This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Good Friday article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 19 dates. show |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 10 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 25 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
UMD Edit.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
How does Zola explain the three days and three nights? The question constantly arises: If the Lord was really crucified on Friday and rose again on Sunday, how could that have encompassed three days and three nights? The Gospel accounts indicate that the Lord was crucified on Friday at 9:00 a.m. and taken off the cross at 3:00 p.m. His body was prepared for burial and interred at sundown the same day, which was the beginning of the Festival of Unleavened Bread. The Lord then arose on Sunday morning after sunup. According to the modern way of counting, this spans barely two days. Yet that time period seems to disagree with Jesus’ earlier prediction: “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” (Matt. 12:40).
The prophecy can be understood when we examine the Jewish way of counting days and nights. We must recall that the Jewish day always starts at sunset, so that Friday really begins on Thursday evening (a fact that is reflected in the language of Genesis – “the evening and the morning” are the first day). The second day then begins at sundown on Friday and continues through the daytime on Saturday. Finally, Sunday begins at sundown on Saturday and stretches through Saturday night and the daylight hours of Sunday, making the third day. And since the Jews counted any portion of daylight as a full day, then Friday morning through Sunday morning would have been seen as three complete days.
People have sometimes struggled to move Passover (the “Last Supper”) back one day in order to get three days and three nights the way we would count them in the Western world, but that would be inaccurate. Even in the Western world we begin each day on the night before at midnight, so the concept is not strange to us. And supporting this understanding of the Lord’s crucifixion on a Friday (against those who claim it happened on a different day) is the centuries-long history of Christians celebrating Good Friday, not “Good Thursday” or “Good Wednesday.” So this is one more evidence that we can trust in the accuracy of the Biblical account, as well as further confirmation that knowledge of the Jewish roots of Christianity can open up a deeper understanding of God’s Word — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.48.103 ( talk) 17:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
From what I have been told about the oldest translation of the Bible which is in Greek. The holiday should be on Wednesday due to the fact that in the year of the crucifixion was a year of the High Sabbath which is celebrated 2 days earlier. This accounts for the fact that he may have been alive at sunset on Wednesday when the spear was used to kill him because all individuals that are killed in this manner must be dead before the Sabbath can be celebrated. This leaves Wednesday night, Thursday night and Friday night as the three nights and Thursday, Friday and Saturday as the three days; Saturday night is not counted because he was already raised before dawn on Sunday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.172.98.137 ( talk) 20:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This is my first edit! All I want to say at this point is Jesus Christ was not crucified on a Friday, although the bible does state that he rose "before dawn" on the "first day of the week". We can know, therefore, that He was risen before Sunday began - if we're counting the beginning of the day at 6am. We can also know that He was dead "in the belly of the earth" for 3 days and 3 nights. I believe some of the confusion is mention of holy day or sabbath. The holy day/sabbath was Passover, not the every-week, last-day-of-the-week Saturday sabbath. So when we read that He was crucified the day before the sabbath, that does not mean Friday. That's all for now. Ddt2318 ( talk) 21:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Does someone have a citation or more explanation for this line: In Early Modern English, Good had a meaning of "holy"
Looking around, I find explanations like this "The name Good Friday is generally believed to be a corruption of God\u2019s Friday" (from Funk and Wagnall's New World Encyclopedia)
This was always my understanding. Does the statement that bad had a meaning of Holy conflict with this, or does it mean the same way, good=God=holy?
On various webpages, I find people writing things about how it really was GOOD Friday because of the outcome, even though it was a very BAD day at the time. But I think those are just attempts to fit an explanation to the facts, with no etymological significance.
In French, it is "Vendredi Saint", thereby "Holy Friday" is possibly most likely the original meaning. -- Ramdrake 16:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
in my experience, many older generation in England also call it 'Passion Friday'?
I love jesus Mythri G ( talk) 20:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It may be true in New Zealand that TV and radio do not have ad breaks on Good Friday, but it certainly is not true in Australia. Was this ever the case in Australia, and if so, when did the practice cease? Cheers JackofOz 04:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Why are there 2 dates listed for many of the Good Fridays. There should be some explanation on the different dates. I was looking for the date of Good Friday of 2005, but I don't know which one it was. -- 21:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
________________________________
You are probably looking for the Western Date - it's the most common.
For the purpose of simplification, the Western world adopted a method of calculating Easter using what they called the "Ecclesiastical Moon" - a 19 year cycle of moons that is not always accurate. It had the advantage of enabling them to calculate the Date of Easter using math, (algorithm available upon request) without having to actually figure out the precise day of the full moon (which was not easy to do in the Middle Ages in the Western World).
The Eastern world was more scientifically advanced, and they used the REAL moon. In the Eastern World, Easter (Pascha) always follows the Jewish Passover.
I don't know that it's appropriate to call 3 Apr 33 the "most probable date" of Jesus' death -- the chronology is highly, highly debated amongst Historical Jesus / NT Scholars. JP Meier, I believe, offers either 3 Apr 33 or 7 Apr 30; EP Sanders has another chronology. It's a hot topic, in any event. Makrina 06:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed these as not offering any obvious authoritative insight over and above that of the article itself, which is nicely encyclopaedic. There doesn't appear to be any pressing need to cover the traditions of individual denominations, let alone subgroups of denominations, and the photo gallery is 404 amyway.
Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 22:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Why would you remove external links to the actual rituals that characterize the day? I thought the wikipedia's idea was to expand knowledge and legitimate information. Are things now to be included only on the basis of "pressing need"? And do you actually think that the rites associated with a religious day are irrelevant to the day? And "subgroups of denominations"? The Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans are "subgroups of denominations"? They are probably the three largest Christian bodies in the world (the first two are certainly the two largest). And they are the groups who are most associated with observance of the day - many Protestants ignore it entirely.
Honestly, I read a comment like this, and I have to wonder if you know enough about religious matters to be deciding what is and is not relevant.
Did anyone notice how in the Table it has Gay Month 14 and Haveing it the 69 way. Also somewhere in one of the first paragraphs about how catholics treat the holiday there is an error about having only have a one thousand meal or having two thousands small meals. I'll take out that stuff but I don't know the dates for the table.
If Jesus died on Friday and rose on Sunday, then that is only the 2nd day. Why isnt it "on the second day he rose again"? Has this been overlooked for 2000 years?
That idea makes Jesus out to be a liar! Jesus asked the question (John 11:9), "Are there not 12 hours in a day?" So part of a day cannot be considered a full day, because he said not only 3 days, but also "3 nights"! There have to be 12 hours in a night also. That makes it look like Jesus didn't really know what he was talking about. As Jonah, so Jesus (Mat. 12:40) Bible says Jonah was in the fish's belly three nights (Jonah 1:17) - So shall we say the Bible is inkorrekt? -- 63.25.0.247 02:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a theory that Jesus died on Thursday. It was dark during the day time. It became light again later. This could explain the first "day" on the Thursday afternoon. Friday and Saturday would be the second and third days. Thursday night, Friday night and Saturday night would then be the three nights. It is recorded in John that he died before a special (high) Sabbath. The most obvious Sabbath at this time of year according to Jewish tradition would be the 1st day of the week of unleavened bread. No work was allowed on this day, which would then be the Friday. Saturday is a normal Sabbath. The third day of the feast of unleavened bread on which Jesus rose would then be the Sunday. It has generally been accepted that the day on which Jesus died was the Friday because this is the day before the weekly Sabbath. This is my theory, but I could be wrong.-- User:196.207.40.212 11:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It should be included that in Ireland Catholics abstain from meat on Good Friday also, but I can't find a decent reference for it. Anyone got a religious education textbook they could reference from? Maeve 14:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
In Newfoundland and Labrador, traditionally seal meat was permitted on Fridays; it was classed as a liturgical fish, if you will. I believe both seal and whale were permitted in Scandinavia. SigPig 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It is correct that the synoptic gospels have Jesus dying on the afternoon of Friday. However, for the Gospel of John, Jesus dies in the late afternoon or evening of Thursday. This still accords with the 19:31 citing the "Day of Preparation" since Jewish days start at sundown the evening before (thus he could have been crucified on Thursday and still taken down from the cross on the "day of Preparation). This distinction is important for the theology of the Gospel of John, as John names Jesus as the "Lamb of God", and the paschal lamb for passover would have been sacrificed on the evening of Thursday. Emerymat 20:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus' last supper with the disciples is the Passover meal. (Mt 26:17-19; Mk 14:12-16; Lk 22:7-13). However, in John, Jesus appears before Pilate around noon on the day before the Passover (Jn 18:28-39, 19:13-16). Emerymat 21:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC) well this is what i av about Good Friday On Good Friday Jesus was crucified on the cross (anniversary of Jesus' death). The main service on Good Friday takes place between midday and 3pm because at 3pm is when he died. In many churches it takes the form of a meditation based on the seven last words of Jesus on the cross, with hymns and prayers. You would think its called bad Friday because Jesus died, however it\u2019s Good Friday because that was the day that Jesus took upon himself all of the sins of the world and saved the entire world from eternal damnation.
In the article, it says, "All Catholics have work abstention on Good Friday (as well as Holy Thursday, the day of the last supper)." This is incorrect. Actually, we only have work abstention on Good Friday, and some work anyway because of economic reasons. Boricuaeddie 16:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI - The link http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=74 is not working as of 06Apr2007 -- it reaches the site but an error (at www.oca.org) prevents the page from displaying. CRM384 17:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The opening here doesn't make a lot of sense, major WTF? 125.236.153.15 02:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
User:216.68.158.254 removed a large section from the article [1] which I reverted as an "unexplained deletion". However, looking at the paragraph I reinstated, my view is that it is totally unformatted, and very difficult to read, not even being split into paragraphs of reasonable length. Therefore, I removed it again.
I am worried that the removal may have cut out important information, and knowing nothing about the subject, I will delegate the responsibility of determining the significance of the text to someone more knowledgeable than me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor persists in altering the language "Roman Catholic", first to "Catholic", and then to "Latin Rite" Catholic. (The same editor insisted on the same thing in Liturgical Colours, where it was clearly incorrect.) This is an old issue on Wikipedia; the use of "Catholic" to refer only to those in union with Rome is POV. Moreover, the same editor insists on saying "Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox", reversing the order this page has had them before, despite my suggestion that they should be in order of numerical predominance, as they generally are. My efforts to communicate with the editor on his talk page have been ignored. What say you all? Tb ( talk) 21:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
InfornoXV: I think you were offended by my general suggestion about levels of faith. If so, my apologies. I am not even sure if you were that editor or not. However, I have noticed that you have systematically traced all pages that I have edited today and made changes to them. Your main issue seems to be Roman Catholic themes. And on this page you reverted my work with respect to Roman Catholic prayers. It is necessary to discuss on the talk page prior to deletion of a large section not prior to its addition. I think if examples of prayers in Malta and Matins on Thursday nights are relevant, so are Roman Catholic issues, else all those need to be deleted as well - clearly reducing the quality of the whole article. I am not prepared to compromise on the deletion and will insist on its inclusion - however many keystrokes it takes, else the page will tilt away from Roman items all the way to Eastern. I think all groups should learn to live in peace and not fight. Is that not the basis of Christian teachings? Thank you and Happy Easter! History2007 ( talk) 11:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
A few items important to Roman Catholics e.g. examples in Malta and Phillipines, and reparations to Jesus have been deleted a few times at will and with no notice, while many Eastern Catholic items seem to stay intact on this page. Those Roman Catholic items are "fully sourced" and very important to Roman Catholics. If it takes 1,000 reverts, I intend to keep them there, unless there is a rational Roman Catholic approved argument against them. Thank you for not starting a never-ending cycle of reverts. History2007 ( talk) 21:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Tb: I did say that "unless there is a rational Roman Catholic argument" against them. As is, I have seen none. First, please note that the examples from Phillipines etc. were not originally my edits, but I did find them interesting and informative with respect to Roman Catholic issues and I saw no reason why they were deleted at will with no warning. They are very interesting, in fact. Secondly, please look at the larger context: we are dealing with a page on religion where a photo of food items eaten on Good Friday has stayed intact for months and items related to key Roman Catholic religious beliefs are repeatedly deleted at will with no explanation or with a one sentence edit that deletes a whole pile of other items that makes a simple revert difficult to do. Do I have to assume good faith on Good Friday? Those Roman Catholic issues are directly relevant to Roman Catholic practices and are fully sourced. History2007 ( talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Can some mention of the holiday status be made for Good Friday in various countries (G-8, others, etc)?
With specific mention of which sector is closed on that day? (commercial, educational, institutional, retail, gov't, financial, etc) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.12.91 ( talk) 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In this section [2] there's a reference to a symbolic Tomb of Christ, which is widespread custom in Poland. I don't know if it's known in other Catholic communities. The link in the paragraph points to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is something completely different. I guess this deserves a separate article as in Polish Wikipedia. Llewelyn MT ( talk) 01:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
An editor has persistently made a change, over objections, altering "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic". This expresses of course the POV that only the church in communion with Rome is entitled to the claim "Catholic", and the editor expressed here that this was exactly his goal in making the change. This is well-travelled ground for wikipedia, and it's annoying, but understandable, that we must travel it yet again. I rather suspect we need a clear policy about the question, or it will have to be refought here over and over again. Regardless, I'm not willing to be steamrolled by a dogged editor who has determined that because his POV is "a matter of history" the existing consensus is to be discarded. Tb ( talk) 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Are we really saying that only the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church uses this terminology? There are loads of other Byzantine sui juris churches (Romanian, Melkite, Slovak, and the most numerically notable Ukrainians). Using "Greek" as synonymous for Byzantine is definitely something I have not seen in any text written after, say, the sixties. Carolynparrishfan ( talk) 13:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the Melkites are clealry Eastern Catholic, and not Greek in liturgical form, it is quite inappropriate to say Eastern Catholic as if the Melkites did not exist. Tb ( talk) 17:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The infobox says this is celebrated by "most Christians". The question is, then, which Christians don't celebrate it? And do these only include Jehova's Witnesses and LDS members? 216.169.164.70 ( talk) 00:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
had little practical use, so I added a paragraph, based entirely on the "Date of Easter" section of the Easter page. If anyone wants to add proper footnotes, feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.149.191 ( talk) 03:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I know that Good Friday is also called Black Friday, in Australia at least. In reference to "From noon on, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon" Matthew 27.45 Is there a reason that this is not mentioned in the article? ( Luthen) 01:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The word "myth" has been deleted from the lead by several users and an anonymous IP several times tonight. I can't reverse it back, because of WP:3R, but I think that it is clearly people with a POV agenda, and consequently vandalism. The crucifixion of Jesus is a myth, scientifically speaking, regardless of whether it happened or not. Removing this content is clearly an attempt at censorship, because some people find the material offensive or objectionable. It should be re-added. - Duribald ( talk) 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, let me put it this way: no, no and no. I think the basis of M-theory is a myth, and a few other key myths are: statistical independence, quantitative easing and the direct impact of Cholesterol on cardiovascular failure. It would take too long to list all the other myths that I could mention. But Wikipedia is not the place to debate these issues. It is an encyclopedia that follows the general norms of other encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica in treating religious issues. And most encyclopedias do not label a large number of religious items as a myths because some percent of the population do not believe in them. In any case, there is a page called Historical Jesus specifically there for addressing these issues in a historical context. If you have serious historical "material" with solid references (rather than a discussion of personal views) you can present it there. However, Wikipedia can not, and does not, work based on what you and I think from our personal viewpoints, but relies on solid third party references based on well documented Wiki-policies. Hence the reverts were correct based on the norms and policies. History2007 ( talk) 04:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. As an editor uninvolved in this dispute, can I recommend a time out for a minute? I seem to recall from some months ago, probably the latter half of 2008, a discussion about whether and when to call a religious story/convention/etc. a "myth." However, I cannot seem to find where this discussion took place. It may have been on WP:RFC but I am not certain. Can I make the suggestion that rather than arguing whether the crucifixion story is a "myth" or not by linking internally to articles like mythology that the interested parties either, A) find the previous discussion and determine what, if any consensus was reached and apply that consensus to this discussion or B) start a new RFC to determine the community's opinion on calling the story a myth? I think this would be the best way forward as both sides at this point seem to be at an impasse, and a wider discussion would be needed to make any progress. Thanks for your time. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Question: Should the crucifixion of Jesus be referred to as part of Christian mythology, as the concept is defined scientifically (see articles on
Christian mythology and
mythology) in the article lead (see talk page discussion above).
My point of view: The article originally talked of "the myth of the crucifixion", which in scientific terminology it is - it is a story that creates meaning to it's believers, in the lead. A few editors, some of which were IP:s, started systematically removing this contents, apparently because they found it offensive; they identified the word "myth" as meaning an erroneous idea. A couple of us started re-adding the deleted material, because Wikipedia should not be censored and because this is an article based in the scientific study of religion (in which the term myth is systematically applied to religious stories). Edit war broke out. Hence the RfC. As a compromise it was suggested that the crucifixion should not be called a myth, but rather a "part of Christian mythology" - an expression that lends itself less to misinterpretation. I can live with that solution, but some seem to differ. Comments? - Duribald ( talk) 16:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Question 1: Should Moses be viewed as part of theology or mythology? How about all other religious figures? This is a much larger topic. Not just on Christ but on all religious issues. History2007 ( talk) 16:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
CapitalElll ( talk) 17:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe there is no question that there are aspects of the Bible (as well as other religious works) which could fall within the scientific definition of "Mythology", but there are also significant portions which do not, since they are primarily didactic and not narrative. Additionally, the common use of the the word myth carries implication that the veracity of the story can be independent of its value to create meaning. Therefore, identifying the crucifixion primarily as "myth" is misleading, since it is also a pivotal and significant historical event. I also think that while the crucifixion could be discussed in an article about "Christian mythology", the article on the crucifixion should lead with the historical event, and perhaps include a brief mention of its place within Christian theology and Christian mythology, if those mentions are well-sourced. Hokie RNB 18:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually J.delanoy already said that to CapitalElll quite clearly on his talk page when he reverted CapitalElll on Crucifixion of Jesus:
And is it just "statistical coincidence" that this debate takes place today? Just before the date of Crucifixion?
But CapitalElll, perhaps I should also answer your question about the "real topic" here. All these paragraphs with sequences of logical deductions etc. are really beside the point. If there is a topic between your view and mine it is: "Does God exist?" The rest of the sentences are all window dressing for that. I think God exists and I think you have not yet received the Divine Grace to believe that He exists. Today I prayed that you will one day receive that Grace. That may be the only real way to end this cyclic debate. History2007 ( talk) 19:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, thisis going in a circle, but why has ths not been tried:
It is certainly a belief and it is a holiday. Matters not if it is an event. That debate does not belong on this page. End of debate. History2007 ( talk)
Just weighing in since I commented above, I agree with the current wording of the lead. I think event or belief is better than "myth" and think either one would work in the lead. Glad this could be resolved to everyone's, if not satisfaction at least to a version everyone is willing to let stand. The Seeker 4 Talk 21:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Just try calling Muhammad part of "Islamic mythology" and see how long it lasts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Please read the article on mythology. This is not my point of view this is what is used in scholarly works. CapitalElll ( talk) 05:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I would support the addition of the term mythology to anywhere where it adds clarity. CapitalElll ( talk) 05:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
On a more general note, all this talk about mythical motives, mythical coincidences and mythical arguments etc. made me think of Fred Brooks' classic discussion of The Mythical Man-Month, which still remains true today, years after he wrote it. I wonder how one would measure all the wasted efforts here and if they are real. Will adding 9 more valid arguments in favor of the use of "event" here make the debate end any sooner? Maybe we should ask Brooks. And we may have discovered a new, and similar effect within Wikipedia: "Adding more valid arguments to a circular debate only makes the debate run longer". I wonder who will write the book on that...... History2007 ( talk) 08:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't mind the current lead but if it must be changed then I suggest simply removing the declarative "an event central to Christian theology." per Clay Collier above. We needn't even mention it's importance in the lead so if that's what you need CapitalElll, then we can remove that and get on with the rest of the article. I would take Bugs intent to heart (if not his words). If you have a POV and want it represented then you are, by definition, POV-pushing. It is declared, in no uncertain terms, that Good Friday is "a religious holiday", if the reader still wishes to insist on it's historicity then no other adjective you add will change their mind anyway. Padillah ( talk) 12:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the so called compromise was even closer to my desired goal than my initial suggestion at the top of this section, before all the keyboards got worn out. So I did not really accept it, for it was better than my first offer. In any case, let it be on this case. However, let me note for the sake of future debates that:
The end result of the debate was that Wikipedia pages on religious topics do not need to have the word myth as a qualifier.
Since you know your way around here, is there a way to mark this, so it can be recalled later, say 363 days from now? Thanks History2007 ( talk) 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
~== Shouldn't there be some discussion about why it's called "Good" Friday"? ==
This should be discussed in the article, but isn't, or at least I couldn't find any mention of it upon skimming the TOC and the article itself. (If it is in fact in there, it should be made more obvious.) Seems like a pretty grave omission, as the first question that comes to most people's minds upon learning that "Good" Friday celebrates Christ's death is "Why is called "good" Friday then?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.56.104 ( talk) 21:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It's called Good friday as it relieved man from sin. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for God. A greater sacrifice than sheep or cows. 86.21.189.243 ( talk) 19:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
..."observed primarily by adherents to Christianity". Oh. Who are those others we were thinking of? Or perhaps this was "primarily" inserted just in case... of what?-- Wetman ( talk) 05:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see Capital L's debate and its end above. Then please revert similar edits on Crucifixion of Jesus which have started by him again today. Based on the precedence above they need to be reverted. I have just reverted him once. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 06:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
A prediction that I hope will not come true. About 10 days before Easter some debate or sudden edits with agitating consequences may flare up either on this page or Crucifixion of Jesus. It may be advisable for these two pages to be semiprotected for 20 days around Good Friday just to minimize that issue. History2007 ( talk) 22:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
87% of Ireland is Roman Catholic. This qualifies as "predominantly." Rklawton ( talk) 21:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC) It is worth noting that it is illegal to sell alcohol in ireland on Good Friday
The account states that "Pilate has Jesus flogged and then brings him out to the crowd to release him." Most Roman Catholics know this as "The Scourging at the Pillar", one of the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Holy Rosary. Scourging implies either metal hooks or sharp stones were affixed to the ends of the straps in order to tear the skin. Flogging implies merely whipping (if there is such a thing as merely whipping). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.166.38.40 ( talk) 15:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
In my Roman Catholic Church, the roles are divided as follows:
That's right. The laity are encouraged to participate in the Passion by reading out the lines attributed to the other speakers. How about your churches? Do they encourage you to actively participate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindybubbles ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I added the words 'Christians believe' in the sentence describing the Resurrection. This should not be interpreted as flaming towards Christians; I am a practising Lutheran myself. However, due to the supernatural nature of the Resurrection, I feel that, in an objective encyclopaedia, this event--a divine miracle or a myth, whatever you believe--should be presented as a belief. AxelWN ( talk) 21:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
It is incredible. you have obviously written by the Pope and the Vatican City. Nothing about Italy which represents more than 50 percent of the millenium history of world Catholicism. In return, for example, there are five rows about Malta, an amazing archipelago that would come easily...in the mouth of the Hudson river. A decisive place for Catholicism, such as the Philippines, however. And the changes are a waste of time. Congratulations. This site is unwatchable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.163.200 ( talk) 04:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
In the introduction paragraph it states that Good Friday is also known as Black Friday which is not true. Black Friday is the day after Thanksgiving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelStarbuck ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
In Grenada, Kites are flown and there are kite flying competitions. They are often handmade with bamboo or the thin frames of dried banana leave, colorful tissue paper, glue or green sapodilla substitute, and string or twine. The shape of the kite and the use of wood is meant to symbolize the cross that Jesus died on. Also, the kite flying in the sky symbolizes his ascension to heaven. In church kids paint eggs and egg shells with pictures of Jesus and the like. Leroneb ( talk) 14:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Was it marked as also being called Black Friday because of a literal translation of a term in another language or is there actually some attested source referring to the day in English as “Black Friday?” (And if the former, do we really need to calque everything that's a compound in other languages to say it's also called X in English? If the latter, it seems Wiktionary would be a better place to list putative synonyms and even for providing that definition for that term.) mcornelius ( talk) 10:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Uk 'Good Friday' is a religious holiday, like Christmas Day, not a Bank Holiday
2.27.216.157 ( talk) 21:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Good Friday is a Bank Holiday in Scotland only. See legislation here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/80/schedule/1 MarpoHarks ( talk) 15:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The image of Ku Klux Klan (KKK) has to be removed. It has little to nothing to do with Resurrection or first fruits holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelled ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Has : "Easter falls on the first Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon, the full moon on or after 21 March, taken to be the date of the vernal equinox."
Better? : "Easter falls on the first Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon, which represents the date of the full moon on or after 21 March, taken to represent the date of the vernal equinox."
I imagine that it must at all relevant times have been known both that the actual Equinox was not always and everywhere on Match 21st and also that the Paschal Full Moon would not agree exactly with the actual Full Moon.
94.30.84.71 ( talk) 10:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC) please be peacefull — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.142.208 ( talk) 05:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind, I fixed it.
User:Crumpled Fire reverted my edits saying "rv massive removal of information from intro without reason". This is not true. I stated my reason. I said, "removed 2nd para re dates more suitable for crucifixion of Jesus article. This about the holiday as practice."
Crumpled Fire needs to be more careful and considerate before reverting changes, by at the very least, checking what was included the edit summaries. If Crumpled Fire disagrees with my WP:Bold edits then he can of course revert them and add a comment to this Talk page, but that requires showing editors the respect they deserve by taking the time to check and read the edit summaries.
Further, I stand by my judgement that the second paragraph is (a) not suitable for the intro and (b) not suitable for this artcile. The discussion of the date, year and day of Jesus crucifixion does not fit this article which is about the religious holiday as currently practed, not about the event. Thoughts? Let's reach a WP:Consensus. -- Iloilo Wanderer ( talk) 06:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Good Friday. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This is just a small forum for any errors that may arise. Also, why is there Greek at the bit about the cross in the nave (at the end)? 162.104.12.143 ( talk) 00:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Good Friday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I am a new editor and cannot find a source to back my knowledge of prostration being linked to the new ordination of priests. Dejavuici ( talk) 12:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Have worked around this issues as I found the HTML "cheat sheet". Dejavuici ( talk) 19:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Good Friday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Good Friday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Good Friday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Good Friday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The section of this article dealing with the trial and crucifixion of Jesus could mention that the seven last words of Jesus on the Cross were "Into thy hands I commit my Spirit". Vorbee ( talk) 11:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
This section should be a history of the holiday. Content was added recently, but it doesn't look encyclopedic to me, nor is it referenced. I reverted, please discuss. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I reverted what was in the main a change by Abensen1 followed by 7 fix edits to that. Their change deleted text with cites replacing it with prose without such, added repetition of the Easter date discussion found in Easter, and in general did not seem an improvement. I'd left a notice of my concerns on their talk page. If anyone feels differently and can find useful text from the change please modify in accordance. Shenme ( talk) 04:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses apparently don't celebrate holidays, but they do have a memorial for Jesus' death on Nisan 14. What about Mormons, SDA and/or some other Restorationist type Christians? We shouldn't ignore them. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 04:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The Jehovahites of Empire of Jehovah commemorate the death of Jesus Christ on Nissan 14, which sometimes coincides with Christendom's "Good Friday", and very often is on the same week as it. Empire of Jehovah memorializes Jesus' death in harmony with the scripture "as often as you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives." (1st Corinthians 11:26). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KadGeb ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Was reading on article looking for explanation of term "Good" for Friday of Passion as am used to scandinavian term "Long". Stumbled upon term Royal Soldiers, quote "According to the accounts in the Gospels, the royal soldiers...". I did not check the sources, do understand that the main conflict was Jesus claim on being the King of Jews versus mundane kings, as in Render Onto Caesar parable, but physically doubted the term Royal used here, as jews were a colony having an appointed governor with royal lineage being interrupted, while Romans who were doing the arrest mentioned in wiki quote were rather Caesarian, a Ceasar is a tradition drastically different from a Roi giving adverb Royal, in spite of use of related latin verb Regio for "to rule" with slightly overlapping meanings absent in noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.46.190 ( talk) 14:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, this sentence is an ungrammatical sentence fragment and something seems to be missing from the start of it:
Preparation Day (14 Nisan on the Hebrew calendar) – which is the day before Passover (15 Nisan), instead of the Friday morning as the Synoptic Gospels refer to the sabbath and they believe this refers to a "high sabbath" (John 19:31) which occurs on feast days, and not the ordinary weekly sabbath.
(The aside it contains about Preparation Day is also malformed, being started by a dash but closed by a comma.) It seems like it's meant to say something like:
Some Christians observe the Crucifixion of Jesus on Preparation Day (14 Nisan on the Hebrew calendar) – which is the day before Passover (15 Nisan) – instead oftheFriday morning, as the Synoptic Gospels refer to the sabbath and they believe this refers to a "high sabbath" (John 19:31) which occurs on feast days, and not the ordinary weekly sabbath.
-sche ( talk) 21:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
“Good Friday is a widely instituted legal holiday around the world, including in most Western countries and 12 U.S. states.” Is from Harpers New Monthly, 1868. is this still a relevant source for this information? 158.36.62.47 ( talk) 09:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Medusahead: I very much disagree with your removal of sourced content about countries such as Germany that have formally banned dancing and horse racing on Good Friday. Simply put, the sources directly mention horse racing and dancing, and it's clearly relevant to Good Friday, as observed worldwide. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 13:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Throughout the entire English Wikipedia, someone of a particularly high church orientation in the United Methodist Church has systematically added entries on Methodism about ritual and practice that are not remotely common among Methodists. The author asserts that Methodists churches routinely use the crucifix and commonly engage in practices associated with Roman Catholicism and the Anglo-Catholic variant of Anglicanism that are extremely rare in Methodist practice worldwide. It is close to vandalism, inaccurate, and needs to stop. IACOBVS ( talk) 22:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Good Friday article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 19 dates. show |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 10 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 25 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
UMD Edit.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
How does Zola explain the three days and three nights? The question constantly arises: If the Lord was really crucified on Friday and rose again on Sunday, how could that have encompassed three days and three nights? The Gospel accounts indicate that the Lord was crucified on Friday at 9:00 a.m. and taken off the cross at 3:00 p.m. His body was prepared for burial and interred at sundown the same day, which was the beginning of the Festival of Unleavened Bread. The Lord then arose on Sunday morning after sunup. According to the modern way of counting, this spans barely two days. Yet that time period seems to disagree with Jesus’ earlier prediction: “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” (Matt. 12:40).
The prophecy can be understood when we examine the Jewish way of counting days and nights. We must recall that the Jewish day always starts at sunset, so that Friday really begins on Thursday evening (a fact that is reflected in the language of Genesis – “the evening and the morning” are the first day). The second day then begins at sundown on Friday and continues through the daytime on Saturday. Finally, Sunday begins at sundown on Saturday and stretches through Saturday night and the daylight hours of Sunday, making the third day. And since the Jews counted any portion of daylight as a full day, then Friday morning through Sunday morning would have been seen as three complete days.
People have sometimes struggled to move Passover (the “Last Supper”) back one day in order to get three days and three nights the way we would count them in the Western world, but that would be inaccurate. Even in the Western world we begin each day on the night before at midnight, so the concept is not strange to us. And supporting this understanding of the Lord’s crucifixion on a Friday (against those who claim it happened on a different day) is the centuries-long history of Christians celebrating Good Friday, not “Good Thursday” or “Good Wednesday.” So this is one more evidence that we can trust in the accuracy of the Biblical account, as well as further confirmation that knowledge of the Jewish roots of Christianity can open up a deeper understanding of God’s Word — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.48.103 ( talk) 17:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
From what I have been told about the oldest translation of the Bible which is in Greek. The holiday should be on Wednesday due to the fact that in the year of the crucifixion was a year of the High Sabbath which is celebrated 2 days earlier. This accounts for the fact that he may have been alive at sunset on Wednesday when the spear was used to kill him because all individuals that are killed in this manner must be dead before the Sabbath can be celebrated. This leaves Wednesday night, Thursday night and Friday night as the three nights and Thursday, Friday and Saturday as the three days; Saturday night is not counted because he was already raised before dawn on Sunday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.172.98.137 ( talk) 20:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This is my first edit! All I want to say at this point is Jesus Christ was not crucified on a Friday, although the bible does state that he rose "before dawn" on the "first day of the week". We can know, therefore, that He was risen before Sunday began - if we're counting the beginning of the day at 6am. We can also know that He was dead "in the belly of the earth" for 3 days and 3 nights. I believe some of the confusion is mention of holy day or sabbath. The holy day/sabbath was Passover, not the every-week, last-day-of-the-week Saturday sabbath. So when we read that He was crucified the day before the sabbath, that does not mean Friday. That's all for now. Ddt2318 ( talk) 21:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Does someone have a citation or more explanation for this line: In Early Modern English, Good had a meaning of "holy"
Looking around, I find explanations like this "The name Good Friday is generally believed to be a corruption of God\u2019s Friday" (from Funk and Wagnall's New World Encyclopedia)
This was always my understanding. Does the statement that bad had a meaning of Holy conflict with this, or does it mean the same way, good=God=holy?
On various webpages, I find people writing things about how it really was GOOD Friday because of the outcome, even though it was a very BAD day at the time. But I think those are just attempts to fit an explanation to the facts, with no etymological significance.
In French, it is "Vendredi Saint", thereby "Holy Friday" is possibly most likely the original meaning. -- Ramdrake 16:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
in my experience, many older generation in England also call it 'Passion Friday'?
I love jesus Mythri G ( talk) 20:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It may be true in New Zealand that TV and radio do not have ad breaks on Good Friday, but it certainly is not true in Australia. Was this ever the case in Australia, and if so, when did the practice cease? Cheers JackofOz 04:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Why are there 2 dates listed for many of the Good Fridays. There should be some explanation on the different dates. I was looking for the date of Good Friday of 2005, but I don't know which one it was. -- 21:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
________________________________
You are probably looking for the Western Date - it's the most common.
For the purpose of simplification, the Western world adopted a method of calculating Easter using what they called the "Ecclesiastical Moon" - a 19 year cycle of moons that is not always accurate. It had the advantage of enabling them to calculate the Date of Easter using math, (algorithm available upon request) without having to actually figure out the precise day of the full moon (which was not easy to do in the Middle Ages in the Western World).
The Eastern world was more scientifically advanced, and they used the REAL moon. In the Eastern World, Easter (Pascha) always follows the Jewish Passover.
I don't know that it's appropriate to call 3 Apr 33 the "most probable date" of Jesus' death -- the chronology is highly, highly debated amongst Historical Jesus / NT Scholars. JP Meier, I believe, offers either 3 Apr 33 or 7 Apr 30; EP Sanders has another chronology. It's a hot topic, in any event. Makrina 06:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed these as not offering any obvious authoritative insight over and above that of the article itself, which is nicely encyclopaedic. There doesn't appear to be any pressing need to cover the traditions of individual denominations, let alone subgroups of denominations, and the photo gallery is 404 amyway.
Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 22:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Why would you remove external links to the actual rituals that characterize the day? I thought the wikipedia's idea was to expand knowledge and legitimate information. Are things now to be included only on the basis of "pressing need"? And do you actually think that the rites associated with a religious day are irrelevant to the day? And "subgroups of denominations"? The Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans are "subgroups of denominations"? They are probably the three largest Christian bodies in the world (the first two are certainly the two largest). And they are the groups who are most associated with observance of the day - many Protestants ignore it entirely.
Honestly, I read a comment like this, and I have to wonder if you know enough about religious matters to be deciding what is and is not relevant.
Did anyone notice how in the Table it has Gay Month 14 and Haveing it the 69 way. Also somewhere in one of the first paragraphs about how catholics treat the holiday there is an error about having only have a one thousand meal or having two thousands small meals. I'll take out that stuff but I don't know the dates for the table.
If Jesus died on Friday and rose on Sunday, then that is only the 2nd day. Why isnt it "on the second day he rose again"? Has this been overlooked for 2000 years?
That idea makes Jesus out to be a liar! Jesus asked the question (John 11:9), "Are there not 12 hours in a day?" So part of a day cannot be considered a full day, because he said not only 3 days, but also "3 nights"! There have to be 12 hours in a night also. That makes it look like Jesus didn't really know what he was talking about. As Jonah, so Jesus (Mat. 12:40) Bible says Jonah was in the fish's belly three nights (Jonah 1:17) - So shall we say the Bible is inkorrekt? -- 63.25.0.247 02:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a theory that Jesus died on Thursday. It was dark during the day time. It became light again later. This could explain the first "day" on the Thursday afternoon. Friday and Saturday would be the second and third days. Thursday night, Friday night and Saturday night would then be the three nights. It is recorded in John that he died before a special (high) Sabbath. The most obvious Sabbath at this time of year according to Jewish tradition would be the 1st day of the week of unleavened bread. No work was allowed on this day, which would then be the Friday. Saturday is a normal Sabbath. The third day of the feast of unleavened bread on which Jesus rose would then be the Sunday. It has generally been accepted that the day on which Jesus died was the Friday because this is the day before the weekly Sabbath. This is my theory, but I could be wrong.-- User:196.207.40.212 11:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It should be included that in Ireland Catholics abstain from meat on Good Friday also, but I can't find a decent reference for it. Anyone got a religious education textbook they could reference from? Maeve 14:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
In Newfoundland and Labrador, traditionally seal meat was permitted on Fridays; it was classed as a liturgical fish, if you will. I believe both seal and whale were permitted in Scandinavia. SigPig 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It is correct that the synoptic gospels have Jesus dying on the afternoon of Friday. However, for the Gospel of John, Jesus dies in the late afternoon or evening of Thursday. This still accords with the 19:31 citing the "Day of Preparation" since Jewish days start at sundown the evening before (thus he could have been crucified on Thursday and still taken down from the cross on the "day of Preparation). This distinction is important for the theology of the Gospel of John, as John names Jesus as the "Lamb of God", and the paschal lamb for passover would have been sacrificed on the evening of Thursday. Emerymat 20:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus' last supper with the disciples is the Passover meal. (Mt 26:17-19; Mk 14:12-16; Lk 22:7-13). However, in John, Jesus appears before Pilate around noon on the day before the Passover (Jn 18:28-39, 19:13-16). Emerymat 21:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC) well this is what i av about Good Friday On Good Friday Jesus was crucified on the cross (anniversary of Jesus' death). The main service on Good Friday takes place between midday and 3pm because at 3pm is when he died. In many churches it takes the form of a meditation based on the seven last words of Jesus on the cross, with hymns and prayers. You would think its called bad Friday because Jesus died, however it\u2019s Good Friday because that was the day that Jesus took upon himself all of the sins of the world and saved the entire world from eternal damnation.
In the article, it says, "All Catholics have work abstention on Good Friday (as well as Holy Thursday, the day of the last supper)." This is incorrect. Actually, we only have work abstention on Good Friday, and some work anyway because of economic reasons. Boricuaeddie 16:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI - The link http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=74 is not working as of 06Apr2007 -- it reaches the site but an error (at www.oca.org) prevents the page from displaying. CRM384 17:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The opening here doesn't make a lot of sense, major WTF? 125.236.153.15 02:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
User:216.68.158.254 removed a large section from the article [1] which I reverted as an "unexplained deletion". However, looking at the paragraph I reinstated, my view is that it is totally unformatted, and very difficult to read, not even being split into paragraphs of reasonable length. Therefore, I removed it again.
I am worried that the removal may have cut out important information, and knowing nothing about the subject, I will delegate the responsibility of determining the significance of the text to someone more knowledgeable than me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor persists in altering the language "Roman Catholic", first to "Catholic", and then to "Latin Rite" Catholic. (The same editor insisted on the same thing in Liturgical Colours, where it was clearly incorrect.) This is an old issue on Wikipedia; the use of "Catholic" to refer only to those in union with Rome is POV. Moreover, the same editor insists on saying "Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox", reversing the order this page has had them before, despite my suggestion that they should be in order of numerical predominance, as they generally are. My efforts to communicate with the editor on his talk page have been ignored. What say you all? Tb ( talk) 21:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
InfornoXV: I think you were offended by my general suggestion about levels of faith. If so, my apologies. I am not even sure if you were that editor or not. However, I have noticed that you have systematically traced all pages that I have edited today and made changes to them. Your main issue seems to be Roman Catholic themes. And on this page you reverted my work with respect to Roman Catholic prayers. It is necessary to discuss on the talk page prior to deletion of a large section not prior to its addition. I think if examples of prayers in Malta and Matins on Thursday nights are relevant, so are Roman Catholic issues, else all those need to be deleted as well - clearly reducing the quality of the whole article. I am not prepared to compromise on the deletion and will insist on its inclusion - however many keystrokes it takes, else the page will tilt away from Roman items all the way to Eastern. I think all groups should learn to live in peace and not fight. Is that not the basis of Christian teachings? Thank you and Happy Easter! History2007 ( talk) 11:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
A few items important to Roman Catholics e.g. examples in Malta and Phillipines, and reparations to Jesus have been deleted a few times at will and with no notice, while many Eastern Catholic items seem to stay intact on this page. Those Roman Catholic items are "fully sourced" and very important to Roman Catholics. If it takes 1,000 reverts, I intend to keep them there, unless there is a rational Roman Catholic approved argument against them. Thank you for not starting a never-ending cycle of reverts. History2007 ( talk) 21:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Tb: I did say that "unless there is a rational Roman Catholic argument" against them. As is, I have seen none. First, please note that the examples from Phillipines etc. were not originally my edits, but I did find them interesting and informative with respect to Roman Catholic issues and I saw no reason why they were deleted at will with no warning. They are very interesting, in fact. Secondly, please look at the larger context: we are dealing with a page on religion where a photo of food items eaten on Good Friday has stayed intact for months and items related to key Roman Catholic religious beliefs are repeatedly deleted at will with no explanation or with a one sentence edit that deletes a whole pile of other items that makes a simple revert difficult to do. Do I have to assume good faith on Good Friday? Those Roman Catholic issues are directly relevant to Roman Catholic practices and are fully sourced. History2007 ( talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Can some mention of the holiday status be made for Good Friday in various countries (G-8, others, etc)?
With specific mention of which sector is closed on that day? (commercial, educational, institutional, retail, gov't, financial, etc) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.12.91 ( talk) 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In this section [2] there's a reference to a symbolic Tomb of Christ, which is widespread custom in Poland. I don't know if it's known in other Catholic communities. The link in the paragraph points to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is something completely different. I guess this deserves a separate article as in Polish Wikipedia. Llewelyn MT ( talk) 01:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
An editor has persistently made a change, over objections, altering "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic". This expresses of course the POV that only the church in communion with Rome is entitled to the claim "Catholic", and the editor expressed here that this was exactly his goal in making the change. This is well-travelled ground for wikipedia, and it's annoying, but understandable, that we must travel it yet again. I rather suspect we need a clear policy about the question, or it will have to be refought here over and over again. Regardless, I'm not willing to be steamrolled by a dogged editor who has determined that because his POV is "a matter of history" the existing consensus is to be discarded. Tb ( talk) 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Are we really saying that only the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church uses this terminology? There are loads of other Byzantine sui juris churches (Romanian, Melkite, Slovak, and the most numerically notable Ukrainians). Using "Greek" as synonymous for Byzantine is definitely something I have not seen in any text written after, say, the sixties. Carolynparrishfan ( talk) 13:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the Melkites are clealry Eastern Catholic, and not Greek in liturgical form, it is quite inappropriate to say Eastern Catholic as if the Melkites did not exist. Tb ( talk) 17:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The infobox says this is celebrated by "most Christians". The question is, then, which Christians don't celebrate it? And do these only include Jehova's Witnesses and LDS members? 216.169.164.70 ( talk) 00:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
had little practical use, so I added a paragraph, based entirely on the "Date of Easter" section of the Easter page. If anyone wants to add proper footnotes, feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.149.191 ( talk) 03:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I know that Good Friday is also called Black Friday, in Australia at least. In reference to "From noon on, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon" Matthew 27.45 Is there a reason that this is not mentioned in the article? ( Luthen) 01:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The word "myth" has been deleted from the lead by several users and an anonymous IP several times tonight. I can't reverse it back, because of WP:3R, but I think that it is clearly people with a POV agenda, and consequently vandalism. The crucifixion of Jesus is a myth, scientifically speaking, regardless of whether it happened or not. Removing this content is clearly an attempt at censorship, because some people find the material offensive or objectionable. It should be re-added. - Duribald ( talk) 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, let me put it this way: no, no and no. I think the basis of M-theory is a myth, and a few other key myths are: statistical independence, quantitative easing and the direct impact of Cholesterol on cardiovascular failure. It would take too long to list all the other myths that I could mention. But Wikipedia is not the place to debate these issues. It is an encyclopedia that follows the general norms of other encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica in treating religious issues. And most encyclopedias do not label a large number of religious items as a myths because some percent of the population do not believe in them. In any case, there is a page called Historical Jesus specifically there for addressing these issues in a historical context. If you have serious historical "material" with solid references (rather than a discussion of personal views) you can present it there. However, Wikipedia can not, and does not, work based on what you and I think from our personal viewpoints, but relies on solid third party references based on well documented Wiki-policies. Hence the reverts were correct based on the norms and policies. History2007 ( talk) 04:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. As an editor uninvolved in this dispute, can I recommend a time out for a minute? I seem to recall from some months ago, probably the latter half of 2008, a discussion about whether and when to call a religious story/convention/etc. a "myth." However, I cannot seem to find where this discussion took place. It may have been on WP:RFC but I am not certain. Can I make the suggestion that rather than arguing whether the crucifixion story is a "myth" or not by linking internally to articles like mythology that the interested parties either, A) find the previous discussion and determine what, if any consensus was reached and apply that consensus to this discussion or B) start a new RFC to determine the community's opinion on calling the story a myth? I think this would be the best way forward as both sides at this point seem to be at an impasse, and a wider discussion would be needed to make any progress. Thanks for your time. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Question: Should the crucifixion of Jesus be referred to as part of Christian mythology, as the concept is defined scientifically (see articles on
Christian mythology and
mythology) in the article lead (see talk page discussion above).
My point of view: The article originally talked of "the myth of the crucifixion", which in scientific terminology it is - it is a story that creates meaning to it's believers, in the lead. A few editors, some of which were IP:s, started systematically removing this contents, apparently because they found it offensive; they identified the word "myth" as meaning an erroneous idea. A couple of us started re-adding the deleted material, because Wikipedia should not be censored and because this is an article based in the scientific study of religion (in which the term myth is systematically applied to religious stories). Edit war broke out. Hence the RfC. As a compromise it was suggested that the crucifixion should not be called a myth, but rather a "part of Christian mythology" - an expression that lends itself less to misinterpretation. I can live with that solution, but some seem to differ. Comments? - Duribald ( talk) 16:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Question 1: Should Moses be viewed as part of theology or mythology? How about all other religious figures? This is a much larger topic. Not just on Christ but on all religious issues. History2007 ( talk) 16:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
CapitalElll ( talk) 17:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe there is no question that there are aspects of the Bible (as well as other religious works) which could fall within the scientific definition of "Mythology", but there are also significant portions which do not, since they are primarily didactic and not narrative. Additionally, the common use of the the word myth carries implication that the veracity of the story can be independent of its value to create meaning. Therefore, identifying the crucifixion primarily as "myth" is misleading, since it is also a pivotal and significant historical event. I also think that while the crucifixion could be discussed in an article about "Christian mythology", the article on the crucifixion should lead with the historical event, and perhaps include a brief mention of its place within Christian theology and Christian mythology, if those mentions are well-sourced. Hokie RNB 18:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually J.delanoy already said that to CapitalElll quite clearly on his talk page when he reverted CapitalElll on Crucifixion of Jesus:
And is it just "statistical coincidence" that this debate takes place today? Just before the date of Crucifixion?
But CapitalElll, perhaps I should also answer your question about the "real topic" here. All these paragraphs with sequences of logical deductions etc. are really beside the point. If there is a topic between your view and mine it is: "Does God exist?" The rest of the sentences are all window dressing for that. I think God exists and I think you have not yet received the Divine Grace to believe that He exists. Today I prayed that you will one day receive that Grace. That may be the only real way to end this cyclic debate. History2007 ( talk) 19:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, thisis going in a circle, but why has ths not been tried:
It is certainly a belief and it is a holiday. Matters not if it is an event. That debate does not belong on this page. End of debate. History2007 ( talk)
Just weighing in since I commented above, I agree with the current wording of the lead. I think event or belief is better than "myth" and think either one would work in the lead. Glad this could be resolved to everyone's, if not satisfaction at least to a version everyone is willing to let stand. The Seeker 4 Talk 21:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Just try calling Muhammad part of "Islamic mythology" and see how long it lasts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Please read the article on mythology. This is not my point of view this is what is used in scholarly works. CapitalElll ( talk) 05:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I would support the addition of the term mythology to anywhere where it adds clarity. CapitalElll ( talk) 05:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
On a more general note, all this talk about mythical motives, mythical coincidences and mythical arguments etc. made me think of Fred Brooks' classic discussion of The Mythical Man-Month, which still remains true today, years after he wrote it. I wonder how one would measure all the wasted efforts here and if they are real. Will adding 9 more valid arguments in favor of the use of "event" here make the debate end any sooner? Maybe we should ask Brooks. And we may have discovered a new, and similar effect within Wikipedia: "Adding more valid arguments to a circular debate only makes the debate run longer". I wonder who will write the book on that...... History2007 ( talk) 08:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't mind the current lead but if it must be changed then I suggest simply removing the declarative "an event central to Christian theology." per Clay Collier above. We needn't even mention it's importance in the lead so if that's what you need CapitalElll, then we can remove that and get on with the rest of the article. I would take Bugs intent to heart (if not his words). If you have a POV and want it represented then you are, by definition, POV-pushing. It is declared, in no uncertain terms, that Good Friday is "a religious holiday", if the reader still wishes to insist on it's historicity then no other adjective you add will change their mind anyway. Padillah ( talk) 12:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the so called compromise was even closer to my desired goal than my initial suggestion at the top of this section, before all the keyboards got worn out. So I did not really accept it, for it was better than my first offer. In any case, let it be on this case. However, let me note for the sake of future debates that:
The end result of the debate was that Wikipedia pages on religious topics do not need to have the word myth as a qualifier.
Since you know your way around here, is there a way to mark this, so it can be recalled later, say 363 days from now? Thanks History2007 ( talk) 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
~== Shouldn't there be some discussion about why it's called "Good" Friday"? ==
This should be discussed in the article, but isn't, or at least I couldn't find any mention of it upon skimming the TOC and the article itself. (If it is in fact in there, it should be made more obvious.) Seems like a pretty grave omission, as the first question that comes to most people's minds upon learning that "Good" Friday celebrates Christ's death is "Why is called "good" Friday then?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.56.104 ( talk) 21:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It's called Good friday as it relieved man from sin. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for God. A greater sacrifice than sheep or cows. 86.21.189.243 ( talk) 19:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
..."observed primarily by adherents to Christianity". Oh. Who are those others we were thinking of? Or perhaps this was "primarily" inserted just in case... of what?-- Wetman ( talk) 05:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see Capital L's debate and its end above. Then please revert similar edits on Crucifixion of Jesus which have started by him again today. Based on the precedence above they need to be reverted. I have just reverted him once. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 06:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
A prediction that I hope will not come true. About 10 days before Easter some debate or sudden edits with agitating consequences may flare up either on this page or Crucifixion of Jesus. It may be advisable for these two pages to be semiprotected for 20 days around Good Friday just to minimize that issue. History2007 ( talk) 22:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
87% of Ireland is Roman Catholic. This qualifies as "predominantly." Rklawton ( talk) 21:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC) It is worth noting that it is illegal to sell alcohol in ireland on Good Friday
The account states that "Pilate has Jesus flogged and then brings him out to the crowd to release him." Most Roman Catholics know this as "The Scourging at the Pillar", one of the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Holy Rosary. Scourging implies either metal hooks or sharp stones were affixed to the ends of the straps in order to tear the skin. Flogging implies merely whipping (if there is such a thing as merely whipping). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.166.38.40 ( talk) 15:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
In my Roman Catholic Church, the roles are divided as follows:
That's right. The laity are encouraged to participate in the Passion by reading out the lines attributed to the other speakers. How about your churches? Do they encourage you to actively participate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindybubbles ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I added the words 'Christians believe' in the sentence describing the Resurrection. This should not be interpreted as flaming towards Christians; I am a practising Lutheran myself. However, due to the supernatural nature of the Resurrection, I feel that, in an objective encyclopaedia, this event--a divine miracle or a myth, whatever you believe--should be presented as a belief. AxelWN ( talk) 21:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
It is incredible. you have obviously written by the Pope and the Vatican City. Nothing about Italy which represents more than 50 percent of the millenium history of world Catholicism. In return, for example, there are five rows about Malta, an amazing archipelago that would come easily...in the mouth of the Hudson river. A decisive place for Catholicism, such as the Philippines, however. And the changes are a waste of time. Congratulations. This site is unwatchable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.163.200 ( talk) 04:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
In the introduction paragraph it states that Good Friday is also known as Black Friday which is not true. Black Friday is the day after Thanksgiving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelStarbuck ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
In Grenada, Kites are flown and there are kite flying competitions. They are often handmade with bamboo or the thin frames of dried banana leave, colorful tissue paper, glue or green sapodilla substitute, and string or twine. The shape of the kite and the use of wood is meant to symbolize the cross that Jesus died on. Also, the kite flying in the sky symbolizes his ascension to heaven. In church kids paint eggs and egg shells with pictures of Jesus and the like. Leroneb ( talk) 14:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Was it marked as also being called Black Friday because of a literal translation of a term in another language or is there actually some attested source referring to the day in English as “Black Friday?” (And if the former, do we really need to calque everything that's a compound in other languages to say it's also called X in English? If the latter, it seems Wiktionary would be a better place to list putative synonyms and even for providing that definition for that term.) mcornelius ( talk) 10:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Uk 'Good Friday' is a religious holiday, like Christmas Day, not a Bank Holiday
2.27.216.157 ( talk) 21:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Good Friday is a Bank Holiday in Scotland only. See legislation here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/80/schedule/1 MarpoHarks ( talk) 15:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The image of Ku Klux Klan (KKK) has to be removed. It has little to nothing to do with Resurrection or first fruits holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelled ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Has : "Easter falls on the first Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon, the full moon on or after 21 March, taken to be the date of the vernal equinox."
Better? : "Easter falls on the first Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon, which represents the date of the full moon on or after 21 March, taken to represent the date of the vernal equinox."
I imagine that it must at all relevant times have been known both that the actual Equinox was not always and everywhere on Match 21st and also that the Paschal Full Moon would not agree exactly with the actual Full Moon.
94.30.84.71 ( talk) 10:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC) please be peacefull — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.142.208 ( talk) 05:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind, I fixed it.
User:Crumpled Fire reverted my edits saying "rv massive removal of information from intro without reason". This is not true. I stated my reason. I said, "removed 2nd para re dates more suitable for crucifixion of Jesus article. This about the holiday as practice."
Crumpled Fire needs to be more careful and considerate before reverting changes, by at the very least, checking what was included the edit summaries. If Crumpled Fire disagrees with my WP:Bold edits then he can of course revert them and add a comment to this Talk page, but that requires showing editors the respect they deserve by taking the time to check and read the edit summaries.
Further, I stand by my judgement that the second paragraph is (a) not suitable for the intro and (b) not suitable for this artcile. The discussion of the date, year and day of Jesus crucifixion does not fit this article which is about the religious holiday as currently practed, not about the event. Thoughts? Let's reach a WP:Consensus. -- Iloilo Wanderer ( talk) 06:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Good Friday. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This is just a small forum for any errors that may arise. Also, why is there Greek at the bit about the cross in the nave (at the end)? 162.104.12.143 ( talk) 00:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Good Friday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I am a new editor and cannot find a source to back my knowledge of prostration being linked to the new ordination of priests. Dejavuici ( talk) 12:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Have worked around this issues as I found the HTML "cheat sheet". Dejavuici ( talk) 19:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Good Friday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Good Friday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Good Friday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Good Friday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The section of this article dealing with the trial and crucifixion of Jesus could mention that the seven last words of Jesus on the Cross were "Into thy hands I commit my Spirit". Vorbee ( talk) 11:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
This section should be a history of the holiday. Content was added recently, but it doesn't look encyclopedic to me, nor is it referenced. I reverted, please discuss. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I reverted what was in the main a change by Abensen1 followed by 7 fix edits to that. Their change deleted text with cites replacing it with prose without such, added repetition of the Easter date discussion found in Easter, and in general did not seem an improvement. I'd left a notice of my concerns on their talk page. If anyone feels differently and can find useful text from the change please modify in accordance. Shenme ( talk) 04:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses apparently don't celebrate holidays, but they do have a memorial for Jesus' death on Nisan 14. What about Mormons, SDA and/or some other Restorationist type Christians? We shouldn't ignore them. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 04:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The Jehovahites of Empire of Jehovah commemorate the death of Jesus Christ on Nissan 14, which sometimes coincides with Christendom's "Good Friday", and very often is on the same week as it. Empire of Jehovah memorializes Jesus' death in harmony with the scripture "as often as you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives." (1st Corinthians 11:26). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KadGeb ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Was reading on article looking for explanation of term "Good" for Friday of Passion as am used to scandinavian term "Long". Stumbled upon term Royal Soldiers, quote "According to the accounts in the Gospels, the royal soldiers...". I did not check the sources, do understand that the main conflict was Jesus claim on being the King of Jews versus mundane kings, as in Render Onto Caesar parable, but physically doubted the term Royal used here, as jews were a colony having an appointed governor with royal lineage being interrupted, while Romans who were doing the arrest mentioned in wiki quote were rather Caesarian, a Ceasar is a tradition drastically different from a Roi giving adverb Royal, in spite of use of related latin verb Regio for "to rule" with slightly overlapping meanings absent in noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.46.190 ( talk) 14:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, this sentence is an ungrammatical sentence fragment and something seems to be missing from the start of it:
Preparation Day (14 Nisan on the Hebrew calendar) – which is the day before Passover (15 Nisan), instead of the Friday morning as the Synoptic Gospels refer to the sabbath and they believe this refers to a "high sabbath" (John 19:31) which occurs on feast days, and not the ordinary weekly sabbath.
(The aside it contains about Preparation Day is also malformed, being started by a dash but closed by a comma.) It seems like it's meant to say something like:
Some Christians observe the Crucifixion of Jesus on Preparation Day (14 Nisan on the Hebrew calendar) – which is the day before Passover (15 Nisan) – instead oftheFriday morning, as the Synoptic Gospels refer to the sabbath and they believe this refers to a "high sabbath" (John 19:31) which occurs on feast days, and not the ordinary weekly sabbath.
-sche ( talk) 21:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
“Good Friday is a widely instituted legal holiday around the world, including in most Western countries and 12 U.S. states.” Is from Harpers New Monthly, 1868. is this still a relevant source for this information? 158.36.62.47 ( talk) 09:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Medusahead: I very much disagree with your removal of sourced content about countries such as Germany that have formally banned dancing and horse racing on Good Friday. Simply put, the sources directly mention horse racing and dancing, and it's clearly relevant to Good Friday, as observed worldwide. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 13:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Throughout the entire English Wikipedia, someone of a particularly high church orientation in the United Methodist Church has systematically added entries on Methodism about ritual and practice that are not remotely common among Methodists. The author asserts that Methodists churches routinely use the crucifix and commonly engage in practices associated with Roman Catholicism and the Anglo-Catholic variant of Anglicanism that are extremely rare in Methodist practice worldwide. It is close to vandalism, inaccurate, and needs to stop. IACOBVS ( talk) 22:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)