Featured Where is this other Jewish Calendar?

Yes. Mark does not necessarily contradict John.

The Pharisees did observe 8 days while the Temple observed 7.

What's your point?

 

It is in the Bible insofar as Mark would have reported what he had observed (like your admission that Nisan 1 may not have started on time).

When we completely ignore history we make Christianity a myth rather than historical.


The day of preperation for the Passover is 14 Nisan. The festival was ongoing.

Thus far you deny John's account, Mark 16,

Why did Galilean Jews observe 8 days? Because the Pharisees believed the Law belonged to the people (same reason they changed a few ceremonial practices).

Why did other Jewish sects observe Pasdover even earlier (and ignored the Temple Passover)? Because they focused on other issues as central to tge Hebrew faith and believed (rightly on this one) that the Temple was corrupt.


Point is that Mark simply tells us what he observed. Was this 13 or 14 Nisan? By Mark 14 we don't know.

Given tge focus of Christ on the Pharisees, and the background of Jesus' disciples (and Jesus Himself in relation to the synagogues), there is no reason to dismiss 13 Nisan so quickly as the Disciples would probably have observed both.

But by John's statement that the Friday Jesus was crucified was the preperation day for Passover we can arrive at a good idea.

And, of course, if Jesus' baptism was an actual historical event then we know 30 AD is too early a date.

 

We all know the Temple (Sadducees and Judean Jews) observed 7 days while the rest of the Jews (and Pharisees) observed 8.

We all know the Sadducees observed 14/15 Nisan as the day of preparation and the Passover while the Pharisees observed 13/14 in addition.

We are not stupid. We know history because we have made the effort to read and study.



What you cannot tell us is if Mark was referring to the Galileans killing the Passover on the 13th or the Temple Passover on the 14th.

But John tells us that Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover and the day before the Sabbath.

That pretty much tells us Mark was observing the killing on 13 Nisan.

 

You are wrong.

Mark 14:12 does not specify Nisan 13 or 14. If it was observation then Mark was speaking of 13 Nisan as he was outside of Jerusalem.

John 18 tells us four things important here:

1. It was the Day of Preperation (which falls on 14 Nisan)

2. The Passover was the next day.

3. The next day was a Sabbath.

4. That Sabbath was also a "high day".

The Day of Preperation is not during the feast.

The Passover can refer to either Passover or Pasdover with the feast included (7 or 8 days depending on the group).

Passover never means the "second day of the feast".


You ignore history, ignore Luke's dating of Jesus' baptism, ignore John's description of the day Jesus was crucified, apply a calendar not used at that time, ignore Jesus arising on the 3rd day (you say the 4th day), and ignore 3 days and nights.

You have chosen a year that is too soon, a Hebrew date that is contrary to Scripture.


We cannot know the exact date as a fact. But we can know that your date is wrong.

 

The OP has been answered, BTW.

There are three distinct periods for the Hebrew Calendar:

1. The Biblical Hebrew Calender
2. The Talmudic Hebrew Calendar
3. The Post-Talmudic Hebrew Calendar

For those willing to read history the development of the Modern (calculated) Hebrew Calendar is very interesting.

 

The first thing you need to decide is whether or not the crucifixion is historical.

IF the crucifixion is historical THEN it occurred during history.

This means Mark would have observed such things as Temple abuses, the conflict between Jewish sects, and the Passover being killed on 13 Nisan. Mark may have also observed the Passover being killed on 14 Nisan as well.

IF, however, the crucifixion is a nonhistorical myth occurring only within a mythology THEN you are correct and we can ignore history all together.

So which is it? Is the crucifixion historical or mythological?

 

Mark did not say "per Exodus".

He could have said exactly what he observed.

You assume Mark was speaking of the Temple observance rather than the observance on 13 Nisan.

To deny history is a serious error.

Mark could have been talking about Nissan 13 or 14. Why? Because we know that both were observed and Mark did not specify.

It is an error to create a Christian mythology of the crucifixion that stands outside of history.

Jesus was baptized in 28 AD or between 28 AD and 29 AD. We know this because Luke dates Jesus' baptism off of a historical event.

We know the killing of the Passover could be referring to 13 or 14 Nissan because this was a historical event.

We know that Julius Ceasar died 15 March 44 BC because this was a historical event.

We know the 1st century Jews utilized a pre-Talmudic calendar because history reports their method.


You are denying that the crucifixion is an historical event by removing it from a historical context.

 

Yes. And in the 1st century the Temole (and Sadducees) only observed 14 Nisan.

But you don't know that Mark was speaking of this date because of the Jewish factions (some interpreted the meal as being at twilight at the beginning of Nisan 14...with the killing of the Passover on 13 Nisan....and others (the Sadducees) on twilight at the end of Nisan 14 (Passover meal on the 15th).

It does not matter how we interpret Exodus.

What matters is the events in the 1st century AD that Mark observed.

You simply ignore history.

 

The Bible doesn't. History does.

It is a matter of history. We know of 1st century practices because they were recorded in history.

The Bible doesn't teach that Tiberius started his reign in September 14 AD. We know this because it is recorded in history.

You seek to make the crucifixion a non-historical event, to make Christianity itself a mythology existing apart from actual history.

That is wrong.