fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
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.You are so misinformed.
Passover began at sundown on Nissan 13 and went to sundown on Nissan 14.
Nissan 14 is Passover day.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.