Help me refute this!

I found this link and was reading through it and it seemed very well scripted…I noticed David J Meyer used scripture regarding the origin of easter as ishtar. Here is the link:

Can someone please give me some insight on this and help me refute this. Thanks

This seems way off base. According to this,, Tammuz was Ishtar’s lover not her son. You see a lot of this kind of stuff from the Evangelicals . Notice the article at the site you supplied cites no sources at all.

Don’t know how much help I will be, but I have had this same type of ‘information’ passed to me in the past. Some people will go to great lengths to attempt to raise themselves up above the Church that Christ Himself founded…this is one such example.
There are snipets of truth in the article, but no sources cited. The ‘facts’ that the article stakes claim to start with the mindset that the Catholic Church is evil, and therefore sets out to ‘prove’ this premise. The article further takes some leaps that do not seem to be there. (that the 40 days set aside by queen ishtar are the sole reason that Lent has 40 days for example - this is a stretch at best and full out slander at worst).

The scripture that is used does nothing to ‘prove’ the authors points - it seems thrown in as an attempt to give the article credibility.

While in one sense the article holds a partial truth: many celebrations that were formerly pagan were adopted and taken over by early Christians. In a completely different sense, this does not mean that a) The Church is evil or an instrument of Satan, b) that taking these celebrations and using them to glorify God instead of the pagan gods they may have once represented is wrong, or c) the Church is out to act as the anti-Christ. The article assumes all of those.

The same types of articles exist about Christmas, about the Eucharist, about Penance, about the Popes, etc. The existence of such articles does not make them any more true than this one. Having grains of truth does not make the entire article truthful…in fact, isn’t this one of Satan’s greatest tricks: to provide just enough truth to make something SEEM fully true, while not divulging the whole truth? We can see this from the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden…Satan fools Eve into thinking that he is telling the whole truth and that God has withheld something from her (and Adam). He gives her just enough tempting information to gain her trust - but if he had told her the whole truth, that while she would gain the knowledge of good and evil, she would also perish, would she have made the same choice? This article reminds me a lot of that - it provides just enough truth to make it believable, but not the whole truth.

I will spend some time going through the claims line by line and look for ways to refute. Do you have someone close to you peppering you with questions on this or did you just come across the article? If you don’t have an imediate ‘fight’ to win, I would suggest taking your time and gathering as much information as you can to prepare, and then, if it is still on your heart to challenge, sending everything that you gather all at once.

Keep in mind that there are many out there who claim to be serving the Lord, who would like nothing more than to tear down God’s Church…a message that originates with the Lord will always be one of love, not of hate towards another. Attacking the Church as ‘the anti-Christ’ does not seem like a message of love. Especially when you consider that many, many, many non-Catholic chuches throughout the world celebrate Easter as the day that Christ conquered death…but the article only chooses to pick on the Catholic Church.

I stand with you in the fight against such attacks. We must embrace the fullness of Truth, and not be afraid.


You may find some useful refutation sources in these earlier CAF threads:

Blessings and peace. :slight_smile:

If you have a problem using the word ‘Easter’, which is of Germanic origin and might be related to pagan Saxon references, then use the word that the first Christians used: Pascha. In many languages, that’s the word that’s still used for the holiday; ‘Easter’ is just the word that’s used in English. Clearly, the 1st century word ‘Pascha’ preceded the Old English word ‘ēastre’… :wink:

Of course, if you use the original terminology (“Pascha”, “Paschal feast”), then Meyer’s assertions fall to pieces…

Yes, yes, 1,000x’s yes. Yesterday when I called my father I cheerfully said “Happy Easter” when he answered the phone. He replied “Happy Resurrection Day” in a tone that let me know he didn’t think I should be saying Happy Easter. He is evangelical/Assembly of God. It makes me sad that he has been influenced by them to find fault with almost e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g. It’s really, really sad.

I dealt with this all weekend with several friends. I got a text message on Friday…“Happy Resurrection Weekend” :eek: :slight_smile: But in the end it made me smile and I passed on the well wishes.

Another friend posted a similar link to me and I politely asked him where he got his info from. I cited some sources and talked about the Hebrew word Pascha and the English word Easter, etc, etc. He replied that it is not about the eggs and bunny but about the resurrection. I said I know full well what the day is about but there is nothing wrong with bunnies and eggs. It’s a both/and and not an either/or scenario. My kids when they were younger had egg hunts and Easter baskets and candy and all that goes with it. But…if you asked my kids what the holiday is about they will tell you full on :smiley:

I have noticed this for several years and noticed it more this year. Many of the Christian churches had their signs saying Happy Resurrection Day :shrug: It made me scratch my head but I knew what they meant. Maybe it is an attempt to call the holiday something different as many seem to think the holiday has been hijaked by people that practice pagan religions. I think it might be throwing the baby out with the bath water though. A small amount of education clears the whole thing up and then all one has to do is politely correct someone when they hear something a bit off. You may not change someone’s mind but you have planted a seed of Truth there :slight_smile:

Of course, my friends are non-denom with a Evangelical slant so they basically told each other that they learned about all this in the non-Christain religion classes. That Catholics are fundementally pagans that believe in Jesus. So we (us Catholics) need to be loved and taught to accept Jesus in the correct way. It wasn’t our fault entirely but we were being taught wrong :thumbsup: :eek: I almost spit my soda out and smiled from ear to ear.

Looks like the source of the info for the article is Alexander Hislop’s book.

Here is a refutation of Hislop’s book and information:

Check this article too:


Could There Be Another Origin of the Name “Easter”?
Contrary to suggesting a connection to a Saxon goddess, some have suggested Easter finds its root in the German word for resurrection—auferstehung. In a footnote to his translation of the work of Eusebius, Christian F. Cruse defended the usage of the word Easter:
Our English word Passover, happily, in sound and sense, almost corresponds to the Hebrew [pesach], of which is a translation. Exod. Xii. 27. The Greek pascha, formed from the Hebrew, is the name of the Jewish festival, applied invariably in the primitive church to designate the festival of the Lord’s resurrection, which took place at the time of the passover. Our word Easter is of Saxon origin, and of precisely the same import with its German cognate Ostern. The latter is derived from the old Teutonic form of auferstehn, Auferstehung, i. e. resurrection. The name Easter is undoubtedly preferable to pascha or passover, but the latter was the primitive name.6
Nick Sayers argued along these lines to suggest that the origin of Easter in English comes from the German:
Because the English Anglo/Saxon language originally derived from the Germanic, there are many similarities between German and English. Many English writers have referred to the German language as the “Mother Tongue!” The English word Easter is of German/Saxon origin and not Babylonian as Alexander Hislop falsely claimed. The German equivalent is Oster. Oster (Ostern being the modern day equivalent) is related to Ost which means the rising of the sun, or simply in English, east. Oster comes from the old Teutonic form of auferstehen / auferstehung, which means resurrection, which in the older Teutonic form comes from two words, Ester meaning first, and stehen meaning to stand. These two words combine to form erstehen which is an old German form of auferstehen, the modern day German word for resurrection.7 (Italics in original)

My traditional Latin Missal says: “In many modern languages the name given to this Feast derives from a Hebraic word Pasch or Passover, which means “passage” [through the Red Sea]: *Pascha *in Latin, Paques in French, Pasg in Welsh, Pasen in Dutch or Flemmish. The English word Easter is derived from Eastre, the name of the pagan Saxon goddess, and a spring festival in her honor was Christianized so that the word became the English equivalent of the Pasch…” God bless you.

As one who loves the Truth, I would want to know the sources for these claims. He makes the assertion that “Ishtar” is pronounces “Easter”. In what language? As I understand it, the Koine Greek that the NT was written in has been a dead language for about a thousand years, and we don’t know how the text was originally pronounced (does he know something Greek scholars don’t, or is he referring to some other language)? We know Nimrod was the son of Cush, but Scripture doesn’t tell us he married his mother. Where does this come from? It all sounds like something I would expect to hear from Jack Chick (cute “stories”, but not a lot of spiritual discernment).

There is no doubt that Easter has pagan origins, but that doesn’t mean we have to celebrate it the way the pagans did. I have no problem celebrating the Resurrection of my Lord (I celebrate it every day). Easter is just a special time to join with other believers and give thanks to God for salvation (and enjoy some good cooking)!

I would actually dispute that. Some of the customs surrounding the celebration of Easter (the “eggs and bunnies”) may have pagan origins, but for once, the older religion we got the feast from is Judaism. As noted, in most languages the words for “Easter” and “Passover” are the same or very similar. Gospel evidence even indicates that the Resurrection did take place a few days after Passover, so the timing even matches up (roughly) with the actual event, thus negating the usual complaint brought against other Christian feasts like Christmas.


try looking over these links

Claim 1:

“Ishtar”, which is pronounced “Easter” was a day that commemorated the resurrection of one of their gods that they called “Tammuz”, who was believed to be the only begotten son of the moon-goddess and the sun-god.

This is false. Please see

The word “Easter” is of Germanic origin, and is not associated with Ishtar.

Moreover, Tammuz is the son of Ishtar, but does not have a father. See

Tammuz’ counterpart in the Egyptian, Greek, and other myths had a father, but he did not in the Babylonian myth.

Furthermore, Tammuz wasn’t “resurrected.” He died and went to Hades. He later returned from Hades as a child. In other words, he was reincarnated, not resurrected.

Claim 2:

Semiramis became known as “Ishtar” which is pronounced “Easter”, and her moon egg became known as “Ishtar’s” egg."

This is false. As noted in the previous link I provided, Ishtar’s popularity overshadowed other goddesses of the area, and “Ishtar” became a word that referred to goddesses in general. And in the Semitic areas, Ishtar is equivalent with “Ashtoreth” or “Astarte.” Semiramis didn’t “become known as ‘Ishtar,’” rather, all goddesses were referred to as “Ishtarate.”

Claim 3:

Tammuz was noted to be especially fond of rabbits, and they became sacred in the ancient religion, because Tammuz was believed to be the son of the sun-god, Baal. Tammuz, like his supposed father, became a hunter.

The day came when Tammuz was killed by a wild pig.

This is false. Tammuz was a god of fertility and was known as a shepherd, not a hunter. Moreover, Tammuz was not killed by a pig. It was all of Tammuz’s counterparts (Osiris, Adonis, etc) in the other myths who were killed by a boar, and were associated as hunters. But not Tammuz of the Babylonian myth.

Also, as stated before, Baal was not Tammuz’s father. Tammuz’s father is never revealed.

Claim 4:

We also know that Easter can be as much as three weeks away from the Passover, because the pagan holiday is always set as the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox.

Actually, while it’s true that Easter doesn’t always coincide with the Jewish Passover, it’s not for the reason you think. The current Jewish Calendar, which is what determines when the Passover is celebrated, as a fixed calendar wasn’t established until the fourth century by Hillel II. See

The Passover is a “drifting” holiday, meaning that one year it could start on a Sunday, and the following year it could start on a Thursday, and the following year it could start on Monday, etc. We know that the Passover of Christ’s death started on a Thursday (two days before the Sabbath).

Before the fixed calendar was established, the Sanhedrin would determine on a year-to-year basis whether or not they would “insert” an extra month into the year or not based on the prevailing weather/climate conditions. This is because the first month, Nissan, was supposed to correspond with spring. And since the lunar year doesn’t correspond with the solar year, every few years an additional month had to be added to make up for the “drift.”

The Catholic Church anchored the Easter season to Spring as well by designating the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox as Easter Sunday. Why? It’s got nothing to do with Babylonian mystery religions.

First, it’s after Spring Equinox to anchor the holiday to Spring, since Passover is a Spring holiday, and the addition of an extra month in the Jewish tradition was to establish the holiday during spring. Thus, by tying the holiday to the Spring Equinox, the Church establishes a “theological” Nissan at approximately that time of year.

Second, since the Jewish month begins the day after a New Moon, the seven-day Passover festival always begins on a Full Moon. This is true because the Full Moon occurs 15 days after a New Moon, and the Passover is always on the 15th day of Nissan. Therefore, the “Theological Nissan” (let’s call it) that occurs near the Spring Equinox will have its Passover begin on the first full moon.

Third, since we are remembering Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection, which has a historical basis, we remember them following the historical progression of days that were actually followed by Him. Thus, even if the “Theological Nissan’s” Passover begins on, say, Monday (ie, the day of the full moon), we don’t observe Christ’s death on that Tuesday. Rather, we observe it on Friday, the day Christ died historically.

Claim 5:

She also proclaimed a forty day period of time of sorrow each year prior to the anniversary of the death of Tammuz.

During this time, no meat was to be eaten.

Well, I don’t know about this historicity of this, or most of the things claimed in that article, but the correlation of this with our Lenten Season is errant. We observe a 40-day Lent as a time of preparation and in memory of Christ’s 40 days of fasting in the wilderness. Is the author of that article possibly suggesting that Christ was practicing Tammuz worship by His forty day fast in the wilderness?

Furthermore, while Lent is 40 days, there are actually 46 days between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday. This is because 6 of those days are Sundays, and Sundays aren’t counted as part of Lent. I doubt the same is true of Ishtars supposed 40 day period of sorrow. Also, there are 40 days of Lent prior to Christ’s Resurrection, not His death, so the correlation to Tammuz doesn’t add up.

I’m sure I could go on about the errors of this article… but I won’t.

Consider it a right of passage.

Every so often, this non-sense rears it’s ugly head, and challenges believers’ faith. Yes, it’s complete bunk. But they package it up nice and tight, and sell it to whomever they can. It’s a shame these fools feel they need to resort to such bogus, slanderous non-sense in order to deceive unsuspecting souls to turn away from the Church that Christ actually founded, and lure them to their own personal ‘churches’, to line their own pockets.

Truly pathetic.

But it is what it, and that’s just the way some of our ‘separated brethren’ roll–especially the Reformed Calvinists (in my experience).

Like I said–it’s a ‘right of passage’–you’re presented with it; you wonder…you inquire…you research…you learn it is complete BS…and you’re left wondering:

Do the people that peddle this kind of patently bogus and slanderous foolishness, really pretend to be Christian?

…but ultimately, you find yourself a little better equipped to see past the “sheep’s clothing,” and see the wolf underneath it.


As has been shown above, that site link is all BUNK!!!

Laugher is often the best refutation of nonsense.

Simply ask anyone making such claims, How do you know? What sources?

What makes them qualified to say that?

Not just “how do [they] know?” (or rather, pretend to…)–but, more saliently:

Who stands to gain from these allegations? Who stands to lose?

IOW, what pray tell, would the Catholic Church stand to gain from so much as a grain of truth to any of this non-sense? If their ‘god’ was ishtar, if they were ‘pagan’…why wouldn’t they own it?

What ‘god’ would be served by its followers pretending to serve another god???

Why did the Catholic Church fight paganism so vehemently…if it was supposedly, secretly, pagan itself???

Especially when from back when Rome was pagan, and the pagans were killing Christians…for being Christian???

Of course the questions are rhetorical, and answer themselves. The Church would stand to gain nothing, by keeping up some bogus facade for 20 centuries, and counting…(apparently)–and would seemingly lose everything it supposedly stands for.

(what’s more…can someone kindly enlighten me as to where in paganism, the virtues of chastity, charity, and poverty, fit in??? Because my recollection about these virtues, is that they weren’t exactly championed as virtues, within the framework of paganism…yet here, the Catholic Church has supposedly straddled herself with such–not according to the teachings of Christ, or the glory of God—but rather, for ‘gods’, that have no use or place at all for such concepts…).

…now, who stands to gain by the perpetuation of this idiocy?

Why it couldn’t be the very proponents of it, now could it?

Nah, that just couldn’t be…why it would just be a complete coincidence if the reader/listener happened to question their own Church’s motives…and lo and behold…the one’s levying the (completely unfounded) accusations, are there, ready with a church to fill your sudden need! :smiley:

Somehow Jesus at the Temple, throwing tables about, and saying something about turning His Father’s house into a den of thieves, comes to mind…



While on a walk today, someone came up and promised me that God would would give me a wonderful wife. I don’t know about you, but my wife is a fallible human life form like myself — not perfect at all.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit