What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[smokydot]

It's amazing how you can take that part of what Harmonious said, and misconstrue it to try to fit your idea. Maybe you want to try to read all of what Harmonious said.

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

Harmonious said, in post #355, his sixth response, exactly what I said he did, which is the point to which I was responding in post #400.

Feathers get a little ruffled there with refutation of that point in post #400?

 

[Harmonious]

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).

And I'm willing to believe that with all the inconsistencies I and others have pointed out, that the NT is a pack of lies. And if the NT says they did it, it was a lie, plain and simple.

In order for the basic literal words of the NT to be true, that would have to assume that all the Jews involved completely forgot about Jewish law, forgot what Jews are supposed to do at any given time.

It is far more credible to assume that the gospels were dead wrong about the Sanhedrin meeting ON PASSOVER, and in the DEAD OF NIGHT. There are procedures for things. No matter how corrupt the gospels want to paint the Judges, Pharisees, Rabbis, and whatever else...

You are basically asking people to suspend their belief in the reality of how Jewish courts operate, just so you can have Jewish courts meeting at night (which they never do) and on Yom Tov (which they never do) to make your story work.

So... In order for your belief system to work, we have to assume that Passover has been redefined, Jews forgot how to be Jewish, and decided to completely ignore everything about Jewish law including court procedure, just so your savior (who created the need for the saving to start with, by demanding perfection which was never demanded) can have Jews to pick on him and condemn him to die, which was "part of the sacrifice" to start with.

:sarcastic

The more one studies this concept, the more a rational person would realize that your precious NT is full of blatant lies, or at least a "pleasant story" that helps you sleep at night.

Do me a favor... You keep your belief system to yourself. Share the word if you must, but don't pretend that you know anything about all things Jewish, including Passover.

 

[fallingblood]

Jesus' rising from the dead knocks the props from under the Jewish assertion that his dying on a cross proves he was not the Messiah.

Not at all. Jesus still failed to fulfill Messianic prophecy. And again, him dying showed one thing to the vast majority of Jews; he is not the Messiah. If there would have been any doubt, the events of the First Jewish War cemented that idea.

The Greek Septuagint, translated from the Hebrew c. 200 B.C., translated the Hebrew word almah into the Greek word, parthenos,
which translates into the English word virgin.

A mistranslation. It is as easy that. The Hebrew word almah does not mean virgin.

That was 200 years before the birth of Jesus.
Matthew (in 1:23), 200 years later, simply quoted Isa 7:14 from the Septuagint of his time, where the Greek word there in that 200-year-old translation was parthenos, which is virgin.

And Matthew quoted an error. It's not that difficult. Especially considering if one is to read Isaiah 7:14, and read it in context, and understand it; it has nothing to do with some future birth of the Messiah. It was a prophecy regarding that time period.

Actually, it is the NIV which has the better translation, as in seen for example in Mt 25:1,7,11, which is the parable of the ten parthenois (virgins),
in addition to its use in other Scriptures.

Yeah, because that makes sense. Do you understand your argument? Because it makes no reasonable sense at all. Is Matthew 25:1,7,11 quoting from Isaiah 7:14, where the specific word in Hebrew does not mean virgin? No. You are comparing apples to pillows.

And is the "distinct difference" of Jn 3:16 a material difference?

Does it matter? And it can be considered to be a material difference as it removes the word begotten.

 

[Harmonious]

Jesus' rising from the dead knocks the props from under the Jewish assertion that his dying on a cross proves he was not the Messiah.
The Jewish word in Isa 7:14 is almah.
The Greek Septuagint, translated from the Hebrew c. 200 B.C., translated the Hebrew word almah into the Greek word, parthenos,
which translates into the English word virgin.

The Septuagint that is authentic only covers the Five Books of Moses. If you are looking to something called Septuagint for Isaiah, it is not authentic.

Therefore, no matter what your concordance says, it is irrelevant. Almah is NOT a virgin, but a young woman.

But honestly... I really would have expected no better from you at this stage...

 

[fallingblood]

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

Harmonious said, in post #355, his sixth response, exactly what I said he did, which is the point to which I was responding in post #400.

No. You are stating that one can leave out the day in which the Passover meal is eaten, and then call everything else Passover. Harmonious never stated that. She stated that the entire festival can be called Passover or the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Huge difference. You're breaking up the festival into two separate celebrations, the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, and then you claim you can forget about Passover day, and call just the Feast of Unleavened Bread Passover.


Harmonious never stated that. None of the Jewish members who have discussed this idea have even stated that there are two celebrations. They state instead it is all one celebration, which can be called Passover or the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

See the difference? I hope so.

 

[Harmonious]

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

No, actually he's not. He knows from which he speaks.

Harmonious said, in post #355, his sixth response, exactly what I said he did, which is the point to which I was responding in post #400.

First of all, I'm female. (Note the female symbol in the upper right-hand corner.

Second of all, post #355 is Beta giving a nonsense reply, referring to a lack of understanding about the tribes of Israel and their respective mothers, grace, race, and other nonsense.

As far as your post #400, you highlighted the fact that I said that Passover and the Festival of Matzot is the same, and it didn't really help your cause.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, here.

 

[Harmonious]

No. You are stating that one can leave out the day in which the Passover meal is eaten, and then call everything else Passover. Harmonious never stated that. She stated that the entire festival can be called Passover or the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Huge difference. You're breaking up the festival into two separate celebrations, the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, and then you claim you can forget about Passover day, and call just the Feast of Unleavened Bread Passover.


Harmonious never stated that. None of the Jewish members who have discussed this idea have even stated that there are two celebrations. They state instead it is all one celebration, which can be called Passover or the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

See the difference? I hope so.

:yes:

 

[smokydot]

And I'm willing to believe that with all the inconsistencies I and others have pointed out, that the NT is a pack of lies. And if the NT says they did it, it was a lie, plain and simple.

That's harder to believe than all the following reasons you give as to why your denial of it is true.

In order for the basic literal words of the NT to be true, that would have to assume that all the Jews involved completely forgot about Jewish law, forgot what Jews are supposed to do at any given time.
It is far more credible to assume that the gospels were dead wrong about the Sanhedrin meeting ON PASSOVER, and in the DEAD OF NIGHT. There are procedures for things. No matter how corrupt the gospels want to paint the Judges, Pharisees, Rabbis, and whatever else...

So they meticulously observed procedures while plotting the crime of Jesus' murder. . .

You are basically asking people to suspend their belief in the reality of how Jewish courts operate, just so you can have Jewish courts meeting at night (which they never do) and on Yom Tov (which they never do) to make your story work.

I didn't write the account.

So... In order for your belief system to work, we have to assume that Passover has been redefined, Jews forgot how to be Jewish, and decided to completely ignore everything about Jewish law including court procedure,

Not to mention plotting a crime.

Those assumptions don't seem to be any more ludicrous that your assumptions that the NT is a pack of lies, or a lie plain and simple, or the gospels are dead wrong,
or the NT is full of blatant lies.

just so your savior (who created the need for the saving to start with, by demanding perfection which was never demanded) can have Jews to pick on him and condemn him to die, which was "part of the sacrifice" to start with.
:sarcastic
The more one studies this concept, the more a rational person would realize that your precious NT is full of blatant lies, or at least a "pleasant story" that helps you sleep at night.
Do me a favor... You keep your belief system to yourself.

You were not forced to enter this thread.

Share the word if you must, but don't pretend that you know anything about all things Jewish, including Passover.

I can read what the NT reports.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you think you are guilty of Poisonshady' charge in post #233?

I went a few posts before 233 for the point:

When it's translated directly from the language it was written in by people who are masters of the language, it's rather foolish to suggest it's inferior to something that has gone through several different languages on the path from Hebrew to English by people who rely on concordances.

No, I don't rely on concordances, and I share Poison's frustration because I see people doing that with Greek. Now I've mastered biblical Greek.

At the same time, I can say that I'm not a master of Hebrew. But I can give a respectable translation that actually addresses the language.

 

[fallingblood]

That's harder to believe than all the following reasons you give as to why your denial of it is true.
So they meticulously observed procedures while plotting the crime of Jesus' murder. . .
I didn't write the account.
Not to mention plotting a crime.

What crime? First, the Jews did not murder Jesus. They did not commit a crime against Jesus. That is simply an ignorant and dangerous statement, as it was that same close-mindedness that fueled the rampant anti-semitism that resulted in the Holocaust.

Those assumptions don't seem to be any more ludicrous that your assumptions that the NT is a pack of lies, or a lie plain and simple, or the gospels are dead wrong,
or the NT is full of blatant lies.

I think that it isn't ludicrous to say that the Gospels are wrong if they contradict themselves.

I can read what the NT reports.

You can read what your Bible says. Those are not official reports. Those are theologically motivated reports, that are not eye witness accounts, and have been passed down some 3 decades until they were written. There are problems with them. You've been shown those problems.

 

[smokydot]

Not at all. Jesus still failed to fulfill Messianic prophecy. And again, him dying showed one thing to the vast majority of Jews; he is not the Messiah. If there would have been any doubt, the events of the First Jewish War cemented that idea.
A mistranslation. It is as easy that. The Hebrew word almah does not mean virgin.

And you know this how 2,200 years after the Septuagint?

And Matthew quoted an error. It's not that difficult. Especially considering if one is to read Isaiah 7:14, and read it in context, and understand it; it has nothing to do with some future birth of the Messiah. It was a prophecy regarding that time period.

And was it fulfilled prior to the NT?

Yeah, because that makes sense. Do you understand your argument? Because it makes no reasonable sense at all. Is Matthew 25:1,7,11 quoting from Isaiah 7:14, where the specific word in Hebrew does not mean virgin? No. You are comparing apples to pillows.

I wasn't arguing that Matthew 25:1,7,11 was quoting from Isaiah.
Read it again. . .Those verses show the use of the Greek word parthenos throughout the NT, and not just in Mt 1:23, to mean virgin.

Does it matter? And it can be considered to be a material difference as it removes the word begotten.

You said the NIV was an inferior translation. I'm trying to understand why you say that.

The NIV does not have the word begotten in Jn 3:16. There is no material difference between them there.

Are there any other material differences between the NSRV and the NIV?

 

[fallingblood]

And you know this how 2,200 years after the Septuagint?

Yes, because people wiser than myself have compared the Hebrew to the Greek, and have shown problems with it.

And was it fulfilled prior to the NT?

Yep.

I wasn't arguing that Matthew 25:1,7,11 was quoting from Isaiah.
Read it again. . .Those verses show the use of the Greek word parthenos throughout the NT, and not just in Mt 1:23, to mean virgin.

Again, apples to pillows. Your argument makes no sense. Why? Because the problem is with Matthew 1:23, where he is quoting from a flawed Greek translation. I'm not arguing that parthenos does not mean virgin. I'm arguing that Matthew was wrong in his quote of Isaiah, as he was quoting a flawed translation.

Can you not see the problem in your reasoning?

You said the NIV was an inferior translation. I'm trying to understand why you say that.

I've told you.

Are there any other material differences between the NSRV and the NIV?

Does it truly matter?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

All that matters is post #407

 

[smokydot]

The Septuagint that is authentic only covers the Five Books of Moses. If you are looking to something called Septuagint for Isaiah, it is not authentic.

Like none of the NT is authentic?

The Septuagint contains all the books of the western canon of the OT.

Therefore, no matter what your concordance says, it is irrelevant. Almah is NOT a virgin, but a young woman.

Didn't get it from a concordance.

But honestly... I really would have expected no better from you at this stage...

And of course, you are without bias. . .

 

[smokydot]

No. You are stating that one can leave out the day in which the Passover meal is eaten, and then call everything else Passover.
Harmonious never stated that. She stated that the entire festival can be called Passover or the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Huge difference. You're breaking up the festival into two separate celebrations, the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, and then you claim you can forget about Passover day, and call just the Feast of Unleavened Bread Passover.
Harmonious never stated that. None of the Jewish members who have discussed this idea have even stated that there are two celebrations. They state instead it is all one celebration, which can be called Passover or the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

See the difference? I hope so.

Well, as a matter of fact, I do now, and it all seems to reconcile with NT usage, including eating the Passover on the 15th, as has been maintained by some all along.

I am grateful to understand it correctly, although the fact that I did not was a long-standing oversight on my part, which you helped me uncover.

Thanks, everyone, for your Herculean effort. I do appreciate understanding it correctly.

That debate took a lot of ink!

 

[Harmonious]

The Septuagint contains all the books of the western canon of the OT.

The 72 Jewish sages who were charged with translating texts from Hebrew to Greek only worked with the Five Books of Moses.

Therefore, any other book in the "OT" that has been incorporated into the Septuagint has been placed under false pretenses. The name Septuagint hints to the 72 elders, but if it wasn't in the Pentatuach, it wasn't translated by the people the name Septuagint hints at.

That might be a Greek translation of the Prophets and the Hagiographia, but it is not authentically a Jewish translation, as the Five Books of Moses has been.

 

[Harmonious]

Well, as a matter of fact, I do now, and it all seems to reconcile with NT usage, including eating the Passover on the 15th, as has been maintained by some all along.

I am grateful to understand it correctly, although the fact that I did not was a long-standing oversight on my part, which you helped me uncover.

Thanks, everyone, for your Herculean effort. I do appreciate understanding it correctly.

That debate took a lot of ink!

Interesting.

 

[smokydot]

No, actually he's not. He knows from which he speaks.
First of all, I'm female. (Note the female symbol in the upper right-hand corner.)
Second of all, post #355 is Beta giving a nonsense reply, referring to a lack of understanding about the tribes of Israel and their respective mothers, grace, race, and other nonsense.

Oops! Fingers on wrong keys. That should be #266.

As far as your post #400, you highlighted the fact that I said that Passover and the Festival of Matzot is the same, and it didn't really help your cause.

I was just refuting a single fact in that response, no cause.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, here.

Well, actually, fallingblood helped me uncover a long-standing oversight on my part, and now I'm not trying to prove Passover was eaten on the night of Nisan 14, before Passover Day.

I now agree that it was really eaten on the 15th. . .and I'm glad to have it straight.

 

[Harmonious]

Oops! Fingers on wrong keys. That should be #266.

Fair enough.

I was just refuting a single fact in that response, no cause.

Okay.

Well, actually, fallingblood helped me uncover a long-standing oversight on my part, and now I'm not trying to prove Passover was eaten on the night of Nisan 14, before Passover Day.

I now agree that it was really eaten on the 15th. . .and I'm glad to have it straight.

It's a beautiful thing.

 

[smokydot]

What crime? First, the Jews did not murder Jesus. They did not commit a crime against Jesus. That is simply an ignorant and dangerous statement,

Thorougly addressed in post #386.

as it was that same close-mindedness that fueled the rampant anti-semitism that resulted in the Holocaust.
I think that it isn't ludicrous to say that the Gospels are wrong if they contradict themselves.

They don't. There is no statement in any gospel that states contrary to a statement in any other gospel.

You can read what your Bible says. Those are not official reports. Those are theologically motivated reports, that are not eye witness accounts,

They are called synoptics because they claim to be eye-witness accounts.

and have been passed down some 3 decades until they were written.

Which does not nullify Jesus' promise to them to understand and recall all thing correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15; Lk 24:45, 48-49, 27).

It is the testimony of the early church and the church fathers that the authors are as stated.

Anything to the contrary is pure conjecture.

There are problems with them. You've been shown those problems.

The only problem you've shown is your counterfeit exegesis of John.