|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 26, 2014 8:32:38 GMT -8
My source data (strongs) says that G3957 can be easter or Passover. The two terms do not mean the same thing. It is like god/el can refer the one God or to pagan gods. It is simple information easy to find out as you say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Feb 26, 2014 9:38:51 GMT -8
My source data (strongs) says that G3957 can be easter or Passover. The two terms do not mean the same thing. It is like god/el can refer the one God or to pagan gods. It is simple information easy to find out as you say. It does not and anyone who knows anything about Greek would be able to tell you that. The word is a adapted word from Hebrew to Greek not Greek to Hebrew. Easter has been added to make the Christians happy in their celebration of pagan days. We have King James to thank on this one. This is basic easy to understand, I am not going to argue with you on something so easily proven wrong. Look at the word structure alone. Do you have any experience in Hebrew or Greek at all? The King James Version is not the problem it is when people hold it to such a cult status that makes it bad. When words that are easy to understand their root and basis are argued to back up a false origin of translation. King James is fallible simple as that, anyone who says otherwise is not willing to look at the truth. I see how you can't debate the simple Latin words introduced also. Like I said this is not a debate this is something that is easy to see, right on the surface, nothing hidden. I just ask you look into it without the bias viewpoint you came into this thread with. On the last note are you ok with me adding my name in the place of James which was not the brother of Yeshua anyways? Yedidyah |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Feb 26, 2014 10:43:43 GMT -8
G3957 pascha, pas’-khah; easter, passover. As is the case with most words they can have more than one meaning. How do you know which meaning? By context. Acts 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) There you have the context. During the week of unleavened bread, Peter was arrested. The Jew’s pascha/passover was already completed. What is Herod waiting for? The Jew were happy with Peter’s arrest during unleavened bread. Herod was waiting for the passing of his pascha/easter to be completed. No alterations or additions. Just plain meaning. Easter did not exist as either a Jewish or a "Christian" holiday until decreed at the 1st Council of Nicaea in 325CE. It was one of the new measures meant to remove Judaism from the New Testament. So no reference could have been made to a holiday that did not even exist in any of the original 1st cen documents; especially not by a group of people which the holiday was meant to displace! Dr. James Strong headed a collaborative effort to produce the concordance which bears his name. He may have been dean (not sure) but he was at a Methodist university in the US when it was written. The Methodists, as with all "Protestantism" were steeped more in Roman Catholic doctrine than not. They all still to this day keep the pagan festivals instead of the Feasts of the Lord. So we still must use a bucketload of discernment whenever using the Strong's Concordance. I still use it, but not without questioning. The inclusion of easter in the definition of pascha is offensive to any who truly understand and regard as still true the TNK (your Old Testament). No one was celebrating easter back then except the pagans. Use some discernment and you'll see this is true. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 26, 2014 12:24:30 GMT -8
Prov 27:17 Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
Yedidyah,
I have sharpened a lot of knives with steal. I have noticed without contact the knife will not get sharp. I have also noticed that an aggressive angle will dull the knife. I do not argue. Arguing is attacking a person instead of his position. In logic, that is a straw man fallacy. Your position, as I perceive it, is that God can’t preserve his word, at least not in the KJV. If the KJV has errors in it, then the whole lump is leavened and unfit for consumption by it own admission. Is there any bible/document which you fill does not have error in it?
alon,
When I studied with the Jehovah’s Witness, they showed me the roots of easter, chrismas and other pagan rites. The pagan rite go back further than the council of nicaea. Back to Egypt. As far as I can tell 325AD is when RCC officially mixed pagan rites with Christian worship. But that is hardly the first time is was done. Aaron also made the same mistake of brining Egypt into the Church. God didn’t like it then and hasn’t changed his mind. So yes, inclusion of easter into the Church is offensive. However to identify any thing pagan in the Church and to grind it into powder should be welcomed. Was Herod Jew or Pagan? There were more than a few who called themself Jew but acted pagan. The Bible records many accounts of that fact.
Jimmie
|
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Feb 26, 2014 12:37:42 GMT -8
Jimmie to make it not so simple, no every translation has bias added to it. One must use common sense approach and study out the words before trying to build any doctrine on them. I always go back to the original text on everything that could be used as a doctrinal idea. This approach will sharpen since it causes a deeper understanding of scripture. There is a reason we have so many translations and that is simply due to the fact that each church organization gets a say on most of the modern translations to get their "Doctrine" into scripture (Ask any of the bible editors) King James obviously tampered with scripture in a purposeful and obvious way. The basic understanding is this, do not base doctrine on anything that contradicts  . Everything else go into the orignal text and study it out. The Easter being implanted into the text is again a obvious doctrine to build a dogma around Christianity. It is the same when you ask someone to show you the word Rapture in scripture, everyone I ask in the church goes into their bible to find the word. People have a problem with imposing their ideas into the words than letting the words mold the person. That and years of anti-Semitic beliefs that have plagued the church to purge the Jewishness from the text. Keep on sharpening that iron with deep thought and studying the origins of some of the comments and words that have crept into scripture. John 8 is a great example of a chapter that is not found in a majority of text and only found in text dated hundreds of years later. Most people will throw out rabbinic sources based on less than that, just saying. Have a blessed day and keep on studying the word! Yedidyah |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 26, 2014 12:37:47 GMT -8
On the last note are you ok with me adding my name in the place of James which was not the brother of Yeshua anyways? Yedidyah Does Yedidyah mean heel catcher? If so then no I wouldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Feb 26, 2014 17:30:23 GMT -8
... I do not argue. Arguing is attacking a person instead of his position. In logic, that is a straw man fallacy. No sir ... Now THAT was a straw man fallacy! Stating another man's argument such that it is then easily attacked by yourself. Metaphorically, you build a straw man and then knock it over, thus claiming an easy victory. Re-read; "Easter did not exist as either a Jewish or a "Christian" holiday until decreed at the 1st Council of Nicaea in 325CE." I never studied with the JW's (though I used to like confounding them and the Mormons when they came by ... they never stop at my house any more, though ...hmmm ...), but I do know that Easter was practiced by pagans before 325 CE. That's why I ended with "No one was celebrating easter back then except the pagans." In fact, the RCC brought in a lot of paganism to mix with its newly re-written gospel. All the rites of Christmas, and the day itself, cleverly disguised as worshiping God's Son but really worshiping the birth of the son of the goddess Eshtar (they had a real thing for her). Or how about the confessional? Liturgies, which are a lot like mantras to brainwash their flock. Like maybe, holding onto your KJV Bible and repeating that every word is the true and inspired word of God. And this is what I mean when I say the Protestants have quit protesting Rome. They do all this except the confessional. They never questioned Rome past what Marten Luther did for them. Instead, they just all started arguing about where they should go based on his original protests. We, and especially you, need to start honestly examining scripture as well as our current practices and find the truth. If Luther was right, and the RCC was wrong about those things, is it just possible that they were wrong about others? What practices do we still do because we were taught there effectiveness by Rome? Should we abandon the holidays Rome instigated and observe the feasts given us by God? And just maybe, if the evidence is correct, should we dig deeper in the Word to find the truth that was altered, buried, and hidden by a church absolutely dedicated to restructuring their "New Testament" to be pagan, anti-Semitic, and to destroy as many of its adherents as possible? Dan (NO SMOKING!) C P.S. I know the KJ Bible was not an RCC effort ... we already been there, ... |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Feb 26, 2014 17:41:19 GMT -8
On the last note are you ok with me adding my name in the place of James which was not the brother of Yeshua anyways? Yedidyah Does Yedidyah mean heel catcher? If so then no I wouldn't. I dunno, ...I got my own book named. But them darned Jews, they went and downgraded me to the Kethuvim! Daniel  C |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 27, 2014 7:15:11 GMT -8
alon, Stating someone position as I understand it and then asking for additional information is not a fallacy of any kind. I simply want to know if Yedidyah has any documents that he feels has no errors in it. Such as the “ ” that he says we should be comparing every thing to. What is this “ ”. Apparently it is not the “ ” as found in the KJV. Is it the DSS, LXX, Masoretic, Septuagint, Targums, none of the above. ["No one was celebrating easter back then except the pagans." Was Herod a Jew? You don't have to convince me that RCC and others practice pagan rites. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Feb 27, 2014 8:47:38 GMT -8
["No one was celebrating easter back then except the pagans." Was Herod a Jew? You don't have to convince me that RCC and others practice pagan rites. Apparently your answer got mixed in with a quote from me- none of which makes much sense when taken together. SO I'll answer separately: Herod the Great (who I assume you mean) was born in Edom, and practiced Judaism there in spite of not being Jewish (at least not fully Jewish- I'm not certain). At any rate, the Jews didn't consider him to be Jewish. Turns out they were right, as he built several pagan temples at the same general time as he built his famous Temple for the Jews. No such thing as a little pagan- ya are or ya ain't. He war. That brings us to the second statement: I'm not trying to convince you that the RCC and others practiced pagan rites. I'm trying to say we all need to completely sever the ties with paganism, wherever they are found. That includes in corrupted (Greek) source documents used for all modern translations of the NT. And it means letting go of the idea that God inspired every word of the KJV. Believe this or not, as you wish. But again I'll tell you that you are going to have a difficult time convincing any serious Messianics on any position based on the infallibility of the KJV. This thread should be a good indicator of the truth in what I am saying here. It's as true today as it was when Yeshua said it to Rav Sha'ul, "it's hard to kick against the goads." Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 28, 2014 6:30:01 GMT -8
[Believe this or not, as you wish. But again I'll tell you that you are going to have a difficult time convincing any serious Messianics on any position based on the infallibility of the KJV. Dan C Matt 21:28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. 29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. 30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. 31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? I see Messianics as the first son: They deny that there is a pure word of God, yet they do it. I see KJV onlyest as the second son: They declare that they have the pure word of God, yet they refuse to do what it instructs. I hope I got this in the right place and not inside your quote as I did last time. |
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Feb 28, 2014 8:26:00 GMT -8
[Believe this or not, as you wish. But again I'll tell you that you are going to have a difficult time convincing any serious Messianics on any position based on the infallibility of the KJV. Dan C Matt 21:28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. 29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. 30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. 31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? I see Messianics as the first son: They deny that there is a pure word of God, yet they do it. I see KJV onlyest as the second son: They declare that they have the pure word of God, yet they refuse to do what it instructs. I hope I got this in the right place and not inside your quote as I did last time. I don't think you are right in that idea at all. For one it is not about Messianics and King Jimmie followers. For second the King James is not the pure word of Hashem so one is actually placing a translation of the bible into idol status by holding it even above the original texts. There is a reason many call the King James only people a cult and it is because the cult type thinking that their translation is the only pure inspired word of Hashem. Every point that you have brought up to defend such as been so easily thrown out that I don't see how one could hold onto something so obviously wrong. King James is a man made work on an inspired text, it in itself is not inspired but what it is based on. I could go into the parable of the man who built his house on the sand but that is also NOT talking about the version that some hold to idol status. Iron only sharpens Iron when it is allowed to do its work, when one refuses to see the clear facts is the one who looks at the two apart but never let's them touch each other in fear of damage to their dogma. Shalom and Shabbat Blessings! Yedidyah |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Feb 28, 2014 10:11:51 GMT -8
... the King James is not the pure word of Hashem so one is actually placing a translation of the bible into idol status by holding it even above the original texts. ... That kind of goes to the crux of the issue. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 28, 2014 12:00:26 GMT -8
Yedidyah,
When I sharpen knives, there is one now and then that has been over used and will not “allow” me to sharpen it. The knife just needs more contact time with the steel. Complaining about the knife being dull has never made it easier to sharpen.
I only hold the KJV above the original texts in one regard: It can be read and understood by people who can’t read or understand the original text. I Cor 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
Would you mind telling me what original text you consider the pure word of God?
|
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Feb 28, 2014 15:14:14 GMT -8
Yedidyah, When I sharpen knives, there is one now and then that has been over used and will not “allow” me to sharpen it. The knife just needs more contact time with the steel. Complaining about the knife being dull has never made it easier to sharpen. I only hold the KJV above the original texts in one regard: It can be read and understood by people who can’t read or understand the original text. I Cor 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. Would you mind telling me what original text you consider the pure word of God? Jimmie the difference between translators such as some of the Jewish scribes and the Jewish people who would never even take liberties to change scripture we have the early christian translators who did that very thing;changed it to fit their doctrine and allowed their own ideas to leech into the text. We have already proven such in early comments that you fail to answer. The scripture should be held higher than what these men have done with it. King James was not the first to do a translation into English. William Tyndale was the first to do a in depth study on scripture along side with the Jewish people who understood Hebrew and taught him. Tyndale did all the work and King James took from that and worked off of it. So King James is not something special by any means. Tyndale's was a much better translation without some of the liberties to pervert the scripture like King James did. William Tyndale did so much more than anything King James could have wished for. The problem with placing people like King James on the idol shelf of their home as something like the ("pure word of God" as you put it) is simple as this, you have given credit to something that was not to be directed to. You have agreed with the falsehood and in doing so you in return lose credibility on other matters when the basics are ignored. We should be careful to point such credit to such men. It is the same when someone who thinks Martin Luther was something special sent from Hashem himself can quickly be proven false by a easy internet search and five minutes of their time. People refuse to be scholars, they refuse to see the truth and they refuse to stand for anything other than whats been taught and passed down no matter how false it is. Fallacy Christianity is what they are left with and there is little truth in that. It's like throwing a little bit of feces in your food, I guarantee you won't taste it but are you comfortable eating it anyways? Serious food for thought. Yedidyah |
|
- there are 70 faces to 
C
