The power of self-deception is evident in all religions.
To believe a day as the day a particular event occurred being this not the case, as in the case of the birth of Christ or his resurrection, has to do more with the power of self convincing, than correctness, especially when abiding on the strength of a crowd that endorses the same. Any joy of such experience derives from the actual fact the worshipper focus on , but not from the correctness it entitles.
Certainly, John, unless there were strong historical contextual reasons for rendering Easter instead of Passover in that particular passage, we can say that no-one escapes the trap of his own cultural baggage, presumptions or prejudice in going about his work.
Our English word passover is a meaning-like transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic 'peh'Â·sakh' meaning 'exempting a culprit from guilt'.
However, linguistics show how words transform when passing from one language or culture into another as Mr Bill Cooper demonstrates in his book After the Flood.
For instance, due to the large Jewish population in Spain during the middle ages, the word 'peh'Â·sakh', passover, phonetically transliterated into Spanish as 'pascua', sounding quite similar.
The same can be explained about the transliteration of the Saxon Oester, Easter, from Persian Ishtar. Though the Druids were innovative about some of their own rituals, they were not immune as everyone else from borrowing from the far extended cult of Ishtar known throughout different cultures and continents, which stood as the Goddess of engendering all good things by prototype.
John Lee wrote: Sister B, ... I will see if I can find out today what Messianic Jews do as regards the passover and Lord's Supper... There seems to be many different names for the 'service' of remembrance. Firstly, I no longer see it as a 'service'. It is a simple meal, plain and ordinary, when disciples get together to remember something...
John, what a messianic jew does, or does not, does not alter a iota of the expressed eternal design, which by the way, includes *no change* in the mind of God about the Passover into a remembrance later.
As you point out, the NT act of remembrance, as the actual Passover was, is not a 'service' but a collective devotional acknowledging redemption, visualised in this case not with a physical lamb, but with the physical elements of bread and the cup. That this collective act might be held in the context of a meal can be possibly accepted.
However, the last looks back, while the former looked forward. The first sustains the second, as without the Passover the Lord's table is meaningless. The second confirms the fulfilment pointed to by the first, and both are one.
In remembering Christ by the second we affirm the completion and fulfilment of the eternal purpose in ONE
1. John, in seeing the Passover as an ongoing yearly remembrance you are holding to an earthy type that speaks of an eternal reality, which is that our Passover, Christ, was slayed and offered *from the foundation of the world*, not yearly. The eternal accomplishment is what the Lord's table exemplifies.
2. It is a fact that druid practice focused the beginning of spring with festivities and rituals round the fertility 'egg' , while new agers extend this to the fertility of rabbits and chicks comercialising the season with happy Easter card wishes . The imposed relationship of such whith Christ's crucifixion and resurrection is blatant but not biblical, neither justifiable.
John Lee wrote: 1. a pagan festival not being hijacked for the Christian church.
2. ... "If Jesus is the Head of his church, where is the instruction to celebrate Easter or do anything different?" As I see it, there is not one verse which gives warrant to celebrate Easter (Palm Sunday, Good Friday, Resurrection Day etc.). Whereas there is most certainly warrant to celebrate not only the passover, but also the subsequent feast of unleavened bread, which lasted several days I believe.
1. How then eggs, rabbits, carrots and chickens have become emblems associated with a festival of the plan of redemption or of a resurrected Saviour?
2. The Israel calendar and the church calendar are two different things. The first was God-ordained for the instructing of the oncoming redemption through Christ by which all is fulfilled. The second is man made. No church should come under to the first, less we think in reverse as judaisers, and much less under the man-made.
The Passover is fulfilled in Christ whose remembrance is the Lord's table.
Excellent Socialism in education only makes parents more irresponsible. The biblical law of cause and effect being made obsolete by the intruding state promoting the utopic 'common good' leads inevitably to tyranny and the total corruption of any society. The state then assuming the ultimate all-caring role for all people becomes a dictatorship under guised. This short talk points to the unbiblical position this approach presents by contrasting the law of God with humanistic law. In fear of diversity and free thinking totalitarian secularism takes the role of an all controling secularised god. The God revealed in the Bible gives commands for man to excercise responsibility, the secularised god seeks control.
Connor, the slogan displayed on your t-shirt does not 'sanitize' the casual garment you wear in the context of the accepted Western dress code of respect for men nowadays. The t-shirt still remains an item belonging to a frivolous life style, representing a sloppy, do-it-your-own-way philosophy, which does not necessarily represent biblical value or terms.
The garments of salvation include honour, the same as the garments of the high priest were designed for beauty and *honour*. Honour is setting something aside from the common or ordinary with the aim of showing a particular deference and a higher estimation towards it. Bringing God to the realm of the common is never a good idea.
"Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness". Holiness is blameless, which if excludes the sense of rendering honour to whom honour is due it misses the point on the pretence of sacrifice before obedience. Sadly God seems to deserve little honour in the mind of some.
On the other hand if your sense of holiness includes self-will, not only it contradicts your slogan as a supposed 'slave', but the law of God.
Check your thinking against the other reasons already presented in my previous posts. Take care
Some nowadays seek to dissociate honour from their system of morality, as if the issue of rendering honour manifested by tangible /visual tokens of respect, was an optional clause in life. Yet these same individuals however will not argue, but gladly comply about a military, professional or etiquette uniform for earthly matters, though the doctrine of honour goes throughout the Bible in many shapes and renderings.
A worship 'in my own terms' is the offspring of regarding god as my buddy, so prevalent in easy belivism. It is concluded that the little god of our human fabrication needs by definition to accept my specific terms of commitment or respect.
'God looks at the heart' some argue, as if God's eye lacked the integrity of presence and character to overlook the mixed message our physical appearance declares, having in mind that what is inside always comes out declaring true intentions. A heart sorted in selfserving autocrat wishes will hardly ever yield to etiquette, or protocol for the sake of honour or respect. The same Scripture that says 'rent your hearts and not your garments', also advised somewhere else to wash our bodies with pure water, or to make our garments white. The fact that God uses analogies as pure linen to show integral purity is an indicative of his holistic view of man. We conveniently subdivide our being into the physical and spiritual as if they made two different entities. Such is the heritage of Augustinian folly.
Adriel, your remarks can be traced to the ongoing inclusiveness of creed in the evangelical circles, regarding the doctrine of morals, say the difference between right or wrong. This is ajusted to a minimum in order to accommodate a vast variety of selfserved lifestyles, which sadly borrow extensively from humanism, rather than from the Biblical ethos revealed in Scripture.
Adriel wrote: Signs of the times!!! Liberalism rules the roost in the modern generation. So NO recognized authority such as church, morals, marriage and respect of elders. The suit is observed in parts of recent history as being well dressed for some occasion. Today the slovenly so called casual look is dominant. They look disheveled and unkempt. But that illustrates their disrespect for self and others, part of the ideology of modern Liberalism.
Morality absent, respect goes out through the window. It is then, what pleases me first, second and third, and after this me again, because if suits me.
Key relevance of the traditional text pointed out This podcast brings a valuable refocus on the deciding importance of the traditional text (TR) underlying the KJV, against the folly of the forever-changing critical text. Perhaps the term 'modern-versions onlynism' is truly overdue.