TRADITION - F - continued

So, if God himself consecrated the seventh day to be set-apart from all of the other days as a 'holy' block of 24 hours, why is the majority of the Christian church declaring Sunday as the day of rest and the day of corporate worship? Some even go so far as to call it the Sabbath.

To be sure, you cannot find a Bible verse where God declares that He has changed His consecrated day from the last day of the week to the first.

You cannot find a Bible verse where Jesus changed the day from Saturday to Sunday.

You cannot find any statement made by Paul or Peter or John that the church had been instructed to change the sabbath to Sunday.

Instead, the tactic has been to interpret New Testament verses in such a way as to insinuate that the early church used Sunday as their day for communal worship.

One beloved pastor, concerned for my beliefs on this issue, took me into his home, fed me Sunday dinner, and then spent about two hours going over the scriptures with me. He wanted me to see that the early church practice is the basis of our modern-day use of Sunday. I'm certain that he was convinced that the verses he used made that point clear.

I don't know how many of those passages I can remember now, but I know at least one, and I'll begin with it. Acts 20:7 is always used in this way by proponents of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath.

"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together
to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the
morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." (Acts 20:7 kjv)

Two elements in this declaration are the focus of the claim for the Sunday sabbath; the phrase: "upon the first day of the week", and the phrase "break bread".

Does "break bread" mean communion? If it does, then we can move to a discussion of the other phrase, but if it does not, then perhaps the entire subject is moot. So, do these two words speak of the table of the Lord, the communion table, the bread and wine? There are verses that seem to support this interpretation of Acts 20:7.

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of
Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of
Christ?" (1st Corinthians 10:16)

Certainly, in the above verse, Paul is speaking of the communion table element, bread. In addition, we can find many verses in the gospels that speak of Jesus breaking the bread as he instituted the remembrance of his body being broken. Several other passages also speak about the believers breaking bread when they got together.

I think that to use Acts 20:7 as a 'proof' that the early church leaders (the apostles) instigated Sunday as the Christian sabbath, is to falsely accuse them of violating God's consecrated day. If we're going to give someone the credit/blame for making this change in the day, let's give that credit/blame to those who claim that they had the authority to make the change and did so; The Catholic Church. There is a plethora of articles on the net, both pro and con on that subject, and you can do that search for yourself, but I offer one link to get you started.

Let's look now at the other phrase; "And upon the first day of the week". Can we agree that the word 'day' is added here in this KJV rendering of the phrase? The translators have admitted doing just that, and have indicated the location of added words by putting them in italics. [It's unfortunate that those who have prepared the other versions haven't chosen to be this honest.]

Since we can concede the KJV admittal that 'day' is not part of the original Greek version, we can read that phrase leaving that word out. That's exactly what Young's Literal Version has done.

"And on the first of the week, the disciples having been gathered together
to break bread, Paul was discoursing to them, about to depart on the
morrow, he was also continuing the discourse till midnight" (YLV)

This verse doesn't record all that much going on, but this sentence sure has a lot going on.

In other words, it's a long sentence with many commas.

It was the first of the week.
Paul was teaching through the night.
In the morning, Paul was going to leave, and
it was still going to be the first of the week.
All of this uses one verb; was.

But, the verse mentions something else. The disciples had been gathered together to break bread. When was that?

It does NOT say that; "the disciples WERE gathered together to break bread".

It says that they had been.

This is an extremely important distinction.

They had gathered together to break bread. That had happened prior to the rest of the described events. It was over and done.

Now, all the lamps had been lighted.
Sunset was the beginning of a new day; the first of the week.
While Paul was waiting to depart until morning, he taught.
On the morrow Paul would begin his journey.
He would begin his travels in the daylight hours of Sunday.
It would be the same Sunday during which Eutychus had fallen.
It would be the same Sunday that began at sunset on Saturday night.
Sunset Saturday night had seen the conclusion of the sabbath
The 7th-day sabbath was when the disciples had broken bread together.

Now read the literal version once more and see if you can see it that way.

"And on the first of the week, the disciples having been gathered together

to break bread, Paul was discoursing to them, about to depart on the
morrow, he was also continuing the discourse till midnight"

Is it possible that verse seven might mean that the disciples got together to take communion on the first day of the week? Many people have understood it that way. It has been taught that way for centuries in the Catholic Church. The reformers failed to correct the tradition. It has come down to us as though it were fact.

It isn't.

[Quick note: In verse eleven, we read that Paul breaks bread, and eats. Is that communion? Hardly. Look at the Greek word in verse eleven from which we get our word 'eaten'. You will find that this word speaks of nourishment and of the tasting of food for flavor. Verse eleven is not talking about communion.]

Paul openly taught that we are not under the law, but he worshiped at synagogue on the seventh day of the week. Why?

You have been told that it was because the Jews would be there on Saturday. But remember, Paul's ministry was to the gentiles, not to the Jews. He didn't go to the synagogue on Saturday to convert Jews. He wasn't out to convert Jews to Christianity. His mission was to establish the faith among the gentiles.

So, I ask again. Why did Paul continue to go to synagogue on the seventh day sabbath?

Because Paul knew that the seventh-day sabbath was ABOVE THE LAW OF MOSES. The seventh-day sabbath had been established on the final day of the creation week.

Did Paul teach Jews while at the synagogue? Oh, yeah. I'm sure he never passed up an opportunity to teach anyone who would listen. We should examine an new passage in this context.

"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles
besought that these words might be preached to them the next
sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of
the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas:
who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace
of God. And the next sabbath day came almost the whole
city together to hear the word of God." ( Acts 13:42-44)

The Gentiles asked Paul to return the following SABBATH in order that he preach to THEM. And the next SABBATH came, and Paul DID SO.

Acts 13:14 tells us where Paul was preaching. It was in modern day Turkey. This was gentile territory.

Can we get the picture here? Paul was preaching on a seventh-day Sabbath, and the Gentiles approached him after the service and asked him to come back the next week to preach to THEM.

This would have been a perfect opportunity for Paul to say; "Come back tomorrow. That's the new day of worship for Christians. I'll preach to YOU GENTILES then."

He didn't say that. Quite the contrary.

Seven days later, on the following seventh-day Sabbath, most of the town showed up to hear Paul preach. They would have been predominantly GENTILES, and Paul preached to them that day; that Saturday.

Paul had his entire week free. He could have preached to Gentiles any day of the week. Some people tell me that the day we worship doesn't matter, as long as we have one day during the week. This passage tells me that those people are wrong. Paul had the people wait an entire week. They came to hear him preach on the day that he said should be the day; the seventh day of the week.

There is one day in each week set apart by our creator God.

It isn't Sunday. It is the SEVENTH DAY. It is HIS SABBATH DAY.

It is mine. Is it yours?

TRADITION - F - The Sabbath Day

Any discussion of the sabbath day normally gravitates to the teachings of Paul. Many men who I love and respect teach from such passages as Romans 6:14

"For sin shall not have dominion over you:
for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

Those men and others just like them are entirely correct in presenting this verse. I agree, but I hasten to add that the law is not why we should observe the seventh day of the week as our sabbath. The Law of Moses is not the reason we should do it. Paul wrote:

"Wherefore then serves the law? It was added because of
transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise
was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand
of a mediator." (Galatians 3:19)

The Law was added? Added to what? The law was added to what God had already required of His creation. Adherence to a commandment was added, but the keeping of the sabbath day as a day of rest came long before the Law of Moses. That's why the Israelites were already keeping the seventh day before their encounter with God at Mount Sinai. God's people had been given the sabbath day as a day of rest since the creation of the world. Really? Uh, huh.

We all know the story of creation, and we all know that God rested on the seventh day. Is that my justification for the seventh day being the sabbath day of rest? Wouldn't that be enough reason to do so? It would be, but there is more.

God didn't rest simply to give us an example we might chose to follow. He did something more, and that point typically gets passed over lightly in most sermons. Genesis 2:2 says that God rested on the seventh day from all of his creative work, but Genesis 2:3 says what else God did.

"And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that
in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."

God blessed the seventh day. Okay.

God sanctified the seventh day. What does this mean?

I was hoping you would ask.

The usage of this word is pretty descriptive of what the word means Biblically. How the word is used elsewhere in the Bible is as follows:

sanctify 108, hallow 25, dedicate 10, holy 7, prepare 7,
consecrate 5, appointed 1, bid 1, purified 1, misc 7

On the day after he created man, God sanctified the seventh day of our week . HE dedicated the seventh day of the week as a day of rest. HE consecrated the seventh day of the week from the beginning of man's days on Earth. HE made the seventh day special, set apart from all of the other six days.

Nor is it as some like to say, As long as we take one day of rest, it doesn't matter which one. I suspect that God would challenge that thinking. HE set it up to be the seventh day, and he did so 2,300 years before the Law of Moses and the Ten Commandments were ever given.

Tell me you're not under the Law. Fine.

Would you like to observe the same day God observed? Great.

But, God set-up the seventh day to be the Sabbath for man. God did that. It WASN'T just a part of the Law of Moses. It was incorporated into the Law of Moses, but God established the seventh day as THE day of rest for mankind in a code of His Law that predates the Law of Moses; in a code of His Law that is totally independent of the Law of Moses.

I am convinced that Satan will and has used the concept that we are not under the Law of Moses as a springboard, a launching-pad if you will, to bring souls to the idea that we are not under any of God's law at all. [I shouldn't say 'will use' since that indicates a future occurrence. The systematic removal of God's laws from the laws of the USA has been underway for decades.]

People often say to me; 'The day doesn't matter, and they attempt to quote or paraphrase Colossians 2:16 by way of supporting that thinking.' They seem to be saying; "I'll decide which day I want to sanctify as MY sabbath.

Yeshua said that He IS Lord of the Sabbath, not us. God made the sabbath for man, but it is still very much His sabbath.

There is blessing for mankind in the seventh day sabbath.
Don't continue to let tradition get in the way of that.

[A dear brother sent this to me just today.]

TRADITION - E - His name

Israel has been returning to their homeland for almost a century now. It was 1917 when General Allenby walked into Jerusalem with the British Army and declared it to be the homeland of the Jews. Wars continue, but the Jews will never be removed again.

These days, we don't think often about God taking Israel out of Egypt and bringing them into the land He promised them, but hardly a day, scratch that, never a day goes by that the Jews returning to Israel isn't in the news. If your local station isn't carrying such news... well, what can I say? Indeed, we live in the days spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah.

"Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more
be said, The LORD lives, that brought up the children of Israel out of
the land of Egypt; But, The LORD lives, that brought up the children
of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he
had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I
gave unto their fathers." (Jeremiah 16:14-15)

This is a time stamp on what God said to Jeremiah in the verses of chapter sixteen that come next. Speaking of what will happen in the gentile world at this same time, Jeremiah writes:

""O LORD, my strength and my fortress, My refuge in the day of affliction,
The Gentiles shall come to You From the ends of the earth and say,
"Surely our fathers have inherited lies, Worthlessness and
unprofitable things." Will a man make gods for himself, Which are
not gods? "Therefore behold, I will this once cause them to know,
I will cause them to know My hand and My might;
And they shall know that My name is the LORD.""
(Jeremiah 16:19-21 nkjv)

"And they shall know that My name is the LORD."??? We are starting to learn; maybe we'll soon know Him by name. Many are dragging their feet. Tradition. His name is NOT; 'the LORD'. The correct reading of what GOD WROTE HERE is:

"And they shall know that My name is יהוה."

Some will be quick to respond; 'But we don't speak Hebrew". Correct; so speak English, but don't change the meaning. Transliterate the name of God here. Don't continue to say something that isn't there. God wrote the book, and God put his name right there. The Gentiles, that's us, are supposed to finally learn his name, not some arbitrary title given to every English land owner.

This is a blog, so I don't know your name. Suppose I'm speaking to someone named Larry. Larry and I are having a discussion. As we speak, I just call him 'the man'.

I say things like; 'Man, do you work for the title company?
He gives me a strange look, and answers yes.
I respond; "And do you, man, know someone there who drives a BMW?
Already Larry is not sure he wants to talk to me; why am I not using his name?
So, he says; Why aren't you using my name as we speak together?
My response is that I think his name is too special to utter it vocally.
He softens and says; 'I told you my name so you could use it'.

And thus it is with God and his name. His name is sacred. His name is holy. He put his name in the open text of scripture almost 7,000 times so that we would know him by name. We don't abuse his name. We don't use it as a cuss word. We don't throw his name around in sloppy conversation or jokes. But we should read his name, aloud if we want to, and speak his name in worship, and especially, we should call upon him BY NAME.

It is only tradition that keeps us from doing it. It was Jewish tradition first. That got things underway. Soon, they had forgotten his name. They referred to him as "the name"; HaShem. Then they gave him a title; Adonay; The Lord. Adonay is a perfectly acceptable title, but it's a title, not a name.

His name is יהוה. Consider Exodus 5:22.

"And Moses ⁴⁸⁷² returned ⁷⁷²⁵ unto the LORD ³⁰⁶⁸, and said ⁵⁵⁹ ,
Lord ¹³⁶, wherefore hast thou so evil entreated ⁷⁴⁸⁹ this people ⁵⁹⁷¹?
why is it that thou hast sent ⁷⁹⁷¹ me?"

Here you will see the numbers that James Strong attached to the Hebrew words. Notice that the words the LORD ³⁰⁶⁸ and Lord ¹³⁶ have different numbers assigned. They are different Hebrew words. #136 is the Hebrew word for 'lord', and it means master. Jewish tradition attached greater meaning to it when it started to be used as a way to address God. Word #3068 is the tetragrammaton; יהוה. It is the very name of God.

His name is often transliterated as Jehovah. At least Jehovah is a name, not a title. I prefer to just pronounce the letters that the Jews won't say aloud. It comes out as; Yahweh, and is pronounced yaw-weigh.

"And they (the gentiles, us) shall know that My name is Yahweh."

TRADITION - D - Examination

We've all heard it. The pastor stands at the front of the congregation and says that we're going to take a minute to make sure we are right with God before we partake of the elements of the communion table; the bread and the wine. I suspect that this tradition is based upon two passages of scripture; 1st Corinthians 11:28; "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." and Matthew 5:24; "Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift."

By blending these two passages, a tradition has been established that we need to examine ourselves to see if there is anything amiss in our lives, and not partake of communion until we have rectified the situation. Typically, it is thought and taught that this can be done by going over our lives since the last time we confessed such things to God, and getting all 'confessed up' so that we are worthy to partake of the bread and wine.

The first order of business for me here is to show that Matthew 5:48 has nothing to do with what we are doing at the communion table. We are not bringing any gift to the altar when we participate in the communion service. None of the disciples brought gifts to Yeshua that night in the upper room. What happened that night had nothing to do with gifts brought to the altar.

We do not need to be "reconciled to our brother" before we can worthily partake of the bread and wine. Inclusion of Matthew 5:24 in any further discussion concerning the table of the Lord is hereby suspended on the grounds that it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Let me now discuss the other passage; 1st Corinthians 11:28. Here's what it says;

"But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup."

Those who advocate the moment of silence tradition typically teach that we need to examine ourselves and see if there is anything out of order. The words that are often repeated would go something like; 'Let us examine ourselves to see if there is any unconfessed sin in our lives, so that we can confess it to God before we partake.'

Isn't that what you've heard said from the pulpit. It strikes me as odd that scripture records no such thing being done at the last supper. Shouldn't the disciples have taken a minute to search their consciences looking for unconfessed sin?

We should examine ourselves. That's exactly what verse 28 says. What are we to look for in this examination? Is it possible that scripture might be used to interpret scripture in this case? Let's look and see. There is another passage, written by Paul, to the Corinthians, and it speaks of examining ourselves. We can use another passage of scripture, written to the same people, written by the same man, about the same subject, to make our interpretation. Here it is.

"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2nd Corinthians 13:5)

So, this is the examination we are to make. We are supposed to look closely at ourselves to see if we are "in the faith". Paul didn't tell the believers to see if there was unconfessed sin in their lives before the partake of the bread and wine. He told people to examine themselves, so as to not partake if they weren't believers. Partaking is supposed to be reserved for believers, people who have trusted Christ for salvation.

And now, it is once more time for a lesson in our spoken language. Today, class, we are going to talk about adverbs. Adverbs, adjectives, verbs, pronouns and such are all called parts of speech. An adverb always modifies a verb or another adverb, and answers questions about the verb like; How? When? Where? and Why? Adverbs are often words that end with the letters 'ly'. Some examples of adverbs might be; quietly, quickly and fervently. It's not that all adverbs end with 'ly' but that if a word ends in 'ly' we should look to see if it modifies the verb or another adverb, because it probably does. An example or two might be in order.

The little boy piled his clothes neatly at the foot of the bed. The verb is 'piled', and the word 'neatly' is an adverb modifying the verb 'piled' by describing how the piling of the clothes was done. The piling was done neatly. Another example?

The lock was fastened securely. The lock is the subject of this sentence. The verb is was fastened. The word securely is an adverb modifying the verb, and telling us how it was fastened.

So, adverbs modify the verbs and other adverbs.
Adjectives, on the other hand, modify nouns and other adjectives.
Adjectives answer the questions; Which? How many? and What kind of? An example?

The stout lad slapped the counter and demanded attention.
The adjective here is the word 'stout' and it tells us 'what kind of' lad we are talking about. The word 'lad' is a noun, and it is the subject of this sentence.

Put simply, it's like this; Adverbs modify the action taking place, and Adjectives modify the actor in the sentence. And, now we're ready to take a look at another verse; 1st Corinthians 11:27.

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord,
unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

I was going to say 'for years', but instead I'm going to say; for centuries Christian men and women have been taught that they must be worthy to partake of the bread and wine, and that tradition is still active today. It is based on a misunderstanding of the English language as much as anything else. This verse doesn't say that people should be worthy to partake. It says that they must partake worthily.

Did you pick up on the adverb; unworthily? Do we know what it means? Maybe and maybe not. Which word in verse 27 does 'unworthily' modify? It is an adverb so it will be modifying either the verb of the sentence or another adverb in the verse. Unworthily modifies the compound verb in this sentence; eat/drink. The verse says that no one should eat/drink unworthily.

Unworthily is speaking of the eating and the drinking, not about the subject of the sentence; Whosoever. It is talking about how the eating and drinking should be done. It is not talking about the one doing the eating and drinking. We are not being told to be worthy in order to eat and drink. We are being told to do the eating and drinking in a worthy manner. Among others, the NIV, the NASB and the New KJV all say exactly that.

Partaking in an worthy manner means to be thinking about (discerning) the body of our Lord. His broken body, torn flesh and spilled blood are to be the subject of our thoughts during communion. That's the whole point of partaking of bread and of wine. That's why substituting water instead of wine is wrong. The liquid is supposed to look like blood so that we remember the blood that His blood was spilled. The torn bread that Jesus used was representative of his torn skin from his flogging and from the puncture wounds He would receive that night. I think we miss A LOT of the image when we use the CATHOLIC compressed wafer-type stuff.

Thinking about our sins in connection with communion service is a sacrilege. GOD NO LONGER SEES YOUR SINS OR MINE ONCE WE ARE BELIEVERS. Quit bringing them up. Concentrate on what He did at the cross. Use the torn bread and the wine to help you FOCUS.

We are not worthy. We are made worthy by the blood of the Lamb. We don't need to be trying to recall our sins of the past week during communion. We need to be thinking of what he did for us, and how he did it with the sacrifice of his body and blood.

TRADITION - C - Firstfruits

note: Unless otherwise noted, Bible quotations are taken from the King James Version, and so, words added during the translation in 1611 show up here in [brackets].

"Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth [his] hands
to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of
John with the sword. And he killed James the brother of John
with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he
proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of
unleavened bread.) 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 12:1-4)

The odds are that your version of the Bible doesn't say what this passage says; Praise God. The more modern versions have found many of the errors in translation that are part of the King James Version and have corrected them. The Blue Letter Bible site has twelve English versions, but the King James Version is the only one of them that has the word Easter in Acts 12:4. So much for "King James Only", but that isn't the subject of this post.

The Greek word from which the King James scholars translated the word Easter is; πάσχα, but we would write it as pascha. It occurs in the New Testament 29 times, and in 28 places, the King James scholars translated it as passover. Acts 12:4 is the only place they translated it as Easter. Why? Me thinks something stinks here.

It was the early 1600s. The King of England was James the First, previously of Scotland. A few monarchs earlier (circa 1534), King Henry had lusted after Anne Boleyn. The Roman Catholic Church, in the person of the pope denied the King's desired divorce from his wife Cathrine, so Henry VIII broke away from the Roman Catholic Church of Rome and created the Church of England, (aka the Anglican Church, aka the Episcopalian Church), and he appointed himself as the head of the church.

My understanding of the Anglican Church is that it is like the Catholic Church, but with services in English. This was the church that King James inherited. As monarch, he was the head of it, and that is when the King James Version of the Bible was prepared. It served to solidify the separation with the Catholic Church of Rome by giving the English-speaking people a Bible to read that didn't need to be interpreted by anyone who spoke Latin. There would be no more need for contact with the Church of Rome. So much for our history lesson.

What is Easter? Best to first answer that question with what Easter is not. Easter is not Resurrection Morning. Easter has nothing to do with the Resurrection of Our Lord except in the traditions of men. Once again, traditions kept at the expense of Biblical truth.

The timing is off.

The date for Easter is determined and based on the circuit of the Earth around the Sun. It's date is given as the first Sunday following the first full moon that follows the spring equinox. It goes by that date based on Pagan tradition that the goddess Ishtar came to earth that day. That was supposedly when she descended; in the days of Noah's great-grandson, Nimrod.

The date for Resurrection Morning can be determined using the Bible text. The tomb of our Lord, Yeshua HaMashiach, was found empty on a Sunday morning, but it was a particular morning, a morning defined in scripture.

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the
firstfruits of them that slept." (1st Corinthians 15:20)

Yeshua of Nazareth, Christ the Lord came out of the tomb at the beginning of the Hebrew day known as 'Firstfruits', and was the first fruit of those who slept (were dead). The Bible doesn't use our name for the first day of the week, Sunday, a name which comes from and means the day in which is worshiped the venerable Sun-god, Sol Invictus Mithras, the head deity of the Roman world in Yeshua's day. Instead, the Bible calls the days by number, beginning with the first day of the week, which today, we call Sunday. The Biblical days are named as follows: first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and finally, the seventh day, sabbath.

The day of the observance of Firstfruits can be seen in Leviticus 23 and other places. It is the first day of the Hebrew week which follows the sabbath day that falls out during the week of the feast of Unleavened Bread referred to in Acts 12:1-4 above. Further, the Feast of Unleavened Bread is a seven-day observance that begins the day after Passover. Further, Passover is ALWAYS on the 14th day of the first Hebrew month of Aviv/Abib. (Most Bibles call that month by the name of Nissan, but that too is a name derived from paganism.)

Biblically, the month of Aviv/Abib (I print it both ways because it is spelled both ways in common usage) is named from the developmental state of the wild barley that grows in the spring. The first day of the month of Aviv begins with the sighting of the next new moon, once the barley has been found in the Aviv stage of development. Sequence: They watch the barley that grows wild in Israel. When it gets to the Aviv stage, they start looking for the next new moon because that will be the beginning of the month of Aviv. Aviv is the month that begins the New Hebrew year (Exodus 12:1-2).

How and why did the word 'Easter' get into our Bibles? Why in the world did the Anglican Church scholars who produced the King James Version translate the word pascha as Easter? Was it intentional, or was it an accident? Why did they translate this same word as Passover the other 28 times, but translate it as Easter in Acts 12:4? For the answers to these and other important questions about that translation work, please ask them if you get a chance.

My own suspicion in this regard is that it was intentional. I think that they would have liked to translate it as Easter all 29 times if they could have gotten away with it. It was just too hard to make all of the other places say Easter and still have them fit with the meaning of the verses. Can you even imagine how our scriptures would have read? We would be reading things like this.

Ye know that after two days is the feast of Easter, and the Son of man
is betrayed to be crucified.

Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came
to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee
to eat the Easter?

And Easter, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye
are unleavened. For even Christ our Easter is sacrificed for us:

That wouldn't have worked, but they got away with it in Acts 12:4 because nobody recognized what the verse was talking about.

"Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth [his] hands
to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of
John with the sword. And he killed James the brother of John
with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he
proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of
unleavened bread.) 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 12:1-4)

Even today, I don't think that most people know what the days of unleavened bread are. Had the Christian world known about the feast of Unleavened Bread, and how it was preceded by the day of Passover, they might of resisted having the word Easter substituted in their Bibles. They didn't have the tools we have today, so maybe they wouldn't have known the difference anyway.

Sad, but even with all we know about our Bibles today, with all of the understanding of languages, with all of the newer versions of the Bible, Christians around the world still observe Easter as the day that Yeshua resurrected from the tomb. And, at the same time, anyone who wants to teach about the feasts is blackballed in the Christian community, and things like the 'Hebrew Roots' movement are called apostate.

Once again, tradition is kept at the expense of Biblical truth. Sometimes, tradition is all there is to go by. Sometimes it gets mixed with history. As long as we recognize it as such, tradition is just fine. But, we should never mix it with Bible truth. Some of the following is tradition, and some is actually recorded historical data. I begin with a picture.

What are we seeing here? This is a tradition being observed by people who are part of the Eastern Orthodox branch of Catholicism. This is their tradition for Easter. They dye eggs, just like, strike that. They die eggs somewhat like other people do, who celebrate Easter. In this tradition, all of the eggs are died red. In the Protestant tradition, the eggs are died a variety of colors.

Multi-colored or Red. Who cares? What's the difference? Surprisingly, there is a difference. We are talking about tradition, and as is often the case, tradition doesn't know its parentage. Tradition just exists. However, in this case there is at least a tradition as to the origin of the red eggs.

Have you ever wondered as to the origin of the traditions you observe? Why do you dye eggs? What is it with that rabbit thing anyway? Well, here is where it all started, at least this is a tradition of where it originated, but it is mixed with some history, and I'm going to tell you about it with my beginning point being spoken of in the pages of, of all places, the Bible. Noah begat Ham, and Ham begat Cush, and Cush begat Nimrod, and:

"Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth." (Genesis 10:8)

It was Nimrod that built the tower of Babel in defiance of the God of his fathers. Nimrod married a prostitute from the docks along the Persian gulf. She was a piece of work, the real brains of the operation, it seems. Nimrod was worshiped as a god while on earth, and after his wife, Semiramis had him ritually murdered, she proclaimed that he had ascended to heaven and would thereafter be the Sun god. Again, the masses worshiped Nimrod as god.

Semiramis continued to have many sexual liaisons, and she became pregnant. No problem for this clever woman. She told the people that while basking nude in the sunshine, the rays from her husband had made her pregnant. When she gave birth, her son Tammuz was proclaimed, get this; The son of god. And the people believed her. At a later point in time, the people of God would also believe her, and worship her ascended heaven (Ezekiel chapter 8), and her son.

Well, all good things must come to an end, and Semiramis died. It was reported that she ascended to heaven to become the queen of heaven. That too was believed, and that too would be embraced by the people of God (Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:17). But, she was too good for heaven, and so, she was sent back to earth, not as Semiramis, but as the story goes, as the goddess Ishtar. She descended from heaven in a giant egg; the egg broke open when it landed in the waters of the Euphrates river, and out she stepped. The goddess proclaimed her divinity by turning a passing bird into an egg-laying rabbit. Got the picture? Here's one for ya.

See the bird? See the egg? This is Ishtar. Her name was originally pronounced; Easter. She is known by different names in different cultures; Eostre, Astarte, Ostera, and Eastre, the Mother Goddess, wife of Baal, Ashtaroth or Ashtoreth, and the Queen of Heaven. She is Aphrodite, Venus and Isis. There are a plethora of great websites about all of this.

Here we have the origin of the rabbit and the egg used in the celebration of Ishtar's birth, Easter, but what about those red eggs? What is the origin of the tradition to dye eggs, especially those red ones? Let's go back to here son, Tammuz. By the way, tradition also says that she married Tammuz. Sick, huh?

He grew to be a man, but was killed in a hunting accident on his 40th birthday. I guess I forgot to mention what day he was born? It was the pagan equivalent of December 25th. He was gored to death by the wild boar he was trying to kill that day.

So, all of the family had left the building. Nimrod, Semiramis, Tammuz; all dead and gone. Now the worship gets going.

Tammuz' birthday is remembered on December 25th throughout TODAY'S world of paganism. Call it Christmas where you live, but the pagans are remembering Tammuz' birthday on that day, as well as the day of his death.

Ishtar's birthday is remembered on the first Sunday morning after the first full moon following the spring equinox, the same day that most Christians are in church calling the day; 'resurrection morning'. In Catholicism, the devout have also been abstaining from some earthly pleasure for the preceding 40 days, and they don't know why. They just call it 'Lent' and go on with life. The pagans have also been abstaining from some earthly pleasure during the 40 days preceding Ishtar's birthday (Easter), but they know why they are doing it; one day for every year of Tammuz' short life.

On the East side of Jerusalem, in a spot where the sun's rays will strike earliest, there is a cave. It is a Tammuz cave. In the days of Manasseh, the blood veins of first-born children were opened and the little boys were cast into the arms of Molech (another name for these pagan deities), where they were burned alive. Eggs were dipped in the blood as part of the worship service. Then the priest of Molech would have sex with all the properly aged virgins of Israel so that they would produce sons for the next year's sacrifice. Later that day, they would eat roast pork in commemoration of the death of the boar pig that had killed Tammuz.



Here's your dyed Easter eggs. Here's even you ham sandwich. The eggs dipped in blood were not multi-colored; they were only red; dyed in the blood of the baby boys that had been sacrificed to Molech. Here's your Easter observance origin. Our eggs aren't red. They don't remind us.

I'm sickened. I'll not only have nothing to do with the pagan tradition, but I won't have anything to do with their days either.

Tradition insinuated its way into the Roman Catholic Church, and the reformers failed to get rid of it; probably because they didn't realize what it was. But we do. And yet, traditions will be kept at the expense of Biblical truth.

This year, 2010, the Jewish calendars have already proclaimed that Passover will be on March 29th, a Monday. That will put resurrection morning on April 4th, and this year, that happens to be Easter. April 4th will be the first Sunday after the full moon of March 29th, and the spring equinox this year will be on March 20th, nine days before that.

TRADITION - B - Mount Sinai

My most sincere thanks to Michelle and the rest of the family.

This map is about the same as you would find in any Bible that has a map section in it. This purports to be a map showing the route of the children of Israel as they followed Moses out of Egypt. On closer inspection of this map, we can see a number of irregularities, irregularities that are common to most of the Bible maps portraying the exodus route.

Notice the names of the places along the route; PiHaHiroth, Marah, Elim, Dophkah, Rephidim and finally Mt. Sinai, and on to Ezion-geber. But, is that what we see? If we take another look will we see more? Will we see the names of the places again, or will we see: PiHaHiroth?, Marah?, Elim?, Dophkah?, Rephidim? and finally Mt. Sinai? Every name for every location along the way has a question mark after the name. Well, they're honest anyway.

I've had a similar map in the Bible I've had for 40 years, and now you know who produced that Bible, don't you? The same people who produced the map above. This came from one of their sites, but the map above and the one in my old Bible are no different than the 'exodus' map in most Bibles, even today. They all use the words; "Possible route of the Exodus" in the legend. That's because they have no idea where the route went.

I'd like to say that the reason they don't know where the exodus route went is because they haven't read the Bible, and if I said that I would be absolutely correct, but there is another reason, and her name is Helena. You guessed it. Constantine's mommy strikes again. The location of Mount Sinai was just one more place on her tour. She looked up at the mountains to the south and declared that it was the mountain known as Sinai in the Old Testament.

Now, who's going to argue with the mother of the emperor of the empire? Nobody.

Hundreds of years have passed since that time, and most people still think that's where Mount Sinai was/is. When a name was chosen for the peninsula where those mountains stand, Sinai was the name, and we're still calling it that. But, Moses and the children of Israel didn't go anywhere near that place on their exodus from Egypt. How can we be so sure?

Let's test our understanding of the events leading up to their departure from bondage in Egypt. When Moses killed an Egyptian and ran away from Pharaoh, where did he go?

"Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses.
But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land
of Midian: and he sat down by a well." (Exodus 2:15)

He dwelt in the land of Midian? He tended sheep for his new father-in-law, and one day:

"Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of
Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came
to the mountain of God, even to Horeb." (Exodus 3:1)

That's where he met God in the burning bush.

"And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of
the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with
fire, and the bush was not consumed." (Exodus 3:2)

And God gave Moses a task to perform.

"And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a
token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast
brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve
God upon this mountain." (Exodus 3:12)

When they finally left Egypt, Moses and the Israelites headed straight for that mountain, just like God had directed. That's where they were when God gave Moses the tablets of stone. It took them quite a while to get out of Egypt, but once they were out of Egypt, it was only a short time before they arrived at the mountain. They left Goshen on the 15th day of the 1st month, and:

"In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out
of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of
Sinai. For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to
the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in the wilderness; and
there Israel camped before the mount. " (Exodus 19:1)

Now, once again, where was that mountain located? Let's see; what are the facts?

They had finally left Egypt: (Exodus 19:1)
They were at the base of the holy mountain: (Exodus 19:1)
God's holy mountain was near to where Moses tended sheep: (Exodus 3:1)
Moses tended sheep for his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: (Exodus 3:1)
Moses, his wife and his father-in-law lived in Midian: (Exodus 2:15, 3:1-2)

Midian must be outside of Egypt, but where is it? Let's look at our map again. There is no question mark by the name 'Midian'. There is no doubt as to where it was.

It's down in the lower, right-hand part of the map. The name, MIDIAN, is written vertically.

That's it; you found it. Did you notice that the land of Midian is not part of the Sinai Peninsula? The land of Midian is on the other side of the gulf of Aqaba from the Sinai Peninsula. The land of Midian is part of Saudi Arabia, but it's only in the 20th century that it was called 'Saudi' Arabia. That's because in the 20th century, the house of Saud became the ruling family there. I have a map of that area that was made in 1950, and shows it as "Arabia; house of Saud".

The land of Midian has been part of Arabia for a long time. Midian is where Mount Sinai/Horeb is located still today, but we knew that didn't we. The apostle Paul used Mount Sinai in an allegory he wrote to the believers in Galatia:

"For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem
which now is, and is in bondage with her children." (Galatians 4:25)

We all remember the miraculous event that happened to the Israelites on their way to Mount Sinai; God parted the waters of the Red Sea. Did you happen to see on the map that the "possible route" of the exodus didn't cross the Red Sea. Oh, this particular map shows the route going across some river or lake right at the beginning of the trip, but we just read that they were close to Mount Sinai before they finally got out of Egypt. (Exodus 19:1)

The place they crossed the Red Sea has to be part of the Red Sea, not some dippy little river or lake. And, the crossing site has to be relatively close to Mount Sinai in the land of Midian. They crossed the gulf of Aqaba, the Eastern extension of the Red Sea. We know that the Gulf of Aqaba is part of the Red Sea because of what we can read in scripture. Look at the map, and find the port of Ezion-geber on the Northern tip of the gulf of Aqaba. Now look what scripture says about that port city.

"And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Eziongeber, which is beside
Eloth, on the shore of the Red sea, in the land of Edom." (1st Kings 9:26)

Scripture tells us that Solomon built his navy on the Red Sea port of Eziongeber. The children of Israel watched as God parted the waters of the gulf of Aqaba, and they they walked on dry land, from Egypt to the land of Midian (in Arabia). They walked all the way across the so called Sinai Peninsula, arrived at the gulf of Aqaba, watched God part the water and walked across into the land of Midian.

Peter wrote:

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of
his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as
they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly
are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and
the earth standing out of the water and in the water" (2nd Peter 3:3-5)

Last days scoffers are willingly ignorant (dumb on purpose) of God's truth. They deny the Biblical account of the parting of the Red Sea on the grounds that they can't find any evidence of the villages and artifacts that they should be able to find if the story were actually true. Why can't they find any evidence? I like to tell a story to illustrate the problem.

An young woman, walking down a dark street one night came upon a man crawling around on his hands and knees under the sole street light within a hundred yards. She question him; "What are you doing down there?" "I'm looking for a fifty-dollar bill I dropped" he replied. "Where did you drop it?" she continued. "Over there about fifty feet away." he snapped. "Well, why are you looking here?" she mocked him. Stupid response: "Because the light is better'.

The scoffers are not looking in the right place. Someone shined a light on the southern end of the Egyptian peninsula, so they are looking there to find evidence. They haven't read the book. They're just looking where the light was shining for centuries.

Who shined that light the first time? Helena. Constantine's mommy. She was wrong.

And so, we see that, once again tradition gets in the way of what God's word says, and many people would just as soon hang on to tradition as be bothered with the facts. But, what is ever so much worse; Those who have taught that Mount Sinai is at the southern end of the peninsula so named, oppose recognizing the facts presented in the Bible text because they don't want to look like they were wrong.

Now, that never happens. Or does it?

We owe a debt of thanks to Mr. Ron Wyatt, an amateur archeologist who first discovered the real Mount Sinai in Arabia, and the site for the crossing of the Red Sea. This gentle, 7th-Day Adventist man has been slandered and blackballed by none other than the Christian Churches of America and their pastors, who would rather deny his findings than admit that they have taught it all wrong for decades. Heaven forbid that a 7th-Day Adventist be the one God would use to bring the truth to the evangelical churches. May God rest his soul. He went to be with the Lord in the late 1990s. My thanks to him personally, and to his family who continues to take this truth to the world.

TRADITION - A - Sepulcher

Her name was Helena, and her son was the emperor in Rome, Constantine.

It is commonly reported that upon her conversion to 'christianity' (I know that I didn't capitalize the C), she toured her son's empire, especially the Holy Land. Wikipedia indicates that it was the year A.D. 325. Along her way she was able to identify many sites we might associate with the New Testament account. One such 'discovery' was the very cross used by the Romans when the crucified Christ. Oh, yeah! I'm convinced. How about you?

On the site that she identified as the location where Jesus was crucified, she had a magnificent church constructed. Today, it is called the 'Church of the Holy Sepulcher'. Here's a picture.


What do you think?
Do you think that this Church is built on the site of Jesus' crucifixion?



The map above shows the location of the Church. It's red and it has a cross on it. The cross in this map runs left-right.

Now, folks; What's wrong with this picture? (The pun is intentional)
This is more of that tradition stuff. That's what's wrong.

Crucifixions were not conducted inside the city. The Romans used crucifixion as a punishment, but they used it as a deterrent against rebellion too. They crucified their victims along major roadways where many people would see sight. Jesus was crucified just outside the Damascus gate. Can you see the Damascus gate? It's on the North side of the city. At the top of the picture you can see the words ''Jeremiah's Grotto''. The crucifixion site is right close there, and so is the garden tomb.

Thousands if not millions of pilgrims travel to Jerusalem every year so they can visit the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the place where Jesus was crucified. They get down on their knees and kiss a spot on the floor. And, they are deceived if they think that they have kissed the place where Jesus was crucified. They kissed a floor slab in the city of Jerusalem.

Traditions are powerful. We don't let go of them easily, and in some cases, we shouldn't let go. The trouble is, there are quite a few that should have been abandoned a long time ago.
Helena, Constantine's mommy was wrong. This wasn't the location of Jesus' crucifixion.

You might consider taking a long look at this site. It even says that the crucifixion location used to be outside the city wall. That's interesting isn't it? If you look at the next map, you will see that the church (which is supposed to be where the crucifixion took place) is located just inside the ancient wall, and it's quite a distance to the garden tomb.