What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[waitasec]

Review the nomenclature of the NT in post #212, where "Passover" can have three different meanings, and very seldom means just Nisan 14.

and then read vs 28

"Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. "

look, i think it's really interesting how you choose to overlook what someone who practiced this tradition is telling you. this nomenclature excuse is a disclaimer. in any case why are you trying to prove you're right, isn't it supposed to be taken by faith? doesn't seem like it. it seems you are depending on evidence to prove your faith.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

it seems you are depending on evidence to prove your faith.

(poor evidence)

 

[fallingblood]

Jesus never tried to teach judaism but the Gospel of the Kingdom of God Mk.1v14,15.:yes:

You have to understand what the Kingdom of God is first. It is a Jewish concept. Thus, you need to know a little about Judaism in order to understand the Kingdom of God.

 

[fallingblood]

Jesus also fulfilled some of the laws on the cross so we are only left with keeping the spiritual law of the 10 Commandments Rom.7 and not the full 630 the Jews still believe in. Rejecting Jesus keeps them in that bind and they want to hold them over us still.

Not at all. Jesus was a Jew. Dying on the cross did absolutely nothing but show to the vast majority of Jews that he was not the Messiah. It fulfilled no laws. Especially, from my understanding, you can't fulfill the laws. I mean, I can't die on the cross and then assume others can murder people because I fulfilled a law.

 

[fallingblood]

How so? Please explain how you think this was cleared up.

If you aren't willing to actually read posts fully, then there is no need to sum up the last few pages for you.

 

[smokydot]

The Romans had Jesus killed, not the Jews. The idea that the Jews killed Jesus is ridiculous, and has resulted in 2,000 years of brainless anti-semitism. Again, the Romans killed Jesus. The Jews had nothing to do with it.

You're doing it again. . .speaking from ignorance.

The NT is replete with Scriptures to the contrary:

Mt 27:20-25 -- "But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barrabas and to have Jesus executed. . .'I am innocent of this man's blood,' said Pilate. 'It is your responsibility.' All the people answered, 'Let his blood be upon us and on our children!' "

Ac 2:23-- Peter addressed the crowd. . ."Men of Israel. . .this man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him, as David said [in Psalm 16 (15):9-10.]"

Ac 7:51-53 -- Stephen said to the Sanhedrin. . ."Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him. . ."

Ac 3:12-15 -- Peter said to the onlookers. . ."Men of Isreal. . .The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. We are witnesses of this."

1 Th 2:15 -- "You became imitators of the churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out."

More so, there were more than just Pharisees and Sadducees during that time. Most likely, Jesus did have a problem with the Sadducees. But there is little reason to assume there was a problem with the Pharisees, especially considering that vast amount of similarity there. And the Pharisees had little power during that time.

Again, the NT is replete with Scriptures reporting Jesus' problems with the Pharisees:

Mt 9:34 -- "But the Pharisees said, 'It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons.' "

Mk 3:6 -- "But the Pharisees went out and held a council against him with the Herodians (Herod was a Saducee), on how they might kill Jesus."

Mt 12:24 -- "But when the Pharisees heart this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons that this man drives out demons.' "

Mt 16:6, 12 -- " 'Be careful,' Jesus said to them. 'Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Saducees'. . .Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Saducees."

Mt 21:45-46 -- "When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them. They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet."

Mt 22:15-16 -- "Then the Pharisees went out, and took counsel (with the Herodians) how they might trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians."

Mt 23:2-3 -- "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.' "

Mt 23:13,15,16-17,19,23-27,29,33 -- Jesus said to the crowds. . ."Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! . .Woe to you blind guides! . .You blind fools! . .You blind men! . .Blind Pharisees! . .You snakes! You brood of vipers!

Shall I post all those from the other gospels reporting Jesus' problems with the Pharisees?

Finally, there is reason for the Gospel writers to have a problem with the Pharisees though. The reason being that it was Rabbinic Judaism, which had a founding with the Pharisees, that pushed the Jesus movement away. There were definitely problems between the later Jesus movement and Rabbinic Judaism.
Again though, the Pharisees and Sadducees made up only a small amount of Judaism. And the Gospels give us no reason to assumed that Jesus had a problem with Judaism.

The gospels report that it was Jesus who had the serious problems with the Pharisees.

You still have homework to do on the NT.

 

[fallingblood]

You're doing it again. . .speaking from ignorance.

The NT is replete with Scriptures to the contrary:


Shall I post all those from the other gospels reporting Jesus' problems with the Pharisees ?
The gospels report that it was Jesus who had the serious problems with the Pharisees.

You still have homework to do on the NT.

Thanks for the time to actually read what I said. Because you obviously haven't. Honestly, I don't care what the Gospels say in this case, because they are wrong. It is as simple as that. And honestly, there is no point to show why I hold this opinion, as you clearly will only make some condescending remark, after you didn't even read the entire post.

 

[smokydot]

Jews are not a race.
Jews reject the NT because it has nothing to do with them. Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah

The NT reports that Jesus is indeed the Messiah.

And the OT is as much a matter of faith as is the NT. . .I believe both, as understood in the light of the Jewish apostles of the NT.

and thus, they have no need for him, or the teachings that revolve around him.
The suffering that some Jews have gone through has nothing to do with what you call stubborn pride. It is that type of ignorance that helped fuel anti-semitism, and the Holocaust.

Their own Scriptures report God calling them "stiff-necked."

Ex 32:9 -- "And the LORD said to Moses, 'I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people.' "

Ex 33:3,5 -- "And the LORD said to Moses, 'Go up, thou and the people, unto the land. . .I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiff-necked people: lest I consume thee in the way. . .Say into the children of Israel, Ye are a stiff-necked people: I will come up in the midst of thee in a moment and consume thee.' "

Deut 9:6 -- Moses is speaking to the people (5:1). . ."the LORD thy God giveth thee not for thy righteousness this good land to possess; for thou art a stiff-necked people. . .the LORD spoke unto me saying, 'I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people.' "

Ezek 2:3-5 -- "And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me. . .for they are impudent children and stiffhearted. . .And they, whether they will hear or whether they will forebear (for they are a rebellious house), yet shall know that there hath been a prophet among them.' "

Also, one can make an argument that the Old Testament also states that God loves everyone, not just the Jews. The story of Jonah is a great example.
Finally, your first statement is just ridiculous.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The NT reports that Jesus is indeed the Messiah.

Do you not remember that it took Jesus quite a bit of time to persuade the disciples that the Messiah must suffer and die?

That's a pretty radical departure from the "Jewish Messiah," and Jesus quickly came to be known by his Greek title, "Christ."

 

[smokydot]

No need to think on it. The vast majority of Jews didn't care about Jesus one way or another. I would say that most Jews never even heard of him while he was alive.

The leaders of the Jews were well aware of Jesus.

See post #386.

Simply, as far as we know, he made little to no impact when he was alive.

Tonto say, "Who is this "we," white man (Lone Ranger)?"

Crucifixion was a Roman form of execution. The Jews didn't crucify people. They had their own forms of corporeal punishment. Crucifixion was not one of them. More so, the Romans would have had no problem killing Jesus. He was just one more rabble rouser.
The fact is that most likely, the majority of people didn't care. He was just one more religious leader who was executed by Rome.
So no, very few people had a hand in the death of Jesus. And it wasn't the Jews who killed him.

The NT repeatedly reports otherwise.

See post #386.

 

[smokydot]

Methinks that both should stick to cooking.

Speaking of tending to your knitting. . .

In learning the meaning of Hebrew, do you "rely completely on concordances and lexicons and such"
as Poisonshady313 claims, in post #233, regarding NT translations from the Hebrew?

 

[waitasec]

Speaking of tending to your knitting. . .

In learning the meaning of Hebrew, do you "rely completely on concordances and lexicons and such"
Poisonshady313 claims, in post #233, regarding NT translations from the Hebrew?

where is your faith smokey?
i'm serious. why are you trying so hard to prove your point?
where is your faith?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Speaking of tending to your knitting. . .

In learning the meaning of Hebrew, do you "rely completely on concordances and lexicons and such"
as Poisonshady313 claims, in post #233, regarding NT translations from the Hebrew?

Hebrew for me is infinately more complex than Greek. I have friends that are masters of both, but I have to sit and think about every word for a while. I parse it according to a complex formula that breaks each word down to its three letter root and then reconstruct it to determine its place in syntax and grammar. I use two lexicons and two or more grammars, depending on my confidence in my translation.

Then, I look at the text as it appears in the LXX, which is the bridge from the Masoretic text to the NT. If I'm doing a paper on the particular verse, I'll also look at variant LXX and NT manuscripts. Then I'll look at the Nesle-Aland 27 and see what's what.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

where is your faith smokey?

My left shoe.

 

[Harmonious]

Speaking of tending to your knitting. . .

In learning the meaning of Hebrew, do you "rely completely on concordances and lexicons and such"
as Poisonshady313 claims, in post #233, regarding NT translations from the Hebrew?

Poisonshady didn't refer to translations of the Christian scriptures. He referred to translations of Tanach.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hebrew for me is infinately more complex than Greek. I have friends that are masters of both, but I have to sit and think about every word for a while. I parse it according to a complex formula that breaks each word down to its three letter root and then reconstruct it to determine its place in syntax and grammar. I use two lexicons and two or more grammars, depending on my confidence in my translation.

Then, I look at the text as it appears in the LXX, which is the bridge from the Masoretic text to the NT. If I'm doing a paper on the particular verse, I'll also look at variant LXX and NT manuscripts. Then I'll look at the Nesle-Aland 27 and see what's what.

Which is a great exegetical process...

 

[fallingblood]

The NT reports that Jesus is indeed the Messiah.

And the NT is simply wrong about that. Jesus can not be the Jewish Messiah. Maybe he could be the Christian Messiah, but that is something completely different.

 

[fallingblood]

The leaders of the Jews were well aware of Jesus.

Assuming that the Gospels are right, how does that disagree with what I said? You are aware that the leaders of the Jews would have not composed a majority.

Since you like referring to other posts, see post #1 as to why your view is flawed.

 

[smokydot]

That is the first problem. The lamb was sacrificed and roasted in the evening of the 14th, and then eaten that night, which would be the 15th.
If that is what your clear evidence says, then the calculations of the gospels are wrong.
No. What you are left with is that the facts DON'T add up.
If Jesus died on the 14th, it was not yet Passover, and the Last Supper was clearly NOT a Passover meal.
If Jesus died on Passover, then it was the 15th.
Shabbat was Friday night to Saturday, and you are stuck without a nice, neat calculation that gives you three days.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but that is the only answer I've got for you, based on when Passover is, and when you say that Jesus died.
Then all four accounts have even MORE problems, because a Jewish court of law would never MEET on the festival day, which would be the 15th of Nissan.

Well, at least to the best of your knowledge. But the NT reports:

Mt 27:62 -- "The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. . ."

And the Sanhedrin would never meet in the dead of night, but the NT reports they did (Mk 15:1).

The NT reports that the Sanhedrin met in the dead of night (Mk 15:1), and the chief priests and Pharisess visited with Pilate on the Sabbath (Mt 27:62).

Regardless of this, if Jesus was killed after the Seder, then you don't get the three days you wanted. (It wouldn't be the first time the gospels were inconsistent.)

I don't need any specific number of days.

That's because none of the calculations are correct, Passover is as I described, and you are stuck with the gospels not adding up.
As I said, don't change the Jewish calendar because the authors of the gospel couldn't add and then keep their stories straight.
No, I explained what Passover was.
Passover and the Festival of Matza are interchangeable for the same thing. What it means is, as I said before, the authors in the gospels couldn't add and then keep their stories straight. Please don't try to tell me that Passover has changed just so you can get a story that makes sense.
Passover is as it ever was. The only difference is that we have to make due without the Temple.
They were ALWAYS interchangeable.

In Lev 23:5-6, God gives them two different names and two different dates.

See, the difference is that Passover is how God described what God did for the Jews (as He passed over the houses of the Jews during the Plague of the First Born), and the Festival of Matza is how God described what the Jews did for God, trusting that God would provide all provisions, and the Jews left Egypt with nothing but Matza.
It's just two names for the same thing. Jews have always known this. However, the gospel authors were confused about many things. The nomenclature of the holiday and their sense of timing was only one such thing.
No. The legislation is the same as it always was. It was that the authors of the gospels couldn't count, and expected their primary audience not to know the difference.
No, and I already explained that.

 

[smokydot]

and then read vs 28

"Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. "

Didn't Harmonious just say the term Passover was interchangeable with Unleavened Bread? The Passover referred to here is Unleavened Bread.

look, i think it's really interesting how you choose to overlook what someone who practiced this tradition is telling you.

That is not conclusive evidence that that what he practices today is exactly as they did 2,000 years ago.
I have a written record of the actual practice 1,000 years after its beginning.
That's 2,000 years removed from the practice of today.
There is room for examination here.

this nomenclature excuse is a disclaimer.

Didn't Harmonious just say the nomenclatures for the two feasts were interchangeable?

in any case why are you trying to prove you're right, isn't it supposed to be taken by faith? doesn't seem like it. it seems you are depending on evidence to prove your faith.

You are an authority on Biblical faith now?