JW Insider

@Arauna has often pointed out that something she calls "hate OCD" will affect the ability of a person to tell the truth about another person's point of view when it disagrees (at least in part) with their own point of view. @Patiently waiting for Truth (John) has made several arguments that are wrong in my opinion. Yet he  has clearly made the point that the letter "J" was used prior to 1949. You create a false, "straw man" argument, something akin to a "lie" when you pretend that he claimed something different.
Of course, it's so ludicrous to pretend that John claimed there was no letter J before 1949 that I wouldn't call it a lie. It's so obvious that you already know you are wrong that it falls under some other category. It's purposeful nonsense, just like claiming that Hitler is his hero.
My best guess is that you were merely grasping at "strawmen" so that you can divert to the claim that "he is wrong" because that is easier for you than admitting that @Patiently waiting for Truth was correct at least on that one particular point about the Spanish monk, Raymund Martini. Even the Watchtower admits that John's information was right on that point.
For a 70-some year old man, John sometimes comes across as childish. I'm sure that I, too, sometimes come across that way. But when it's obvious that I am responding childishly, I don't mind having it pointed out to me.

Like this?

This is an interesting point. The information that @Patiently waiting for Truth included is true, and it does not confirm the 1970 Watchtower article. That article was wrong, and the Watchtower kept that wrong view from about 1950 to about 1980. Without admitting that this old view was wrong, the Watchtower has more recently (1984) made a correction to it, which I have included at the end of the post.
The 1970 Watchtower article that Chioke Lin quoted earlier says:
*** w70 6/1 p. 343 A New Bible Translation—Does It Honor God? ***
But French scribes did not invent the name “Jehovah.” It was in use centuries before, Raymond Martin’s Pugio Fidei using it in the form “Jehova” in the year 1270.
Here's the same wrong information repeated in 1980:
*** w80 2/1 p. 11 The Divine Name in Later Times ***
Interestingly, Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican order, first rendered the divine name as “Jehova.” This form appeared in his book Pugeo Fidei, published in 1270 C.E.—over 700 years ago.
This incorrect information had been presented in further detail back in 1950. Many of the extra details are correct:
*** w50 12/1 pp. 472-474 An Open Letter to the Catholic Monsignor ***
Your quotation from the Catholic Biblical Encyclopedia says Jehovah was the incorrect pronunciation given to the Hebrew tetragrammaton JHVH in the 14th century by Porchetus de Salvaticis (1303). But let us say: The origin of the word Jehovah used to be attributed to Petrus Galatinus, a Franciscan friar, the confessor of Pope Leo X, in his De Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis, published in 1518. But the latest scholarship has proved he was not the one to introduce the pronunciation Jehovah, and neither was your aforementioned Porchetus de Salvaticis. As shown by Joseph Voisin, the learned editor of the Pugio Fidei (The Poniard of Faith) by Raymundus Martini, Jehovah had been used long before Galatinus. Even a generation before Porchetus de Salvaticis wrote his Victoria contra Judaeos (1303), the Spanish Dominican friar Raymundus Martini wrote his Pugio, about 1278, and used the name Jehovah. In fact, Porchetus took the contents of his Victoria largely from Martini’s Pugio. And Scaliger proves that Galatinus took his De Arcanis bodily from Martini’s Pugio. Galatinus did not introduce the pronunciation Jehovah, but merely defended it against those who pronounced the Hebrew tetragrammaton Jova.
In 1557 Jehovah became established in John Forster’s New Hebrew Dictionary, and Marcus Marinus admitted Jehova in his Lexicon Arca Noae of 1593. Sebastian Muenster uses the name Jehova in his text of his Latin translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (1534), and in his notes on Exodus 3:15 and 6:3 he uses the name as though it were well known. Also in 1557, in bringing out Pagninus’ Latin version of the Hebrew Scriptures, Robert Stephanus used Jehova uniformly for the Hebrew tetragrammaton. In a note on Psalm 2:1 he remarked that substituting Adonai for it was to be rejected as a Jewish superstition.
Cardinal Thomas de Vio Cajetanus in his Commentary on the Pentateuch, of 1531, regularly used Jehova. In his translation of Genesis 2:4 he has “Jehova Elohim”; and in his note on Exodus 6:3 he says: “Jehovah the God of your fathers appeared to me (Iehova Elohe patrum vestrorum visus est mihi).” To be consistent, you should call that “shallow scholarship” on the part of your cardinal, what?
But that such “shallow scholarship” is not limited to Roman Catholic clergy of the 13th to the 16th centuries, ...
The pronunciation Jahweh, usually credited to John L. Ewald of the 18th century, goes back farther, to the 16th century. Ten years before Ewald was born (1747), Jahveh was found in Eichhorn’s Simonis, the Lexicon in most general use in Germany. F. H. Gesenius adopted the pronunciation Jahveh when Ewald was still defending Jehovah.
A correction to this misinformation was made in 1984, in our publication "The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever." (Appropriately released at the time of the 1984 Reference Edition of the NWT.) In this publication, it was tacitly admitted that the monk, Raymundus Martini, had never used any form like "Jehovah" or "Iehovah" or "Jehova" or "Yehova." These forms were not generally evidenced until the 16th century, literally several centuries later.
*** na pp. 17-18 God’s Name and Bible Translators ***
In time, God’s name came back into use. In 1278 it appeared in Latin in the work Pugio fidei (Dagger of Faith), by Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk. Raymundus Martini used the spelling Yohoua. Soon after, in 1303, Porchetus de Salvaticis completed a work entitled Victoria Porcheti adversus impios Hebraeos (Porchetus’ Victory Against the Ungodly Hebrews). In this he, too, mentioned God’s name, spelling it variously Iohouah, Iohoua and Ihouah.  Then, in 1518, Petrus Galatinus published a work entitled De arcanis catholicae veritatis (Concerning Secrets of the Universal Truth) in which he spells God’s name Iehoua.
The name first appeared in an English Bible in 1530, when William Tyndale published a translation of the first five books of the Bible.
------------
*** na p. 17 God’s Name and Bible Translators ***
In time, God’s name came back into use. In 1278 it appeared in Latin in the work Pugio fidei (Dagger of Faith), by Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk. Raymundus Martini used the spelling Yohoua.
*** na p. 18 God’s Name and Bible Translators ***
[Picture on page 18]
God’s name in the form Yohoua appeared in 1278 in the work Pugio fidei as seen in this manuscript (dated to the 13th or 14th century) from the Ste. Geneviève library, Paris, France (folio 162b)
*** na p. 17 God’s Name and Bible Translators ***
Printings of this work dated some centuries later, however, have the divine name spelled Jehova.

You don't do it as often as others, but I notice that you fill several of your posts with complete non sequiturs and logical fallacies. These types of insults and false reasonings will only push people away from your doctrinal discussions, some of which I find quite interesting.  
I'm sorry I had to point this out, but please don't embarrass yourself further. I think most people will think you handle Biblical discussions a bit better.
(Colossians 4:5, 6) 5 Go on walking in wisdom toward those on the outside, making the best use of your time. 6 Let your words always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should answer each person.

It's just a point of clarification.
The 12th century runs from 1100 to 1199 (more common to say 1101 to 1200). So the 13th runs from 1201 to 1300. The 1st century Christians, of course, lived in the century that ran from 1 (AD) to 100 (AD).
The 20th century ran from 1901 to 2000, and our current 21st century runs from 2001 until it runs out a few years after 2034 (just kidding on that last one).

Not the 11th or the 12th for this monk. Raymundo Martini was probably born in the 13th century and also died within the 13th century. Wikipedia refers to sources that support the following claim:
He was born in the first half of the 13th century at Subirats in Catalonia; and died after 1284. It is speculated that he could have been of Jewish origin. --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Martini
That second sentence might have some bearing on his interest in translating YHWH the way he did.

It's gotta be templates from wix.com for brorando.com. But a quick search will show that he has used several different sites and domains over the years.

A few weeks ago, I mentioned to my wife and kids that I found a person on craigslist selling a $900 Celestron 6SE telescope for $400-something and I offered him $300 to see what he might say.  He said he couldn't get the motorized finder and computerized mechanism to work, but that the lens/mirror/scope/accessories were in perfect shape and never really used. He sent pictures and agreed on $350.
Then I was embarrassed, and actually not that happy that I had to drop the deal because my 3 kids all quickly pitched in and got me a new one from B&H Photo. 
Well, it got its space debut tonight since it's clear, not too cold, and all my kids and two grand-kids were over at the house. It was an easy setup, even though it's a lot heavier than anything we've had before. (What we had before was a`cheap model we got for the kids when they were actually kids. And that cheap one was like one I had when I was a kid 50-some years ago.)
So this one was quite a different experience for me. If I had taken the time I could have aligned it with just 3 sky objects and I could then punch in names or coordinates of up to 40,000 stars and galaxies and it would automatically point me right to them and keep them tracked as the earth turns and they move across the sky. But the grand-kids couldn't stay up too late and I figured it would be quicker to just manually aim with the side-scope and go. Turns out that the thing is too big to move around manually at small sky objects when the tripod is on soft ground and grass.
Long story short, I'm no longer angry that they spent extra to get a new, fully-working, automated telescope. Even though I didn't set up the automation yet, I was still able to use the remote for easy manual movement up, down, left, and right in small increments. This made it a breeze to point at something big like the moon and then use the remote to slowly scan the sky for new starts and planets.
We started this at only 8:30pm when the sky was still bluish instead of black and we also have some street-lights that can make visibility in the telescope less than idea. But it was still picking up thousands of stars we couldn't see with our unaided eyes.
The moon was bright and gorgeous, and I was happily satisfied that everyone got a chance to see the craters and hills so clearly. But then I maneuvered with the remote quite a distance to the right and Jupiter with 4 moons were as clear as day. Then about half that distance again to the right and down a bit we saw Saturn and you could distinguish the separation in the rings. Perfect stargazing night, and we didn't need to stay out past 9:30.
Next time, I'll hook it up for some clusters, galaxies, nebulae, etc.

George Benson Bless Jehovah oh my Soul .-18.mp4    

….. perhaps I could find a movie “Octopi on a City Bus”, to take my mind off of George Benson 🥑🥑🥑

I'm sure a serious question would first need to be asked, and not some long-drawn opinion in order to have a meaningful bible discussion, and not just an argument generated by animosity. No Christian is supposed to argue, much like it's done here. So, it makes me wonder, how many consider themselves Christians.
But, this "topic" is about God's name, not some kind of, circular way at criticism. We can all do that without breaking a sweat.
It seems your presentation on how the name of God sounded seems a little outlandish, since we don't know exactly how the tone was for praising God in ancient times. 
We need to consider, how scribes manipulated the YHWH to make it seem to look like something else. Regardless if we are scholars or rabbi's, the professionals have a better understanding on how the YHWH was formed.
I AM THAT I AM
When Moses met God at the burning bush, Moses asked God what his name was. God responded, “I Am That I Am” (Exodus 3:13-14). In Hebrew the name is spelled YHWH, or Yahweh. In the several centuries before Christ, Jews were not allowed to pronounce the name because it was holy. When they came to the name Yahweh in the Scripture, they said Adonai (‘the Lord’). See the list of names for God at the entry for God.
It wouldn’t matter to a Hebrew. If God’s name came up, they substituted God's personal name out of fear. Those that God favored, had no problem praising God without fear.
Scholars recognize where scribes wanted to reconfigure the YHWH to mean something else.
Translators of the Old Testament have not agreed upon the correct translation of the name Yahweh. Since it is translated into the Greek as kurios, which means, “Lord,” many have translated Yahweh as “LORD.” However, ‘Adonai, which is best translated “Lord,” appears with Yahweh in various instances. The King James Version, for example, translates Yahweh as “God,” and ‘Adonai as “Lord.” Some modern translators have chosen to maintain the use of Yahweh. The name Jehovah has been judged by translators to be unacceptable. This name arose due to the Jewish practice of not pronouncing Yahweh because of Leviticus 24:16, “He that blasphemes the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16). This warning against a vain or blasphemous use of the name was taken in an absolute sense, especially after Israel’s exile to Babylon (Amos 6:10). Because of this, when reading the Old Testament, the Jews substituted either Elohim or ‘Adonai for Yahweh. From this, the practice of adding the vowels of ‘Adonai to YHWH (JeHoWaH) became established.
 Nehemia Gordon Findings, found the name Yahovah. So, the substitution of the J for Y and “e” for “a” is appropriate in the English language.
Now if the discussion is going to extend, to how we arrive at those substitutions from "a" to "e" then we need to understand how the language transformed within the Jews.

The professionals also have a good explanation for that transformation. So, in English, the name of God is Jehovah, and it's appropriate under the Hebrew scheme of language. 
 
 

Summary of Nehemia Gordon (Scholar regarding the name Yehovah):   I  am often asked whether God’s name, Yehovah, is related to the Hebrew word for "disaster". The question starts off with the observation that the Hebrew word hovah means "disaster, calamity".
This word “hovah” appears three times in the Tanach, once in Isaiah and twice in a single verse in Ezekiel: "Evil is coming upon you which you will not know how to charm away; disaster (hovah) is falling upon you which you will not be able to appease; coming upon you suddenly is ruin of which you know nothing." (Isaiah 47:11) "Calamity (hovah) shall follow calamity (hovah), and rumor follow rumor. Then they shall seek vision from the prophet in vain; instruction shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the elders." (Ezekiel 7:26) Since hovah means "disaster" or "calamity", I am often asked, doesn't this mean that Yehovah also means "disaster" or "calamity".
I guess this makes sense to those innocent of basic Hebrew grammar, but in the Hebrew language this makes no sense. This would be like saying that the English word "assume" is derived from the word "ass" because when you ass-u-me you make an ass of you and me. Someone actually said this many years ago, and they were dead serious. Of course, an examination of any historical English dictionary will reveal that "assume" actually comes from the Latin verb "assume(re)" and not from the English word for a donkey.
Let's look at some Hebrew basics before we get ourselves in trouble assuming. With a few exceptions, every word in the Hebrew language has a three-letter root, something proven in the 11th century by the Spanish rabbi, Yonah Ibn Janah. Modern linguistics have confirmed this, observing that the three-letter root is a basic characteristic of all Semitic languages.
Whole Roots:
Most Hebrew roots are "whole" roots meaning all three letters of the root are present regardless of how the root is used in different grammatical forms. For example, the Hebrew root SH.M.R. has the basic meaning "to guard". Hebrew can use this root in dozens of ways, each with a different shade of meaning, such as the verbs SHaMaRti "I guarded" and hiShaMeR "be careful" (be on guard), the noun miSHMeRet meaning "duty" (which a person has to be on guard to keep), and the names SheMeR and SHoMRon. As a "whole" root, the letters shin, mem, resh, are always present in words derived from this root.
Hollow Roots:
The opposite of a "whole" root, is a "hollow" root. In "hollow" roots, one or more of the three letters of the root can be absent in certain grammatical forms. For example, the root BNH "to build" loses the third letter of the root in the verb baniti (spelled BNYty) "I built". In this form of the verb, the H of BNH drops and is replaced by a Yod.
If you didn't know about hollow verbs, and saw the word baniti, you might think the root was BNY, when in fact it is BNH.  .............Yehovah is from a Hollow Root. The name Yehovah derives from the three-letter root HYH which means "to be". We know this from Ex 3:14 in which the Almighty explains his name as "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh". The word Ehyeh is an "imperfect" verb from the root HYH meaning "to be". In later Hebrew, the "imperfect" form took on the meaning of "future", but in Biblical Hebrew it primarily expresses a repetitive action. In plain English, Ehyeh means "I am now and I will continue to be in the future". This is why Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh can be translated as "I am that which I am", but also as "I will be that which I will be". Both of these translations are correct, even if they are a bit inaccurate. An accurate translation would be: "I am now, and will continue to be in the future, that which I am now, and will be continue to be in the future". That's quite a mouthful, and you can see why most translations prefer to dumb it down.
I just remembered - One of the first things I realized when I studied Arabic (also a Semitic language with 3 root consonants in most words) ...is that most verbs already assume that an existing person is carrying out the verb. So one does not say : I am playing this or that.  Most sentences are: I play..... the AM is not in the sentence. 
This is why a rare form of hollow root is used to express the I AM when speaking of Jehovah.

Our “English” letters have come to us through a variety of sources. Most people who learn to speak multiple languages have more acceptance about this variety. For example, you probably know that in German, a man named Johann Walters would spell his name with the J and the W and would therefore pronounce his name Yohan Valters. (But if a German word starts with a V then it is usually pronounced more like the English sound “F”.)
Many copies of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible (LXX) were made about the time that some of the Maccabees had already campaigned against pronouncing God’s name in Hebrew or Aramaic. Curiously, the OT book of Joshua in the LXX is called the book of Jesus, because Joshua was already being spelled "Iesous." The initial letter “I” was pronounced as a “Y”. The German word for Jesus is Jesu, pronounced Yay’zoo. (As in the two English words yay! + zoo. )
Jewish persons who wrote Greek in other countries and who were outside the influence of the Maccabees campaign or other campaigns to avoid pronouncing God’s name would write it in Greek in a way that indicated it was being pronounced Ya’ho.  Even non-Hebrew writers wrote about this pronunciation as the common pronunciation among Jewish persons when Jews referred to their Hebrew God. (As in the two English words yaw + hoe.)
In English most of us don’t mind the fact that we speak of the book of “James” even though the NT Greek actually says “Iakobos” (Jacobos). But Spanish speakers will often replace this this word “Jacobos” with “Santiago” and hardly anyone is offended. Even the NWT uses “Santiago” instead of "James" or "Jaime" or "Jacobo": https://www.jw.org/es/biblioteca/biblia/biblia-estudio/libros/santiago-informacion/

I have never tried to contact him, but in his own comments, and his writing, videos, interviews, etc, he has already answered every specific  question I would have wanted to ask of him. 

Our “English” letters have come to us through a variety of sources. Most people who learn to speak multiple languages have more acceptance about this variety. For example, you probably know that in German, a man named Johann Walters would spell his name with the J and the W and would therefore pronounce his name Yohan Valters. (But if a German word starts with a V then it is usually pronounced more like the English sound “F”.)
Many copies of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible (LXX) were made about the time that some of the Maccabees had already campaigned against pronouncing God’s name in Hebrew or Aramaic. Curiously, the OT book of Joshua in the LXX is called the book of Jesus, because Joshua was already being spelled "Iesous." The initial letter “I” was pronounced as a “Y”. The German word for Jesus is Jesu, pronounced Yay’zoo. (As in the two English words yay! + zoo. )
Jewish persons who wrote Greek in other countries and who were outside the influence of the Maccabees campaign or other campaigns to avoid pronouncing God’s name would write it in Greek in a way that indicated it was being pronounced Ya’ho.  Even non-Hebrew writers wrote about this pronunciation as the common pronunciation among Jewish persons when Jews referred to their Hebrew God. (As in the two English words yaw + hoe.)
In English most of us don’t mind the fact that we speak of the book of “James” even though the NT Greek actually says “Iakobos” (Jacobos). But Spanish speakers will often replace this this word “Jacobos” with “Santiago” and hardly anyone is offended. Even the NWT uses “Santiago” instead of "James" or "Jaime" or "Jacobo": https://www.jw.org/es/biblioteca/biblia/biblia-estudio/libros/santiago-informacion/

I have never tried to contact him, but in his own comments, and his writing, videos, interviews, etc, he has already answered every specific  question I would have wanted to ask of him. 

I would have no problem at all with the pronunciation "Jehovah" (or "Yehowah" or even "Yahweh" or "Jahveh") although I think that Jehovah is the best alternative considering the evolution of the English language.
But I have never understood why you have repeatedly said that English does not have the "Y" sound. Of course it does.

No. Because the night on the third day would not have been completed before dawn of that second day.
If someone dies on Friday afternoon and they are buried that Friday night, then the night of the first day is completed on Saturday. The night of the second day is therefore begun on the next night, Saturday night, and completed on the dawn of that second day which is Sunday morning. The night of the third day, would have been completed, therefore on Monday morning.
This is true even in our current conception of when a day begins, but would have been even clearer with the Jewish conception of when a day began, because their day started with nightfall.
You can begin the start of his judgment then if you wish, but the sign of Jonah was that he was in "Sheol" for three days and three nights. Christians saw no need to take this to any kind of literal count of hours. The very fact that it could apply when Jesus may have been in Sheol for only two nights is good evidence that there was no good reason to try to count the exact hours to make something spiritually significant out of them.

At least 1,000 people were killed and more than 1,500 were injured when an earthquake struck a rural part of eastern Afghanistan early Wednesday. The country has already been suffering through a humanitarian crisis since the Taliban took power almost 10 months ago, which prompted international organizations to withdraw financial support for Afghanistan.

How many babies in the US were fed this way you think?

Saturday was the regular sabbath on which no cooking on any work was to be done.  It was the first day of the Festival of Unfermented cakes.  The first day being a special day- kept like a Sabbath.
Festival of Unfermented cakes:
The first convention of the Jews was to be held in early spring and lasted eight days, from Nisan 14 to 21, to celebrate first the Passover; and then the festival of unfermented cakes. 
They were occasions of great rejoicing before Jehovah and happy fellowship, joyful, upbuilding reunions of the entire nation.
Four days previously, on the tenth of the month, each family head had to take into the house a sound male lamb or goat, a year old. After sunset of Nisan 14 it was slaughtered without a bone’s being broken and then roasted whole.
 
"During the first Passover in Egypt - the blood was splashed upon the upper part of the doorway and upon the two doorposts, where every passerby could see it. After this no one was permitted to leave the house.  “Later in the evening the whole family assembled around the table to eat the Passover lamb or goat with unfermented cakes and bitter herbs. They ate in haste, not sitting down at their tables, but standing, with their hips girded, their sandals on their feet and a staff in their hand. They were ready to leave that very night as Jehovah had promised through his prophet Moses. 
The eating of the Passover lamb with unfermented cakes and bitter greens reminds the Israelites, not only of the afflictions while they were in Egypt and the hasty departure, but also of the miraculous deliverance from cruel slavery under the mighty Pharaoh. This has made Passover a joyous festival. To express this joy, wine was added later to be used during this festival of liberation and songs were sung, such as the ‘Egyptian Hallel’ during the first part of the celebration, that is, Psalms 113 and 114, and at the conclusion of the feast Psalms 115 to 118. 
“For, indeed, Christ our Passover has been sacrificed.” (1 Cor. 5:7) Yes, Christ Jesus was offered as the perfect Lamb of God exactly on Nisan 14, in the year 33 C.E. B y this sacrifice the basis was laid for a far greater deliverance than the release from Egyptian captivity.
The day following Passover marked the beginning of the festival of unfermented cakes, which ran for seven days, from Nisan 15 to 21. During these seven days the Israelites continued to eat unfermented cakes; in fact, no fermentation was to be found in their homes. This law was very strict; anyone found eating what was leavened was to be cut off from the people, put to death. 
The next day of the convention, Nisan 16, was another featured day. It was the second day of the festival of unfermented cakes, the official opening of the harvest. The Jews were not allowed to eat from the product of the new harvest before this day, when the firstfruits were offered to Jehovah. On this day the high priest was required to wave a sheaf of the barley firstfruits to and fro before Jehovah at the sanctuary. (Lev. 23:10-14)
During the seven-day festival, in addition to the regular sacrifices, two bullocks, one ram and seven male lambs were offered day by day as burnt offerings and a he-goat as a sin offering, besides the many voluntary offerings by individuals. The festival climaxed with a final general assembly on the seventh day, Nisan 21
By the waving of the sheaf of the firstfruits of the barley harvest, another important point was foreshadowed. Again it is the apostle Paul who gives us the correct understanding: “However, now Christ has been raised up from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep . . . Christ the first fruits.” No ferment or leaven, representing sin, was associated with the presentation of the barley firstfruits, for Jesus Christ was “loyal, guileless, undefiled, separated from the sinners.” As the sheaf was waved on Nisan 16 Jesus was raised as the “first fruits,” or the firstborn from the dead, on Nisan 16, 33 C.E. Since Jesus is called the “first fruits” or “first-born from the dead,” there must be more “fruit” following him. This is foreshadowed by the next festival.
On Sivan 6, the second national convention was held, the festival of weeks, also called Pentecost, meaning the fiftieth day. It was a one-day convention. Many conventioneers stayed in Jerusalem from Passover till Pentecost. Pentecost was a very joyful gathering; it was “the festival of harvest of the first ripe fruits of your labors, of what you sow in the field.” 
 They should be baked leavened, as first ripe fruits to Jehovah.” It is interesting to notice the use of leaven during this festival. 
The most notable festival of weeks ever held was the one celebrated after Jesus’ resurrection in the year 33 C.E. The historian Dr. Luke has recorded the events of this memorable Pentecost in detail. (See Acts, chapter 2.) It was on this day that the waving of the two fermented loaves began to have fulfillment. The two loaves symbolically represented the entire body of 144,000 spirit-begotten members of Christ’s body as being waved or presented by Christ Jesus, the greater High Priest, before Jehovah as holy unto Him. The 120 disciples who were gathered in the upper room were the first members presented and the ingathering of the remaining ones has continued from Pentecost 33 C.E. until our day, with a remnant yet living on earth. The first ones were taken from the natural Jews, as foreshadowed by one of the loaves, and then others were taken from the Gentile nations, beginning in 36 C.E., when Peter preached to Cornelius, as represented by the second “loaf.”—Acts 10:1-48.
]
The watchtower I found this information  goes on to explain why the breads were fermented etc..    https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1967523
 
Nissan 15: That is, Nisan 15. The day after Nisan 14 was always observed as a Sabbath, or holy day of rest, no matter what day of the week it fell on. Additionally, in 33 C.E., Nisan 15 fell on the regular weekly Sabbath, making the day a “great,” or double, Sabbath.—Joh 19:31; see App. B12 (this appendix B12 is worth keeping)
 
John 19:31: New International Version
31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.  
Preparation: A name applied to the day preceding the weekly Sabbath. During this day, the Jews got ready for the Sabbath by preparing extra meals and finishing any work that could not wait until after the Sabbath. In this case, the day of Preparation fell on Nisan 14.—Mr 15:42; see Glossary.
27:63
three days: This expression can mean parts of three days. This is evident from the request that the tomb “be made secure until the third day,” and not until the fourth.—Mt 27:64; see study note on Mt 12:40.
three days and three nights: Other Bible accounts show that this expression can mean parts of three days and that part of one day can be considered a whole day.—Ge 42:17, 18; 1Ki 12:5, 12; Mt 27:62-66; 28:1-6.
 
I looked this up because it is important.  Enjoy!
 

Jesus cried out " my God why have you forsaken me" (paraphrased)..... 
If God helped Jesus at this time, then Satan could accuse God of not being fair - that Jesus did not give his all together with his life and suffer of his own free will. Satan  could have said that Jesus was unfairly or extraordinarily helped to endure. He did not really have a death of suffering.
When they offered Jesus myrrh and wine he refused for the same reason.  This combination was known to deaden the pain and was a kind of drug.  Jesus did everything perfectly so that no legitimate accusations could be brought against his sacrifice.  There were of course, many false accusations.
 
Sheol and Hades: 
These words mean the same: the common grave of mankind (all humans go to dust in the common grave of mankind). Gehenna is the second death (this can be discussed later as this refers to death which lasts forever.)
I can explain this to you in more detail later if you want........  but it is important to know that Jesus died completely!
What do I mean by that? Many Christians believe Jesus was a body with a separate soul.  Is this belief correct? NO! This belief comes from the Babylonian teachings of the "underworld" where the soul lives on after death or is conscious.  The bible does not teach this at all. 
In fact, the Bible prophesied that Jesus would put his "soul" in death!   Isaiah 53: 12 
"For that reason I will assign him a portion among the many, And he will apportion the spoil with the mighty, Because he poured out his soul  even to death And was counted among the transgressors; He carried the sin of many people, And he interceded for the transgressors." Soul is equated with your life as a person, and some translations render it as " life" or a breather".  Question: if only Jesus' body died - then why does the bible say that the "soul" that sinneth, it shall die.....  If only his body died - then our souls are not saved because the entire soul dies! Humans - when they die - everything they are goes into death - also the part which can think and be morally responsible for the person's actions. Ezekiel 18:4 "  Look! All the souls*—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so also the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul* who sins is the one who will die."   In fact you are a soul (there are many scriptures in the bible which prove this).  One can kill a soul with a sword, a soul has blood; and animals are also called souls!   Josh 11:11 (many translations has living person or soul in this verse);   Genesis 9:4. God allowed Noah and his family to add animal flesh to their diet after the Flood but commanded them not to eat the blood. God told Noah: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.”   Leviticus 17:14. “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” God viewed the soul, or life, as being in the blood and belonging to him.    When Jesus died - he died completely.  No part of him remained alive. Jesus is called the Last Adam:  Jesus died the same death as Adam to save us from death - "a life for a life" or soul for soul. Jesus was the only person and last person to be exactly like Adam - a perfect man. (1 Cor 15:45) Adam was created from dust and god blew breath into his nostrils - he became a living soul or person.  (read Genesis 2:7).   (He could not think or do anything conscious before God blew the breath of life into him - he was dust formed into a body).    When Adam sinned - god said he would go back to the condition he was in before he was conscious - before he knew he existed. God said genesis 3: 3 " You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’” 4  At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. Satan lied and many people still believe this lie - that we do not completely die!   Genesis 3:19...... "19  In the sweat of your face you will eat bread* until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.” Adam went back into nothingness, oblivion... dust - what he was before god created him.   So Adam was perfect and will never exist again (he is in Gehenna or second death)- he chose to disobey God as a perfect human being.  The ransom sacrifice of Jesus works only for imperfect humans who put faith in him and his resurrection - to get a chance of a resurrection to life.   This scripture usually shocks people:  Eccl 3: " 19  for there is an outcome* for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome.  As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20  All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust."   We are in the same condition as animals at death.  Animals do not receive a resurrection but humans are different.  We are moral beings (we understand good and bad), and have the opportunity to be resurrected.  All is not futile for those who put their trust in Jehovah and the resurrection of Jesus.  Faith in the resurrection allows us remain faithful.  We know we are not lost in the grave forever even if our persecutors may kill us.   I am sure you will have more questions ... am I right?   That is very good!  Go ahead!

Interesting comparison:
Ezek 12:6 - "While they are watching, raise your baggage onto your shoulder and carry it out in the dark. You must cover your face so that you cannot see the ground because I have made you an object lesson to the house of Israel.”
עֲלָטָה ʻălâṭâh, al-aw-taw'; feminine from an unused root meaning to cover; dusk:—dark, twilight.
darkness, dusk
 
Num 9:11 - In the second month on the fourteenth day at twilight, they shall celebrate it; they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
עֶרֶב ʻereb, eh'-reb; from H6150; dusk:— day, even(-ing, tide), night.
evening, originally sunset
 

I find your comments on this subject to be the most uplifting, and have certainly given me food for thought. Thank you. 
I think others are 'digging too deep' and losing the real meaning behind it all, as you have said.