Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was just stating how every year, because the Passover is a special Sabbath, there would be two Sabbaths that week. Back to Back, or spread out. (Of course if Passover fell on the Saturday, then it would be included in the regular Sabbath rest) So perhaps the writers of the Gospels automatically expect the readers to understand that bit, and felt no need to spell out two Sabbaths. (Of course John does metion it).....I forgot to bring this up yesterday, but again with the Passover being a special Sabbath, Scripture seems to point that He died the day before it. No way would the people call Passover a preparation day, because it was considered a Sabbath. They wouldn't do any work that day. So the preparation day that is mentioned in the Gospels, must be the day before Passover, the 14th of Nissan. There is calculated evidence that Passover did fall on a Friday April 3, 33 AD.
I don't follow this. Passover occurs only ONCE a year. Of course if a Saturday (sabbath) occurs within the Passover week it has to be observed. But I don't see that it can be guaranteed that every year we are going to get Passover day and a Saturday together. Unless there's something I don't understand about Passover reckoning, I don't see how you can claim from either the gospels or the historic dating that there was a Friday Passover (with Sabbath following) and thus there was a back to back Passover Sabbath. Please present your argument. John only says that the Passover fell on a Saturday sabbath.
I don't follow this. Passover occurs only ONCE a year. Of course if a Saturday (sabbath) occurs within the Passover week it has to be observed. But I don't see that it can be guaranteed that every year we are going to get Passover day and a Saturday together. Unless there's something I don't understand about Passover reckoning, I don't see how you can claim from either the gospels or the historic dating that there was a Friday Passover (with Sabbath following) and thus there was a back to back Passover Sabbath. Please present your argument. John only says that the Passover fell on a Saturday sabbath.
I'm not saying anything special with this. I'm only stating that there will be two Sabbaths (not two Sabbaths back to back per say, but just two Sabbaths) during Passover week every year, minus the times Passover fall on a Saturday. If Passover fell on Tuesday, Tuesday would be a Sabbath, and Saturday would be a Sabbath. If it fell on Monday, Monday would be a Sabbath, and Saturday would be a Sabbath. I'm only saying there will be two Sabbaths every year during Passover.
With that in mind, perhaps the Gospel writers expected us to know this as common knowledge. Which is why they don't mention two Sabbaths happening that week per say. (They didn't feel the need to spell it out for us)
Now, they do tell us that Jesus rose again on Sunday. And also that Jesus stayed in the grave for three days and three nights. We agree for this to be fulfilled, He would have to die on Thursday. The Gospels tell us that Jesus died on a preparation day. If that is the case, Jesus couldn't have died on Passover, as that is considered a Sabbath. So I argue that the Gospels tell us that Jesus died on Thursday. The calculations of when Passover fell on a Friday, comes to Friday April 3, 33 AD. Scholars agree that Jesus died between 30-36 AD, so 33 AD is the only choice that would agree with the Gospels.
Well, I agree with you that Jesus didn't (according to the gospels) die on the passover, but on the preparation day. But what I can't see is why that should have been on a Thursday, because the gospels look to be saying that, after the preparation day, they rested on the sabbath since that was the day after the preparation day, that had to be a Passover sabbath, and the Sunday followed.
There is simply no good reason to postulate a Passover Friday and Saturday sabbath following. Reference to 33 AD doesn't help as I can't see any way of proving that that this was a Friday passover year. Why do you think it was?
It does seem a minor point, but unsubstantiated claims re. the gospels do bother me.
Four books that are not in agreement with each other, and yet have given rise to an expression, "Gospel truth." Yeah, for some peculiar reason I find that unsettling, as well.
Well, I agree with you that Jesus didn't (according to the gospels) die on the passover, but on the preparation day. But what I can't see is why that should have been on a Thursday, because the gospels look to be saying that, after the preparation day, they rested on the sabbath since that was the day after the preparation day, that had to be a Passover sabbath, and the Sunday followed.
There is simply no good reason to postulate a Passover Friday and Saturday sabbath following. Reference to 33 AD doesn't help as I can't see any way of proving that that this was a Friday passover year. Why do you think it was?
It does seem a minor point, but unsubstantiated claims re. the gospels do bother me.
Well, let's think about it this way. Most people in today's world feel like the authors of the NT were nothing but con men. Telling amazing stories just to get people to believe in what they were saying. (It is said that the Church brought all of their property, and shared it amongst themselves. Perhaps the authors wanted to share in some of that prosperity if you know what I mean. )
Yet, in the same accounts, they said that Jesus rose again after 3 days and 3 nights. If it was to be taken that Jesus died on Friday, enough time wouldn't have passed for the prophecy to come true. Surely, if the authors of the NT were indeed con men, surely they could count out 3 days and 3 nights.
So with this reasoning, and again knowing the custom of Passover being a special Sabbath, the authors of the NT probably expected us to believe that Jesus died Thursday. As for the accuracy of the date of Passover falling on a Friday in 33 AD, I'm told the most consistent research have Passover falling on a Friday of that year. So that date would be consistent with the Gospels.
Well, let's think about it this way...since if the story was entirely made up they would indeed have made the times fit the prophecy better, perhaps that it only just manages to scrape the three days is what convinces me that it wasn't entirely made up.
Like Jesus being a Galilean rather than a Judean, it was something they were stuck with.
This is something that has just sort of been glossed over up to now in this discussion, and maybe it is obvious, and I have just missed it ( I have not dug a bible out and read through the establishment of the passover feast). Is there any historical evidence that Jewish people would refer to the first day of the Passover festival as the Sabbath if it does not occur on a Saturday? Maybe some of our Jewish folks can explain contemporary usage. As far as I can tell, at least in contemporary Judaism, nobody refers to the first day of Passover as the Sabbath, unless it were to fall on Saturday.
Obviously, if this is not a usage that has any basis is recorded Jewish tradition, then the entire interpretation falls apart. Just curious.
This is something that has just sort of been glossed over up to now in this discussion, and maybe it is obvious, and I have just missed it ( I have not dug a bible out and read through the establishment of the passover feast). Is there any historical evidence that Jewish people would refer to the first day of the Passover festival as the Sabbath if it does not occur on a Saturday? Maybe some of our Jewish folks can explain contemporary usage. As far as I can tell, at least in contemporary Judaism, nobody refers to the first day of Passover as the Sabbath, unless it were to fall on Saturday.
Obviously, if this is not a usage that has any basis is recorded Jewish tradition, then the entire interpretation falls apart. Just curious.
-NoCapo
Yes, Passover is considered a special day. Lev. 23:6-7 states......
"Then on the fifteenth day of the same month there is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall not do any laborious work."
Good question. In fact many Jewish festivals have days of rest on which no work is done (Tabernacles has two, one at the start and one at the end) but, no I don't recall that they are called 'sabbath' but 'days of fast' and I don't know what that is in Hebrew (they would use the name in their liturgical language rather than aramaic, I suppose) or how that would translate into greek.
I would certainly say I got the impression that the Sabbath (Saturday) and 'The' Passover day are regarded as separate events which happened to coincide, as they rarely do. While it does not make either Passover nor Sabbath more Holy, it is regarded as something a bit special -a 'Sabbath of Sabbaths'.
I had a look at the Gospels and the way they use Friday. Passover and 'Sabbath' but I shall have to have look at the Greek and get back to you. But the feeling is that the Passover day coincided with the Saturday Sabbath, otherwise I should have expected that (in view of the importance of the three day prophecy) that Passover was Friday and Sabbath Saturday followed would have been explained, if that was the case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
Well, let's think about it this way...since if the story was entirely made up they would indeed have made the times fit the prophecy better, perhaps that it only just manages to scrape the three days is what convinces me that it wasn't entirely made up. 
