Talk:Passover (Christian holiday)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Neutral Point of View 2 Judaism 3 holy day vs holiday 4 {{totallydisputed}} & {{not_verified}} 5 Jesus does not equal Passover 6 Passover, not Easter 7 The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed 8 RfC 9 Bacchiocchi and translations 10 Replaced totallydisputed 11 folar 12 SIMPLE proof that Passover and First Day of Unleavened Bread are SAME DAY!

[edit] Neutral Point of View

My main concern is with the sidebar, but since I think the section NPOV tag wouldn't work well in that format I added the article tag instead. The sidebar presents the viewpoint of a small minority as if it were undisputed fact. If nothing else, it cites Samuele Bacchiocchi as if he were an unbiased source, which by itself is sufficient to tag it IMO, and it's discussion of the origin of "Easter" is both highly controversial (although not really presented as such) and an irrelevancy that can only be included to cloud the issue. To an extent the main article veers toward a pro-Quartodeciman POV, although it's not as serious there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that TCC is familiar enough with the Quartodeciman beliefs to say that the main article "veers toward[s]" it, but suggests that the historocity of the beliefs is questionable! The Quartodecimen believed that the Christian Passover was different from the Jewish Passover only in the fulfillment of Christ as the Passover Lamb; the date (Nisan 14) remained the same -- hence the label 'Quarto-deci-man', meaning, people who celebrate on the 14th, as opposed to the any-date that the following Sunday might fall on. The differences between the Christian Passover and Easter should also be obvious facts -- Easter celebrates the resurrection, Passover the death of Christ. If these things arn't known to you from other sources, then the information contained in this article should have revealed it to you.

I for one, do not understand what is being called into question here as controversial! Bacchiocchi can express historical and qualitative facts like anyone else; it would only be his conclusions that should be questioned. The statement that Easter and the Christian Passover are different is demonstrated just by the existance of this WikiPedia article entry!

What I don't understand is, what is Non-neutral about this article? If one writes an article about nuclear reactions, it is not necessary to mention that roses are red! This article is about the CHRISTIAN PASSOVER, NOT EASTER or the JEWISH PASSOVER, though it is good practice to mention how they developed into the different observances that they have and what, if any, relationship they have with one another.

It seems to me only a matter of censorship. Some people don't want certain facts made know to the public. They want to hide the FACT that Easter may have developed from Pagan origins; something theologians and scholars have known for centuries!

The sidebar, presents the facts: Easter and the Christian Passover are different! Polycarp believed they were different! Polycrates believed they were different! And the fact that this article even exists, shows that there are differences and that there are still people today who believe that they are differnt.

So, I ask again, What is the POV problem? — ASmolderingWiki 07:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain why you felt the need to respond to a 6-month old comment, but allow me to clarify anyway. The "pro-Quartodeciman POV" I was referring to when I said the article "veers towards" it was that of those in the modern day who claim to hold this position and in fact celebrate the holiday this article is supposed to be describing, not the historical Quartodecimanism represented by certain 1st-4th century Asian local Churches.

What you are saying here is simply false. "Easter" (by which name it is known in only two languages out of the dozens and dozens spoken by those who celebrate it) is demonstrably not of pagan origin, as the historical record clearly indicates. That record must be very carefully edited and parsed in order to support Bacchiocchi's ideas, e.g. that Polycarp understood the feast he and the Church of Rome were observing to be in fact two different feasts. Again, the record clearly indicates that the dispute was over the day on which the fast was to be broken, not on the nature of the feast itself.

In most languages other than English and German (where it has acquired a name derived from the name of the month in which it usually fell) it is called by a cognate of the Greek word meaning "Passover". In other words, Easter is even named Passover in most places.

Your ideas about censorship are the merest fantasy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you still have not made the situation clear. One, or both, of us is not seeing what the other is.

Much of what you have said, I agree with. I just don't see the relevance. I begin to suspect that the problem is in the name of the article! The problem arises from other languages using a name similar to 'Pascha' to describe their Christian celebration. This is only my short sightedness. I agree that this is an error that needs to be rectified.

I did say "MAY have developed from Pagan origins." In fact, the REASONS behind the Roman church changing, and insisting on their change, is not known. Actually, I believe that its original development was from the belief that the resurrection was more important than the sacrifice — the Pagan symbols were added later.

It is, however, a fact that the Roman Church insisted on a time that was different from the Quartodeciman observance.

Yes, the history of the controversy states explicitly that it was about the end of the fast; but what was it that ended the fast? The eating of the communion (Bread and Wine)! So, the end of the fast and the observance of the communion ceremony are semantically the same. Note, I did not call it the Passover, so as not to lead to confusion. I believe, from my studies of the subject, that BOTH observances were originally CALLED Passover, because the Sunday following the Passover propper would fall within the week of Passover; and the same ceremonial observance of the Bread and Wine was used to break the fast for each group.

As for Bacchiocchi, he was only a sounding board I used to state what should be obvious, that the two observances are different, regardless of the name. Schaff does not use the term 'Easter', but makes the same statement. And neither one is used to imply or support any "Pagan origin" viewpoint.

So, once again, and still, I don't see what the POV controversy is about! — ASmolderingWiki 18:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Rome didn't change. We're dealing here with two independently derived apostolic traditions, one probably from John (the Quartodeciman) and one probably from Peter (the Sunday observance). That both sides believed themselves to be following Apostolic traditions is the reason they decided it was really a non-issue in the days of Polycarp.

You are incorrect in the ending of the fast. (The length varied from 3 days to 40 depending on era and place. It is now at least nominally 40 days uniformly.) The Lord's Supper was celebrated at regular intervals, not merely on the Pascha, and even during the fast. The Roman tradition for the dating was supported by the habitual observance everywhere of "the first day of the week", the Lord's Day, as a remberance of the Resurrection. It was natural want to arrange the calendar so that the main Resurrectional celebration also occurred on that day. That naturally placed the observation of the Crucifixion on a Friday, uniformly. That the Pascha really begain with this event was never forgotten, so even today the church of Rome speaks of the "Pascha Triduum". It has, over time, come to be considered very inappropriate to begin feasting on the day of the Crucifixion. In all traditional churches, this is a day of strict fasting. The breaking of the fast, which begins immediately following the Lord's Supper on the day of the Resurrection in all traditional churches, naturally became the focus of the celebration just because that's when a celebration seemed more appropriate. But the observances are continuous, really during the whole week following Palm Sunday, but especially beginning on the day of the Crucifixion.

Remember, at the time the bishop of Rome had no power or authority to impose any kind of dating on anyone else. The idea of the Papacy came much later on. The Roman dating was adopted everywhere in a gradual, organic fashion. By the time it was universally imposed, not by the bishop of Rome but by the First Council of Nicaea, only a small number of Asian churches were still using the Quartodeciman calculation.

The POV problem is evident in the title and first sentence of the sidebar. Easter is the Passover, pure and simple. This is the position of all traditional Christian churches, so to say otherwise as if it were plain fact is non-NPOV. Schaff, who is normally reliable, provides a very convenient quote here, but it's important to note he's not translating but providing his own interpretation. "Pascha stavrosimon" does not mean "Passover proper" it means "Passover of the Cross" just as the corresponding "Pascha anastasimon" means "Passover of the Resurrection". (Although I note a certain cherry picking in the use of Schaff's chapter. The relevant section is titled, "The Christian Passover (Easter)." He also discusses the Lord's Day at some length. But he is a very old source, and some of his historical information has been rendered obsolete since.)

The "Eostre" claims and putative lapine associations are another kettle of fish altogether.

By the way, it's better to log in, rather than post unlogged in and add a fake sig and time tag. I can tell you've done this because your IP address instead of your username appears in the history. (You also put the wrong time in the timetag.) Logging in assures everyone that you are who you say you are, and facilitates communication via your user talk page should anyone want to. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is astounding! What historical evidence do you present to support such an idea as two contending Apostolic traditions? The letter by Irenaeus suggests only that the Roman custom of observing 'Passover' on the following Sunday started with Sixtus, in the early 2nd century; nothing about any Apostle! “Anicetus... felt obliged to abide by his predecessors' custom...”. Never any indication that the predecessors extend back to any Apostles. You're impressing a reason where there is no historical evidence.

You use the term “traditional churches” purposely to exclude the many churches that do not follow the “traditional” doctrines – for example, those that follow Apostolic doctrines. This article is not, and never was, about the doctrines of the “traditional churches”, as is stated at the head of the article.

“The breaking of the fast, which begins immediately following the Lord's Supper...” Fasting while eating! That's an interesting concept.

You say “naturally” as if there could be no other way. However, the Quartodecimen are proof that there is another way, and there was nothing natural about the spread of the Roman calculation of observing the resurrection as Passover. Victor, “exerted himself to bring other churches into line with the Roman practice of celebrating it on the Sunday following the 14th of the Jewish month Nisan (Passover day). At his instigation synods were held both at Rome and at other centres from Gaul to Mesopotamia, and majority opinion sided with him. The churches of Asia Minor, however, refused to abandon the age-old Quartodeciman custom of observing Easter [Passover] on the 14th Nisan, whatever the day of the week on which it fell.” (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, by J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford University Press, p. 12)

“...only a small number of Asian churches were still using the Quartodeciman calculation.” Where do you come by a statistic on the number of churches still adhering to the Quartodeciman calculation? Such statistics, (even for "mainstream" churches) is not reliably available even today!

“Easter is the Passover, pure and simple.” Now there is bias if there ever was any!

If you've got evidence that Schaff's comment is in error, present it. Otherwise, you're just filling this page with empty words.

The whole problem seems to be that the title “Christian Passover” can be applied to the resurrection celebration as well as the memorial of Christ's death. However, all that is needed is a page that is about the one and a header on this one that directs people to the other. Ah! But we already have that! The article 'EASTER' is about the resurrection Passover celebration, and the header on this article directs people who are interested in that subject to that page. If you think the header is not clear enough, then by all means, edit it.

This article is about the Passover acording to the Quartodeciman calculation, not the resurrection Passover. Pure and simple. There is no POV here! ASmolderingWiki 20:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Belated Postscript:

I see that the answer to the POV problem is to remove the sidebar; a solution I was going to suggest. The only reason I installed the sidebar in the first place was to satisfy those who were looking for the difference and relation between "Easter" and the Christian Passover (Quartodeciman calculation). ASmolderingWiki 20:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

PPS:

Oh. It's been incorporated into the main article. That's interesting. But glad to see the "POV disclaimer" removed. ASmolderingWiki 20:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what TCC says above. -- 67.161.46.135 04:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it is not the origin of Easter that is controversial, but the origin of its name and associated traditions. Therefore, both prevailing pov's on this are presented in the side bar. And though Bacchiocchi is biased, his research on this aspect of the subject is in accord with most biblical and religious scholars; hence, the adjacent quote from a less controversial source. I've striven to present all the facts in as npov as I can and still present all the facts. — ASmolderingWiki 17:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The origin of modern Pascha as presented here is indeed controversial, since the allegation is being made that it is not derived from the Jewish Pascha. And I'm sorry, but Bacchiocchi is not at all mainstream in either secular or religious circles.

Of course, the origin of the English-language name is also controversial, and it is not presented here at all in an unbiased way. Scholarly consensus is now moving to the idea that Bede was just guessing about Eostre, the problem being that this "goddess" is absolutely unattested anywhere in Germanic myth except for his sole mention. One might expect that a goddess sufficiently important to have a month named after her would be at least mentioned somewhere else. But she isn't. And as I said, it's irrelevant anyhow. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the article has been edited since these comments were posted, but I don't understand quite if it is the connection between Passover and Easter that is being diputed for NPOV or ther derivation of the name "Easter." Kail Ceannai 20:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Both. The claim that "Easter" was immediately derived from this hypothetical "Eostre" goddess, which may or may not have ever existed, as opposed to the month in which it usually occurred "Eostremonath", is controversial. The claim that modern Easter (called "Pascha" or something similar throughout most of the Christian world, derived from Hebrew "Pesach", or Passover) is somehow not the Christian Passover is also controversial and on balance false. The sidebar relies on Samuele Bacchiocchi as a source, but he's hardly unbiased and his ideas are not widely accepted outside his own religious circles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I believe ems has his own concerns which, if I understand them correctly, have to do with tying the "Christian Passover" as celebrated by some too closely with the Jewish observance. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel that not only content a problem for this article, but also how things are stated, in terms of NPOV.

"...Christians believe that it is not Jesus who is a picture of the Passover, but the Passover that is a picture of Jesus. The external ritual of sacrifice instituted in the Old Testament by God is a weak representation, "a shadow," of the larger things that were to come in Jesus."

"...that distinguishes Christianity from other faiths."

"...any discussion of the Christian passover must be informed by a discussion of the Christian Jesus."

Even if these statements are correct, they are stated with an air of obvious, and necessity (such as using 'Christians believe, instead of 'some Christians believe', calling the Jewish passover 'weak', in the first quote; the setting alone of Christianity of the second quote, instead of stating 'which is unique'; and using 'must' instead of 'should' or even 'usually should' in the third.) At the very least, it is obvious that a supporter of such things wrote the article, and does not consistantly flow with the rest of wikipedia, nor the ideals and philosophy thereof. I feel this article presents some valid views, but most are clouded in an air of a 'holier than thou' POV, instead of a NPOV. Wikkany Lion 14:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There are problems here, but not as many as you see, IMO. The overwhelming majority of Christians hold the beliefs characterized here, so "some Christians" is misleading. In fact, the majority is so large that an unqualified "Christians" is not inaccurate. I don't see a need to qualify every sentence either, once the context of describing the belief has been established. I agree with your second example. While the third is also true in the light of the above, I think it's rather awkwardly phrased. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism

Please try not to be misleading and use Jewish-only terms in this article, this is not appirated. eg. usage of the Jewish Calander. ems 15:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] holy day vs holiday

I talked to Robchurch, and I was told to revert the reverting, of my fixing this mistake, as long as it is within the 3RR. If the dearest IP that reverted my fixing, could explain in English to why he claims it should be 'holy day' instead. ems 17:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Though the word 'holiday' is derived from 'Holy Day', it no longer has the same meaning. 'Holiday' has come to mean 'vacation' and has little or nothing to do with being holy — that is, nothing to do with God. This article deals with a religious HOLY day — that is, a day ordained by God. If this were an article about some national day of observance, then holiday would be appropriate. Not so here. It is an offense to call it holiday.

I very much disagree. In the article on Christmas, a very healthy discussion was had, and decided upon the statement "Christmas (literally, the Mass of Christ) is a traditional holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus..." Here I cite a few comments that ended the discussion and led to the use of the above quote.

• • "What are you talking about? Christmas is a secular HOLIDAY in as much as it is recognized as such by many governments around the world. Perhaps some people see it as holy, but calling something a holiday doesn't imply that it cannot have a religious aspect. In fact, it may imply just the opposite. The compound term holy day in contrast emphasizes the holiday's religious aspects and thus creates bias." Theshibboleth 06:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Holiday and Holy Day are etymologically synonymous. The "War on Christmas" is a witch hunt. Go read the gospel again and pay attention to the parts where pharisees and do-gooders pestered Jesus about such trivialities and he reminded them over and over again the they can stop worrying about petty conflicts and get back to their duty to love one another." --Dystopos 14:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This was an accepted conclusion to the same argument we see here. Therefore, I call on consistancy, and say that Holiday should be chosen. 須藤 18:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but do not believe it is important enough to bother with any further. ASmolderingWiki 21:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{totallydisputed}} & {{not_verified}}

Added {{totallydisputed}} and {{not_verified}} templates because this article has the identical problems of the Feast of Trumpets (Christian holiday) and Day of Atonement (Christian holiday) articles. IZAK 10:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

While I fully agree there are significant problems with these articles, I wonder if you could be explicit about what you believe the problems to be? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As a side point, I brought an issue above that still has be delt with. ems 13:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Since both templates are not argumented in detail, I removed them both. -- Vít Zvánovec 11:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

{{totallydisputed}} has, at any rate, been argued here at great length, so I'm replacing it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Csernica#Passover (Christian holiday) -- Vít Zvánovec 10:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Vit, to put the POV template on the article without even clearly stating what the POV is, is wrong. So, until there is a clear answer as to what the POV is, I too will remove the template. ASmolderingWiki 09:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus does not equal Passover

There are a number of problems I think this article presents. Among them are the following:

I'm concerned about the tone of the article related to langauge about the Passover foreshadowing Jesus. To my mind this is, or at least borders on, supersessionism. Moreover, there are a variety of orthodox, Christian understandings of the atonement--the substitutionary view that the article focuses on is simply one of them!

Many Christian theologians are calling for us to do the deep and hard work of developing a theology of Jesus' Jewishness that doesn't merely turn him into a "raceless" object of revelation and devotion defined by Western, imperialist, Eurocentric religion.

The Christian celebration/remembrance of a very Christianized Passover, is called Maundy Thursday which in some denominations, like Mennonite Church USA, is observed by ritualizing Jesus' act of washing his followers feet in an act of servanthood and humility which became his response to the legal proceedings against him that ensued.

The bottom line is that for this article to be more accurate, some kind of caveat that many Christians honor the integrity of the Jewish Passover and have developed a Christian interpretation of the events of Jesus' final observance of Passover which we call Maundy Thursday.

Maundy Thursday commemorates the Last Supper, but it is not the celebration of a Christianized Passover. For most of the world's Christians, that would be Easter. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passover, not Easter

The word Easter does indeed have pagan origins but the celebration of passover and Jesus' resurrection does not. Therefore I do not understand the first arguement made here. The word Easter was associated with passover by the Roman emperor Constantine and has nothing to do with Passover or Jesus' resurrection. The holiday is and has always been Passover, whether it is observed by Christians or Jews. Just because the word Easter is associated with a pagan holiday does not mean the entire Christian holiday is a pagan holiday.

It seems like the person who wrote the first arguement is Jewish and attempting to voice anger over Christians celebrating the same holiday. Like it or not, Christianity is a Jewish religion, because Jesus was a Jew who practiced Judaism. Do not turn this discussion into a slander of Christianity just because you don't like the fact that Christians may celebrate the same holidays as you but in a different manner. Or because there might be a lot of truth behind observing Passover as a prophecy of what was to come with Jesus.

Go voice your anger and disapproval somewhere else. This site meant to be aducational, not slanderous.

This is nonsense. "Easter" is an English word. Constantine called the day "Passover", or in his language "Pascha". (I shouldn't have to point out that Constantine could not possibly have spoken English.) It is still called this in most of the world. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please substantiate where you got the idea that Constantine called the observance 'Easter'. I have this quote from David W. Bercot's book, "A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs":

"The term 'Easter' did not begin to be used, however, until centuries after the Council of Nicaea."

ASmolderingWiki 16:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed

I removed the template totallydisputed. I expect from everyone who disagrees proposal of changing text or changes in the article itself. No deleting, please. Mind WP:NPOV that both POV should be represented. -- Vít Zvánovec 11:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

First, I have disucssed the issues extensively on this page; you simply refuse to acknowledge that as your comment on my talk page indicates. Second, you have misunderstood what "NPOV" means. It's not sufficient to simply indicate both points of view, which isn't adequately done anyway. I have also explained why I will no longer edit this article. The tag must remain as a warning to readers; by placing it I in no way commit myself to improving this article. I am convinced at this point it cannot be done without a concerted effort. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to wage revert war. In my view you are obliged to participate actively on the shape of the article otherwise you have no right to insert the template. In oder to clarify these things I make WP:RfC.

I cannot dicuss with you unless you make any suggestions. You stated you have problem with the sidebar. I tried to revise him and attributed most controvesial statements. Obviously I refused to delete it because it contains a lot of very important information.

I read all the discussion very carefully. Since I did not recognise your proposals of altering the text, it was useless. I know you have problem with the article, but it is not satisfactory.

It's not sufficient to simply indicate both points of view It is.

which isn't adequately done anyway OK. Then WP:BB.

I have also explained why I will no longer edit this article. I cannot accept it, I am sorry.

I am convinced at this point it cannot be done without a concerted effort. Then I am sorry. I cannot waste my effort to satisfy you. -- Vít Zvánovec 11:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The sidebar contained, and the incorporated text contains, not "important information", but misinformation. I don't care what your view of my obligations are; I simply don't have the energy to fight the constant POV-pushing on this page, which is willing to credit people like this Bacchiocchi over recognized, more neutral sources. Nor do I need the stress. I have to admit it's better than it was, but it's a long way from good.

You ought to be aware that ordinary nouns in English do not have gender and take neuter pronouns. It's a good thing I noticed this, since it makes it easier to assume good faith: it's more probable you simply failed to understand me. But please don't lecture me on how to update pages. It's patronizing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The sidebar contained, and the incorporated text contains, not "important information", but misinformation. Then insert your POV, why it is misinformation, please. But don't delete alleged misinformation and respect WP:NOR.

I simply don't have the energy to fight the constant POV-pushing on this page Quarrel about representing other's POV is not POV-pushing. I repeat that both POVs have right to be represented fairly and correctly.

which is willing to credit people like this Bacchiocchi over recognized, more neutral sources Even Bacchiocchi's POV has right to be represented, if it is accredited to him. More neutral sources should prevail, but this does not mean that Bacchiocchi's POV should be deleted.

I have to admit it's better than it was, but it's a long way from good. I am sorry, but you do nothing for it which is totally unwikipedian.

You ought to be aware that ordinary nouns in English do not have gender and take neuter pronouns. Sorry for my poor English.

It's patronizing. I am sorry for that, but I don't see your good will to improve the article. Template NPOV is not pernament state. All wikipedians should work together to create conditions for its removing. I have asked for some support in RfC. We'll see. -- Vít Zvánovec 07:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I know this is a little late, but it doesn't seem like there were any comments given. First of all, the excuse used to remove the NPOV tag is very weak. Just because an editor cannot personally fix the POV issues herself, does not mean the POV simply don't exist and the tag can disappear. Anyway, here are some of my comments about the article in general.

• Why is Passover important to Christians this section seems the least relevent and most POV pushing. Why do we need to summarize Christianity here? Wouldn't a simply wikilink to the main article suffice? There is a paragraph describing the Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. What does this have to do with Passover as a Christian holiday? This section, in my opinion, needs to be trimmed and currently is the weakest part of the article.
• What is the Meaning of Passover? Headers shouldn't be questions. Phrases like The holy bible explicitly states... don't help the POV issues. This section could probably be trimmed a bit and combined with the trimmed part of the previous section.
• Christians celebrations of Passover this section is completely lacking any sources and reads very poorly. Some traditions do this, some traditions do that... who exactly does these things? (two sections down, we get this quote "Most Christians today observe Easter-Sunday instead of the Biblical Passover." which renders this section (and possibly the whole article itself) rather moot, don't you think?)
• Date of Passover This section ignores the dating and times found in John. Then there is a stray sentence that probably belongs in the previous section.
• History of Passover to Easter Development. Up until this section, nothing had been cited. I am glad to see sources in this section. Perhaps they should be converted to <ref> and {{cite}} tags.
• Some Historic Passover Date Issues same comment about the ref/cite tags here. The big quoted material should be set aside in a blockquote or other stylistic element. Here are some excerpts is very unencyclopedic.

Finally, I feel the opening should be changed some. It should state thet Passover as a Christian holiday is predominately a historical celebration that is only kept by a minority of Christian sect. Easter celebrations have taken the place of the traditional passover celebration. I'll try and help the article, but please do not simply disregard my comments because I cannot devote all my time to fixing this article. I feel a totally disputed tag is too strong, but perhaps a NPOV would be better for the time being.--Andrew c 14:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Some Comments about Andrew's Comments:

• "the excuse used to remove the NPOV tag is very weak"

Actually, the reason the NPOV tag was removed was because the excuse for putting it there in the first place was very weak.

• Just because an editor cannot personally fix the POV..., does not mean the POV simply don't exist..."

Again, the reason the POV tag was removed was because the POV accusation is vague.

• "Most Christians...which renders this section (and possibly the whole article itself) rather moot, don't you think?"

Is it only what is in the majority belief, understanding or practice that can be included in this encyclopedia? Are we only allowed to write articles about what "most Christians" believe and do?

• "Easter celebrations have taken the place of the traditional passover celebration"

Same as above. Your bias (POV) is showing.

In general, the article does need work and refinement, but be more careful of POV.

-- ASmolderingWiki 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bacchiocchi and translations

With regard to the translation -- there was no need for the quote marks in the edit summary where it was removed to a footnote; that is the correct translation, which Schaff does not provide. There is in fact nothing about "pascha stavrosimon" that even implies "proper". It's an interpretation that isn't supported by even so much as a footnote in the source.

The problem with Bacchiocchi is his blank assertion that most Christians do not observe the Passover, when a large majority believe they do. This is based on nothing but his own beliefs about how the date should be calculated; beliefs that are not nowadays widely held. It is only fair to point this out, rather than quoting him uncritically as if he were an NPOV source -- as he plainly isn't. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are reading the quote wrong. Schaff is not translating the phrases, but giving two different phrases used for the same thing. It would be like saying "yule or christmas", when neither is a translation of the other. I still think this information is best left for a footnote. Can we agree to that much, and work out the wording/format?

Your edits about Bacchiocchi seem very POV. Why not find a competing source that says differently. I think the quote summarizes the position you present. You said "a large majority believe they do"; he says "Most Christians today observe... feasts [that] are seen as being essentially the same". That said, for the situation, the best solution would be to 'fight' Bacchiocchi's POV with another POV (or find a more neutral quote to begin with). Adding blanket, unsourced statements about him doesn't help the article.--Andrew c 01:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Schaff is not translating the phrases, but giving two different phrases used for the same thing. Neither you nor Schaff himself in his book cite anything to demonstrate these two phrases mean the same thing. On the face of it they don't.

Adding blanket, unsourced statements about him doesn't help the article. Bacchiocchi is an unabashedly POV source, yet he is being cited here as if he were neutral. That is a problem in and of itself. Rather than the inherently contentious process of inerting duelling cites, it would be far better to quote a neutral source in the first place. (And how many would be required to establish the mainstream view, anyway?) The trouble with that is that neutral sources will not support the POV that is being pushed here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like the quotes, remove them. I just felt that the way they were handled (by adding what amounts to OR and commentary) wasn't very encyclopedic. I am not attached to the content of this article by any means (just look at the my last post above this topic). If there are POV issues and other problems with this article, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to deal with them.--Andrew c 02:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it's OR to simply point up information provided in the disclaimer heading up the article, or in Easter to which it links. Past experience here and on related articles has shown that this article has guardians who yank it back to a particular POV whenever more neutral content is inserted, or when POV material is removed. I'd have removed it already if I thought it would do any good. That may not be much of an excuse for coming on too strongly, but it's why one is predisposed to. I'm not even sure why I'm getting involved in this article again. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't get discouraged. I believe the POV guardians are long gone. Just look at this edit that I made that hasn't been reverted [1]. I'd say, go ahead and revamp this article. Also, I wasn't saying that totally disputed tags are OR/commentary. I was saying the way the translation as presented, and the way Bacchiocchi was 'discredited' amounted to something that I don't consider to be encyclopedic.--Andrew c 03:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replaced totallydisputed

The intro is blatantly POV, and although it has been tagged for a citation for a while now, nothing has been done. I'm therefore retagging this article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] folar

editors of this article may be interested in expanding the article Folar which seems to relate to this topic. Jon513 12:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SIMPLE proof that Passover and First Day of Unleavened Bread are SAME DAY!

Passover is the First Day of Unleavened Bread!
Passover is an Annual Holyday!

Many think the Passover is NOT the First Day of Unleavened – one of the Annual Holydays listed in Leviticus 23. However, it is SIMPLE to prove that it is.

Read Exodus 12.18 carefully. It is the KEY verse NOT mentioned by supposed authoritative Bible courses and books. Wonder why? To keep people from seeing that the Carpenter from Nazareth was literally and historically FULFILLING the FIRST Annual Holyday, the Passover, as our "Passover" and the Messiah, and thereby setting a PRECEDENT that EACH Annual Holyday thereafter was going to be fulfilled literally and historically? Notice Exodus 12.18:

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening."

Notice it says "until" the 21st day "at evening". In the Bible, days begin in the "evening" at sunset (Gen 1.5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; Lev 22.6-7; Gen 15.12, 17-18). So "until" means until the 21st day begins, at sunset. This means that the 20th day is the LAST (7th) Day of Unleavened Bread, a Holyday. Then, counting backwards 7 days, the FIRST Day of Unleavened Bread (a Holyday) is the 14th day. Of course, we know that the Passover is observed on the 14th day. Perhaps the diagram below will show how obvious it is that the 14th day, Passover, is the First Day of Unleavened Bread, a Holyday.

21	20	19	18	17	16	15	14
	7	6	5	4	3	2	1

Other scriptures supporting this are found at Ex 12.6, 12, 14, 17, 19, 31, 41-43, 51; Mk 14.1, 12; Lk 22.1, 7; 1 Cor 5.7-8. And Ex 12.8 and Num 9.11 command that unleavened bread is to be eaten on the 14th day, so it is included in the 7 days of unleavened bread!

There is now NO EXCUSE for believing Passover and the First Day of Unleavened Bread are 2 separate days. And Ex 12.8 and Num 9.11 command that unleavened bread is to be eaten on the 14th day, so it is included in the 7 days of unleavened bread!

Passover, obviously, is the First Day of Unleavened Bread – a Holyday!

Anyone who can count backwards from 7 to 1 can figure this out!

Furthermore, this SIMPLE TRUTH leads next us to a VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION.

Since the Messiah’s death as “Our Passover” (1 Cor 5.7-8) sets a PRECEDENT for the LITERAL FULFILLMENT of the Old Testament Holyday archetypes, what LITERAL event in the New Testament is connected with the 2nd Annual Holyday, the “LAST Day of Unleavened Bread”?

If you follow the sequence of the 7 Annual Holydays as laid out in Leviticus 23, you would expect this 2nd LITERAL EVENT to occur AFTER the Messiah’s death (1st Holyday) and BEFORE Pentecost (3rd Holyday).

Many believe Pentecost was FULFILLED in Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit miraculously descended upon the 12 apostles in Jerusalem on the Feast of Pentecost 50 days after the Messiah’s resurrection.

However, since there is no mention in Scripture of anything big happening between the Messiah’s death and Acts 2, then the 2nd Holyday is YET to be fulfilled, and, consequently, so is Pentecost!

This is tremendously GOOD NEWS which should be proclaimed to the entire world in great POWER!

Why? Because in the Old Testament, the 2nd Annual Holyday archetype is connected with the miraculous DELIVERANCE of God’s People from their enemies at the Red Sea (Ex 14-15), and with their VICTORY over their enemies at the Battle of Jericho (Joshua 5.10-6.20).

Are we today on the verge of a LITERAL miraculous New Testament event that fulfills the Old Testament archetype of the 2nd Annual Holyday? Is this event mentioned in the Bible?

If you want to learn HOW, WHEN and WHERE this literal event 2nd Holyday event will occur in the very near future, and HOW this will quickly lead to a literal “nation of priests” that fulfills PENTECOST, the 3rd Annual Holyday, just go to [2] for more details on this awesome GOOD NEWS!.

In the first century, the religious authorities’s focus on the 4th Annual Holyday (Feast of Trumpets) blinded them to the literal fulfillment of the 1st Annual Holyday - Passover. Let’s not make the same mistake today, and miss out on the literal fulfillment of the 2nd Annual Holyday!

Not seeing that the Passover is a HOLYDAY is the “blindspot” that is hiding the truth of the LITERALNESS of EACH Annual Holyday.

Exodus 12.18 is the KEY to unlock that blindness!

Isayah555 18:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Isayah555