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

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #236]

What? You are saying the 14th day of preparation was also the day of the Sedar when the Passover was eaten? I'll check that

.(Wiki)The Passover begins on the 15th day of the month of Nisan, which typically falls in March or April of the Gregorian calendar. The 15th day begins in the evening, after the 14th day, and the seder meal is eaten that evening.

I also read that the 14th was the day all leaven was chased out of the house. That looks like the day of preparation but I'll check that, too.

Check away! While you're at it you might like to check my RELATED POSTS

When was the "day of preparation" ?
viewtopic.php?p=1082233#p1082233

When was "the first day of the Passover festival"?
viewtopic.php?p=1082286#p1082286

Why do modern Jews eat the Seder meal on the 15th Nisan and not the 14th?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 68#p894168

None of that answers anything nor is any help. It's just confusing. ...

Well then feel free to ignore it.





JW

very well,. Do I take it that you accept my (corrected) chronology? Not that it makes any difference to our disagreement which is whether John meant the Seder falling on the Saturday (as it seems to me) or that was on the day before - the last supper as in the synoptics, which would of course remove the contradiction. So like i say this isn't the toughest problem as even i could think up an excuse even if you couldn't. It's more because of stronger contradictions that I'm inclined to think that John was just wrong - as it looks.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, it seems that has been wrapped up and the John/Seder contradiction has an apologetic, though one I doubt. Clearly the Sanhedrin meeting was not 'Illegal' as someone suggested. It met in the morning as it should, but (and here is a tougher contradiction) John has no Sanhedrin assembly. The grilling was done first by Annas, head of the Boethius clan who controlled the Temple and there is no Sanhedrin hearing but Caiaphas takes Jesus to Pilate. The 'charge' makes no sense as a blasphemy charge as it is only Blasphemous in Christian terms, which the Jewish Sanhedrin had never heard. In just the same way in Matthew's nativity, Herod would not rush to the scriptures for a prophecy. Only a Christian would make the connection and when already tipped off that there was a Bethlehem scripture. It's the same slip the Gospel -writers (all Christians, I'll bet) having Gentiles who were actually pagans, manifesting a faith in Jesus that enables him to work miracles. But Faith in what? Jesus as messiah and son of God but a healer who could do magic? That isn't a saving belief. But the writers slip into thinking that it is. The message is anachronistic Pauline polemic that Gentiles were more worthy in Faith than the Jews.

In any case, Pilate isn't interested and he doesn't need to be told that Jesus is possibly dangerous. He was only in Jerusalem at the festival, with his full guard. to watch the Temple in case of trouble. He was there when Jesus knocked the tables over and knew exactly what he'd done. I won't pursue the implication of how Jesus could have done this with Pilate and 1,000 soldiers on hand, but I'll observe that the temple bust up is never, ever, even mentioned as a possible charge. Ever. If you want an elephant in the room, there's one right there. And note that the eventual charge is sedition. For all that John's gospels has the priests try to have Pilate blackmailed into it by a threat which would hardly have bothered Pilate if it was untrue.

A tradition is the Passover release. i get the impression that negative evidence is validated here because the absence of any record of such a custom is good evidence that there wasn't one. So why was it made up? To explain how Jesus was condemned and Barabbas released? If Pilate doing any such thing had to be explained, this 'custom' being invented would do it. But if not that, then what and why? A lot of theories were made up. Barrabbas being Jesus' son, and God knows what. But I argue that (and one other Bible critic came to the same conclusion) Jesus and Barrabbas are the same person, but the Jews reject the Christian Jesus and opt for the zealot Jesus and that is why the Romans trash the temple and 'take away our nation' (John 11.48) And you may bet the writers knew this polemic when they wrote their gospels, long after the Jewish war.

Another Tradition is about the prisoners and the penitent thief. I won't get into the 'insurrectionists' connection but the discrepancies. Mark and Matthew both say that the two 'robbers' reviled Jesus. John says nothing of that, and I can think of various excuses myself. Though again, the existence of many more contradictions makes this one look more than being 'left out' or 'not important'. But a real problem is Luke, yet again. He has the synoptic original with the two 'Robbers' railing at Jesus, but he can't help coming up with a better story. One victim rails at Jesus and Luke shows his christian mindset by supposing that the Christ (Messiah) can do magic and can save himself and the two victims. But the other robber repents, upbraids his mate and pleads to Jesus for something not quite clear, and Jesus (knowing the fellow's legs will be broken to push him into expiry before the day ends) says the pair will be hobnobbing in paradise before the Saturday starts. Amazing what Jesus preknows. as for all he knows they'll all still be on the nails into the Sabbath unless he knows the legs will be broken and he will die without that, and a number of amateur coroners will explain why Jesus 'dies' long before he should.

The problem is that this moving and memorable event is unknown to anyone else, even those who told that the two robbers abused Jesus. Isn't it clear that this cannot have happened and has not even been hinted at by any of the others? It is all of a piece with Lazarus, the declaration in the Temple and several of Luke's memorable parables. They take with them the spear thrust, No Transfiguration in John, no doubting Thomas in Luke, no Antipas at Jesus' trial in anyone but Luke, No tomb -guard but in Matthew, no Syrio -phoenecian woman in Luke or John and no Jerusalem church in Matthew, or indeed John or Mark. And that only undermines other stuff like no Lord's prayer in Luke's sermon, no revived dead man in anyone but Luke, the disciples recruited before Galilee in John, no Bethany anointing in Luke, the man with palsy in Jerusalem in John but Galilee in the synoptics. And to come back to the thread, Jesus does not identify Judas directly other than in John. Mark and Luke probably reflect the original text. The betrayer is one of them, and Matthew can't resist a rather clumsy screenplay to have Judas identify himself.
And the biggies drag the debatables down with them



and even the discrepancies that can be explained look as though there are real contradictions rather than John meaning some ongoing Passover that the priests were keeping clean for. He did mean the Seder. And now we think of it John does not do the eucharist. he does a footwashing ceremony that the synoptics leave out.

Although I'm sore the Christian apologists could shrug this off, it looks (if tougher contradictions are accepted) that it looks like a supper given contradictory religious meanings by two sources - John and the synoptic original source.

[JehovahsWitness]

Clearly the Sanhedrin meeting was not 'Illegal' as someone suggested.

The night trial was most certainly was entirely illegal on multiple counts.


WAS THE NIGHT TRIAL AGAINST JESUS LEGAL?

• Jesus was arrested without charge

• The Mishnah requires a capital trial to be held in the daytime (Sanhedrin 4:1).

• In cases of capital crime, no trial could be start on a Friday or the day preceding a national holiday

• The court itself was not permitted to instigate or formulated the charges

• Trials should begin with witnesses for the accused (Sanhedrin 4:1)

• Two witnesses who were in full agreement were required

• The accused was not to be put under oath preceeding his testimony

• The accused could not be convicted on his testimony or confession alone

• And Jesus’ testimony was not proved to be blasphemous.

• Proper voting procedure was not respected

• No guilty verdict can be issued on the same day as a trial (Sanhedrin 4:1).

• unanimous verdict of guilt should have lead to an immediate acquittal

• It was illegal for the judges to assault the accused

LUKE 23:4 New International Version

Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”

FURTHER READING :
https://robertcliftonrobinson.com/2014/ ... -of-jesus/
https://www.shroud.com/bucklin2.htm

To learn more please go to other posts related to
THE TRIAL OF JESUS , THE EXECUTION OF CHRIST and ... MEMORIAL OF CHRIST'S DEATH

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't see it as a trial. Rather a preliminary interrogation. Illegal or not. I had thought that you had referred to the Sanhedrin assembly which was not the same thing. The synoptics all have this night -time grilling in the house of the High priest, wil the well -known knocking about. The synoptics add on a Sanhedrin morning assembly to make a formal charge and John doesn't have that at all. It is just another discrepancy that has to be explained away.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #11

On the other hand, the last supper was eaten at the beginning of Passover, before the lamb for Passover was sacrificed.

On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrifice the Passover lamb, His disciples asked Him, “Where do You want us to go and prepare the Passover so You may eat it?” (Mark 14:12)

How could Jesus eat the last supper before the sacrificing of the passover lamb if the disciples didn't go out to prepare for the meal until the day the lambs were sacrificed?

Passover, or the preparation Day, was the 14th of Nissan, and starts on the previous evening after sunset of the 13th of Nissan (Tuesday). The unblemished lamb was to be prepared after noon on the 14th of Nissan (Wednesday). The high holy Sabbath, the day of Unleavened Bread, is the 15th of Nissan, was the reason Yeshua was supposedly buried prior to sunset of the 14th of Nissan (Wednesday sunset). The only sign that was to be given, was the sign of Jonah, which was 3 days and 3 nights in the earth (Mt 12:39-40), whereas that time period would end prior to sunset of the 7th day (Saturday) (John 20:1). As for the meal eaten, it was unleavened bread with wine, which was the "bread of life", the "Word of God", without the leaven of the Pharisees (Paul), which is hypocrisy, with the wine signifying the Spirit of God, which lives in the blood, symbolized by wine.

[TRANSPONDER]

Clearly the Sanhedrin meeting was not 'Illegal' as someone suggested.

The night trial was most certainly was entirely illegal on multiple counts.


WAS THE NIGHT TRIAL AGAINST JESUS LEGAL?

• Jesus was arrested without charge

• The Mishnah requires a capital trial to be held in the daytime (Sanhedrin 4:1).

• In cases of capital crime, no trial could be start on a Friday or the day preceding a national holiday

• The court itself was not permitted to instigate or formulated the charges

• Trials should begin with witnesses for the accused (Sanhedrin 4:1)

• Two witnesses who were in full agreement were required

• The accused was not to be put under oath preceeding his testimony

• The accused could not be convicted on his testimony or confession alone

• And Jesus’ testimony was not proved to be blasphemous.

• Proper voting procedure was not respected

• No guilty verdict can be issued on the same day as a trial (Sanhedrin 4:1).

• unanimous verdict of guilt should have lead to an immediate acquittal

• It was illegal for the judges to assault the accused

LUKE 23:4 New International Version

Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”

FURTHER READING :
https://robertcliftonrobinson.com/2014/ ... -of-jesus/
https://www.shroud.com/bucklin2.htm

To learn more please go to other posts related to
THE TRIAL OF JESUS , THE EXECUTION OF CHRIST and ... MEMORIAL OF CHRIST'S DEATH

You make some good points and some poor ones. I was referring to the idea that the Sanhedrin was not allowed to put anyone to death (John 18.31) Not in the synoptics. i understand that the Jewish Sanhedrin could issue the death penalty.though it should be ratified by the Roman governor. But you make some claims.

Jesus was arrested without charge Probably the charge should be formulated and was (rebellion) if it ever happened. but according to the gospels, it wasn't.
'
list]The Mishnah requires a capital trial to be held in the daytime (Sanhedrin 4:1).[/list] If the cock had already crowed (as the gospels say, 'daytime'wad started.
)

• In cases of capital crime, no trial could be start on a Friday or the day preceding a national holiday

where is the source for that claim?

• The court itself was not permitted to instigate or formulated the charges

where is the source for that claim?

• Trials should begin with witnesses for the accused (Sanhedrin 4:1)

Witnesses were of course there and if that was a requirement there is no reason why they should not do that.

• Two witnesses who were in full agreement were required

We can dismiss the gospel claim that they did not agree. Why would they assemble witnesses that had nothing to say? and if false, they would have been sure to see that they did agree.

• The accused was not to be put under oath preceeding his testimony

Your source for that?

• The accused could not be convicted on his testimony or confession alone

your source for that?But they had witnesses,twoof which agreed..It is surely not required that they agree on every detail; the Christian apologetic is that witnesses would not totally agree unless there had been collusion.

• And Jesus’ testimony was not proved to be blasphemous.

Who says so? The Sanhedrin certainly agreed it was. The personal testimony was forced under oath but the High priest declared it blasphemous.

• Proper voting procedure was not respected

How do you know? What was the proper voting procedure? Why is the request for Judgement and their verdice not 'shorthand' for a proper vote?

• No guilty verdict can be issued on the same day as a trial (Sanhedrin 4:1).

• unanimous verdict of guilt should have lead to an immediate acquittal

I certainly need you to clarify and validate that claim. In any case, isn't Arimathea, a member of the council,said NOT to have consented?

• It was illegal for the judges to assault the accused

Your source for that claim? In any case other gospels suggest it was the guards who did it.

That said, of course it is a mess. John had no trial but a hearing in the High Priests' house before Jesus is taken to Pilate. There is no Sanhedrin trial. The Blasphemy charge makes sense to a Christian as blasphemy because Son of God has Christian connotations that would make no sense to the Sanhedrin. This is a Christian story put into Jewish mouths, so no wonder they are made to look bad. Even the witnesses, two of which did agree in what mattered, were still said to 'not agree'. Finally,the charge of sedition, of which the fracas in the Temple might be evidence and for which he was actually executed,was not even mentioned.

The gospels are false witnesses, and even then they do not agree.

p.s I have checked on your refs. You have left out some of the ones you know are invalid, like Not only the priest can Judge, when the Sanhedrin was there, but he quotes John which isn't a Sanhedrin trial at all. But “The Sanhedrin could not originate charges; it could only investigate those brought before it”[10] Caiaphas having witnesses there could certainly have the 'charge' presented by someone.

“No session of the court could take place before the offering of the morning sacrifice.”[13] -M.M. Lemann
“The morning sacrifice is offered at the dawn of day. The Sanhedrin is not to assembly until the hour after that time.”[14] -The Mishna While that is a valid point, an apologist could argue (if needed) that at daybreak the offering was done, and the trialwas afterwards. After all, witnesses had to be brought in.

“They shall not judge on the eve of the Sabbath, nor on that of any festival”[16] -The Mishna Ok. so this seems illegal on many points, but this suggests not that it was done illegally but it was not done at all (especially as John has no trial) and made up to make the Sanhedrin look bad. Why, if it was not done according to correct form, would they do it at all? It is yet more indication that it is not reliable record, but made -up Christian polemic.

What need have we to look at your further claims?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #245

The unblemished lamb was to be prepared after noon on the 14th of Nissan

What are you meaning by "prepared" here?

[rstrats]

Tcg,
re: "Are there any Easter Traditions that are related specifically to Jesus' resurrection?"

Any that are will not have been taken from scripture since nothing is said about the practice.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #245

The unblemished lamb was to be prepared after noon on the 14th of Nissan

What are you meaning by "prepared" here?

The unblemished lamb is to be sacrificed, and the blood used on the door frames to dissuade the angels of death, and the lamb (Word of God made flesh/bread of life without leaven) to be completely eaten. Keep in mind, that the "preparation day" was the day when all leaven was to be thrown out of the house. Yeshua used the term "leaven" to signify "hypocrisy of the Pharisees" which would be comparable to the leaven (hypocrisy) of the Pharisees, such as the false prophet Paul. The angels of death/reapers are coming for the "wicked"/"sinners"/"tares" (Mt 13:30 & 49-50) to throw them into the "furnace of fire"/Har-Magedon (Rev 16) at the "end of the age".

[2ndpillar2]

Tcg,
re: "Are there any Easter Traditions that are related specifically to Jesus' resurrection?"

Any that are will not have been taken from scripture since nothing is said about the practice.

Well, Easter, the feast of Astarte/Ishtar, queen of heaven, is now scheduled on the day of the sun, Sunday, a Roman holy day of rest, to honor Constantine's sun god, Sol Invictus. Constantine also set up the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. which established Easter, which is in concert with the false "Christian" narrative of the death and resurrection of "Christ", which in fact does not correspond to the variable timeline with respect to the days of Passover, and the high holy feast of Unleavened Bread.
Also, Astarte/Ishtar/Easter, a pagan god, in relationship to Babylon the great (Rev 17), has a relationship with Babel, in which Bel, the sun god was Babel's god, and the egg (such as the Easter egg) was used in concert with Babel's king (Nimrod) death, much like the fir/Christmas tree being cut down and rebirthing every year from the stump as in respect to Nimrod. Ishtar/Easter was the god of fertility, and the egg being a symbol of fertility, and Ishtar mating with Bel (sun god), rebirthing Nimrod every year. The symbol of Ishtar/Astarte/Easter, the fertility goddess, was the egg. https://mystery-babylon.org/easter.html