redsleigh]

(04-09-2011 04:29 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  Hi Redsleigh
I am not catholic so whatever the catholic church did is nothing to do with me directly.If they did do what you say then it is wrong howver I am familiar with th typical catholic response to this and it is that they allowed certain people to keep their traditions and kind of christianise them.It is hard to say in a few words what I think of that since in one way I do understand it to an extent.Since in Christ all is now clean and He made all things new.In a world which has undergone a few millenia virtually everything is now going to have a pagan association if we look for it.So personally I take the view that unless a custom is glaringly obviously pagan and connected with evil it is ok to be done if done with a pure intent of heart.Since what happened with the catholic church is something that people who are long dead and gone I really have no way of knowing what really happened and thus be able to judge properly.

As to the reference to Deuteronomy and its relation to Easter I assume you mean the current celebrations of Easter.I do not see why celebrating and reflecting on the events leading up to Christ's death and resurrection are contradicting Deuteronomy.
Even so, the Deuteronomy verse,which is binding under the Mosaic Covenant and refers to the Israelite's behaviour in the Land that God was giving them CONDITIONALLY,is in no way binding upon a christian today.

Exactly what do you mean by the land that God was giving them CONDITIONALLY?

When you follow tradition for so many centuries the origin of these traditions obviously gets lost as it has for Easter. Even the origin of ALL protestant faiths is from the Catholic church! So, even though you might not be Catholic, most of the teachings of the Catholic church are still in the Protestant churches. Martin Luther, who started the first protestant church, only pointed out we are saved through Grace by faith not works! Grace not being new as if God hadn't shown Grace to the Israelites he would have wiped them out too as he did to Sodom and Gomorrah! They definitely weren't the most obedient bunch! He kept the rest of the teachings of the Catholic church such as the Trinity, Sunday worship, Easter and Christmas etc.

I was a practicing Christian (Lutheran) for 30 years but always had questions, one of which was the celebration of Easter. No one I know (including the pastor) knew exactly what the eggs and bunnies had to do with Easter. That's because they don't, they are from pagan traditions way before Christ! Now I check everything against God's Word and there is nothing in there about Easter traditions or setting aside any special day to celebrate Christ's sacrifice and resurrection. We are told by Christ to remember him at Passover when he instituted the bread and wine as his body and blood. NOT finding the answers to a lot of which the Christian church teaches made me study even more, and, from what I learned from God's Word I actually left the Christian church as I found a lot of teachings actually go against God's Word, let alone the fact that I couldn't find many things they teach even in God's Word!

Tell me why exactly you think the Mosaic Covenant does not apply to Christians (or for that matter, anybody)? I find nowhere in the Bible that Christ said the law (Torah) didn't apply any longer. (By the way, law is not really the Hebrew meaning of the word Torah, it actually means Gods teachings and instructions in righteousness.) As a matter of fact, all Christ taught was from the Torah as the Scriptures he always referred to were the "Old Testament" Scriptures. The "New Testament" hadn't been written yet!! All the prophecies he fulfilled were from the "Old Testament". He himself kept ALL of the Torah, therefore, he was blameless and without sin, as in the Bible lawlessness is described as Torahless!! For without the Torah we wouldn't even know right from wrong! How do we know what to do or not do if not for the Torah?

So, since you feel the Torah no longer applies, are you saying we can so whatever we please now as long as we say we believe in Jesus? Jesus told us that isn't good enough as even the demons believe! Jesus himself said over and over again that what he was teaching was not HIS WORD but the FATHER'S! Malachi 3:6 - I the Lord do not change..." Where did Jesus say that the Fathers commandments no longer apply? Tell me, if the "Old" doesn't apply then why do Christian churches teach tithing? Why do they teach only some of the commandments and then can't provide proof that Christ did away with the rest? How can just you pick and choose what you are to follow? What I see as changed is the blood sacrifice for our sins as well as the fact that ALL people can now come to the Father through Jesus Christ.

If you read Matthew 10:5,6,7 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. And preach as you go saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand'. They were distinctly told to go ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel. The Jews! Do you think so many Jews would have followed Jesus if he came telling them the writings of Moses no longer apply? After all they were told by God himself they were to follow His commandments. Why do you think the Jews today don't believe that the Christian Jesus is the true Messiah? Because the one they teach doesn't resemble the true Messiah! What JEWISH Messiah is going to come and tell them that he has done away with every thing the Father commanded of them to do for all generations!!!

If the Feasts are done away with then why does Zechariah prophecy (Zechariah 14:16) that we will keep the Feast of Tabernacles in the millennium? If the Passover is only for the Jews then why did he tell his disciples to remember him every Seder when they drank the Redemption cup and broke and ate the matzoh? (by the way did you ever try to break leavened bread? You can't! You can only BREAK unleavened bread! Just a side thought!)

Jesus came to make a New Covenant with the Jews not the Gentiles! God never had an Old Covenant with the Gentiles, only with the Jews! So how can he bring them a new one if they didn't have one with him in the first place?! The New Covenant is described as the Holy Spirit writing God's Law on our hearts instead of stone tablets. So what Law exactly do you think the Spirit is writing on our hearts? I assume it to be the same Law as in the Mosaic Covenant as we haven't really been given a new one! Even the scripture where Christ tells the two most important commandments is taken out of context and misinterpreted as they are the only ones to obey. However, if you continue to read, he says "On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets" Matthew22:40 I don't take that as we only have to follow those 2 commandments! He never says the rest of the Law and the prophets DON'T apply! He says these two commandments are connected to all of the law and the prophets! If they are connected then how can the law and the prophets been done away with?!!

There are forever commandments in the law and forever isn't here yet! Most of the Torah doesn't apply today as most of it was to the priests of the time. There are some that I think still apply such as the Feasts, as God declares them HIS Feasts NOT the JEWS Feasts! Leviticus 23:2 He also said they were to be kept by all future generations. The 10 commandments still apply obviously or I guess you think it fine to murder or lie, steal etc. Without following all of the 10 commandments you can't possibly love God with all your heart with all your soul and with all your mind, nor can you possibly love your neighbor as yourself. God tells us in His Law how to love him as well as our neighbor.

By the way, seventh day Sabbath wasn't abolished either as far as I can see. After all, Christ said, "Think NOT that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish (do away with) but to fulfill them. For truly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5:17,18 As far as I can see heaven and earth haven't passed away yet!

So tell me, according to Scripture, NOT according to what you have been taught by others, exactly WHY you think the Mosaic Covenant was done away with?

[Vic]

(04-09-2011 12:15 PM)redsleigh Wrote:  

(04-02-2010 06:07 AM)peteraugusts Wrote:  The word "Easter" resembles the name of a couple of ancient "gods" but until about 1980 almost nobody in the modern world knew or cared. Whether the spelling or pronunciation of the word came from one of these is irrelevant to me. If it was discovered that there was an ancient deity who was called something like "Church" or "Bible" I would not suddenly cease to use the word... that is silly. And so is refusing to accept "Easter" because it might have derived from a pagan source

If you think not accepting Easter because it is derived from a pagan source is silly then what do you make of Deuteronomy 12:29-32?

First, redsleigh please take the time to Introduce yourself here http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=17 before continuing with the 'pagan christian mantra.' Thanks. Secondly you are taking the thread all over the place and not keeping to topic. There are all sorts of threads available for the many rabbit trails--pun intended --you are inserting, without even a nice howdy folks. Some manners would be appreciated. Thanks.

Now, this whole 'easter is pagan' canard is kind of like the telephone gossip game. Someone said it was so, therefore it is so, even when it isn't.

Here's the scoop. Any historian or person who sourced Bede, Jacob Grimm or Hyslop is following a fairytale of false information. There was never any goddess named easte,Eostre, or any claimed variation---never....ever....

People are so ready to falsly accuse Christian believers of following pagan practices, because that means it puts everything under suspicion. Newsflash, true believers follow[ed] Jesus Christ and abided what He taught and what the apostles taught as they were given the words via the Holy Spirit, throughout time. Heresies entered in, and were shown alive and well even when Jesus and the apostles were on the earth, and they were refuted then and now. It doesn't mean that everyone was a pagan heathen scum as implied.

So here's a few facts which I am pretty sure will be totally ignored but I will take the risk anyway.

Absolutely no one has ever found any evidence for the existence of this goddess, except via the speculation and supposition of Bede. There is ZERO historical evidence of it. Yet there is mention of all manner other false gods. There is not a single reference to 'it; from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, or any of the other writings from the period [which mention many other gods], or from inscriptions. No depiction – no amulets – nothing. It has no history in paganism except in the minds of those who wish to disparage Christians.

No Norwegian, Icelandic or other Scandinavian primary source mentions 'Ostara'. In fact, the name 'Ostara' isn't found anywhere in connection with a goddess. 'Ostara' is simply the Old High German name for the Christian Festival of Easter. Academic historians say the pagan easter goddess is all garbage. Which any believer should know.

Quote:Fur flies over bunny theory
The Mercury, Australia
Mar. 27, 2005
Simon Bevilacqua
http://www.themercury.news.com.au


By SIMON BEVILACQUA
27mar05

IT'S official -- the Easter bunny story is not true.
The fable about the magical rabbit who brings eggs on Easter Sunday is a fabrication.
>>>Academics have scoured medieval history and found the story is based on a lie.

>>>>>>They blame a meddling medieval monk for mucking up pagan history.
The mischievous monk literally made up a Saxon goddess who many today erroneously believe is the basis of the Easter bunny story.

University of Tasmania academic Elizabeth Freeman said German academics had searched extensively for clues to Easter tradition.
"They found it's all wrong," Dr Freeman, an expert on medieval history, said.

The commonly believed story about the Easter bunny, as the magical companion of the Saxon goddess Ostara, is repeated in books, poems and extensively on websites.

That fallacious story says the Easter bunny's roots are buried in the mythology of Germanic Saxon tribes.

The Saxons, in the first centuries after the death of Jesus, are said to have celebrated the arrival of the pagan goddess Ostara.
....When the Saxons moved into Britain in the fifth century, they took their pagan ways with them.

Ostara then evolved into the Anglo-Saxon Oestre, goddess of dawn and spring. When Anglo-Saxons converted to Christianity and started to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, they combined the religious traditions.
The pagan Oestre celebration became today's Easter.

When Anglo-Saxons converted to Christianity and started to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, they combined the religious traditions.

The pagan Oestre celebration became today's Easter.

So when modern-day parents hid coloured eggs under plants in the garden for their children, it was widely thought they had been unwittingly re-enacting the ancient pagan myth of Ostara and her rabbit. But this is all wrong, according to modern academic thought.

Dr Freeman said research shows the Ostara and Oestre story is fundamentally flawed.

The goddess did not exist.

The earliest reference to goddess Ostara or Oestre is by a celebrated medieval intellectual -- the monk known as the "venerable Bede".

Working in north-east England in 730AD, Bede wrote a book about calculating time. Bede identified a pagan spring celebration called Eosturmonath. He said this celebration got its name from a pagan goddess called Oestre for whom they had a feast.

But when modern-day researchers scoured the history books they could find no prior reference to the goddess.

Researchers found many references to the spring celebration Eosturmonath but absolutely no mention of the goddess Bede reckoned the feast was named after. They suspect Bede fabricated the pagan goddess to suit his purposes.

"He has definitely made up that goddess," Dr Freeman said. "Bede is the first one to mention it. German academics have found no evidence of the spring goddess Oestre anywhere else before Bede."

Dr Freeman said Bede, who had been a monk since he was seven years old, was revered in an era where very few people were educated.

"Bede was extremely influential and his view has survived until the last 50 years when scholarship developed to the level it could show he was wrong," she said.

Dr Freeman said Bede and his contemporaries constantly sought to find moral meaning for words and often made up definitions to suit their moral outlook.

redsleigh said

Quote: Back then, the church found it very hard to get them to stop doing the things they did to their gods so the church just took the things they did and exchanged Christ for the pagan gods. In other words, they took the way they served their pagan gods and did it to the Lord God!

Have you ever read Pliny? Pliny the Younger (c. 62 - c.113 AD) was the Roman Governor of Bithynia which is present-day northwestern Turkey. Around 111 or 112 AD, he wrote the following letter to Emperor Trajan of Rome asking for advice on how to deal with Christians.

Keep in mind he's an actual person who lived and persecuted Christians in the early church. Here's what he had to say about Christians.

Quote:Pliny and christians
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/...trajan.htm

XCVII

To the Emperor Trajan

It is my invariable rule, Sir, to refer to you in all matters where I feel doubtful; for who is more capable of removing my scruples, or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them. Whether, therefore, any difference is usually made with respect to ages, or no distinction is to be observed between the young and the adult; whether repentance entitles them to a pardon; or if a man has been once a Christian, it avails nothing to desist from his error; whether the very profession of Christianity, unattended with any criminal act, or only the crimes themselves inherent in the profession are punishable; on all these points I am in great doubt. In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished: for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction. ... An anonymous information was laid before me containing a charge against several persons, who upon examination denied they were Christians, or had ever been so. They repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and incense before your statue (which for that purpose I had ordered to be brought, together with those of the gods), and even reviled the name of Christ: whereasthere is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances: I thought it proper, therefore, to discharge them. Some among those who were accused by a witness in person at first confessed themselves Christians, but immediately after denied it; the rest owned indeed that they had been of that number formerly, but had now (some above three, others more, and a few above twenty years ago) renounced that error. They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, uttering imprecations at the same time against the name of Christ. They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal. From this custom, however, they desisted after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I forbade the meeting of any assemblies. ...

Where it talks about the harmless meal --think Acts 20:7. Real Christians stood up to torture and did not deny Christ or worship pagan gods. Those who did not belong to Christ,, did. More to come in a bit. But I am wanting you, redsleigh to discontinue spamming your doctrine. And if you wish to discuss things that's fine, but, the facts are not just some fanciful myth. There are actual provable facts. Please keep the thread on topic. Thank you

[sari83]

Quote: Rose of Shushan
Hellooo... 14th Aviv is also the date our Lord was crucified.
End quote--

According to Matthew's gospel, Christ was to be crucified 2 days after the feast.

Matt 26:2
Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified. (KJV)

I know Passover and unleavened bread are intertwined. So, I'm not sure but maybe that is the explanation for John's seemly different timing.

John 19:14-16
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
(KJV)

---

Quote:Vic
And yes, the Lord's supper, which Jesus celebrated with the apostles is very much part of the Easter celebration. Paul, clearly refers to the "passover meal" as "The Lord's Supper" in 1 Corinthians 11:20. It is no longer celebrated only once a year but can be celebrated as many times a year as we wish. See 1 Corinthians 11:26. But only once a year do we publicly celebrate the resurrection, and in English and many other languages, this event is called Easter.
End quote--

Polycarp, disciple of the apostle John, kept the Lord's Supper on the same date of Passover.

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:According to Matthew's gospel, Christ was to be crucified 2 days after the feast.

Matt 26:2
Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified. (KJV)

I know Passover and unleavened bread are intertwined. So, I'm not sure but maybe that is the explanation for John's seemly different timing.

John 19:14-16
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
(KJV)

I think you may be reading the Matthew verse wrong.Jesus was saying that in two days from him speaking those words He would be crucified.Otherwise it would read -"two days after the feast of Passover,the Son of man is or will be betrayed to be crucified."

[sari83]

(04-11-2011 02:00 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  I think you may be reading the Matthew verse wrong.Jesus was saying that in two days from him speaking those words He would be crucified.Otherwise it would read -"two days after the feast of Passover,the Son of man is or will be betrayed to be crucified."

Earlier, I was researching the dates early Christians celebrated Pascha/Easter, and some apparently observed it two days after Passover, on Nisan 16. I was looking to see if the scriptures gives the exact time, came across the verse in Matthew, and oops, I have a tendency to read right to left instead of left to right. I don't why, but I usually read things twice and catch myself the second time.



I'm still puzzled though, the last supper is the Passover, right?

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:I'm still puzzled though, the last supper is the Passover, right?

The thing is, it depends what you mean by the Passover.In the Gospels the term Passover seems to refer to both the Passover day in which the lambs were slaughtered and also to the whole feast.Incidentally the same holds true today when we refer to Passover.We say Passover referring to the whole week long feast too.