When we look at Holy Days of God in the OT, we speak about the major feasts given by God to His people Israel
For the NT Church they are important for spiritual understanding when it comes to Christ's ministry. The Spring feasts and Summer feast have been fulfilled to the day in Christ! The fall feasts have yet to be fulfilled.
Are we called to observe the feasts in the New Covenant? Not by the letter, but it is good for us to understand the prophetic significance of the feasts as they relate to Christ.
As to the modern day "holidays" created and practiced by the majority of Christendom today? Nope, not asked of us to do them. I read in an earlier post that someone stated that the angels celebrated Christ's birth. However, while they were indeed celebrating the completion of prophecy, was it a birthday celebration? That's hard to say as the only time we really see anything about birthdays being celebrated in the bible is found in Job. In addition all the nativity scenes with the "three" kings are not biblical as they met the young boy in the house. The bible doesn't even say three kings, but we know there were three gifts given. More specifically they were used as a funeral annointing for a king. Biblical evidence points to Christ being born in the fall based on the service of Zachariah's father as a levite in the order of Abijah. After his service, Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist. 6 months later, Mary conceived Jesus. Adding 9 months puts His birth closer to September/October. Why the timing around Saturnalia is used really baffles me. The argument that it was used to offset and "reclaim" Saturnalia doesn't do much to explain as some of those traditions are now used today and God explicitly says not to learn those ways.
We know for a fact that Christ died on Passover to fulfill the feast of Passover to the day on the 14th of Nisan. We also know for a fact that Christ rose again three days and nights later with the understanding that the Jewish day ends at sundown. Are we called to hold an annual celebration? I know that when we partake of the Lord's Supper we do it in remembrance of Him and proclaim His death until He comes again.
As we study the origin of how these "holidays" came about (not JUST Alexander Hislop sparkman), we really do need to just look at what the Scriptures say and how God asks us to worship Him and His truth. Honestly, if the apostles didn't need to celebrate them at the created times we have today... is it really necessary? If we do celebrate it... wouldn't it be better to choose a time closer to the actual event? For example, for the calendar year of 2016, Easter is celebrated at the end of March, while Passover is celebrated at the end of April. Since we know that Jesus died on Passover from the bible, why are people celebrating it in March? Just some food for thought.
We know that the day after the crucifixion was a weekly Sabbath...this is not even a question for me. It was also a high day; the first day of Unleavened Bread. He was resurrected on the first day of the week.
The word "Sabbath" in this verse is
sabbaton, and it has a weekly context. In fact, it is translated "week" seven times in the New Testament. The first day of the week, for example, is "mia sabbaton".
John 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and
that they might be taken away.
See word study on verse:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/19/31/t_conc_1016031
See how Sabbath is used:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4521&t=KJV
See how Sabbath is translated "week":
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat/28/1/t_conc_957001
The explanation I was taught as an Armstrongite was that the word "Sabbath" could also be used in regards to a high day, and it was used in that manner a FEW times in the Old Testament, but the Greek word
sabbaton has a weekly context.
The argument against a Friday to Sunday crucifixion/resurrection relies ONLY on Matthew 12:40 and the understanding that they have in regards to this. Bible scholars view this "three days and three nights" wording to be an emphatic way of expressing the time period.
I am not going to reject church history over one verse which doesn't fit the facts the way I would like to see them, especially from individuals who are insinuating that the rest of Christianity is modified paganism. I spent a decade listening to ignoramuses making such claims.
Regarding other elements of "paganism", the supposed association with Lent and "weeping for Tammuz" is bogus...this pagan custom was observed at the end of summer and not in the spring prior to Easter. Another common claim is that the men facing the sun in Ezekiel 8:16 regarded the sunrise services..again, bogus..the women came to the tomb early Sunday morning and found it empty. I've heard Hosea 3:1 being used to describe hot cross buns as well..some more Hislop stuff.
Name your other sources, besides Hislop. Come on..let's hear them..Hebrew Roots guys? Armstrongites? Know where they got their stuff? Hislop. Was Hislop trained in Babylonian history? No. Nor could he reason very well.
He tries to relate all pagan religion to the worship of Nimrod and Semiramis, Nimrod's wife. Since they lived centuries apart, I bet they really had a hard time getting together to reproduce and produce Tammuz
His reasoning was disjointed and fallacious. I could prove anything using his logic.
Bill wears a red shirt and blue jeans.
Bob wears a red shirt and khakis.
Robert wears a green shirt and khakis.
Conclusion: Robert is Bill.
That is how bad his logic was. It's hilarious when you see this syllogism but that was his methodology.
Additionally, he was not an expert on Babylonian history and religion, so he had no credentials. His reasoning was futile.
I'd suggest that you consider my argument above..that the word
sabbaton has a weekly context, and that the facts fit together very well with regards to the traditional view, except for Matthew 12:40, which can be explained by the emphatic expression view. Even if you don't agree, you should acknowledge that the explanations are reasonable enough to respect the other viewpoint rather than slandering your fellow Christians by claiming they are observing modified paganism. In addition, church history carries significant weight on issues like this, especially when the alleged discrepancies have some reasonable explanation.
I'd really like to see your other sources of information regarding Easter being pagan, though. Be aware that I will check out their associations and credibility.
