What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[fallingblood]

You are so misinformed.

Passover began at sundown on Nissan 13 and went to sundown on Nissan 14.
Nissan 14 is Passover day.

Maybe you want to look at how Jews kept days. At sundown on Nissan 13th, the day changed to Nissan 14. Days were kept as sundown to sundown. Thus, on Nissan 13th, as Jewish tradition states, the Passover lamb was sacrificed and prepared, hence the title, Day of Preparation for the Passover.

It was the on Nissan 14 that the Passover meal was eaten.

You are so misinformed.

The feasts were not interchangeable, their names were interchangeable (Lk 22:1).
The Feast of Unleavened Bread (Nissan 15) always occurred the day after Passover (Nissan 14).
The OT observing Jews (prior to ascension of Jesus) did not make changes in the Levitical laws.

Actually they did. We know that during certain time, Passover simply wasn't even celebrated. More so, if we look at the history of Passover, it was common to just lump the two festivals together.

Also, I never said that the feasts were interchangeable. I was saying that they were considered to be the same. They were just lumped together, as history shows us.

As for changes in Levitical laws, maybe you would want to look at the Babylonian exile, where the Levitical laws couldn't be followed. Or even with high priest selection. History shows that you're wrong.

That's now, which has nothing to do with apostolic times. The NT records the practices and nomenclature of apostolic times,
where Passover is simply called the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but it is not the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Can you show that? And can you show that Jews would care? Because Jesus was a Jew. So were the majority of the authors of the NT.

Both feasts together were sometimes called Passover (Lk 22:1), the name of only one of them, but applied to both of them,
and were sometimes called Feast of Unleavened Bread (Mt 26:17), the name of only one of them, but applied to both of them because of their proximity.

Prove it. You can't, because it simply is not like that. You are making stuff up in order to prove your idea. The fact is, for the longest time, they were considered to be the same. They were called the same, and were celebrated as an 8 day feast.

And that fact of their interchanging the nomenclature, explained in the previous response here, I presented to you several times (posts #80 and #44 on another thread),
which each time you emphatically argued against.
What changed your mind?

I'm not wasting my time to add a rebuttal to your posts in another thread. I've done so. This thread itself is a rebuttal.

Also, I haven't changed my mind. I'm stating that Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were lumped together. I'm not agree with you. Maybe you want to actually read what I stated.

And what was celebrated in the first century, not now, along with the interchangeable nomenclature of the two feasts used then (stated by you above in red), is what is recorded in the NT. . .which you simply do not understand.
You acknowlege the facts, as above in red, but you don't understand how they relate to one another. They are just isolated facts to you, having no bearing on one another.

Maybe you want to read what I stated again. I'm not saying what you are. I'm stating that there were interchangeable titles because they were one and the same feast. It was simply lumped together. That is why your argument doesn't work. Because you are making them into two different subjects, and then mixing and matching what fits your idea.

In the OT they were always grouped into one celebration, at least through apostolic times.
Passover was on the Nissan 14, and the Feast of Unleavened Bread began on Nissan 15 and continued through Nissan 21,
making eight days in a row of continuous celebration.
They were always celebrated as one celebration, at least to apostolic times.

They were celebrated as two distinct celebrations. It was Passover, and then the Feast of Unleavened Bread. There were two celebrations that went together. Eventually, they were considered to be just one celebration and taking on just one name.

More so, what you stated disagrees with your point. All you are doing is proving what I've been saying.

You've already stated, above in red, that the names for the two feasts were used interchangeably.
That is exactly what John does in his account.
He uses the name Passover to mean the Feast of Unleavened Bread. . .whose Day of Preparation is Nissan 14, which is the day of Passover.

That doesn't even make sense. If the two are considered the same, or the term is used interchangeably, then the Day of Preparation for Passover (the entire celebration) would still be Nissan 13.

Your point simply doesn't work. If the two titles are used interchangeably, Passover would still start on the 14, and the day of Preparation would still be the 13.

John is not saying the Day of Prepration was Nissan 13.
He is using the name Passover, to refer to the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Nissan 15), whose Day of Preparation was Nissan 14, the day of Passover (Nissan 14),
and the day Jesus was crucified.

Yes he is. The Feast of Unleavened Bread is not Passover. And more so, if you look at Jewish tradition, the Day of Preparation for the Passover was the 13. You can't get around that.

Again, the Feast of Unleavened Bread is not Passover. The entire celebration, was called Passover, or the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the day of Preparation for that was the 13. You argument simply doesn't work.

John says no such thing.
"It was just before the Passover feast" (nomenclature for Feast of Unleavened Bread, Nissan 15, per your statement above in red).
Likewise, John records five chapters (13-17) of the Passover meal which Jesus ate with them.

Again, John 18:28 makes it impossible to be Passover. The fact that Passover meal had not happened, makes it impossible to be the Passover. Your nomenclature idea simply is flawed because you are trying to make something that it is not.

Also, John never states that it was the Passover meal. John 13:1 specifically states that much. Again, The Feast of Unleavened Bread was never, by itself, called Passover. The entire celebration, including the 14, was called Passover. Your argument simply is not logical.

You are so misinformed.

You have the facts of nomenclature, which you stated above in red, but you don't know how to put them together.
They are just isolated facts to you, which have no bearing on one another.

An insult? As much is expected. Especially since you haven't been able to make a credible argument against what I'm saying. Again, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, by itself, was not Passover. The entire celebration, including the 14, could be called Passover. But it has to include Passover day. You can't separate them, and then use what ever term you want to describe them.

It has all been addressed previously, but you can't understand it because you see the facts, which you acknowledge above in red, as isolated,
and do not see their bearing on one another.

I've done all I can in this regard. . .I'll let Pegg give it a try.

I find it funny how you leave out the majority of what I stated. The fact is this, your argument doesn't work because it is based on a misconception. Your whole argument here rests on the idea that the Feast of Unleavened Bread can be called Passover. However, there are many problems with that.

First, it was never, by itself, called Passover. More so, then were have no instance of Passover day in John then. Because Passover is never called the Day of Preparation for the Passover.

More so, the Passover tells us what we need. It is not talking about a week long celebration. It is talking about a specific event. The Passover, in other words, Nissan 14. More so, if you look at Jewish tradition, you would see that the Day of Preparation for the Passover meant something very specific. It referred to the day before Nissan 14. The day in which the sacrificial lamb was slaughtered.

Your problem is that you are taking everything out of historical context and textual context.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I raised this question in another thread. It was claimed that there were no disagreements in the Bible, or the story of Jesus. As I have done on various occasions, I raised this question, on what day was Jesus crucified?

Upon a close examination of the Gospels, this simple question becomes a little difficult. For reference, the translation I will be using for various verses will be the NRSV.

We will begin with what Mark states (I use Mark as Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source and generally agree).

Mark 14:12 "On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed, his disciples said to him, 'Where do you want us to go and make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?"

In other words, the passage is referring to the Day of Preparation of the Passover; the day before Passover.

Mark 15:25, it still being Passover, tells us that jesus was crucified at nine o'clock in the morning. So clearly, in Mark, and the synoptics follow along, Jesus was crucified on the day of Passover. For instance, Matthew 26:17 states "On the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "where do you want us to make the preparations for your to eat the Passover?"

Another key here is that both Matthew and Mark place the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Break on the day of Preparation of the Passover; the day before Passover. Luke simply lumps it all together: Luke 22:1 "Now the festival of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was near." There is no doubt that in any of these three accounts, the authors are talking about the festival that lasted 8 days.

It should also be noted that the synoptics all portray the last supper as a Passover meal.

Now, moving to John, we see a difference. John 19:14 "Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon." The context of this verse is with Jesus' trial before Pilate. At this point, Jesus had already been flogged, and is now getting the verdict; he will be crucified, as stated in verse 16. So for John, is is the Day of Preparation for the Passover; or the day before Passover, that Jesus is crucified. Clearly, there is a disagreement here.

However, this is not the only evidence we have that Passover had not yet occurred. John 18:28 "Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate's headquarters. It was early in the morning. They themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover." Clearly, this shows that Passover had not yet occurred. Since, in the account of John, the last supper had already occurred, there is no way it could have been a Passover meal; according to John.

Now, some have claimed that John 19:31 ["Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the sabbath, especially because that sabbath was a day of great solemnity."] points to the idea that it had to be Passover. However, the main reason for the confusion is a lack of understanding of the terms Day of Preparation for the Passover, and day of Preparation. Some try to combine these two phrases to make them both signify one thing. However, that simply can not logically be done.

The Day of Preparation for the Passover is a term that signifies the day before the Passover. On this day, the sacrificial lamb was slaughtered in the temple. The term can only mean one day, and that is the day before Passover.

The day of Preparation was the day before the Sabbath. In other words, it was Friday. The day of Preparation, and the Day of Preparation for the Passover though could be the same day on occasion. It all has to do with when Passover falls. A big mistake that Christians do is assume that it falls always on a Friday. That simply is not true. We place it on Friday because of theological reasons. However, the Jewish Calendar, and our calendar do not sync up perfectly. For instance, Passover this coming year (2011), Passover will begin at sunset of April 19th, which is a Tuesday.

That is why some translations use the term Special Sabbath. When Passover fell on the Sabbath, it was considered a Special Sabbath.

As we can see then, the synoptics and John disagree on the day in which Jesus is crucified.

While I understand totally and I do agree....what does this mean for the supposed resurrection? Does this mean Yeshua was crucified on Passover (Saturday)? and if so does this dismiss the accounts of him supposedly being dead for three days a rising on the third day?

 

[waitasec]

While I understand totally and I do agree....what does this mean for the supposed resurrection? Does this mean Yeshua was crucified on Passover (Saturday)? and if so does this dismiss the accounts of him supposedly being dead for three days a rising on the third day?

watch it
you're opening a can of worms...

 

[fallingblood]

While I understand totally and I do agree....what does this mean for the supposed resurrection? Does this mean Yeshua was crucified on Passover (Saturday)? and if so does this dismiss the accounts of him supposedly being dead for three days a rising on the third day?

First, I just want to say that I do not believe the resurrection truly happened. But it really wouldn't change anything. Both John and Synoptics both put his death on a Friday. So I don't think it would change.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

watch it
you're opening a can of worms...

: hamster :

 

[Dirty Penguin]

First, I just want to say that I do not believe the resurrection truly happened. But it really wouldn't change anything. Both John and Synoptics both put his death on a Friday. So I don't think it would change.

I think I got it. This is why viewing all 4 gospels as a complete telling of the story can be confusing and it's because of their disagreement. If he was crucified Friday and removed on Friday (before the setting of the sun, before the sabbath) then the 3 days of being dead, to me don't seem add up. IMO.....:sad:

 

[ellenjanuary]

Good Friday.

Why do I dislike Christianity? Because I am a modern man, considering things like "built in obsolescence," and comedy.

 

[smokydot]

First, I just want to say that I do not believe the resurrection truly happened. But it really wouldn't change anything. Both John and Synoptics both put his death on a Friday. So I don't think it would change.

So you agree now that all four gospels are in agreement! . .after repeatedly and emphatically arguing against their agreement!

What changed your mind?

 

[smokydot]

I think I got it. This is why viewing all 4 gospels as a complete telling of the story can be confusing and it's because of their disagreement. If he was crucified Friday and removed on Friday (before the setting of the sun, before the sabbath) then the 3 days of being dead, to me don't seem add up. IMO.....:sad:

In Jewish reckoning of time, any part of a day was called a day.

Therefore, part of Friday and part of Sunday, when added to Saturday would be three days.
In other places, it is simply stated that Jesus rose "on the third day."

 

[fallingblood]

So you agree now that all four gospels are in agreement! . .after repeatedly and emphatically arguing against their agreement!

What changed your mind?

Your comprehension skills are lacking. I've never stated that it wasn't Friday. I've stated before that all of the Gospels state that it was Friday. What Friday is though is not agreed upon.

 

[smokydot]

Maybe you want to look at how Jews kept days. At sundown on Nissan 13th, the day changed to Nissan 14. Days were kept as sundown to sundown. Thus, on Nissan 13th, as Jewish tradition states, the Passover lamb was sacrificed and prepared, hence the title, Day of Preparation for the Passover.
It was the on Nissan 14 that the Passover meal was eaten.
Actually they did. We know that during certain time, Passover simply wasn't even celebrated. More so, if we look at the history of Passover, it was common to just lump the two festivals together.
Also, I never said that the feasts were interchangeable. I was saying that they were considered to be the same. They were just lumped together,

Exactly what I said to you several times before in another thread, Paul and Jesus, posts #80 and #44,in the "General Religious Debates" section.

What changed your mind about it?

as history shows us.
As for changes in Levitical laws, maybe you would want to look at the Babylonian exile, where the Levitical laws couldn't be followed. Or even with high priest selection. History shows that you're wrong.
Can you show that? And can you show that Jews would care? Because Jesus was a Jew. So were the majority of the authors of the NT.
Prove it. You can't, because it simply is not like that. You are making stuff up in order to prove your idea. The fact is, for the longest time, they were considered to be the same. They were called the same, and were celebrated as an 8 day feast.

Exactly what I said to you several times in another thread, Paul and Jesus, in posts #80 and #44, in the "General Religious Debates" section.

What has changed your mind on this?

I'm not wasting my time to add a rebuttal to your posts in another thread. I've done so. This thread itself is a rebuttal.
Also, I haven't changed my mind. I'm stating that Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were lumped together.

Which is exactly what I said to you several times in the Paul and Jesus thread.

I'm not agree with you.

You're now saying exactly what I said to you several times in another thread, Paul and Jesus, posts #80 and #44.
That's commonly called "agreement."

Maybe you want to actually read what I stated.

Oh, I think it would be so much better if you quoted here exactly what you stated.

Maybe you want to read what I stated again. I'm not saying what you are. I'm stating that there were interchangeable titles because they were one and the same feast. It was simply lumped together.

Why the need to deny what I said to you several times in another thread, Paul and Jesus, posts #80 and #44, in the "General Religious Debates" section, where it can be verified.
Not to mention, "lumped together" is my own pharse, which you are now using.

They were lumped together by Levitical law, which required them to be celebrated one immediately after the other, with no day in between.
The Jews didn't lump them together, the Law lumped them together.
Which is exactly what I said to you several times before in another thread, Paul and Jesus, posts #80 and #44.

That is why your argument doesn't work. Because you are making them into two different subjects, and then mixing and matching what fits your idea.

You need to familiarize yourself with Leviticus.

They were celebrated as two distinct celebrations. It was Passover, and then the Feast of Unleavened Bread. There were two celebrations that went together. Eventually, they were considered to be just one celebration and taking on just one name.

You're practically plagariazing me now! . .from my posts #80 and #44 on the Paul and Jesus thread!--in the "General Religious Debates" section

What changed your mind?

More so, what you stated disagrees with your point. All you are doing is proving what I've been saying.
That doesn't even make sense. If the two are considered the same, or the term is used interchangeably, then the Day of Preparation for Passover (the entire celebration) would still be Nissan 13.

Nope. . .the Feast of Unleavened Bread was called Passover (Lk 22:1), therefore the Day of Preparation for the Feast of Unleavened Bread (called Passover--Lk 22:1) was Nissan 14, which was Passover, and the day Jesus was crucified.

Your point simply doesn't work. If the two titles are used interchangeably, Passover would still start on the 14, and the day of Preparation would still be the 13.

You're still not getting it. . .I'm looking forward to when you change your mind on this one also.

Yes he is. The Feast of Unleavened Bread is not Passover. And more so, if you look at Jewish tradition, the Day of Preparation for the Passover was the 13. You can't get around that.

You need to familiarize yourself with Leviticus.

Again, the Feast of Unleavened Bread is not Passover. The entire celebration, was called Passover, or the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the day of Preparation for that was the 13. You argument simply doesn't work.
Again, John 18:28 makes it impossible to be Passover. The fact that Passover meal had not happened, makes it impossible to be the Passover. Your nomenclature idea simply is flawed because you are trying to make something that it is not.
Also, John never states that it was the Passover meal. John 13:1 specifically states that much. Again, The Feast of Unleavened Bread was never, by itself, called Passover. The entire celebration, including the 14, was called Passover. Your argument simply is not logical.

You're still not getting it. . .looking forward to when you do!

An insult? As much is expected. Especially since you haven't been able to make a credible argument against what I'm saying. Again, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, by itself, was not Passover. The entire celebration, including the 14, could be called Passover. But it has to include Passover day. You can't separate them, and then use what ever term you want to describe them.
I find it funny how you leave out the majority of what I stated. The fact is this, your argument doesn't work because it is based on a misconception. Your whole argument here rests on the idea that the Feast of Unleavened Bread can be called Passover. However, there are many problems with that.

Lk says in 22:1 -- "The Feast of Unleavened Bread, called Passover, was approaching."

Take it up with Luke!

First, it was never, by itself, called Passover. More so, then were have no instance of Passover day in John then. Because Passover is never called the Day of Preparation for the Passover.

You are as lost as a goose!

More so, the Passover tells us what we need. It is not talking about a week long celebration. It is talking about a specific event. The Passover, in other words, Nissan 14. More so, if you look at Jewish tradition, you would see that the Day of Preparation for the Passover meant something very specific. It referred to the day before Nissan 14. The day in which the sacrificial lamb was slaughtered.
Your problem is that you are taking everything out of historical context and textual context.

Your problem is you don't know the Levitical law.

But I have hope!
You've changed your mind on quite a lot at this point. . .I trust you will eventually begin to get it.

 

[fallingblood]

smokey: Maybe you want to try to read my posts. I haven't changed my mind at all, the problem is that you are not actually reading. And there is no need to take Levitical Law into account, as they were not practicing Passover accordingly.

Again, The Feast of Unleavened Bread was never called, by itself, Passover. It was only called Passover when it was combined with Passover. Then the whole celebration, the combination of those two events, were considered to be one, and then could be called either Passover of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. We are talking about the First Century here. As in, you need to know something about history.

The fact that the Feast of Unleavened Bread can not be Passover shows that you don't have an argument. More so again, John 18:28 shows that there is no way that John could be talking about Passover, as it hadn't happened as of yet.

You need to learn how to read the Bible. It is as simple as that.

 

[smokydot]

smokey: Maybe you want to try to read my posts. I haven't changed my mind at all, the problem is that you are not actually reading. And there is no need to take Levitical Law into account, as they were not practicing Passover accordingly.
Again, The Feast of Unleavened Bread was never called, by itself, Passover. It was only called Passover when it was combined with Passover. Then the whole celebration, the combination of those two events, were considered to be one, and then could be called either Passover of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. We are talking about the First Century here. As in, you need to know something about history.
The fact that the Feast of Unleavened Bread can not be Passover shows that you don't have an argument. More so again, John 18:28 shows that there is no way that John could be talking about Passover, as it hadn't happened as of yet.
You need to learn how to read the Bible. It is as simple as that.

You could use a little acquainting with the testimony of the Church from its beginning.

 

[fallingblood]

You could use a little acquainting with the testimony of the Church from its beginning.

You could do will with some research at all. Or maybe a logical rebuttal. Instead of these condescending remarks, that serve only to be excuses.

 

[smokydot]

It was on the 14th, that the meal was eaten. It was a Passover meal, and was eaten on Passover, not the day before as you claim.

You are so misinformed.

Passover began at sundown the day before, and went to sundown the day of, Nissan 14.
The Passover lamb was slain the day it was eaten at the sundown meal of Nissan 14, the sundown before Passover daytime of Nissan 14.

As for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, it wasn't always on the 15th. I've quoted they synoptic Gospels and showed that there understanding was different. The fact is, Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were often interchangeable.

You are so misinformed.

The feasts were not interchangeable, their names were interchangeable (Lk 22:1).
The Feast of Unleavened Bread (Nissan 15) always occurred the day after Passover (Nissan 14).
The OT observing Jews (prior to ascension of Jesus) did not make changes in the Levitical laws.

Now, Passover, by Jews, is called the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The observance of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread have changed.

Their observance has changed now, which has nothing to do with observance before the ascention of Jesus. The NT records the practices and nomenclature of apostolic times, where Passover is simply called the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but it is not the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Both feasts together were sometimes called Passover (Lk 22:1), the name of only one of them, but applied to both of them,
and were sometimes called Feast of Unleavened Bread (Mt 26:17), the name of only one of them, but applied to both of them because of their immediate proximity.

For the longest time, they were used interchangeably.

By NT times the names were virtually interchangeable.

And that fact of their interchanging the nomenclature, explained in the previous response here, I presented to you several times
(posts #80 and #44 on the Paul and Jesus thread), which each time you emphatically argued against.
What changed your mind?

At times, there is evidence they weren't even celebrated. You need to do your history here. Because we are not talking about what the Torah says here because that is not what has always been practiced. We are talking about the celebration in the first century. That is what is important.

What was celebrated in the first century after the ascension of Jesus in 30 AD is irrelevant. What was celebrated during the lifetime of Jesus,
as well as the interchangeable nomenclature of the two feasts used then (stated by you above in red), is what is recorded in the NT. . .which you simply do not understand.

You acknowlege the facts, as above in red, but you don't understand how they relate to one another. They are just isolated facts to you, having no bearing on one another.

Except now, and other times in which Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were grouped into one celebration.

In the OT they were always grouped into one celebration, at least to the ascension of Jesus, because of their immediate proximity--one following on the other
with no day in between.
Passover was on the Nissan 14, and the Feast of Unleavened Bread began on Nissan 15 and continued through Nissan 21, making eight days in a row of continuous feast.
They were always celebrated as one celebration, at least until the ascension of Jesus.

Then the Day of Preparation was on the 13th. In other words, it was called the Day of Preparation for Passover. John specially states that it is the Day of Preparation for Passover. To change that is to change what the Gospel is teaching.

You've already stated, above in red, that the names for the two feasts were used interchangeably.
That is exactly what John does in his account.
He uses the name Passover to mean the Feast of Unleavened Bread. . .whose Day of Preparation is Nissan 14, which is the day of Passover.

John is not saying the Day of Prepration was Nissan 13.
He is using the name Passover, to refer to the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Nissan 15), whose Day of Preparation was Nissan 14, the day of Passover (Nissan 14),
and the day Jesus was crucified.

Do you have a source? The Bible simply said that it was a day of rest. Not that it was the Sabbath. There is a difference between the two.

Do you have a source?

Also, it doesn't solve anything. The Day of Preparation for the Passover was on Friday, the next day, Passover, landed on a Saturday. That explains why it was a special Sabbath.

You haven't reckoned with the fact that the Feast of Unleavened Bread of NIssan 15, was only called the Passover of Nissan 14 (Lk 22:1).
So when John speaks of Passover, he is using the then common name for and referring to the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Therefore, when John reports that Jesus died on the Day of Preparation for Passover, he is referring to the Day of Preparation for Unleavened Bread on Nissan 14.

Again, John specifically states that Jesus died on the Day of Preparation for Passover. And, as I've shown, it would have been impossible for it to be the Passover anyway, as John specifically states that the Passover meal had not been eaten.

John says no such thing. He says:

"It was just before the Passover feast" (nomenclature for Feast of Unleavened Bread, Nissan 15, per your statement above in red).
So John is saying that it was just before the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Nissan 15), which was the Day of Preparation for that feast (Nissan 14),
which was the day of Passover, and the day Jesus was crucified.

And regarding the Passover meal having not been eaten, John records five chapters (13-17) of the Passover meal which Jesus ate with them.

That is not what John says. For John, the Passover had not occurred.

You have not reckoned with the fact that the Feast of Unleavened Bread was commonly called Passover, although it was not Passover (Lk 22:1).
Therefore, John is referring to the Feast of Unleavened Bread when he uses the term Passover.

So it would have been impossible for Jesus to be crucified on a day that had not yet come. That is why John uses the term Day of Preparation for Passover, which is the day before Passover. This is a documented term in Jewish literature. There is no doubt about it. Thus, as the has it, Passover was a Saturday, and that is why it was a special Sabbath.

You are so misinformed. . .Jewish practice after the ascension of Jesus in 30 AD is irrelevant.

You have the facts of nomenclature, which you stated above in red, but you don't know how to put them together.
They are just isolated facts to you, which have no bearing on one another.

Again, it was not a Sabbath. It was a day of rest; the two are not interchangeable. And scripture simply does not support that idea.
More so, we are talking about the Day of Preparation for Passover.

Passover means Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lk 22:1). John is referring to the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

We are not talking about a separate day here, the day of preparation for the Sabbath. The two dates are not interchangeable as you are trying to make them so.
Why? Because they were often interchangeable.

The names are interchangeable, the feasts are not. The Feast of Unleavened Bread was called the Passover (Lk 22:1), it was not the Passover itself.

So then Luke is incorrect? You know what Luke is trying to say better than he does?
Not quite. Today, it is just one big holiday, the Feast of Unleavened Bread. That doesn't explain Mark and Matthew though. Both of which states that the day before Passover (or the Day of Preparation for Passover) was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

You haven't reckoned with the nomenclature, where the Feast of Unleavened Bread is called Passover (Lk 22:1), it is not Passover itself.

You have not addressed the vast majority of what I've even stated. You keep coming to a very small portion, which you take out of context, both textual and historical.

The vast majority of what you stated is repetition over and over of the same misinformation. It has all been addressed previously once,
but you can't understand it because you see the facts, which you acknowledge above in red, as isolated, and do not see their bearing on one another.

I've done all I can in this regard. . .I'll let Pegg give it a try.

 

[Midnight Pete]

What Day was Jesus Crucified?

I don't know. It would not have been under the Gregorian Calendar we use now, anyway. It's not really that important.

 

[smokydot]

I don't know. It would not have been under the Gregorian Calendar we use now, anyway. It's not really that important.

See post #55.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't know. It would not have been under the Gregorian Calendar we use now, anyway. It's not really that important.

It's important to folks who see Jesus as a *literal* Passover lamb.

 

[Midnight Pete]

It's important to folks who see Jesus as a *literal* Passover lamb.

Which is more important-- accepting Jesus Christ as Lord & Saviour or knowing the exact date of the crufixion? Which one will save you?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Which is more important-- accepting Jesus Christ as Lord & Saviour or knowing the exact date of the crufixion? Which one will save you?

haha, I'm not talking about that.

Some people might think that if Jesus is not the Passover Lamb, that he's not the Messiah.