9/10/09 Dear Colin Donovan STL: The word Easter comes from the Babylonian futility goddess Ishtar also known as Ashera or Eastre, among others, and has nothing to do with the death and resurrection of Jesus. The word “pascha” was errantly translated as Easter in the King James Version (Act.12:4) but correctly as Passover in (Mt.26:2, 17,18,19; Mk.14:1, 12, 14, 16; Lk.2:41, 22:1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15; Jn.2:13, 23, 6:4, 11:55, 12:1, 13:1, 18:28, 39, 19:14; 1Cor.5:7; Heb.11:28).

Being unaware the origin of the word, many do not worship Ishtar, however your response to DG’s, “Easter?” letter dated, 9/9/09 explaining how the “Church” dates Easter is seriously lacking. Constantine’s words demonstrate Rome’s true motive for her replacement theology. From the letter of the Emperor (Constantine) to all those not present at the council. (Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib III 18-20)

When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated by all with one accord and in the same manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of festivals, to follow the customs (the calculation) of the Jews who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter; which we have observed from the time of the Saviour’s passion (according to the day of the week).

We ought not therefore to have anything in common with the Jew, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship following a more legitimate and more convenient course. And consequently in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jew. For it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They do not possess the truth in this Easter question, for in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements they frequently celebrate two Passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly in error.

How, then, could we follow these Jews who are most certainly blinded by error? For to celebrate a Passover twice in one year, is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so it would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communication with such wicked people (the Jews). You should consider not only that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common with the Jews.

(Gleaned from Dr. Henry R. Percival’s “The Nicean and post Nicean Fathers”. Vol. XIV Grand Rapid: Erdmans pub. 1979,pgs. 54-55)

Sincerely,

Jeff

Apart from your correct information about the Council's decree, the Ishtar stuff is just nonsense. First of all, the Early Church which established what in English is referred to as Easter spoke Greek and Latin. The Latin for the Day of the Lord's Resurrection is Dominica Resurrectionis, the Lord's Day of the Resurrection.

The Passover being referred to is the Passover of the Lord Jesus Christ, which Scripture clearly and absolutely asserts is fulfillment of the Passover of the Jews - in a new and eternal covenant. The Passover of the Lord is the Pascal or Passover Mystery of Christ's Passion, Death, Resurrection and Glorification, which won our salvation and paved the way for us to follow him into eternal life. Understandably the Council of Nicaea separated Christ Passover from its precursor under the Old Covenant. Both theologically and astronomically dependence on the rabbis, who often didn't agree with each other in far flung places, made no sense.

On the exact point of replacement, did not Christ come to fulfill the promises to Israel? Had He been accepted would He not have been the Jewish King, as Pilate rightly titled him on the cross? Knowing of his rejection did he not speak of a new covenant and a spiritual kingdom? Did not the apostles clearly understand themselves to have the authority to legislate in that Kingdom, which therefore also is obviously on earth, since they were alive. Did not Christ use the language of kingship regarding Peter, since the vizier, or prime minister, was keeper of the King's treasury and guardian of his authority, and the Lord used that biblical and historical terminology with regard to Peter. Was not the Queen Mother, and not the wife of the King, the Queen in Israel, making Mary the Queen of the kingdom of which her son is King? And it goes on and on in the variety and multitudes of ways in which the Old Testaments types are fulfilled both in Christ and the Church. Thus, the Fathers of the Church did not hesitate, long before Constantine, to refer to the Catholic Church (that which is intended for all) as the New Israel.

COPYRIGHT 2009

Click here to send this Question and Answer to a friend