Why the word "Easter" is properly translated in Acts 12:4 in the KJB

[Andrew1]

It says in Luke 22:19 that Jesus said, during the Passover before his death while he broke bread: '...This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.' It says again in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

It is reasonable to assume that the disciples chose to obey Jesus words on an annual basis on or around the time of the Passover since it was indeed that time when Jesus said these things. It is evident from John 2:13 however that Christians while the book of John was written did not celebrate The Passover in the Jewish sense for it says: 'And the Jews' passover was at hand,...' It was here qualified as 'the Jews passover' as though there was a different passover that applied to someone else. This different Passover or "Pascha" in Greek is none other than the celebration we know today in English as "Easter". Easter by the way is not a pagan word nor is the celebration itself pagan for a more in depth examination of this issue here is a link “Easter” or “Passover” in Acts 12:4? - King James Version Today. If the Scriptural Evidence for the Early Churches celebration of Easter is deemed insufficient to some, the historical evidence from Eusebius' 'Church History' clears up the matter nicely

1. A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour. (Book V,23:1) CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book V (Eusebius)

The word Passover here was translated from the Greek "Pascha" Thus the word itself was used in the first century to refer to the celebration we know today in English as "Easter". This celebration of Christs resurrection, as we can see from history came directly from the apostolic tradition. The Book of Acts was written by Luke who was speaking to Christians who did not celebrate the Jewish Passover, but rather the Christian Easter. Here is the passage:

And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. (Acts 12:4)

If the early Christians celebrated something they called 'Pascha' that was not the same as the 'Jews passover', and this is the first and only instance in Scripture to refer to it in a post resurrection context, then it was necessary for the KJB translators to determine what Luke meant. Since Luke who was a Christian and was speaking to Christians who did not celebrate the Jewish 'Pascha' but rather the Christian 'Pascha' ie 'Easter' then Easter is what he meant since Luke was speaking from his own perspective and explaining the timeline of events to other Christians, not from Herod's perspective.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

the context indicates that luke was referring to the -jewish- passover...

luke 12:3-4..."When he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. Now it was during the days of Unleavened Bread. When he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people."

luke mentions herod trying to please the jews...he also mentions the feast of unleavened bread...

it is obvious that herod intended to bring peter before the -jewish- people after this -jewish- festival was over with...

there is nothing whatsoever in the context to indicate that luke is referring to a 'christian passover'...

'easter' is just a mistranslation in the idolized version...

 

[kenisyes]

Pascha is simply the Greek adaptation or Pesach, the Hebrew word for Passover. The Greek word needs to end in a vowel for declension, so pesach became pesacha, and the middle a dropped out. Many passages, Scriptural and otherwise prove that the early Christians "did this in memory" pretty much every day. The real problem is, that after Jerusalem fell, the Roman Christians had no Jewish Christians to study with. Eusebius refers (if you read the whole thing) to a dispute of Jewish area Christians vs. Roman area Christians. And by the way, it still is not settled, as Eastern Orthodox follow an older calendar.

 

[Andrew1]

the context indicates that luke was referring to the -jewish- passover...

luke 12:3-4..."When he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. Now it was during the days of Unleavened Bread. When he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people."

luke mentions herod trying to please the jews...he also mentions the feast of unleavened bread...

it is obvious that herod intended to bring peter before the -jewish- people after this -jewish- festival was over with...

there is nothing whatsoever in the context to indicate that luke is referring to a 'christian passover'...

'easter' is just a mistranslation in the idolized version...

The fact is the early Christians celebrated Easter, It was and still is called 'Pascha' in Greek. If Pascha also meant Easter in Luke's day then it has to be determined which "Pascha" he was referring to. Further the festival of the Jews and the celebration of the Christians happened at the same time but they weren't the same celebration. So Luke was in effect saying to the Christians that, after the time that they celebrated as 'Easter' (for Christians didn't the celebrate passover in the Jewish sense) the time that the Jews celebrate as Passover Herod intended to bring Peter forth to the people. Luke was talking to Christians from a Christian perspective. The Easter rendition does not take away from the context of the passage nor is it inaccurate.

 

[RedTent]

Our fleshly minds, with all it's reasoning power of "if this is so then that is so" is constantly going to work to adjust scripture. Someone said you can make scripture prove anything you want, and in a way that is so. Here is how Easter happened.

Just as soon as the gentiles were made head of the Christian church in about 70 to replace the Jewish head, there were hundreds of gentile Christians who wrote about God. Almost all wanted to separate Christ from worship of the Father. It led to making Christianity a completely new religion, not a way of growing in Christ. We have men today who make a study of these writings. The fact is that changing Passover to Easter was done to get the Jewishness out of Christian worship. Paul said it was right to do that, for God was God of the gentiles as well as the Jews, it wasn't to be a national religion. We didn't have to take on national customs to worship God.

These gentile leaders began making it into an "ain't the Jews aaawwwffful" thing. They had many ways of understanding God including Arian whose ideas questioned Christ as God. By the time 300 years went by it was made illegal to go to a synagogue to hear God's words, even. The wonderful council called just after 300 that settled many thing including that Arian was wrong, also made it illegal to celebrate the resurrection as God instructed, and created a new date for it and a new way to do it. It was not based on God's word, it was based on pagan worship. That worship was made over so it reflected the one true God.

God has said to not do this. We can read about it when we read of how the Jews reacted when Moses was gone so long on the mountain. They had always before had something they could touch and feel to represent their God, here was a strange God with nothing of that kind. So they made something to represent Him, they made the golden calf. It wasn't a new God, it was worshipping the true God in the only way they knew how. Read how Moses expressed God's reaction to that! God is reacting to our man made Easter in the same way.

 

[Andrew1]

Pascha is simply the Greek adaptation or Pesach, the Hebrew word for Passover. The Greek word needs to end in a vowel for declension, so pesach became pesacha, and the middle a dropped out. Many passages, Scriptural and otherwise prove that the early Christians "did this in memory" pretty much every day. The real problem is, that after Jerusalem fell, the Roman Christians had no Jewish Christians to study with. Eusebius refers (if you read the whole thing) to a dispute of Jewish area Christians vs. Roman area Christians. And by the way, it still is not settled, as Eastern Orthodox follow an older calendar.

I may not know much about Eusebius' work, but as I understand it, this dispute was not about whether to celebrate "the Saviours Pascha" ie) "Easter" But when to celebrate it. Who was involved in the dispute is irrelevant to my point. Furthermore you are telling me, that the modern Greek word for Easter "Pascha" is not descended from this "Saviours Pascha" But rather that the modern word evolved independently of what Eusebius was referring to and directly from the Hebrew. That seems a little odd to me.
(Actually reading your statement I'm not sure if your disputing my post or merely attempting to provide more insight into it, so if my response to your statement here is out of context I apologize)

 

[Andrew1]

Our fleshly minds, with all it's reasoning power of "if this is so then that is so" is constantly going to work to adjust scripture. Someone said you can make scripture prove anything you want, and in a way that is so. Here is how Easter happened.

Just as soon as the gentiles were made head of the Christian church in about 70 to replace the Jewish head, there were hundreds of gentile Christians who wrote about God. Almost all wanted to separate Christ from worship of the Father. It led to making Christianity a completely new religion, not a way of growing in Christ. We have men today who make a study of these writings. The fact is that changing Passover to Easter was done to get the Jewishness out of Christian worship. Paul said it was right to do that, for God was God of the gentiles as well as the Jews, it wasn't to be a national religion. We didn't have to take on national customs to worship God.

These gentile leaders began making it into an "ain't the Jews aaawwwffful" thing. They had many ways of understanding God including Arian whose ideas questioned Christ as God. By the time 300 years went by it was made illegal to go to a synagogue to hear God's words, even. The wonderful council called just after 300 that settled many thing including that Arian was wrong, also made it illegal to celebrate the resurrection as God instructed, and created a new date for it and a new way to do it. It was not based on God's word, it was based on pagan worship. That worship was made over so it reflected the one true God.

God has said to not do this. We can read about it when we read of how the Jews reacted when Moses was gone so long on the mountain. They had always before had something they could touch and feel to represent their God, here was a strange God with nothing of that kind. So they made something to represent Him, they made the golden calf. It wasn't a new God, it was worshipping the true God in the only way they knew how. Read how Moses expressed God's reaction to that! God is reacting to our man made Easter in the same way.

Perhaps you didn't read the words in Eusebius' work '..., as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time,' It is true we are not commanded in scripture to observe the remembrance of Christs resurrection on an annual basis or any specific time, but this was nevertheless the custom.' and i am not adjusting scripture, the fact is 'Pascha' meant both 'Passover' and 'Easter' at the time that Acts was written Luke was talking to Christians. Furthermore I would like to see the actual historical evidence that the KJB translators used the word 'Easter' in Acts: 12:4 as an antisemitic 'dig' seeing as Easter itself was used interchangeably for years to refer to both Easter and the Jewish Passover.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

The fact is the early Christians celebrated Easter, It was and still is called 'Pascha' in Greek. If Pascha also meant Easter in Luke's day then it has to be determined which "Pascha" he was referring to. Further the festival of the Jews and the celebration of the Christians happened at the same time but they weren't the same celebration. So Luke was in effect saying to the Christians that, after the time that they celebrated as 'Easter' (for Christians didn't the celebrate passover in the Jewish sense) the time that the Jews celebrate as Passover Herod intended to bring Peter forth to the people. Luke was talking to Christians from a Christian perspective. The Easter rendition does not take away from the context of the passage nor is it inaccurate.

there would be no reason for herod...who had no respect for christianity...to have waited until after the christian celebration of jesus' resurrection...

it is clear that herod was waiting until the end of the jewish feast of unleavened bread...also called passover...and that the 'pascha' in this passage is referring to that feast...not a christian feast anachronistically called 'easter'...

 

[kenisyes]

I may not know much about Eusebius' work, but as I understand it, this dispute was not about whether to celebrate "the Saviours Pascha" ie) "Easter" But when to celebrate it. Who was involved in the dispute is irrelevant to my point. Furthermore you are telling me, that the modern Greek word for Easter "Pascha" is not descended from this "Saviours Pascha" But rather that the modern word evolved independently of what Eusebius was referring to and directly from the Hebrew. That seems a little odd to me.
(Actually reading your statement I'm not sure if your disputing my post or merely attempting to provide more insight into it, so if my response to your statement here is out of context I apologize)

You do not know if I am disputing or adding to your point, because I am not certain what your point is. You state: "If the early Christians celebrated something they called 'Pascha' that was not the same as the 'Jews passover'" In what way was was it not the same? If you are saying that it was derived from Passover, as transformed by Jesus, the Lamb, into the Eucharist and Easter (Resurrection), I agree and am thus adding insight. If you are saying there was an early replacement of Passover by what eventually became Easter, I am disagreeing. There was a replacement, but it occurred quite a bit later, long after even John had died. It is critically important to our understanding of the Eucharist, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, that we understand Easter as an "update" of Passover, and not as a separate new feast.

You are correct that Eusebius' statement is only about when to celebrate it. My point here, is that if you read on in Eusebius (your link), you see that the ones who wanted Sunday were the Gentile Christians of Rome, etc., and the ones who wished to keep it as the original, were the Asian Christians, closer to the original Christians of Jerusalem. It was thus a dispute between the forerunner of the Catholic church and the original churches started by the apostles from Jerusalem in Asia Minor. And even Eusebius states that both were celebrating Pascha. The word "Paschal" is used in liturgical churches all the time in various Easter celebrations in all countries. paschal - definition of paschal by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Andrew1]

You do not know if I am disputing or adding to your point, because I am not certain what your point is. You state: "If the early Christians celebrated something they called 'Pascha' that was not the same as the 'Jews passover'" In what way was was it not the same? If you are saying that it was derived from Passover, as transformed by Jesus, the Lamb, into the Eucharist and Easter (Resurrection), I agree and am thus adding insight. If you are saying there was an early replacement of Passover by what eventually became Easter, I am disagreeing. There was a replacement, but it occurred quite a bit later, long after even John had died. It is critically important to our understanding of the Eucharist, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, that we understand Easter as an "update" of Passover, and not as a separate new feast.

You are correct that Eusebius' statement is only about when to celebrate it. My point here, is that if you read on in Eusebius (your link), you see that the ones who wanted Sunday were the Gentile Christians of Rome, etc., and the ones who wished to keep it as the original, were the Asian Christians, closer to the original Christians of Jerusalem. It was thus a dispute between the forerunner of the Catholic church and the original churches started by the apostles from Jerusalem in Asia Minor. And even Eusebius states that both were celebrating Pascha. The word "Paschal" is used in liturgical churches all the time in various Easter celebrations in all countries. paschal - definition of paschal by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Yes I would say that the "Pascha" Esebius was referring to was derived from the passover but not a replacement of it, however that it is also acceptable to refer to the "Saviours Passover (Pascha)" that Esebius was referring to as "Easter" and that Acts 12:4 in the King James Bible is accurate when using that word. The actual word "Easter" as I understand did not exist in those days, however the celebration (though it may have changed over the years) did. I'm not an etymologist, but if I were to venture a guess I would suspect that the word, "Paschal" is directly descended from "Pascha" and means the same thing. Like I say I'm not an etymologist so I am prepared to be corrected and then look further into the matter.

 

[Andrew1]

there would be no reason for herod...who had no respect for christianity...to have waited until after the christian celebration of jesus' resurrection...

it is clear that herod was waiting until the end of the jewish feast of unleavened bread...also called passover...and that the 'pascha' in this passage is referring to that feast...not a christian feast anachronistically called 'easter'...

You have miss understood my point, It wasn't that Herod himself was thinking in terms of the Christian Easter. But it was Luke expressing to Christians in a Christian context the timeline of events. Easter is not an anachronism in this context, it was celebrated during the time of the Apostles as "Pashca" ie) "Easter"

 

[RedTent]

Perhaps you didn't read the words in Eusebius' work '..., as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time,' It is true we are not commanded in scripture to observe the remembrance of Christs resurrection on an annual basis or any specific time, but this was nevertheless the custom.' and i am not adjusting scripture, the fact is 'Pascha' meant both 'Passover' and 'Easter' at the time that Acts was written Luke was talking to Christians. Furthermore I would like to see the actual historical evidence that the KJB translators used the word 'Easter' in Acts: 12:4 as an antisemitic 'dig' seeing as Easter itself was used interchangeably for years to refer to both Easter and the Jewish Passover.

Andrew, you caught me, I haven't read Eusebius work, only what people have said about him. His Life of Constantine was mostly a praise of Constantine rather than an honest account of his life. It still seems to me that a general history of the church as the gentiles saw it when Easter was decided on is a more accurate look at that date and it includes more than Eusebius.

The KJB was translated about 1,600 years after the resurrection, they used earlier works as they translated. They didn't even have as much history of the start of using the holiday of Easter to celebrate the resurrection as we do today because of findings since that time. The translators of the KJB were living in an age where many thought it was perfectly proper to murder Jews, but I doubt that they used a bible translation to manage a dig at anyone.

I hope you are absolutely correct about the origin of the word Easter. But if you read the minutes of the Nicene Council, you will see that they did change the date, time, and name of Passover, and the church changed the way it was celebrated. Also, their goal was to separate the worship of Christ from the worship of God the Father, not make Christian worship a worship based on growth.

 

[nathan3]

The Word mistakenly translated into easter, is the Greek word for Passover. The manuscripts state clearly it is Psaca or what have you, Not the pagan ritual easter that coincidentally feel around the same time.

easter was a pagan fertility right where people would have sexual orgies in the woods.

How people are so ignorant to allow that name to replace Passover on the day Christ gave His life for us is the Height of biblical illiteracy .

 

[Andrew1]

Andrew, you caught me, I haven't read Eusebius work, only what people have said about him. His Life of Constantine was mostly a praise of Constantine rather than an honest account of his life. It still seems to me that a general history of the church as the gentiles saw it when Easter was decided on is a more accurate look at that date and it includes more than Eusebius.

The KJB was translated about 1,600 years after the resurrection, they used earlier works as they translated. They didn't even have as much history of the start of using the holiday of Easter to celebrate the resurrection as we do today because of findings since that time. The translators of the KJB were living in an age where many thought it was perfectly proper to murder Jews, but I doubt that they used a bible translation to manage a dig at anyone.

I hope you are absolutely correct about the origin of the word Easter. But if you read the minutes of the Nicene Council, you will see that they did change the date, time, and name of Passover, and the church changed the way it was celebrated. Also, their goal was to separate the worship of Christ from the worship of God the Father, not make Christian worship a worship based on growth.

While Eusebius indeed had some serious flaws there is no reason not to accept his account here. There is nothing in this particular account that indicates any kind of historical tampering.
I am fully aware that the KJB translators consulted earlier works as they translated they also consulted Tyndale's translation who invented the word Passover yet for some reason Tyndale still chose to leave the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 in his final translation. I doubt this decision was arbitrary, nor could the decision of the KJB translators to do the same have been.
Furthermore are you suggesting the KJB translators thought it was okay to murder Jews, because that's a very serious charge I would be sure I was able to back something like that up before making an accusation like that, and even if that were so (which I don't believe) It would not discredit the King James Bible as a good translation, prove that it has errors, or more relevantly to the topic say anything whatsoever to whether Easter is a mistranslation or not. Also I have said nothing thus far concerning the origin of the English word Easter. I have been discussing the Greek word Pascha. Although the etymology of Easter is an interesting study as well. It actually has nothing to do with Paganism like I recently thought. In any case a change in the date of the celebration is not a change in the celebration itself. As far as how long after the resurrection took place before the translating of the KJB has really nothing to do with whether or not it is accurate.

 

[nathan3]

Ans here I will show you:

Acts 12:4

King James Version (KJV)

4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.


Translated into English as Easter .

What The Word in the Manuscripts truly Say>>>

"""""""""""""pasca""""""""""""""
pascha
pas'-khah


of Chaldee origin (compare pecach 6453); the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it):--Easter, Passover.

6453

"""pecach""
peh'-sakh


from 'pacach' (6452); a pretermission, i.e. exemption; used only techically of the Jewish Passover (the festival or the victim):--passover (offering).



Matthew 26:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.

What the word Passover in the Manuscripts Say>>.

""""""pasca""""""
pascha
pas'-khah....


2 Chronicles 35

King James Version (KJV)
1 Moreover Josiah kept a passover unto the Lord in Jerusalem: and they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month.



same :
""""pecach
peh'-sakh""""


from 'pacach' (6452); a pretermission, i.e. exemption; used only techically """of the Jewish Passover""" (the festival or the victim):--"""""passover'"""""(offering).


even the primitive root says the same. Not easter.

pacach
paw-sakh'


a primitive root; to hop, i.e. (figuratively) skip over (or spare); by implication, to hesitate; also (literally) to limp, to dance:--halt, become lame, leap, pass over.

 

[RedTent]

While Eusebius indeed had some serious flaws there is no reason not to accept his account here. There is nothing in this particular account that indicates any kind of historical tampering.
I am fully aware that the KJB translators consulted earlier works as they translated they also consulted Tyndale's translation who invented the word Passover yet for some reason Tyndale still chose to leave the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 in his final translation. I doubt this decision was arbitrary, nor could the decision of the KJB translators to do the same have been.
Furthermore are you suggesting the KJB translators thought it was okay to murder Jews, because that's a very serious charge I would be sure I was able to back something like that up before making an accusation like that, and even if that were so (which I don't believe) It would not discredit the King James Bible as a good translation, prove that it has errors, or more relevantly to the topic say anything whatsoever to whether Easter is a mistranslation or not. Also I have said nothing thus far concerning the origin of the English word Easter. I have been discussing the Greek word Pascha. Although the etymology of Easter is an interesting study as well. It actually has nothing to do with Paganism like I recently thought. In any case a change in the date of the celebration is not a change in the celebration itself. As far as how long after the resurrection took place before the translating of the KJB has really nothing to do with whether or not it is accurate.

No. No. I did not say that the translators believed in killing Jews. I said that at the time that translation was made, they "were living in an age when". We are living in a age that certain beliefs are common. That is not saying that all classes, all people believe them. It is OK to explain about this to tell of our age, but we cannot say all people or even most people have these beliefs.

 

[nathan3]

From Merriam-Webster's online.
Dictionary
Ishtar

Ishtar, with her cult-animal the lion, and a worshipper, modern impression from a cylinder seal, …—Courtesy of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago.
In Mesopotamian religion, the goddess of war and sexual love. Known as Ishtar in Akkadia, she was called Astarte by western Semitic peoples and was identified with Inanna in Sumeria. In early Sumeria she was the goddess of the storehouse as well as of rain and thunderstorms. Once a fertility goddess, she evolved into a deity of contradictory qualities, of joy and sorrow, fair play and enmity. In Akkadia she was associated with the planet Venus and was the patroness of prostitutes and alehouses. Her popularity became universal in the ancient Middle East, and she was called Queen of the Universe.


I wounder if God is happy that on the Say His son gave His life for us; that Christians, are associating Ishtar-Easter, with Passover day in which He died for us ?

I already know the answer,. do you ?

 

[Andrew1]

The Word mistakenly translated into easter, is the Greek word for Passover. The manuscripts state clearly it is Psaca or what have you, Not the pagan ritual easter that coincidentally feel around the same time.

easter was a pagan fertility right where people would have sexual orgies in the woods.

How people are so ignorant to allow that name to replace Passover on the day Christ gave His life for us is the Height of biblical illiteracy .

You need to do some more research on the Etymology of the word Easter. I myself thought that it had to do with Paganism because of Alexander Hyslop's Two Babylons. The word Easter comes from "East" which is the direction the sun rises in. There's more to it but your wrong about the Pagan association of the word. Alexander Hyslop argued solely from phonetics and had little to no knowledge of the Etymology of the word.

 

[nathan3]

You need to do some more research on the Etymology of the word Easter. I myself thought that it had to do with Paganism because of Alexander Hyslop's Two Babylons. The word Easter comes from "East" which is the direction the sun rises in. There's more to it but your wrong about the Pagan association of the word. Alexander Hyslop argued solely from phonetics and had little to no knowledge of the Etymology of the word.

I gave the word in the MANUSCRIPTS from which the original word is found, and Easter is Not found there. Regardless of your lack of understanding of the history of Ishtar, the word Easter is Not in the manuscripts as I just showed below.

 

[Andrew1]

From Merriam-Webster's online.
Dictionary
Ishtar

Ishtar, with her cult-animal the lion, and a worshipper, modern impression from a cylinder seal, …—Courtesy of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago.
In Mesopotamian religion, the goddess of war and sexual love. Known as Ishtar in Akkadia, she was called Astarte by western Semitic peoples and was identified with Inanna in Sumeria. In early Sumeria she was the goddess of the storehouse as well as of rain and thunderstorms. Once a fertility goddess, she evolved into a deity of contradictory qualities, of joy and sorrow, fair play and enmity. In Akkadia she was associated with the planet Venus and was the patroness of prostitutes and alehouses. Her popularity became universal in the ancient Middle East, and she was called Queen of the Universe.


I wounder if God is happy that on the Say His son gave His life for us; that Christians, are associating Ishtar-Easter, with Passover day in which He died for us ?

I already know the answer,. do you ?

Ishtar and Easter are not the same, I use to think that myself that's why I didn't celebrate Easter, I have recently been forced to re-evaluate my beliefs.