Easter Traditions?

[Tcg]

Are there any Easter Traditions that are related specifically to Jesus' resurrection? The Easter eggs hunts, bunnies and pastel-colored candies seem to be a celebration of spring. Certainly, sermons will be preached on Jesus' resurrection, but are there any Easter Traditions that Christians practice with their families that are focused on Jesus?


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

...tell me when the daylight hours of the 15th Nisan fell in the story.

The 15th (Saturday) would have started at sundown just after the burial of Jesus. If, as is supposed Jesus died about 3pm, then his friends would have had to rush see to the body before the beginning of what would have been both a Sabbath and the start of a Holy Convention.

The daylight hours - the next morning - would have marked the opening ceremonies of the festival and Jesus first full day in the grave.

Interestingly from a purely theological point of view, Jesus' resurrection would have in that case corresponded to the ceremony of the presentation of the first fruits (on the Sunday 16th), being the "first fruit" to heaven but that is more a discussion for the T&D subforum.

[TRANSPONDER]

You were ... not saying 'well they had to stay ritually clean for the whole week'

I did not focus on ritual uncleaness because the discussion was not what rendered people ritualistically unclean, but rather, "Can John's account of the events at the end of Jesus life (more particularly the Passover events), be harmonizes with the synoptics"?

That said, obviously in addressing John 18:28, the question was: "For which festival did the Priests wish to remain ritualy clean ?" Back in post #87 I quoted to the Jewish Biblical scholar Alfred Edersheim who wrote ..

"A voluntary peace offering was made on Passover and another, a compulsory one, on the next day, Nisan 15, the first day of the Festival of Unfermented Cakes. It was this second offering that the Jews were afraid they might not be able to eat if they contracted defilement in the judgment hall of Pilate" ” The Temple, 1874, pp. 186, 187

NOTE : Interestingly there is a biblical provision to delay the Sedar meal in case of uncleaness while there is no such provision for the Festival.

This 'second offering' has to be some kind of meal that was 'eaten' or it is no help to your case. This is where i have to ask for a link which for once you don't give.

The festival didn't incorportae "one" singular offering, there were many. The grain, sin and guilt offerings had portions reserved for the priests to eat. For further information regarding eating during the 7 day festival, please read the full entry of aforementioned post #87

Irrelevant. What argument do you have for a specific Passover that the priest had to eat following the Seder eaten before the previous night? I know you seized on my apologetic (which you didn't think of) that they might have to eat something each day. I don't think nit washes, but you can argue it. But pointing to to it time and again is irrelevant. If you concede that there was no particular second Passover to be eaten after the Seder (but you say they had one ever day ) then we are done. (1)

It's not a second Passover (or a second Passover meal) as if the Sedar lamb is eaten twice...it was (at least we can understand in the 1st century) "The passover" which comprised in Jesus day, of a family group based memorial meal followed by one of the three annual festivals. If you use terminology I did not use, and is not bible based, and or applies to later period not under discussion, it should be no surprise I ask for clarification, not for what I mean but for what you think I mean.

In this kind if discussion terminology is important.



JW

No. In this discussion understanding the argument is important ...

JehovahsWitness post Yes. that is also important ; I have tried to be clear about what I am saying and responded on request for clarification.

... appealing to the week long feast wouldn't convince me ...

I dont recall voicing that as one of my concerns.

JW

All I've seen is a lack of clarity, referring back to a temple feast like it was a second one, misdirection about it wasn't eating lamb but bread. Nobody suggested it was. Disagreeing with my chronology - without saying what was wrong with it or even making any point. Insisting that John's last Supper was meant by him as the Passover Seder just by assertion, when you knew what the problem was, and finally grabbing MY anticipation of the week long eat rather than the Temple feast that (or so I recall) you were arguing. Not to mention referring me to your previous posts as though they validated you later ones or the irrelevant 'interesting' misdirections in your posts quoted above.

And I'd still like to know what you disagree about my Chronology and why. Was that just kneejerk denial in case i was making a point? Was it?

...tell me when the daylight hours of the 15th Nisan fell in the story.

The 15th (Saturday) would have started at sundown just after the burial of Jesus. If, as is supposed Jesus died about 3pm, then his friends would have had to rush see to the body before the beginning of what would have been both a Sabbath and the start of a Holy Convention.

The daylight hours - the next morning - would have marked the opening ceremonies of the festival and Jesus first full day in the grave.

Interestingly from a purely theological point of view, Jesus' resurrection would have in that case corresponded to the ceremony of the presentation of the first fruits (on the Sunday 16th), being the "first fruit" to heaven but that is more a discussion for the T&D subforum.

I know. What argument are you making here for a second (Priestley/Temple) Passover to be eaten After the Seder was eaten before the previous night? Or what does it have to do with your disagreement with my order of Chronology?

P.s I quote an earlier post "Its not a "later Passover" its just that "the Passover" consisted of two seperate and distictly different holy days : See post #91"

Now this at least looked like you were arguing for two (eaten) Passover days with a particular priestly Temple 'bread' feast that they had to stay ritually clean for. You did use the 'bread' feast as justification for this but if you meant that it was just one of two more says they had to stay 'clean' to eat, then (I recall you did say 'that's correct', like it was what you'd been saying all along) we can agree on what the apologetic is (though I don't buy it for a minute )

(1) Except for checking your links to see whether your sources are fiddling their evidence to make a case for a second Passover eat, or you were fiddling what they said to argue that, since i remind you I suggested the week long eaten feast, and you didn't. Or not clearly.

[Goat]

.

Considering that pork is a huge no-no among Hebrews I find it a bit incongruous that ham, adopted as thee traditional meat of Easter dinners in the United States, is served in honor of the most famous Jew of all time.


It's almost as if,

.............................


.

Welll, the Catholic mass has 'this is my body, and this is my blood'. Maybe they are just substituting pork for long pork?

[TRANSPONDER]

It is of course proof that God exists that anything so amazingly delicious as bacon could have come to be unless it had been intelligently designed, which is why no doubt why it is forbidden on most religions and is only allowed in Christianity because Paul threw God's laws in the bin because he wanted to have bacon on his plate.

[JehovahsWitness]

...it wasn't eating lamb but bread. Nobody suggested it was.

I'm not sure what they [the Priests] ate is particularly significant in establishing that there was still eating to be done in connection with "the passover" season festivities on the morning of The 14th.

That lambs were slaughtered on both occassions is merely of historical significance as there is often confusion as to what was done when as the formalities (and even the dates) changed in the course of the Passover history. The focus of my point is and remains, what were the first century practices and what might the gospel writers (in particular, John) be refering to when they said what they did.

... grabbing MY anticipation of the week long eat rather than the Temple feast that (or so I recall) you were arguing.

You recall incorrectly. I do not know where or how you got the idea that I was claiming that the festival of unfermentedd bread was not a week long when I explicitly wrote that it was. Obviously there eating was to be done as that was a stipulation in scripture and (as far as the grain, sin and guilt offerjngs) a Priestly requirement.

What argument are you making here for a second (Priestley/Temple) Passover to be eaten After the Seder was eaten before the previous night?

If by "a second (Priestley/Temple) Passover to be eaten After the Seder " You mean a customary repetition of the Sedar meal for Priests only commemorating the liberation from exile of the nation of Israel by sacrificing and eating a lamb in obedience to the instructions for Nisan 14.... then I am not, nor have I ever suggested such a thing.







JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to ...

THE PASSOVER, THE MOSAIC LAW COVENANT and ... SABBATH KEEPING

[TRANSPONDER]

...it wasn't eating lamb but bread. Nobody suggested it was.

I'm not sure what they [the Priests] ate is particularly significant in establishing that there was still eating to be done in connection with "the passover" season festivities on the morning of The 14th.

That lambs were slaughtered on both occassions is merely of historical significance as there is often confusion as to what was done when as the formalities (and even the dates) changed in the course of the Passover history. The focus of my point is and remains, what were the first century practices and what might the gospel writers (in particular, John) be refering to when they said what they did.

... grabbing MY anticipation of the week long eat rather than the Temple feast that (or so I recall) you were arguing.

You recall incorrectly. I do not know where or how you got the idea that I was claiming that the festival of unfermentedd bread was not a week long when I explicitly wrote that it was. Obviously there eating was to be done as that was a stipulation in scripture and (as far as the grain, sin and guilt offerjngs) a Priestly requirement.

What argument are you making here for a second (Priestley/Temple) Passover to be eaten After the Seder was eaten before the previous night?

If by "a second (Priestley/Temple) Passover to be eaten After the Seder " You mean a customary repetition of the Sedar meal for Priests only commemorating the liberation from exile of the nation of Israel by sacrificing and eating a lamb in obedience to the instructions for Nisan 14.... then I am not, nor have I ever suggested such a thing.







JW

Why, oh why, do you have to engage in so much obfuscation and misdirection? I never said that the Matzoh feast was not a week long, but it looked (from e.g your post I pasted) like you were presenting it as a second feast on the Friday. And when did anyone say that more lambs were slaughtered after the Seder? Can you validate that? And where do you get off trying to stuff such a claim into my mouth? Like trying to make my objection that the Mazzoh feast was not a week long? I never suggested any such thing, only that it looked like you were arguing there was one Temple feast to be eaten on the Friday, out of the whole week, because that is what John reads like, even if you argue he was referring to the whole week (which I don't buy, as I said- I think he puts the Seder on the wrong day. You can disagree).

I can tell you the point of making one feast lamb and the other bread - to distinguish this second (Friday) feast from the Seder. The first is lamb the second is bread -as you knew very well. And what's this? " That lambs were slaughtered on both occasions " What did you think was done with them on the second occasion? Bury them? You have more to explain and validate, not just post assertions.

And it's irrelevant that the dates were changed as the tradition went on. That does not mean that two separate feasts (one lamb, one bread) were eaten on particular days. As I said, you only have to say that you don't think that John means a particular separate feast on the Friday that they have to stay 'clean' for and we are done.

Except I'd still like to know why you denied my chronology and what was wrong with it.

[JehovahsWitness]

And I'd still like to know what you disagree about my Chronology and why.

I didnt really focus on this because I cannot see that it is particularly significant, perhaps you can direct me to your posts on this point and I will review them and decide if I wish to write more.

[TRANSPONDER]

And I'd still like to know what you disagree about my Chronology and why.

I didnt really focus on this because I cannot see that it is particularly significant, perhaps you can direct me to your posts on this point and I will review them and decide if I wish to write more.

#214 Post by JehovahsWitness » Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:40 pm

TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:03 pm
Ok I fo0und this quite tricky though others may find it easy.

Wed 13th Nisan all day to evening when the new 'day' starts


I dont agree with your allocation of the days (I believe the deciples prepared the Sedar meal on Thursday daylight hours... not Wednesday) and I dont know what you are talking about when you talk about "a second Passover meal"... but you do seem to have grasped the Jewish day running from sunset to sunset; kudos for that.

[JehovahsWitness]

... it looked (from e.g your post I pasted) like you were presenting it as a second feast on the Friday.

I'm sorry I cannot address your misperceptions nor do I wish to validate strawmen. May I suggest if something isnt clear for you, you ask me for clarification rather than insist I defend your misunderstandings.


JW

[TRANSPONDER]

... it looked (from e.g your post I pasted) like you were presenting it as a second feast on the Friday.

I'm sorry I cannot address your misperceptions nor do I wish to validate strawmen. May I suggest if something isnt clear for you, you ask me for clarification rather than insist I defend your misunderstandings.


JW

While looking for my post of Chronology, i spotted this

#87
"A voluntary peace offering was made on Passover and another, a compulsory one, on the next day, Nisan 15, the first day of the Festival of Unfermented Cakes. It was this second offering that the Jews were afraid they might not be able to eat if they contracted defilement in the judgment hall of Pilate" ” The Temple, 1874, pp. 186, 187 Thus if Jesus died after eating the "passover meal" but before the first day of the festival (Nisan 15) it would explain John's terminology and harmonize with the other accounts.

Can you blame me if I thought you were arguing for a specific special feast on the Friday the priests had to stay clean for rather than meaning the whole week or bread -feast? If my argument was a 'strawman' of what you meant, it is your fault for being so very unclear and ambiguous.

p.s what's worse you never corrected me and said 'I meant the whole week, not a specific day' but instead posted an iirrelevant and cheap nitpick

I posted - I know. You, YOU are the one arguing for some kind of 'Temple' feast that the Priests ate a day or so after the 'Family' seder...
And you responded I have never once in this thread typed the words "a day or so" , nor have I implied only the Priests kept the festival. Instead of what I presume was is your attempt to paraphrase, why not simply use the quote button found at the head of each post and reporduce my words as written which I choose very carefully. See below ..."

No wonder I thought that I was the one to propose the week long feast and saw you grabbing it and pretending it was what you'd been saying all along.

And now back to fiinding my chronology.

#212

Ok I fo0und this quite tricky though others may find it easy.

Wed 13th Nisan all day to evening when the new 'day' starts

Night of 14th Nisan Thursday to dawn
Day of 14th Nisan day of preparation for Passover. Paschal lambs killed (in Temple and possibly elsewhere, though shoket ritual must be correct)
The disciples book the upper room because it seems that Jesus comes that evening.

Evening start of 15th Nisan Friday. Seder Passover eaten (Last supper)
Night of 15th Jesus arrested, interrogated and kept in jail overnight

Dawn of the Passover day Friday 15th when supposedly the Sanhedrin meets (if that's allowed on Passover)
Trial before Pilate.

This is when you say (JW) that there is this 2nd Passover to be eaten which would make sense if one Passover was eaten in the evening before that night and another during the day. In that case John's reference to the day of preparation (on that day) refers only to the Sabbath starting that evening, but not to the Passover since the day of preparation had been the day before.

So it all seems to work, if you can show a credible source for a second Passover meal to be eaten (at least by the Priests) during that day.

Supposing that to be the case, they must have been busy, complaining to Pilate about his 'Charge' jeering at Jesus on the cross, eating this 2nd Passover meal (presumably they missed that 'darkness', rending of temple veil and so on, while nibbling at their 2nd Passover). Having Judas return their money and having to think about getting permission to post a tomb guard.

Evening of course is the Saturday Sabbath 16th Nisan and the Sabbath day to evening of the new Sunday which is when the women can prepare spices and get over their upset so the problem of the closed tomb should strike them before they set out at daybreak.

So it does shake down other than you making this compulsory offering on Passover a 2nd Passover meal to be eaten , at least by the priests. If you can validate that, you win.

so what exactly was it you disagreed with? Either you show it or admit that you dismissed it without any good reason.