Dr. Gipp's "Wrong Answer Book"...

Actually, Frank, we see that by Jesus' time on earth, it had become impractical for many Israelis to come to Jerusalem for passover, and originally Israel had observed passover in each family's tent. Also, most Jews bought their paschal lambs, as many of them were in non-agrarian professions by then.
Jesus' "family" at that time was His disciples, so they ate the paschal meal together. And I certainly don't believe JESUS woulda eaten the passover on the wrong day! The "two paschal meal" theory just doesn't make any sense in the face of the super-legalistic Jewish leadership of that day, who woulda had a legitimate reason for slaying Jesus had He eaten paschal on the wrong day, and who certainly would NOT have done so themselves, careful as they were to observe every jot & tittle of the OT law.

Sportzz Fanzz, we're(myself included) getting off on a tangent away from the theme of this thread, which is Dr. Gipp's "Wrong Answer Book".

 

The Jews in the area/time of Jesus' crucifixion observed sundown as the beginning of their new day, as they wanted the men on the crosses dead & their bodies taken down before sundown.

And, based upon my extensive reading of history and religious observances, I simply don't believe the "two passover" stuff at all. The Jews woulda reacted very violently to anyone performing what they woulda considered a desecration of passover. History shows even the Romans respected passover until Hadrian decided to kick them outta the Roman Empire. Besides that, even if the 'two-passovers' thingie were true, it was the JEWISH RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIP who busted Jesus, refused to enter the Roman Praetorium lest they become ceremonially defiled, and who wanted the crucified men dead & their bodies taken down before sunset, who requested Pilate post guards at Jesus' tomb, etc, etc. These men certainly observed passover & ate their paschal meals at the same time Jesus did.

The simple fact is, GOD reminded the Jews that passover is A WEEK LONG in Ezekiel 45:21, and that John, knowing this, considered the special unleavened meals eaten during this week to be parta passover, as is evident in John 18:28. Dr. Gipp is simply WRONG in saying Peter was busted AFTER passover.

 

Winman:: You will find not one word of Jesus and his disciples eating the passover lamb at the last supper.

Winman, you're totally WRONG about this!

1. Luke 22:7
   Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.
2. Luke 22:8
   And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.
   Luke 22:7-9 (in Context) Luke 22 (Whole Chapter)
3. Luke 22:11
   And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
4. Luke 22:13
   And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
5. Luke 22:15
   And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

Now, it's a gimme that if they killed the passover,they ate it. According to Ex. 12, it was to be killed in the evening and eaten that night.(And they didn't have Frigidaires then.) So, the disciples obtained a lamb, and found the house with the upper room according to Jesus' instructions, killed the lamb, & prepared it and the other food/drink before sunset. Then, after sunset, Jesus and the disciples ate the meal, which HAD to have included the paschal lamb, according to God's instructions for observing passover.

And that day that began the previous eve at sunset was the same day the paschal lamb was eaten as that day began, & the same day in which Jesus was busted, crucified, and died before sunset. It was also the preparation day for one of the two Holy Convocations that took place during Passover Week, according to Ex. 12: 16. These Holy Convocations were called "High Sabbaths", in which the rules for the regular weekly Sabbath were followed, as well as the special rules applying for that particular High Sabbath. All special observance days were High Sabbaths, whether they fell on the regular weekly Sabbath or not. The special rules for the High Sabbath occurring during passover were that all leaven (yeast) was to be removed from all homes & that only unleavened meals were to be eaten, and including unleavened bread.
This is why the Jews wanted the bodies removed from the crosses & entombed before sunset, so they wouldn't be there when the High Sabbath of the Convocation day began. So, Winman, you're wrong yet again.

Ezekiel 45:21
In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

Here, GOD is reminding the people that passover is a WEEK LONG, and not just the paschal lamb meal. This is why John mentioned in John 18:28 that the Jewish leadership did not wanna become ceremonially defiled by entering the Roman Praetorium & thus not being allowed to eat the special unleavened passover meals

This is just another attempt to justify "Easter" in Acts 12:4 by saying 'pascha' meant something other than passover in this one instance out of the 29 in which this word appears in the NT Greek mss. Sorry, butcha just pulled another "Casey At The Bat".

 

I believe the SCRIPTURES over anything man sez. Now, JESUS sent His disciples to PREPARE THE PASSOVER. Yes, they killed the lamb & prepared it before sunset, and after sunset, they ATE THE PASSOVER they had prepared, same as all other Jews did at that time.

The clincher is: ]Luke 22:15;;;"And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:"

And then, in V16, they were eating & drinking! Scripture covers only the most-important things that took place at this meal, not every mouthful that each man took.

Now, if ya wanna go on arguing they didn't eat the paschal lamb at that time, take it up with JESUS, who said he was EATING THIS PASSOVER. It wouldn't be eating passover if they hadn't eaten the lamb!

This is nothing but an attempt on your part, Winman, to get around GOD'S words in Ezekiel 45:21, reminding Israel that passover is a WEEK LONG, which is a Back-Way-Bennie attempt to say passover was not ongoing, but Easter was, when Peter was busted according to Acts 12. Well, it won't work. When Peter was busted, PASSOVER WEEK WAS ONGOING according to Luke; Easter didn't then exist!

Again, I believe what SCRIPTURE ACTUALLY SEZ, & not any man's faulty interp of it. And it plainly sez that JESUS ATE PASSOVER WITH HIS DISCIPLES shortly before He was busted. Try as ya might, you simply CANNOT make anything else outta what it plainly sez!

 

By his silence, Winman admits defeat.