Easter

[Bengalzona]

(04-01-2016, 08:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: That's why I said "beyond that the message is wonderful".  The story of redemption and salvation is why we celebrated.  Everything the 2-3 days before is make rising from the dead seem even MORE miraculous.  Overkill.

As you know already, the church was originally built around the 365.25 day yearly calendar with each day associated with certain saints, prayers, liturgy, etc. framed in the overarching seasonal church framework (lent, advent, etc.). And, as you also already know, they went so far as to breakdown each day with certain hourly prayers and masses (not too unlike the Muslims daily calls to prayer). I mention this because many modern non-denominational Christians might not be familiar with this. The church was one big clock/calendar: a very useful thing back then. For several centuries, the church bells ringing helped segment the work day so that tasks could be planned and compartmentalized better. And that usefulness helped to reinforce their message of the importance of the church and the teaching that it should be central in everyone's lives.

Time was neatly divided up into the church-approved calendar. Everything, that is, except for Easter. Easter got to be the 'free roaming' holiday occurring on different days in different years. Of course, it would have been that way anyway if they had chose to stick to the Biblical description and to reconcile with the Jewish calendar. But, in light of the highly-structured timetable of events in the rest of the Christian calendar, one would think the early church leadership would have chosen to just pick a day (a la Christmas) and say, "That is when we are doing this thing...every year". I find that a bit odd and interesting.

And speaking of time and the Bible, the passage about "On the third day, He rose again." always bothered me. Not the 'rising from the dead' part. That is core belief for a Christian, right up there with Jesus dying for the sins of the world. No, the part about the 'third day', because it didn't quite jive with the whole Easter timeline. Yeah, I know it is supposed to be Friday, Saturday and Sunday equals three days. But it is not three 'full' days. Actually, the Bible quotes Jesus as saying "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40). Right? Jewish writers were very specific in their language. When the phrase was "three days and three nights" that did not mean parts of three days. That meant three full days. Three days and three nights is 72 hours. Per Mark, Jesus died in the 9th hour on the Sabbath, which equates to 3PM on Friday. Three full days later would be Monday at 3PM. But we generally celebrate Easter on Sunday morning, which would technically be less than two days after the death.

See what I mean? Anybody else ever bothered by that?

Of course, there is also another explanation for the Biblical description. The Sabbath noted in the description was not the typical Saturday Sabbath (observed at sundown on Friday). Rather, it was the Passover Sabbath. The Passover Sabbath would have been observed on Thursday, but the preparation and observance would have begun the evening before at sundown on Wednesday. Of course, this still doesn't put the resurrection on a Sunday. But the Bible never said it was on a Sunday anyway.

So... why don't we have a Maundy Tuesday or a Good Wednesday or an Easter Saturday?

I suppose it is because that that is the way the Early Church wanted it. And that kinda bothers me too.