Why is Easter on a Different Date Each Year?

[CoAspen]

Me thinks someone spends way to much reading about religious conspiracies.....This thread is mind boggling, for the wrong reasons!!

'Nonsense" is correct!!

[Samie]

Quote:

That's why all their objections were all adequately addressed via Scriptures.

Nonsense.

That's a bit unfortunate. I have shown Scriptures for my position. If showing Scriptural basis is nonsense, then Scripture is NONSENSE to the good pastor.

[Ron Amnsn]

That's a bit unfortunate. I have shown Scriptures for my position. If showing Scriptural basis is nonsense, then Scripture is NONSENSE to the good pastor.

Samie, just because you post some verses from the Scripture doesn't mean that the conclusions you jump to are actually taught in Scripture. I think the pastor was saying that your conclusions are nonsense. I would agree.

If I used your methods of proof-texting I could "prove" from Scripture that cannibalism is a good thing. My "proof" would be nonsense, just as your conclusion that Passover can only occur on the night of the astronomical new moon is nonsense.

[Samie]

...

Samie will not consider ANY OTHER YEAR FOR JESUS' BIRTH because another year may not fit his preconceived idea of a FOUR days Last Passover and a WEDNESDAY Abib 14.

THAT is where ALL Samie's NONSENSE originates from!

Now this is really NONSENSE, Bro Gerhard. The issue is year of Jesus' death, NOT birth. And please don't put your own words into another's mouth.

Proof that His death was in 31 AD:

1. He was baptized in 28 AD, 15th year of Tiberius as emperor (Luke 3:1,22,23), whose reign started in 14 AD.

2. There were 3 Passovers recorded after His baptism. The first two were those referred to in John 2: 13, 23 & John 6:4. The 3rd is the one where He ate Passover with His disciples on the night He was arrested.

3. The first recorded Passover could not possibly be in 28 AD, the year He was baptized. Why? Because after His baptism, he spent 40 days and 40 nights fasting. His first miracle after baptism was done at Cana shortly before the first recorded Passover. Since this Passover was on the night following sunset of the 14th of the first month of the year, counting at least 40 days backwards from the 14th of the first month, will bring us to the last month of the preceding year. This means that since He was baptized in 28 AD, the first recorded Passover was in 29 AD.

4. The next Passover would then be in 30 AD, and the last one in 31 AD.

5. The Lord could not have been crucified in 30 AD because that will only be the 2nd Passover, and the Bible specifies THREE.

Therefore, the Lord was crucified in 31 AD.

In 31 AD, the first full moon AFTER the vernal equinox was on Tuesday March 27. The Bible specifies that Passover is a full moon feast (Num 9;2, 3: Ps 81:3). The Lord through Whom God created the worlds (Heb 1:2), including the moon, could NEVER lose track of the lunar phases. He kept Passover on a full moon night and thus acted IN ACCORDANCE with law He said He came to fulfill. He was therefore crucified on Wednesday, March 28, 31 AD. After 3 days & 3 nights, He resurrected on "proi prote sabbatou" or "early morning of the chief Sabbath", Saturday, as the Greek Scriptures specify in Mark 16:9.

The 2nd full moon AFTER the vernal equinox in 31 AD was on Wednesday, April 25. If He was crucified Friday April 27, then the Savior would have eaten Passover on the night following sunset of April 26, Thursday, a day AFTER the full moon, and He would NOT have acted in accordance with the law. Moreover, there are only 2 days and 2 nights from a Friday crucifixion and early Sunday morning resurrection. The Savior specified 3 days and 3 nights (Matt 12:40).

Between March 28, 31 AD and April 27, 31 AD, the Biblical specifications point us to March 28, 31 AD as the crucifixion date of our Lord.

Objectors to this Biblically based position still call this NONSENSE.

[Gregory Matthews]

You should know better than to suggest that I suggest that Scripture is nonsense.

Here is what is nonsense:

Quote:

That's why all their objections were all adequately addressed via Scriptures.

It is the idea that you have adequately addressed the issues.

[Samie]

You should know better than to suggest that I suggest that Scripture is nonsense.

Here is what is nonsense:

Quote:

That's why all their objections were all adequately addressed via Scriptures.

It is the idea that you have adequately addressed the issues.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

The good Pastor can't even post any single valid objection.

I am selective as to what I respond to.

There is a difference between "can't" and "chooses not to."

The bottom line is: You do not decide the issues to which I respond.

However, thank you for calling me "good."

[Samie]

Quote:

The good Pastor can't even post any single valid objection.

I am selective as to what I respond to.

There is a difference between "can't" and "chooses not to."

The bottom line is: You do not decide the issues to which I respond.

However, thank you for calling me "good."

In that case, it looks like you have no valid basis in calling nonsense any possible response to that which you have not even tried objecting to.

And if you were trying to call nonsense my responses to the posted objections, at least, as a good Pastor, you need to justify your statement. Of course you choose not to because in reality you can't.

[Gregory Matthews]

There are many reasons why I am selective and do not respond to what has been posted:

1) I have a limited amount of time and I do not have the time to respond to everything posted here that needs a response.

2) Others have posted everything that I could post and I see no need to repeat it.

3) I have already posted what I would post and do not see a need to repeat what I have already posted.

4) Others have more expertise in the subject matter and I will let them post.

5) The posted question of not of enough importance for me to respond.

6) I do not think that I can have an honest discussion with the person who has posted.

7) I question the motive of the person posting. I am not here to argue with someone who simply wants to argue.

Samie, I could list other reasons. The above are several. As to which might apply to you, and which do not, I will remain silent on that.

The bottom line is: I do not have to justify my comments. If you think that I could not make a valid argument you simply do not understand.

I certainly am not going to post simply because someone demands that I do.

[Samie]

I don't demand for your post, Pastor. You can cite all the reasons in the world for not posting. But negatively branding somebody's post as nonsense without any justification is a different story, especially if it comes from an undershepherd of the flock. I think you are not acting in a Christlike manner, my dear brother in Christ.