Thr true nature of Passover.

[Owlswing]

The following was posted by a Christian on the "Christian Topic" as FACT.

That is the normal way of things, but the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread could occur on more than single, set day of the week.  Furthermore, the day of the Passover meal would have been the preparation day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread as the term 'Sabbath' was used for more than the weekly 'Saturday'.  It could also be used for a feast day.

Would anyone of the Jewish faith please confirm of deny or correct the quote?

PLEASE NOTE:I would rather have no responce to this question than have the usual load of old rubbish from theo who THINK that they know anything about Judaism and the Jewwish faith.

[jeremyp]

Have you tried Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover

The first thing to remember is that a Jewish day starts at sunset and lasts until the next sunset, which is why, in Genesis One, it says "and evening came and morning came" not "and morning came and evening came".

Passover begins on the 15th Nisan (Nisan is a month in the Jewish calendar) and lasts for seven days. The first and last days are Jewish holidays, basically like a normal Sabbath.

In the first century, before Passover began (on the 14th) it was traditional to sacrifice a lamb at the Temple and then eat it in the "Passover Seder", a ritual meal that began Passover (i.e. in the evening of the 15th).

As with our calendar, 14th Nisan could be any day of the week, so that part of Hope's post is correct. However, this bit

Furthermore, the day of the Passover meal would have been the preparation day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread

is technically incorrect. The preparation day was 14th Nisan, and the feast was eaten on 15th Nisan even though, to us they would appear to be the same day.

[Owlswing]

Have you tried Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover

The first thing to remember is that a Jewish day starts at sunset and lasts until the next sunset, which is why, in Genesis One, it says "and evening came and morning came" not "and morning came and evening came".

Passover begins on the 15th Nisan (Nisan is a month in the Jewish calendar) and lasts for seven days. The first and last days are Jewish holidays, basically like a normal Sabbath.

In the first century, before Passover began (on the 14th) it was traditional to sacrifice a lamb at the Temple and then eat it in the "Passover Seder", a ritual meal that began Passover (i.e. in the evening of the 15th).

As with our calendar, 14th Nisan could be any day of the week, so that part of Hope's post is correct. However, this bit

is technically incorrect. The preparation day was 14th Nisan, and the feast was eaten on 15th Nisan even though, to us they would appear to be the same day.

Are you a Jew? I said above I want the answer from a Jew.

[Nearly Sane]

Are you a Jew? If not shut up! I said above I want the answer from a Jew, first hand and not from half the population of the world from Goddess alone knows what sources!

I would rather have no reply at all.

So if one of the Christians told you not to post on a topic there because you obviously knew nothing about it and only Christians did, you would stop posting?

[jeremyp]

Are you a Jew? If not shut up!

No. This is a public forum. I gave the correct answer, one which you could have looked up yourself, if you had wanted.

By the way, how many Jews do you think post on this forum?

[Owlswing]

No. This is a public forum. I gave the correct answer, one which you could have looked up yourself, if you had wanted.

By the way, how many Jews do you think post on this forum?

Actiually I don't care how many do or not.

I posted:

One: I would rather have no responce to this question than have the usual load of old rubbish from those who THINK that they know anything about Judaism and the Jewwish faith.

Two: I would rather have no reply at all.

[Owlswing]

So if one of the Christians told you not to post on a topic there because you obviously knew nothing about it and only Christians did, you would stop posting?

Difference - I was brought up a High Anglican Christian - I gave it up at 15 - so I DO know something about it.

[ad_orientem]

Difference - I was brought up a High Anglican Christian - I gave it up at 15 - so I DO know something about it.

Yeah? You wouldn't know from your posts.

[Owlswing]

Yeah? You wouldn't know from your posts.

Shows how many of my posts you actually bother to read before slagging me off!

I also have the advantage that I live in the real world, not one where the fantasy and bigotry of one of the most pathetic and fundamentalist (look up fundament in the dictionary) and out of date sects of Chritianinty.

[ad_orientem]

Shows how many of my posts you actually bother to read before slagging me off!

I also have the advantage that I live in the real world, not one where the fantasy and bigotry of one of the most pathetic and fundamentalist (look up fundament in the dictionary) and out of date sects of Chritianinty.

Oh I've read your posts and they betray your lack of knowledge. Think of Orthodoxy as you wish but it does not change the fact that it is the one true faith and the Church our Lord Jesus Christ founded.

[Nearly Sane]

Difference - I was brought up a High Anglican Christian - I gave it up at 15 - so I DO know something about it.

You don't have to believe or have believed in something to know facts about it. I was never a Communist nor a believer in the Roman pantheon but I know quite a lot about both. I know what lot more about Christianity than I did when I theoretically gave it up when I was 13.


This is just another spurious attempt to create a faux authority similar to what Bash did with his 'ooh, ooh, I've got an ology' schtick,combined with a splash of (asking for) the Courtier's reply.

[Owlswing]

You don't have to believe or have believed in something to know facts about it. I was never a Communist nor a believer in the Roman pantheon but I know quite a lot about both. I know what lot more about Christianity than I did when I theoretically gave it up when I was 13.


This is just another spurious attempt to create a faux authority similar to what Bash did with his 'ooh, ooh, I've got an ology' schtick,combined with a splash of (asking for) the Courtier's reply.

Yeah - shame the question asked is not about Christianity then isn't it?

[Owlswing]

Oh I've read your posts and they betray your lack of knowledge. Think of Orthodoxy as you wish but it does not change the fact that it is the one true faith and the Church our Lord Jesus Christ founded.

And I have read yours.

You will never understand, in your blindness, that all your protestations that your church is the one true church of Christ and his apostles is no more than a belief, just as my religion is a belief, a matter of faith, nothing more.

No-one can fault you for the strength of your faith, but that does not change the fact that that is all it is, faith, and it has exactly the same probability of being right or wrong as every other religious and atheistic belief.

There is no way that you can prove your stance, I cannot prove mine, atheists cannot prove theirs - all there is is a balance of probabilty and for the most part this is that there is no god, no god of any religion, but I choose to have a belief and a faith in my deities.

The only difference between thee and me is that, being prepared to be wrong, the shock to me of finding upon my passing to the Summerlands that I am wrong will be far less traumatic than yours at the end of the same journey but to a slightly different destination - mine to the Summerlands, you to Heaven - supposing, of course, that either of them actually exist beyond our faith and belief.

[Hope]

The only difference between thee and me is that, being prepared to be wrong, the shock to me of finding upon my passing to the Summerlands that I am wrong will be far less traumatic than yours ...

And you have evidence to support this assertion, Matt?       If yopu are wrong, will you even reach the Summerlands?        I think that that passage alone shows how unwilling you are to find that you are wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

Yeah - shame the question asked is not about Christianity then isn't it?

As pointed out what it is about is irrelevant. You don't have to be a believer in a religion or a philosophy to know facts about it.

[Nearly Sane]

And you have evidence to support this assertion, Matt?       If yopu are wrong, will you even reach the Summerlands?        I think that that passage alone shows how unwilling you are to find that you are wrong.

Owlswing makes clear that there might not be what expects after death or indeed anything at all, you are misreading him.

[Owlswing]

And you have evidence to support this assertion, Matt?       If yopu are wrong, will you even reach the Summerlands?        I think that that passage alone shows how unwilling you are to find that you are wrong.

You really can be thick when you have a go at my beliefs - it is a shame that your skin is so thin when people have a go at yours.

If I am right I will travel to tbe Summerlands. Right up until the second after I draw my last breath I will continue to believe that that is my destination and none of your doubting can change that - my faith in that is as strong as yours that you will go to Heaven.

Neither of us will know the ultimate truth of the Summerlands, Heaven or Hell until that second after that last breath!

[Hope]

Owlswing makes clear that there might not be what expects after death or indeed anything at all, you are misreading him.

Am I?  After all, he says that "the shock to me of finding upon my passing to the Summerlands that I am wrong will be far less traumatic than yours".  If he is wrong, will he pass into the Summerlands?  By putting his case the way he did, he is assuming that he will pass into the Summerlands which, if he is wrong, won't exist.

[Owlswing]

Owlswing makes clear that there might not be what expects after death or indeed anything at all, you are misreading him.

An excellent summation of my post, sir!

However I do not expect the addressee to understand it anymore than he understood the original.

[Hope]

You really can be thick when you have a go at my beliefs - it is a shame that your skin is so thin when people have a go at yours.

Not having a go at your beliefs, Matt, but at your English language skills!!

If I am right I will travel to tbe Summerlands. Right up until the second after I draw my last breath I will continue to believe that that is my destination and none of your doubting can change that - my faith in that is as strong as yours that you will go to Heaven.

The issue with your previous comment is that you effectively said that your shock on passing into the Summerlands to find that you were wrong - i.e. that they don't exist - is a linguistic nonsense.

I have no problem with your beliefs - though I believe them to be erroneous.  I have no problem with you or anyone else questioning mine - though I believe that questioning to be mistaken.  If my "skin is so thin when people have a go at (mine)", why is it that I don't spend my time crying 'foul' whenever people challenge me, in the way that you seem to do so often?

[Hope]

An excellent summation of my post, sir!

Its a good summation of what I suspect you wanted to say, but it isn't a good summation of what is written in the post, Matt.

[Nearly Sane]

Am I?  After all, he says that "the shock to me of finding upon my passing to the Summerlands that I am wrong will be far less traumatic than yours".  If he is wrong, will he pass into the Summerlands?  By putting his case the way he did, he is assuming that he will pass into the Summerlands which, if he is wrong, won't exist.

Yes, and in part because you (a) are misreading this part and(b)  cut off the end of the sentence you quoted where he stated ' supposing, of course, that either of them actually exist beyond our faith and belief.'


As you so often point out, you have to read things in context,and given the prior statements in the post and the whole sentence, you are misreading him referring to what happens after death in the context of his belief as Summerlands, to the actual state after death.

[Nearly Sane]

Its a good summation of what I suspect you wanted to say, but it isn't a good summation of what is written in the post, Matt.

Yes, it is if you read the whole post rather than only read part of the sentence. I am beginning to doubt your motives here.

[Hope]

Yes, it is if you read the whole post rather than only read part of the sentence. I am beginning to doubt your motives here.

NS, I read the whole post, several times and as it stands I can see that what you have produced as a summary is clearly a summary of what i think Matt is trying to say, but only by reading between the lines and already knowing Matt's way of thinking.  As it actually stands, it actually says something different - namely that, once he passes in the Summerlands (indicating that they exist regardless of his belief or otherwise) he will only then discover whether or not they exist.  That doesn't make sense.

[Owlswing]

Not having a go at your beliefs, Matt, but at your English language skills!!
The issue with your previous comment is that you effectively said that your shock on passing into the Summerlands to find that you were wrong - i.e. that they don't exist - is a linguistic nonsense.

I have no problem with your beliefs - though I believe them to be erroneous.  I have no problem with you or anyone else questioning mine - though I believe that questioning to be mistaken.  If my "skin is so thin when people have a go at (mine)", why is it that I don't spend my time crying 'foul' whenever people challenge me, in the way that you seem to do so often?

In your way you do just that - cry foul - I mean.

But you do it by linguistic juggling - what others call "wriggling". You write something, someone calls you on it as being either inaccurate or entirely wrong and you claim that you have been misunderstood or misinterpreted.

And if you were not calling me out on my beliefs it is the first time in heaven knows how long that you haven't included a poke at paganism - either overt or veiled - and usually in support of the monkey on the rock!