Easter has nothing to do with Passover nor any pagan nonsense. Which is why it’s in God’s book.
The devil is just a trouble maker and it’s amazing how people go along with his false assertions.
Yes, I've being doing a study on this the past 24 hrs. I'll report back when I'm finished and have time. Here are some initial findings:
There are two very different views among King James Bible believers concerning the meaning and significance of the word Easter as found in Acts 12:4. One view is that Easter was in fact the name of the Anglo-Saxon pagan goddess of spring and that Herod was waiting till after this pagan holiday was over before he was going to have Peter killed. There are however many serious problems with this view. Number one is the fact that the pagan goddess was named Eoestre or Eastre or some say Ishtar or Astarte (all different gods and goddesses),
but the name is not Easter.
The King James Bible translators did not have some sort of a collective "senior moment", and though they translated the Greek word paska as Passover some 28 times, suddenly they had some sort of a memory slip and make it Easter this one time in Acts 12:4. And they also knew how to spell English words correctly. There is no way that they really meant to say Eostre instead of Easter.
If the King James Bible had read: "intending after Ishtar" or "intending after Eoestre", they might have a case for their argument. But it clearly does not read that way. It says: "intending after EASTER to bring him forth to the people."
Let's look at it from the Greek side of things. The Greek word used here is clearly πάσχα or paska. There is NO way on God's green earth that the Greek word πάσχα can possibly mean anything remotely like "Eoestre" or "Ishtar". The King James Bible translators were not morons. They knew exactly what this word means and it means EASTER, particularly when it applies to the yearly celebration of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that is what they wrote. The second major problem with this view is that Herod was an Edomite and probably a Roman citizen, but by no stretch of the imagination was he an Anglo-Saxon.
The term Anglo-Saxon designates the population in Britain partly descended from the Germanic tribes who migrated from Europe and settled the south and east of the island beginning in the early 5th century, and the period after their initial settlement through their creation of the English nation up to the Norman conquest. The Anglo-Saxon era denotes the period of English history between about 550 and 1066. The term can be used for the language, also known as Old English, that was spoken and written by the Anglo-Saxons in England (and parts of south-eastern Scotland) between at least the mid-5th century and the mid-12th century, after which it is known as Middle English.
So it would be more than a little difficult to have a Roman/Edomite king in the first century celebrating an Anglo-Saxon pagan goddess who was never acknowledged among the Romans and in fact did not even exist until some 4 to 5 centuries later.
About the only thing the term Easter and the Anglo-Saxon Eoestre could possibly have in common is that they are both derived from the Middle English word "east" meaning simply the East. Aside from that, it's a theory totally devoid of and contrary to all known historical facts.