The Crucifixion Not Friday

[Saber Truth Tiger]

Saber Truth Tiger said:

Please tell us what day of the week you think Jesus died on. Lay your card on the table please. You seem afraid to tell us which day of the week Jesus died.

REVELATION LAD
Your position is littered with inconsistent logic. First you insist Nisan 15 could not be called a Sabbath because only servile work was prohibited.

SABER TRUTH TIGER

I did not say it could not be called a Sabbath. I said it could not be called a Sabbath scripturally. Of course someone can call Nisan 15 a Sabbath because not only do the Jews do it, but so do you.

REVELATION LAD

Then you say people spoke idiomatically with respect to Sabbaths, Passover, and the meaning of a day.

SABER TRUTH TIGER

Yes, the Jews often used an idiom for the word day and used the days of Unleavened Bread idiomatically when they called them Passover.

REVELATION LAD

Historically, Judaism observed and continues to observe Nisan 15 as the Sabbath by which Shavuot is determined, but none of these matter because the people who routinely disregarded Biblical terms, did not do so with respect to Nisan 15, despite using that day to count the days to Shavuot.

SABER TRUTH TIGER

By scripturally, I don’t mean the LXX translation of the Hebrew but the English translations of the Hebrew Bible. The KJV, the NASB, the ESV and LSV are all good translations of the Hebrew according to many Hebrew scholars. The Jews worship on the wrong day. Their celebration of Shavuot is on the wrong day.

REVELATION LAD
As to which day Jesus died, I think John's Gospel states in was Nisan 14. Jesus was sacrificed as the Passover Lamb. Like the first Passover His blood was used to mark the cross in three places: each hand and the feet.

Now please tell me is it Biblically correct to observe Passover on Friday every year?

SABER TRUTH TIGER

No. You know better. Read my posts # 81 and # 82 in this thread.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

SABER TRUTH TIGER

Yes, the Jews often used an idiom for the word day and used the days of Unleavened Bread idiomatically when they called them Passover.

Response:
Wouldn't calling a day like the first day of Unleavened Bread, "Sabbath" be using the term idiomatically?

Saber Truth Tiger
Yes. However, the issue is this: Is Nisan 15 a Sabbath in the eyes of God? If the Jews idiomatically called Nisan 15 a Sabbath, not only would God not approve, because it will change the whole calendar. Calling the days of Unleavened Bread Passover does not alter the calendar. The days remain the same no matter what you call them. Call Nisan 15 the Passover Sabbath though and you alter the calendar and throw off, not only the Sabbath of Passover week, but the day of Shavuot too. In any case, Jesus died the day before the Sabbath. That meant he died on a Friday. You can't prove that Friday was the Sabbath the year Jesus died.

One thing to keep in mind is the Church has claimed the Sadducean calendar as the calendar that was in existence when Jesus died circa 33 CE. Not that they had to, but it has been generally accepted the Sadducean calendar was in use when Jesus died and that has been believed for 2,000 years. You will accept the 2,000-year tradition argument when it comes to calling Nisan 15 a Sabbath, but you will not accept the 2,000-year tradition argument when it comes to using the Sadducean calendar.

Calendars Old and New - The Whole Counsel Blog

One piece of recent Orthodox history and continued current controversy that often strikes those first learning about the church as odd is the controversy between the old and new, or Julian and revised Julian, calendars. For those outside the church, and even some inside, this controversy may...

blogs.ancientfaith.com

Type "the official Sadducean calendar" into the find engine when you open the window,(CTRL+F)

Sadducee | Description, Doctrines, & Facts | Britannica

Sadducee, member of a Jewish priestly sect that flourished for about two centuries before the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem in 70 ce. The Sadducees were the party of high priests, aristocratic families, and merchants—the wealthier elements of the population.

www.britannica.com

Jewish Sects: Sadducees

by Fred A. Shewmaker Origin, Influence, and Theological Outlook via Truth Magazine, XVI: 10, pp. 6-8 January 13, 1972 The Sadducees were second in importance to the Pharisees of the five Jewish Sec…

www.lavistachurchofchrist.org

Who were the Sadducees? | GotQuestions.org

Who were the Sadducees? What is a Sadducee? Why was there so much conflict between Jesus and the Sadducees?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I know it's "Good Friday" and many celebrate the crucifixion as being on a Friday, but it really couldn't have been because

Contrary to that view, it indeed was Friday, and the three days and nights in question were Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The Church has consistently held this understanding for two thousand years. The Thursday theory, often proposed by those who interpret three days to mean a minimum of 72 hours, is a misconception. It has been debunked numerous times and will be addressed once more in this thread. Yet, it is likely to reemerge next year.

 

[JSRG]

If this is true, why is the day of the resurrection called the day after the Sabbaths? If there is never anything other than a weekly Sabbath at this time of year, then why does each writer say Sabbaths?

There are various cases of the word Sabbath, even though a single Sabbath is being referred to, being used in the plural in Greek in the Bible. For example, Matthew 12:1 and Luke 4:16 in Greek have Sabbath be plural even though there is only one Sabbath being referred to.

 

[JSRG]

History refutes all of our claims. The people of the Diaspora called Nisan 15 "Sabbath" and they used the Biblical definition of Sabbath to observe Shavuot, They did so in Babylon and that practice continues to this day. People did not use scriptural definitions to refer to the special days on the calendar. As to the day of the week. This is the basis for the debate. It has no bearing on whether people called Unleavened Bread "Passover" or Nisan 15 "Sabbath." Nor does the day of the week of the crucifixion or resurrection have any bearing on salvation.

Can you provide evidence of this?

With all the back-and-forth I am having a little trouble following what is going on, but I believe your contention is that Nisan 15 (commonly called Passover), while not referred to as a Sabbath in the Old Testament, started to be referred to as such by Jews, and that this usage is in the New Testament. Not counting the New Testament itself (as that is what the dispute of interpretation is about), can you provide instances--preferably in Greek, as that was the language of the New Testament--of people referring to Passover as a Sabbath around the New Testament period? I haven't seen evidence of this offered here, but could have missed it in all of the text.

 

[Aaron112]

I see no point in a debate.

• Titus 3:9
  "Avoid foolish debates, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless".
  
  
• 2 Timothy 2:23-26
  "Stay away from foolish and stupid arguments. You know that these arguments grow into bigger arguments.
• Jesus never (apparently) debated with His disciples , nor with His enemies/ opponents/ religious folk or leaders.

 

[Revelation Lad]

Can you provide evidence of this?

With all the back-and-forth I am having a little trouble following what is going on, but I believe your contention is that Nisan 15 (commonly called Passover), while not referred to as a Sabbath in the Old Testament, started to be referred to as such by Jews, and that this usage is in the New Testament. Not counting the New Testament itself (as that is what the dispute of interpretation is about), can you provide instances--preferably in Greek, as that was the language of the New Testament--of people referring to Passover as a Sabbath around the New Testament period? I haven't seen evidence of this offered here, but could have missed it in all of the text.

That is not correct. Passover is Nisan 14. There is no question it is not a Sabbath (although in some years it can fall on a Sabbath - like Christmas a holiday observed by day of the month will fall on different days of the week). The next 7-days are called Unleavened Bread (part of my comments point out the Feast of Unleavened was incorrectly called Passover - that may be a source of confusion). The first day of Unleavened Bread is Nisan 15. This is a day on which the people are required to have a holy convocation and to avoid servile work. It is like the weekly Sabbath, but the prohibition on work is not as strict, and "technically" it is not a Sabbath. During the 7-days of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Firstfruits is to be observed on the day after "the Sabbath." Within Judaism there is a question as to whether the "Sabbath" to use for Firstfruits is Nisan 15 or a weekly Sabbath. The proper interpretation IMO is weekly Sabbath. Nevertheless, Firstfruits is observed on Nisan 16 a practice Josephus recorded. Therefore, based on the similarity with the weekly Sabbath, Nisan 15 was considered "the Sabbath" which established the day of Firstfruits which in turn established the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot). IOW the historical record is Firstfruits has been observed on Nisan 16 for 2,000 years. Therefore, within Judaism, Nisan 15 is a Sabbath. This is undisputed although Saber Truth claims this was not the practice during Jesus life. He states the Josephus reference is to post-resurrection times.

Based on this practice there would be two "Sabbaths" at the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. All four Gospels use the plural Sabbaths to describe the resurrection and the practice of calling Nisan 15, "Sabbath" would account for this. Therefore, Jesus died on the Passover and He rose from the dead on the Feast of Firstfruits. Very significant.

The problem is this means Jesus must be in the tomb for at least 2 full days, Nisan 15 and the weekly Sabbath, and this is contrary to the tradition of Good Friday/Easter Sunday. Some claim the death was Thursday, some say Wednesday, but realistically, we should just stick to the days of the month, Nisan 14, 15, 16, 17.

An additional complication is when the Passover meal is to be eaten. On the first Passover it was eaten on Nisan 15. Therefore, if one observed the Passover exactly as the first, the lamb is killed before sunset on Nisan 14, cooked and eaten on Nisan 15. There is reasonable interpretation of the command that the meal is to be eaten on Nisan 14 - "This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations, as a statute forever, you shall keep it as a feast." (Exodus 12:14) This accounts for the current practice within Judaism to eat the Seder meal on two consecutive nights, the first in Israel and the second by those outside Israel. There is good evidence of the practice of Jews in the Diaspora observing Feast Days for two consecutive days in order to prevent observing it on a day different from those in Jerusalem. We have to remember at this point in history, the Jews were not using a "scientific" calendar like we do where the days of the month are determined in advance. They used a lunar calendar and relied on manual sighting of the new moon to set the first day of the new month. They intercalated a thirteenth month when needed to keep the lunar calendar somewhat aligned with the solar.

Personally, the most important aspect of the resurrection is that it occurred on the Feast of Firstfruits following crucifixion on Passover.

 

[Revelation Lad]

There are various cases of the word Sabbath, even though a single Sabbath is being referred to, being used in the plural in Greek in the Bible. For example, Matthew 12:1 and Luke 4:16 in Greek have Sabbath be plural even though there is only one Sabbath being referred to.

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath(s)...how do we know it was a single Sabbath? Matthew could be describing something the disciples did during the harvest time. The main point, which should not be overlooked, is Jesus and His disciples were observing the requirement of a holy convocation on the Sabbath. Every Sabbath dispute includes Jesus and His disciples going to the synagogue, or Temple; there is one in which we are told only of a Sabbath meal (Luke 14). But they observed the Sabbath.

However, even if we are to see this as a single Sabbath, why is it not called "first day of the week" as the plurals are at the resurrection? One of my objections in this debate is how the rules are changed willy nilly to fit a particular interpretation, and the actual text is often ignored. If the plural means first day of the week, translate consistently. It is clear the Gospels understand both the singular and plural Gospels before His crucifixion and resurrection. Why is what was established earlier changed?

 

[JSRG]

That is not correct. Passover is Nisan 14. There is no question it is not a Sabbath (although in some years it can fall on a Sabbath - like Christmas a holiday observed by day of the month will fall on different days of the week). The next 7-days are called Unleavened Bread (part of my comments point out the Feast of Unleavened was incorrectly called Passover - that may be a source of confusion). The first day of Unleavened Bread is Nisan 15. This is a day on which the people are required to have a holy convocation and to avoid servile work. It is like the weekly Sabbath, but the prohibition on work is not as strict, and "technically" it is not a Sabbath. During the 7-days of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Firstfruits is to be observed on the day after "the Sabbath." Within Judaism there is a question as to whether the "Sabbath" to use for Firstfruits is Nisan 15 or a weekly Sabbath. The proper interpretation IMO is weekly Sabbath. Nevertheless, Firstfruits is observed on Nisan 16 a practice Josephus recorded. Therefore, based on the similarity with the weekly Sabbath, Nisan 15 was considered "the Sabbath" which established the day of Firstfruits which in turn established the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot). IOW the historical record is Firstfruits has been observed on Nisan 16 for 2,000 years. Therefore, within Judaism, Nisan 15 is a Sabbath. This is undisputed although Saber Truth claims this was not the practice during Jesus life. He states the Josephus reference is to post-resurrection times.

Again, your claim (as I understand it) is that the "Sabbath" after the Resurrection was Nisan 15, not the weekly Sabbath, and that although the Old Testament never referred to it as a Sabbath, people started calling it that even though it was not technically a Sabbath day, which is what the New Testament was doing.

I have seen people make this sort of claim, but no one has ever offered any instances of people clearly referring to Nisan 15 as a Sabbath from that time period as evidence. Which is why I asked for instances of where this happened... but I'm not seeing you providing any here.

EDIT: Having reviewed some earlier posts, I think I understand what the argument here is (again, there is so much text and back and forth it is difficult to keep track of what is being argued). Leviticus 23 discusses Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread. The days of Unleavened Bread begin on Nisan 15 and last for 7 days. The first day (Nisan 15) requires a sacred assembly and no work, akin to a Sabbath but not referred to as such. It then mentions that the priest should wave the sheaf of grain "the day after the Sabbath" and people can then eat the grain. Modern Jews differ amongst themselves as to how to interpret Sabbath in this context, with some thinking it refers to the next weekly Sabbath (Karaites), others seeing it as the day in which there is the sacred assembly with no work (Rabbinic Jews), and apparently Ethiopic Jews think it refers to the last day of Passover.

Saber Truth Tiger earlier quoted Josephus as mentioning that on the second day of unleavened bread, Nisan 16, "they first partake of the fruits of the Earth." So the argument appears to be that if Josephus is saying this happens on Nisan 16, this corresponds to the "day after the Sabbath" which would make the Sabbath Nisan 15, and thus the argument is that, while Josephus does not explicitly identify it as such, it shows the first day of Unleavened Bread was regarded as a Sabbath by him.

So this does indeed seem to be a case (implicitly) of viewing it as counting as a Sabbath, but it not being explicit confused me. This certainly counts as being around the New Testament period, it does post-date the Gospels. Saber Truth Tiger's assertion (as I understand it now) is that since this is a post-Temple practice (and early second century), it does not necessarily reflect the beliefs or practices in the period of the writing of the Gospels.

 

[JSRG]

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath(s)...how do we know it was a single Sabbath? Matthew could be describing something the disciples did during the harvest time. The main point, which should not be overlooked, is Jesus and His disciples were observing the requirement of a holy convocation on the Sabbath. Every Sabbath dispute includes Jesus and His disciples going to the synagogue, or Temple; there is one in which we are told only of a Sabbath meal (Luke 14). But they observed the Sabbath.

It appears quite strongly it is talking about a single Sabbath because it is talking about a specific event on it; Mark 1:21 seems even more clear on that point.

However, even if we are to see this as a single Sabbath, why is it not called "first day of the week" as the plurals are at the resurrection? One of my objections in this debate is how the rules are changed willy nilly to fit a particular interpretation, and the actual text is often ignored. If the plural means first day of the week, translate consistently. It is clear the Gospels understand both the singular and plural Gospels before His crucifixion and resurrection. Why is what was established earlier changed?

A pluralizing of the word for Sabbath does not by itself make it mean first day of the week. In the instances where it is translated as first day of the week(Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, Acts 20:7, and a few others) it is preceded by the adjective word for "one" (meaning first here), in this case in the dative case for a singular feminine noun (μιᾷ, "mia"). No noun is specified for which this "first" is modifying, but the word for day in Greek is feminine, which fits quite nicely here. The word for Sabbath is in the plural genitive; nouns in the genitive case can normally be translated by putting the word "of" before the noun. But in this particular idiom, the word for "sabbaths" actually means week, so it translates out to "first [day] of the week" (an alternate possibility for this phrase's origin is that it is saying one day away from the Sabbath). This idiom is not used particularly often in Greek writings--which makes sense, we don't have many Jewish writings in Greek, and all of the non-Jewish authors didn't have any reason to make use of a Hebrew idiom--but it can be found in a few other documents; for example, when the early Christian document the Didache (Chapter 8) says hypocrites fast on the second and fifth day of the week, it uses the same phrase (including the plural genitive Sabbath) but changes the adjective to be two (δευτέρα, deutera) and five (πέμπτῃ, pempte) instead of one due to it referring to the second and fifth days of the week rather than the first.

 

[Revelation Lad]

Again, your claim (as I understand it) is that the "Sabbath" after the Resurrection was Nisan 15, not the weekly Sabbath, and that although the Old Testament never referred to it as a Sabbath, people started calling it that even though it was not technically a Sabbath day, which is what the New Testament was doing.

I have seen people make this sort of claim, but no one has ever offered any instances of people clearly referring to Nisan 15 as a Sabbath from that time period as evidence. Which is why I asked for instances of where this happened... but I'm not seeing you providing any here.

EDIT: Having reviewed some earlier posts, I think I understand what the argument here is (again, there is so much text and back and forth it is difficult to keep track of what is being argued). Leviticus 23 discusses Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread. The days of Unleavened Bread begin on Nisan 15 and last for 7 days. The first day (Nisan 15) requires a sacred assembly and no work, akin to a Sabbath but not referred to as such. It then mentions that the priest should wave the sheaf of grain "the day after the Sabbath" and people can then eat the grain. Modern Jews differ amongst themselves as to how to interpret Sabbath in this context, with some thinking it refers to the next weekly Sabbath (Karaites), others seeing it as the day in which there is the sacred assembly with no work (Rabbinic Jews), and apparently Ethiopic Jews think it refers to the last day of Passover.

Saber Truth Tiger earlier quoted Josephus as mentioning that on the second day of unleavened bread, Nisan 16, "they first partake of the fruits of the Earth." So the argument appears to be that if Josephus is saying this happens on Nisan 16, this corresponds to the "day after the Sabbath" which would make the Sabbath Nisan 15, and thus the argument is that, while Josephus does not explicitly identify it as such, it shows the first day of Unleavened Bread was regarded as a Sabbath by him.

So this does indeed seem to be a case (implicitly) of viewing it as counting as a Sabbath, but it not being explicit confused me. This certainly counts as being around the New Testament period, it does post-date the Gospels. Saber Truth Tiger's assertion (as I understand it now) is that since this is a post-Temple practice (and early second century), it does not necessarily reflect the beliefs or practices in the period of the writing of the Gospels.

That is fairly accurate. The potential confusion for you is the same the Jews would have. In favor for the practice of calling it Sabbath: 1. It’s a reasonable use of the term. Both days require a holy convocation and prohibit work. Clearly people used Biblical terms idiomatically and calling it Sabbath is not a significant misapplication. 2. It agrees with the accounts which have Sabbaths. 3. It agrees with Josephus. 4. It is how the day is considered today.

The argument against is it is not a Sabbath in the legal sense. Additionally, they argue Sabbath is never used except for the weekly Sabbath, but that is an argument based on the assumption it is true. If an annual day of no work was called Sabbath, how would it be distinguished? Example, Matthew’s plural in 12:1 could be referring to a period with both weekly and annual Sabbaths. Finally, if these days were not callled Sabbath, how did people refer to them? No one disputes the people observed them and there is no record of any other term being used. The idiomatic use of Sabbath is logical.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

That is fairly accurate. The potential confusion for you is the same the Jews would have. In favor for the practice of calling it Sabbath: 1. It’s a reasonable use of the term. Both days require a holy convocation and prohibit work.

Both days are a holy convocations. One forbids any work and is called a Sabbath and the other forbids servile work and is not called a Sabbath. Therefore, calling Nisan 15 a Sabbath is not a reasonable use of the term. Working on the Sabbath on the weekly and Yom Kippur was so serious it called for the death penalty to work on them. There was no corresponding death penalty for working on any of the other annual assemblies.

Clearly people used Biblical terms idiomatically and calling it Sabbath is not a significant misapplication.

Yes, it is a significant misapplication. One, Nisan 15 was not a Sabbath and if you call it the Passover Sabbath then it throws the whole calendar off. Shavuot will no longer fall on the day of the year it is supposed to fall on.

2. It agrees with the accounts which have Sabbaths.

Like what accounts?

3. It agrees with Josephus. 4. It is how the day is considered today.

Josephus, a Pharisee agrees with it. No surprise there but it doesn't prove Nisan 15 is a Sabbath. Furthermore, the fact it is considered a Sabbath today proves nothing. People celebrate Friday as the crucifixion date today and have done so for almost 2,000 years. According to your logic, then someone who observes the crucifixion on Friday is right because it has been such a long tradition.

The argument against is it is not a Sabbath in the legal sense. Additionally, they argue Sabbath is never used except for the weekly Sabbath, but that is an argument based on the assumption it is true.

That is not true, there are three Sabbaths. 1) the weekly Sabbath, 2) the Yom Kippur Sabbath and 3) the Land Sabbath. You argue that Nisan 15 is a Sabbath but that is an argument based on the assumption it is true. You claim that since they misnamed the days of Unleavened Bread then therefore, they misnamed Nisan 15 as a Sabbath. One does not logically follow from the other.

If an annual day of no work was called Sabbath, how would it be distinguished?

I have answered this a hundred zillion times. It would be called a holy convocation.

Example, Matthew’s plural in 12:1 could be referring to a period with both weekly and annual Sabbaths. Finally, if these days were not callled Sabbath, how did people refer to them? No one disputes the people observed them and there is no record of any other term being used. The idiomatic use of Sabbath is logical.

What is your evidence that Matthew 12:1 is referring to a period with both weekly and annual Sabbaths? The people referred to these non-Sabbath holy days as holy convocations, not Sabbaths, that was to distinguish them from the weekly Sabbath and the Yom Kippur Sabbath. Leviticus 23 provides the record of another term being used other than Sabbath and that is holy convocation. The idiomatic use of Sabbath is not logical when you consider all factors. God is the owner of the term Sabbath and holy convocation, not man. God called Nisan 15 a holy convocation not a Sabbath. When man mishandles the scripture and calls Nisan 15 a Sabbath, it throws off the waving of the Omer and Shavuot.

 

[Revelation Lad]

Again, your claim (as I understand it) is that the "Sabbath" after the Resurrection was Nisan 15, not the weekly Sabbath, and that although the Old Testament never referred to it as a Sabbath, people started calling it that even though it was not technically a Sabbath day, which is what the New Testament was doing.

I have seen people make this sort of claim, but no one has ever offered any instances of people clearly referring to Nisan 15 as a Sabbath from that time period as evidence. Which is why I asked for instances of where this happened... but I'm not seeing you providing any here.

EDIT: Having reviewed some earlier posts, I think I understand what the argument here is (again, there is so much text and back and forth it is difficult to keep track of what is being argued). Leviticus 23 discusses Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread. The days of Unleavened Bread begin on Nisan 15 and last for 7 days. The first day (Nisan 15) requires a sacred assembly and no work, akin to a Sabbath but not referred to as such. It then mentions that the priest should wave the sheaf of grain "the day after the Sabbath" and people can then eat the grain. Modern Jews differ amongst themselves as to how to interpret Sabbath in this context, with some thinking it refers to the next weekly Sabbath (Karaites), others seeing it as the day in which there is the sacred assembly with no work (Rabbinic Jews), and apparently Ethiopic Jews think it refers to the last day of Passover.

Saber Truth Tiger earlier quoted Josephus as mentioning that on the second day of unleavened bread, Nisan 16, "they first partake of the fruits of the Earth." So the argument appears to be that if Josephus is saying this happens on Nisan 16, this corresponds to the "day after the Sabbath" which would make the Sabbath Nisan 15, and thus the argument is that, while Josephus does not explicitly identify it as such, it shows the first day of Unleavened Bread was regarded as a Sabbath by him.

So this does indeed seem to be a case (implicitly) of viewing it as counting as a Sabbath, but it not being explicit confused me. This certainly counts as being around the New Testament period, it does post-date the Gospels. Saber Truth Tiger's assertion (as I understand it now) is that since this is a post-Temple practice (and early second century), it does not necessarily reflect the beliefs or practices in the period of the writing of the Gospels.

Not exactly. Nisan 15 immediately follows Passover so Sabbaths refers to Nisan 15 and the weekly Sabbath (which fell on Nisan 15 or Nisan 16).

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

Again, your claim (as I understand it) is that the "Sabbath" after the Resurrection was Nisan 15, not the weekly Sabbath, and that although the Old Testament never referred to it as a Sabbath, people started calling it that even though it was not technically a Sabbath day, which is what the New Testament was doing.

I have seen people make this sort of claim, but no one has ever offered any instances of people clearly referring to Nisan 15 as a Sabbath from that time period as evidence. Which is why I asked for instances of where this happened... but I'm not seeing you providing any here.

The first time some Jews began using Nisan 15 as a Sabbath was probably when they spent 70 years of servitude in Babylon. Prior to that, the Hebrew Bible was the only Bible the Jews had, (the Pentateuch and maybe a few others). In the Hebrew Scriptures, Leviticus 23 refers to the weekly Sabbath in verse 11. The Seder was followed sometimes days later by the weekly Sabbath and the day after that was the waving of the Omer. The waving of the Omer always happened on a Sunday according to the Hebrew. Beginning with the waving of the Omer (Sunday) there was a seven Sabbath countdown, with the first Sabbath falling on the seventh day of the countdown, and the second Sabbath falling on the fourteenth day of the countdown, and so forth. The seventh Sabbath was the 49th days of the count and the day after the seventh Sabbath was Shavuot (Pentecost), a Sunday, the fiftieth day. It could fall on any day of the month in the third month of the Jewish calendar in use at that time.

EDIT: Having reviewed some earlier posts, I think I understand what the argument here is (again, there is so much text and back and forth it is difficult to keep track of what is being argued). Leviticus 23 discusses Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread. The days of Unleavened Bread begin on Nisan 15 and last for 7 days. The first day (Nisan 15) requires a sacred assembly and no work, akin to a Sabbath but not referred to as such.

It wasn't referred to as such because it was not a Sabbath. If you read Leviticus 23 carefully you will see there are eight holy convocations. One of them was the weekly Sabbath and it forbade ANY work. The annual holy convocattion called the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippuur) was also called a Sabbath and it forbade ANY work. The other six annual holy convocations forbade servile work and never mentioned forbidding ANY work. They were not called Sabbaths. Only the weekly Sabbath and the Day of Atonement Sabbath prescribed the death penalty for breaking them but the other six annual holy convocations did not demand the death penalty for breaking them. This reveals the Creator took the Sabbaths very seriously and would not accept someone changing what days were Sabbaths and what days were not.

It then mentions that the priest should wave the sheaf of grain "the day after the Sabbath" and people can then eat the grain. Modern Jews differ amongst themselves as to how to interpret Sabbath in this context, with some thinking it refers to the next weekly Sabbath (Karaites), others seeing it as the day in which there is the sacred assembly with no work (Rabbinic Jews), and apparently Ethiopic Jews think it refers to the last day of Passover.

The Sadducees believed the Sabbath referred to be the weekly Sabbath and that was the way it was when Jesus was alive. It was only changed some 20 years after his death when Pharisee Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai became the head of the Sanhedrin in 50 CE, and he was able to yield his power to seize control of what day was Sabbath and what day was Shavuot. Josephus writes in 94 CE, more than 60 years after the death of Jesus and by then the Temple had been destroyed and the Sadducees had ceased to exist. Therefore, the Pharisee reckoning became dominant and has been dominant ever since. The scriptural approach is to believe any day that forbade ANY work was a Sabbath and the days that forbade servile work were not called a Sabbath.

Saber Truth Tiger earlier quoted Josephus as mentioning that on the second day of unleavened bread, Nisan 16, "they first partake of the fruits of the Earth." So the argument appears to be that if Josephus is saying this happens on Nisan 16, this corresponds to the "day after the Sabbath" which would make the Sabbath Nisan 15, and thus the argument is that, while Josephus does not explicitly identify it as such, it shows the first day of Unleavened Bread was regarded as a Sabbath by him.

Yes, Josephus believed the Pharisee interpretation of the Nisan 15 Sabbath and the Pharisees have dominated Jewish thought ever since. The Pharisees switched the day after the Sabbath to be "the day after the first day" which referred to the first day of Unleavened Bread and hence Nisan 15 became a Sabbath. The change was first recorded in the Septuagint mistranslation of Leviticus 23:11, 15. I have posted about this extensively in posts #81 and #82 in page 5 of this thread. After Jesus died circa 33 CE the Pharisees eventually regained control of the Temple and with it changed the Nisan 15 to Sabbath.

So this does indeed seem to be a case (implicitly) of viewing it as counting as a Sabbath, but it not being explicit confused me. This certainly counts as being around the New Testament period, it does post-date the Gospels. Saber Truth Tiger's assertion (as I understand it now) is that since this is a post-Temple practice (and early second century), it does not necessarily reflect the beliefs or practices in the period of the writing of the Gospels.

That is true, The Sadducees controlled the celebrating the Omer on the day after the weekly Sabbath. Again, see my posts #81 and #82 on page 5 of this thread. Leviticus 23:11 and Josephus implicitly refer to Nisan 15 as a Sabbath. But the LXX is a mistranslation (really a misinterpretation) and Josephus is simply referring to the Pharisee reckoning of Nisan 15, neither prove Nisan 15 was a Sabbath when Jesus walked the earth.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

With respect to the issue of work. It appears you misunderstand what I am saying. If a person uses Sabbath as an idiom for Nisan 15, then they will do no work, as if it were a Sabbath. In so doing they are following a more stringent prohibition. That means they failed to do things which were permissible. There would never be a violation of the law because they were following a more restrictive ordnance. There is no problem in not doing work which was permitted. There is no problem if someone decides they want to follow the Sabbath restrictions on Nisan 15. Just as there is no problem if someone chooses to avoid leaven outside of Nisan 15

With respect to the issue of work. It appears you misunderstand what I am saying. If a person uses Sabbath as an idiom for Nisan 15, then they will do no work, as if it were a Sabbath. In so doing they are following a more stringent prohibition. That means they failed to do things which were permissible. There would never be a violation of the law because they were following a more restrictive ordnance. There is no problem in not doing work which was permitted. There is no problem if someone decides they want to follow the Sabbath restrictions on Nisan 15. Just as there is no problem if someone chooses to avoid leaven outside of Nisan 15-21.

With respect to the issue of work. It appears you misunderstand what I am saying. If a person uses Sabbath as an idiom for Nisan 15, then they will do no work, as if it were a Sabbath. In so doing they are following a more stringent prohibition. That means they failed to do things which were permissible. There would never be a violation of the law because they were following a more restrictive ordnance. There is no problem in not doing work which was permitted. There is no problem if someone decides they want to follow the Sabbath restrictions on Nisan 15. Just as there is no problem if someone chooses to avoid leaven outside of Nisan 15-21.

Revelation Lad, when you quoted my post #120 in your post #123, why did you remove your comments that I responded to you in #120? Never mind, I understand what happened.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

With respect to the issue of work. It appears you misunderstand what I am saying. If a person uses Sabbath as an idiom for Nisan 15, then they will do no work, as if it were a Sabbath. In so doing they are following a more stringent prohibition. That means they failed to do things which were permissible. There would never be a violation of the law because they were following a more restrictive ordnance. There is no problem in not doing work which was permitted. There is no problem if someone decides they want to follow the Sabbath restrictions on Nisan 15. Just as there is no problem if someone chooses to avoid leaven outside of Nisan 15-21.

Jesus didn't approve of Pharisees using more stringent prohibitions on the Sabbath so I doubt he would approve of someone using more stringent prohibitions making Nisan 15 a Sabbath. The Pharisees were condemned by Jesus for making more rigorous application of the no work law on the Sabbath. If the people were to follow a more restrictive Sabbath type rule for a non-Sabbath, they probably would not be approved of by God. Your own righteousness superseding the law. None of this proves Nisan 15 was a Sabbath.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

It proves that calling it a Sabbath would not result in breaking the law. Also, you need to be consistent in your logic. I’m sure Jesus did not approve of calling Unleavened Bread, Passover, but that is what people did.

If a Pharisee was alive during the time of Jesus called Nisan 15 a Sabbath it wouldn't mean he was sinning. He was just giving his opinion, and it did not affect the celebration of the Omer on Sunday after the Seder. I am sure Jesus did not approve of the people calling the days of Unleavened Bread Passover either, but it didn't alter the law of God to do so. Nobody was hurt and the Law of God's holy convocations were not changed. He did not approve of the Samaritans multiple husbands but did not make a big issue out of it. However, if a whole sect gained control of the government and changed the Sabbath from the weekly Sabbath to Nisan 15 and altered the course of the Shavuot count, I believe Jesus would have been disturbed by such behavior. It is ironic that on the year Jesus died both the Sadducean and the Phariseean calendar coincided and the Omer and Shavuot happened at the same time.

More to the point, what normal work prohibited on the Sabbath would be done on a day like Nisan 15?

Any work that was considered servile. We don't know for certain what kinds of work that means, but scholars claim it meant work at your occupations or strenuous labor. If that is so, then working on a damaged piece of furniture inside the house would be ok, for example.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

You appear to be overstating the issue. Calling Nisan 15 Sabbath does not change the weekly Sabbath, anymore than calling Unleavened Bread Passover changes Unleavened Bread. Using an idiom does not redefine what is called idiomatically. Also I think the fact the difference in work prohibited is vague adds credence to using Sabbath as an idiom. If the difference is obscure or not well understood, what is the practical difference?

Changing the Passover Sabbath from the weekly Sabbath to the first day of Unleavened Bread does change the Passover Sabbath. Before the Nisan 15 Sabbath became a thing, the weekly Sabbath during Passover was called the Passover Sabbath. It is true the weekly Sabbath was still existing but after the change Nisan 15 became known as the Passover Sabbath. The waving of the Omer and the countdown to Shavuot was affected. Calling the days of Unleavened Bread Passover does not change the order of the days in the calendar. If what you call a day changes the calendar order of days, then there is a problem. You say the difference in work is vague.

There is a big difference. Prohibition of ANY work compared to don’t work at your job or do not do strenuous labor is quite a difference. Under Sabbath rules you could not fix a broken piece of furniture in your own home, for example. Yahweh was reasonable though. He made exceptions in rare cases, as in a case where a life, human or animal, was at stake. It does not add credence for using the Sabbath as an idiom. Sabbath was not an idiom in the Bible. It may be an idiom for some people today, but people took Sabbath seriously when Jesus was alive. The practical difference is calling the right day Sabbath. There is a difference between NO work and no servile work. If I didn’t have to go to work at my place of employment but needed to do some work in the yard, I was allowed to do that.

 

[Revelation Lad]

Changing the Passover Sabbath from the weekly Sabbath to the first day of Unleavened Bread does change the Passover Sabbath. Before the Nisan 15 Sabbath became a thing, the weekly Sabbath during Passover was called the Passover Sabbath. It is true the weekly Sabbath was still existing but after the change Nisan 15 became known as the Passover Sabbath. The waving of the Omer and the countdown to Shavuot was affected. Calling the days of Unleavened Bread Passover does not change the order of the days in the calendar. If what you call a day changes the calendar order of days, then there is a problem. You say the difference in work is vague.

There is a big difference. Prohibition of ANY work compared to don’t work at your job or do not do strenuous labor is quite a difference. Under Sabbath rules you could not fix a broken piece of furniture in your own home, for example. Yahweh was reasonable though. He made exceptions in rare cases, as in a case where a life, human or animal, was at stake. It does not add credence for using the Sabbath as an idiom. Sabbath was not an idiom in the Bible. It may be an idiom for some people today, but people took Sabbath seriously when Jesus was alive. The practical difference is calling the right day Sabbath. There is a difference between NO work and no servile work. If I didn’t have to go to work at my place of employment but needed to do some work in the yard, I was allowed to do that.

There is no such thing as Passover Sabbath.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

You make the point it was Pharisees who had the practice of calling Nisan 15, Sabbath. That being the case, let’s consider Matthew 12:1-2 (YLT) “At that time did Jesus go on the sabbaths through the corn, and his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck ears, and to eat, and the Pharisees having seen, said to him, `Lo, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do on a sabbath.'” Matthew uses the plural, Sabbaths. The Pharisees protest the disciples are doing that which is not lawful on a sabbath (singular). How can you say with certainty the sabbath the Pharisees are speaking of is a weekly sabbath and not a day like Nisan 15?

Since Nisan 15 is not a Sabbath scripturally and the Jews did not use Nisan 15 as a Sabbath then we know that the plural Sabbaths is an idiomatic expression and not speaking literally of two different days. There are Greek scholars who claim this, this is not something I made up.