Easter Pagan

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Scarlet Pimpernel! Oh yes, welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

Well, that sounds fine, but in lots of European languages the Danube is called something very un-Dan-like: Donau (German), Dounavis (Greek), Dunav (Serbian), to name a few. I really don't think Danube is a Teutonic place name at all, but the French version of an eastern European one, borrowed by English-speakers.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

I do need to qualify myself, because I am not a linguist. Having said this, my information does come from a couple of different linguists, specifically Rev. Alexander Hyslop in his book "The Two Babylons," (who is supported in his conclusions by a host of noted anthropologists), and the teaching of Dr. Arnold Murray. Transliteration, the transfer of a name into another language by modifying it to the mechanics of the adopted language, would show that your point against me is actually in my favor. Take a look at the names you list, and allow for the fact that vowel sounds are very frequently assigned different values in other languages, and what you have is: D - (vowel) - N. These still point to Dan.

I do appreciate your point, because these you brought forward were unfamiliar to me. It is entirely possible I have the Teutonic connection mistaken, but the connection with Dan is pretty evident from a linguistic standpoint.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Didymus!

Thank you for your post!

Originally Posted by didymus

So then what do you make of the discrepancy in the Bible. Synoptics claim he was crucified on the 15 Nisan. Gospel of John says Nisan 14. If it was indeed on Nisan 14 wouldn't this rule out the last supper as a passover meal?

Ah, discrepencies! We could bring in a whole lot of angles and arguments and eventually get nowhere, all the while never finding the factual truth. The Last Supper was not a Passover meal, it took place during the evening before, the period of time I understand is called the preparation. Christ is our Passover not because of the meal, which was a representation or figure of what was to come, but because he was sacrificed for us at the same time the lambs were being ritually sacrificed. Communion, of which the Last Supper is considered to be the first, is done in remembrance of His sacrifice.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, dauer!

Thank you for the thoughtful post!

Originally Posted by dauer

This is a little complicated because the calendar that was in use is unusual in that it did not have a fixed date for the beginning of the year. It was defined by the barley growth, whenever that happened. It stopped during the Babylonian Exile and the names of the months on the Jewish calendar now are actually Babylonian. Tamuz is the name of one month. The most information you will find on that online I think is from the Karaites, who returned to the system of sighting the barley.

http://www.karaite-korner.org/abib.shtml

The calendar in use now is both lunar and solar. I'm not sure if it was always that way or not.

Thank you for the link, it was helpful. It reminds me of an old farmer's adage of not planting corn until "the leaves on the oaks are the size of a squirrel's ears." The lunar cycle does play an important role in how the cycle of nature unfolds, and I suspect that is a fundamental tenet in nature based religions such as the Babylonians would have had. Perhaps this was somehow instituted into the Jewish calculations, but that would be speculation on my part.

I haven't had the time to look deeper into the Torah to look for the passages I learned from, perhaps soon, but it looks to be an involved study. And it became evident to me as I made my last post that the consideration of the sun rise being framed by the eastern entrance to the Temple could not have been in the Torah, more likely it is found in Chronicles or Kings.

When exactly? The sages said many days were new years, just for different things like the new year for kings and festivals, the new year for tithing animals, the new year for the year, the new year for trees. There was apparently a Babylonian coronation festival at the same time of year and that could be what made this new year so important. But what I found on an Orthodox site I will quote:

http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=86

But I think it was something that developed gradually from what was happening in the time of the Torah, to the time of Ezra, and then forward. If there was a specific reason for the change, I'm not familiar with it.

This helps explain a few things I have long had questions about. Thanks.

I read somewhere that the word used for bread relating to the last supper refers to regular bread and not unleavened bread, and while this could be a translational error, I wonder if this might also suggest it was the day before Pesach? Maybe they were trying to get rid of the leftover hametz before Pesach?

Very interesting! I took a moment with my Interlinear and Strong's and looked at Luke 22. Verse 7 mentions the coming days of unleavened bread (easily understood as Didymus sees this, but I stand by my POV that the days were approaching, as in "festival season" as it were). Yet later in the same chapter, when Jesus breaks the loaf with the disciples, it is a raised loaf, sometimes called shewbread. A raised loaf would not be allowed in the house during the Passover and Feast of Unleavened bread. This reaffirms my POV. Thanks. I did not look into the other Gospels for comparison, too strapped for time.

[didymus]

Ah, discrepencies! We could bring in a whole lot of angles and arguments and eventually get nowhere, all the while never finding the factual truth. The Last Supper was not a Passover meal, it took place during the evening before, the period of time I understand is called the preparation. Christ is our Passover not because of the meal, which was a representation or figure of what was to come, but because he was sacrificed for us at the same time the lambs were being ritually sacrificed. Communion, of which the Last Supper is considered to be the first, is done in remembrance of His sacrificice.

Juantoo3

Point well taken. Are you aware that the synoptics state that the last meal was indeed a passover meal?

And on the first day of the unleavened Bread, when they sacraficed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?"... And the disciples...prepared the Passover. And when it was evening he came with the 12. And,...they were at the table eating... (Mark 14:12-17, Matt 26:17-21, Luke 22:7-14)

[dauer]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Thank you for the link, it was helpful. It reminds me of an old farmer's adage of not planting corn until "the leaves on the oaks are the size of a squirrel's ears." The lunar cycle does play an important role in how the cycle of nature unfolds, and I suspect that is a fundamental tenet in nature based religions such as the Babylonians would have had. Perhaps this was somehow instituted into the Jewish calculations, but that would be speculation on my part.

Actually, the earlier Jewish religion was very earth-based. Pesach in the spring is a time of not only freedom but as seen cyclically on the Jewish calendar, re-freedom when coming out of the darkness of winter and entering now into the spring. Shavuot was a harvest festival. Sukkot was also a harvest festival for the fall this time. It has been suggested the portable huts were used by workers in the fields originally. Shemini Ateret comes just before the winter, and the rains pour down.

The months were always lunar. That's actually why the Karaites spot the moon. They reject the oral Torah and accept only the written Torah. You can read what they say about it here:

http://www.karaite-korner.org/new_moon.shtml

Originally this too was not exact. New moon meant the first sighting of the moon. At some point this became regulated in Jerusalem and other walled cities. The other people would be alerted by lighting bonfires along the hilltops. But at a time of sectarian unrest another group, perhaps samaritans, began lighting their own bonfires to confuse people and the time was switched to the astronomical new moon and intercalated.

I think the popular theory is that the original religion was nature based and cyclical. Later, the sacred history was combined with pre-existing holidays. While the sukkah took on the linear meaning of wandering in the desert, it retained its cyclical connection to nature and the harvest. In addition, the very idea of the sukkah could be seen as preparation for the winter months ahead. I think it is really exile that has made Judaism less of a nature religion. The distance from the land and also many urban environments.

A book that explores the connections between nature and the Jewish calendar is Seasons of our Joy. It also covers the origins of the holidays based on popular scholarly opinion. But it isn't primarily a book of scholarship and also talks about practice today and other things as well.

I haven't had the time to look deeper into the Torah to look for the passages I learned from, perhaps soon, but it looks to be an involved study. And it became evident to me as I made my last post that the consideration of the sun rise being framed by the eastern entrance to the Temple could not have been in the Torah, more likely it is found in Chronicles or Kings.

I'd be interested in seeing that if you find it.

Dauer

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Didymus!

I think if you will look at my response to Dauer, you will see that I did take a moment to look at Luke. I'm pressed for time just now, hopefully soon I can return to this a little better prepared. I would like you to consider the quote you made, "...prepare for you to eat the Passover?" This does not necessarily mean the Passover meal itself, although I think in the minds of the disciples that were getting ready to hunker down for a few days and enjoy the season. This was the evening of preparation for the Passover. The preparation, as a good Jew could tell you better than I, is when the house is cleared of hametz, of leaven. ALL leaven from all sources is to be removed from the house, in accord with ths instructions for observance in the Torah (Exodus I think, is the primary source, but my quick check last night included reference in Deuteronomy and Numbers). Consider that it was leavened bread (*greek "artos", #740 in the Strong's) that was broken and offered, at least in Luke, which would not be present if this were the actual Passover meal. Also consider a whole host of other considerations leading up to and including Jesus' trial, conviction, being sent before Pilate, the execution, the hastening of the malefactor's deaths by breaking their legs (it was not unusual to leave the condemned hanging from the cross for days before their eventual death), and the hurried burial of Jesus by Joseph. All of these, and there are a great many, point to a hurried trial, conviction, execution and burial before the High Holy Day of Passover. The Sanhedrin were strict legalists if nothing else, to perform this civil legal act on the day of Passover was absolutely not acceptable. (They wouldn't even walk through a field of grain on an ordinary Sabbath for fear of catching grains in their hems, and thus being considered guilty of working on the Sabbath! How much less they would "work" on the High Holy Day!) There are books available that address these things far better than I, although right now I am at a loss to remember the titles and authors. Hope this helps.

[didymus]

Juantoo3 I reviewed it again and the language seems pretty clear that they ate a passover meal.
Luke 22:14 When the hour had come, He sat down, and the 12 apostles with him.15 Then he said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;

Mark 14:14........'The Teacher says, "where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with my disciples?"......16...... and they prepared the Passover. 17 In the evening He came with the twelve.18 Now as they sat and ate......

Matthew basically says the same thing. Like I said I am not an expert in this area and therefore can not defend all aspects of this arguement. I obtain my information from the books of Jewish scholars who can argue it from a Jewish perspective. Peace.

[mosherosh]

Oh, delicious hot-cross buns, raisin cakes for the Goddess..oops, the Grain God who has died in winter only to be resurrected in Spring as the new "Bread of Life".

It's nearly funny to see believers swallowing myths taken as real history, nearly funny except for the tragic history of the Abrahamics who act on their myths. Judaism creates its own Spring time celebration supposedly not that awful Pagan stuff by fabricating the myth of Moses and the Exodus, and then Christians come along and recreate another supposedly un-Pagan celebration but tip their hand by calling it "Easter" after Ishtar who's 3 day journey into the Abyss to rescue Marduk matches Jesus 3 day descent into hell. Try as monotheistic Abrahamics may, they just cannot undo the Pagan influences within both Judaism and Christianity. In fact, if all the pagan references and influences were stripped from the Bible, it would look like it had gone through a shredder.

Hooray for Spring! Whatever way we celebrate it!

[mee]

Originally Posted by mosherosh

Oh, delicious hot-cross buns, raisin cakes for the Goddess..oops, the Grain God who has died in winter only to be resurrected in Spring as the new "Bread of Life".

It's nearly funny to see believers swallowing myths taken as real history, nearly funny except for the tragic history of the Abrahamics who act on their myths. Judaism creates its own Spring time celebration supposedly not that awful Pagan stuff by fabricating the myth of Moses and the Exodus, and then Christians come along and recreate another supposedly un-Pagan celebration but tip their hand by calling it "Easter" after Ishtar who's 3 day journey into the Abyss to rescue Marduk matches Jesus 3 day descent into hell. Try as monotheistic Abrahamics may, they just cannot undo the Pagan influences within both Judaism and Christianity. In fact, if all the pagan references and influences were stripped from the Bible, it would look like it had gone through a shredder.

Hooray for Spring! Whatever way we celebrate it!

the thing is its not in the bible,(easter) its the traditions of the church , its nothing to do with the bible ,if a person follows the bible it does not have any of these pagan influences attached to its worship, the churches have got a lot to answer for in the coming judgement(great tribulation)so for me i am going to stay right away from mixing pagan with true worship .and not celebrate easter. only the memorial of jesus death is what jesus said to keep doing in memorial of him.

[Conscience]

Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, which the Bible says, "is a precursa of things to come." Chrisitans celebrate Easter, which is a celebration of our risen Lord who rose on first fruits.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Conscience

Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, which the Bible says, "is a precursa of things to come." Chrisitans celebrate Easter, which is a celebration of our risen Lord who rose on first fruits.

when Christ came and gave his perfect life as a sacrifice, what happened to the Law? It was removed. "We are no longer under a tutor," Paul explained. (Galatians 3:25) The removal of the Law was a relief to the Israelites. It had shown them up as sinners, for all of them fell short of keeping that Law perfectly. "Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law," Paul said. (Galatians 3:10-14) So the Bible also says: "Christ is the end of the Law."—Romans 10:4; 6:14.

The Law actually served as a barrier or "wall" between the Israelites and other peoples who were not under it. By the sacrifice of his life, however, Christ "abolished . . . the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, that he might create the two peoples [Israelite and non-Israelite] in union with himself into one new man." (Ephesians 2:11-18) Concerning the action that Jehovah God himself took toward the law of Moses, we read: "He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees [including the Ten Commandments] and which was in opposition to us [because of condemning the Israelites as sinners]; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake." (Colossians 2:13, 14) So, with the perfect sacrifice of Christ, the Law was brought to an end. but this does not mean we should bring pagan worship into our worship on post 8 and post 15 of this thread you can see how mixing false with true is wrong in Gods eyes ,so it depends if we want to stick to the bible or mix bible teaching with false.those are the facts its not me saying that it is a fact and somethink for all so called christians to think about if they want to please God

[Conscience]

You have a few things confused. First, the Law was NEVER abolished. The New Testament says that those that are in Jesus are no longer under the Law, but under grace. But, those not in Jesus, are still under the Law, and is still condemned by the Law. The book of John tells us that those who dont believe in Jesus' sacrifice are already condemned. Question: What convicts them? It is their trasgrettion of the law. We've ALL broken God's Laws, but thank God for Jesus, who frees us from the penelity of the Law. This by the way, is the message of the New Testment - That God offers a way out for people who has broken his Laws. Jesus said it himself when he said- "I didnt come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it." And he did. He was the ONLY man that ever kept the whole law.

One other thing. The New Testement also tells us that the Law was made to show man that he isnt good by God's standards, and that we are to use the law to lead people to Christ. If the Law was abolished, why does the Bible tell us to use it?

[mee]

But the real purpose of the Law was, as stated by the apostle Paul, "to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive." It was a "tutor leading to Christ." It pointed to Christ as the objective aimed at ("Christ is the end of the Law"). It revealed that all humans, including the Jews, are under sin and that life cannot be obtained by "works of law." (Ga 3:19-24; Ro 3:20; 10:4) It was "spiritual," from God, and "holy." (Ro 7:12, 14) At Ephesians 2:15 it is called "the Law of commandments consisting in decrees." It was a standard of perfection, marking the one who could keep it as perfect, worthy of life. (Le 18:5; Ga 3:12) Since imperfect humans could not keep the Law, it showed that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Ro 3:23) Only Jesus Christ kept it blamelessly.—Joh 8:46; Heb 7:26.

Jesus said that the whole Law hung upon the two commandments, to love God and to love one’s neighbor. (Mt 22:35-40) it would make it clearer if you could back up what you say by quoteing the scriptures, as that is what we should be interested in after all.also, as you say ,those who dont believe in jesus would not recogonize that jesus sacrifice put an end to the law . this would only apply to followers of jesus christ

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by mee

But the real purpose of the Law was, as stated by the apostle Paul, "to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive." It was a "tutor leading to Christ." It pointed to Christ as the objective aimed at ("Christ is the end of the Law"). It revealed that all humans, including the Jews, are under sin and that life cannot be obtained by "works of law." (Ga 3:19-24; Ro 3:20; 10:4) It was "spiritual," from God, and "holy." (Ro 7:12, 14) At Ephesians 2:15 it is called "the Law of commandments consisting in decrees." It was a standard of perfection, marking the one who could keep it as perfect, worthy of life. (Le 18:5; Ga 3:12) Since imperfect humans could not keep the Law, it showed that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Ro 3:23) Only Jesus Christ kept it blamelessly.—Joh 8:46; Heb 7:26.

Jesus said that the whole Law hung upon the two commandments, to love God and to love one’s neighbor. (Mt 22:35-40) it would make it clearer if you could back up what you say by quoteing the scriptures, as that is what we should be interested in after all.also, as you say ,those who dont believe in jesus would not recogonize that jesus sacrifice put an end to the law . this would only apply to followers of jesus christ

Uhmm, "I come not to abolish the law...no, I come to fullfil it..." is that what your were looking for?

v/r

Q

[Conscience]

"But the real purpose of the Law was, as stated by the apostle Paul, was a "tutor leading to Christ."


Exacty Right! The Law leads sinnesr to Christ, where they will be set free from the penlity of the law, because Christ already paid the price. For those in Christ, the Law hold no power. But, for those not in Christ, the Law condemns them still! The Law is NOT abolished, it is simply not applicable to someone in Jesus - someone Saved! Make sense?