Ill have to call BS on that one... everybody calls it Easter. You just hate the KJV so much that your pride won’t let you admit it.Passover...
Ill have to call BS on that one... everybody calls it Easter. You just hate the KJV so much that your pride won’t let you admit it.Passover...
Ill have to call BS on that one... everybody calls it Easter. You just hate the KJV so much that your pride won’t let you admit it.
Youre welcome to your opinion. But you gotta admit that the religious folk absolutely hated his guts when he talked about things they didn’t understand. No different here, I’m talking about things that you haven’t learned yet.![]()
We all know what Passover was. The question is what do Christians call the fulfillment of Passover.Pascha from Strong’s...
- the paschal sacrifice (which was accustomed to be offered for the people's deliverance of old from Egypt)
- the paschal lamb, i.e. the lamb the Israelites were accustomed to slay and eat on the fourteenth day of the month of Nisan (the first month of their year) in memory of the day on which their fathers, preparing to depart from Egypt, were bidden by God to slay and eat a lamb, and to sprinkle their door posts with its blood, that the destroying angel, seeing the blood, might pass over their dwellings; Christ crucified is likened to the slain paschal lamb
- the paschal supper
- the paschal feast, the feast of the Passover, extending from the 14th to the 20th day of the month Nisan
We all know what Passover was. The question is what do Christians call the fulfillment of Passover.
Im not talking about original languages, I’m just asking you what is the fulfillment of Passover called.Thats not my point. Luke, under the Spirit’s inspiration, used pascha, which means Passover. He didn’t use Easter, because it wasn’t even a word at the time he wrote Acts.
Im not talking about original languages,
I’m just asking you what is the fulfillment of Passover called.
That is nonsense and you know it!Ill have to call BS on that one... everybody calls it Easter. You just hate the KJV so much that your pride won’t let you admit it.
That is nonsense and you know it!
Heartily disagreeing with you cannot be confused with hatred of the KJV.
I have nothing but contempt for the KJVO brigade but I use the KJV, despite its limitations, and I use other translations, despite their limitations...
Yes, he is extraordinarily confused on a lot of levels.Remember, he's talking about things I haven't learned yet. What are these things he's talking about?
There's two Christs in every believer. A heresy.
The Christ inside of him is not the same Christ indwelling another believer that learned about the Christ another way. Another heresy.
He doesn't care about the originals because the KJV corrected and improved them. A joke.
Yep, I haven't learned what he's talking about, and I praise God every day for it.
Yes, he is extraordinarily confused on a lot of levels.
In some ways he is so ignorant of many realities that he has no way of realising how far off the mark he is...
Ok then I will ask you if you were a translator and you wanted to mark the only occurrence of Passover after it had been fulfilled, what word would you use?
Here is a direct quote from your previous post..... Did I (and probably everyone else who read this) misunderstand your insinuation? No spinning required. To me, it's simple reading comprehension. If I misunderstood your statement, I will happily retract my reply.

I always thought the Feast of Tabernacles was the second coming of Christ.If I remember rightly resurrection is associated with the Feast of Tabernacles not Passover as a type/anti-type.
So resurrection does not complete Passover and turn it into easter.
That won't explain away the KJV translators blunder and inconsistency any more than trying to claim there is a difference between holy ghost and holy spirit.
Yes, he is extraordinarily confused on a lot of levels.
In some ways he is so ignorant of many realities that he has no way of realising how far off the mark he is...