What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[fallingblood]

Thorougly addressed in post #386.

Not really, since this still comes up.

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

But there is. That is the point of this thread.

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

That isn't why they are called the synoptic Gospels. They are called the synoptic Gospels because they are seen together. As in, they contain many of the same stories, often in the same order, and many times using the same exact wording.

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.

Yet we are told about things that could not have been remembered by any of the authors. Things that happened in privacy. More so, we don't even know who the authors are. They certainly weren't the disciples. Most likely they weren't even people who knew Jesus personally, or the disciples. So the promise is void anyway.

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

Nope.

 

[smokydot]

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

It's not Matthew's fault if the Septuagint were a "flawed" translation.
But no matter, Luke was not quoting any translation when he used parthenos (virgin) to refer to Mary in Lk 1:27.

The NT report that Mary was a virgin is not changed by Matthew's use of the Septuagint.

Can you not see the problem in your reasoning?

There is no problem. Can you not see the simple meaning of the statements?

I've told you.

You've presented no material problems.
1) Luke was not quoting the Septuagint when he used parthenos (virgin) in reference to Mary, as did Matthew.
The NT report that Mary was a virgin is not changed by Matthew's use of the Septuagint.

2) The NIV is the same as the NRSV in Jn 3:16, where neither have the word begotten.

Does it truly matter?

You said the NIV was inferior to the NRSV because there were material differences.
I would like to understand why you say that, but you have presented no material differences between the two.

So, in absence of you presenting any, I am left to conclude that you are wrong about the NIV being inferior to the NRSV.
And I can continue thinking the NIV is a better translation.

 

[smokydot]

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.

Well, it's really a moot point, and I should not have brought it up.

The NT, in Lk 1:27, still uses parthenos (virgin) in reference to Mary.

 

[Harmonious]

Well, it's really a moot point, and I should not have brought it up.

Fair enough.

The NT, in Lk 1:27, still uses parthenos (virgin) in reference to Mary.

Okay.

 

[smokydot]

Not really, since this still comes up.

It comes up only by you. . .a subjective and biased contra argument, which is no demonstration it was not thorougly addressed as previously stated.
The numerous NT reports stating such were presented in post #386.

But there is. That is the point of this thread.

Not a refutation.

That isn't why they are called the synoptic Gospels. They are called the synoptic Gospels because they are seen together. As in, they contain many of the same stories, often in the same order, and many times using the same exact wording.

Agreed.

Yet we are told about things that could not have been remembered by any of the authors. Things that happened in privacy.

You don't know who they interviewed. Luke, the physician, reports that he investigated everything carefully from the beginning of Jesus' life,
with the eye of a physician.

More so, we don't even know who the authors are. They certainly weren't the disciples. Most likely they weren't even people who knew Jesus personally, or the disciples.

Not according to the early church fathers.

So the promise is void anyway.

You don't have the power to void the promises of Jesus.

 

[fallingblood]

It's not Matthew's fault if the Septuagint were a "flawed" translation.
But no matter, Luke was not quoting any translation when he used parthenos (virgin) to refer to Mary in Lk 1:27.

The NT report that Mary was a virgin is not changed by Matthew's use of the Septuagint.

Actually it is Matthew's fault for using a flawed translation. Some scholars even argue that Matthew could have read the Hebrew as well, but decided to stick with the flawed version to fit his theological needs. Either way, he could have consulted someone, or even read Isaiah in context.

As for Luke, he may not directly quote, as in cite a source, but there is little doubt he is using Isaiah 7:14 as well. I believe most scholars agree on that.

 

[fallingblood]

You don't know who they interviewed.

Not a refutation. Do you think they would have been able to interview Pilate? No.

Not according to the early church fathers.

The early Church Fathers also couldn't agree on who actually wrote John, as in what John it was. There testimony on this aspect really is useless.

You don't have the power to void the promises of Jesus.

I wasn't voiding it. I stated that it was already void.

 

[Beta]

You did not address my next to last response in this post, regarding your time line meaning a three-day delay in the proper preparation of Jesus body for burial.

Sorry friend you have lost me. Which # are you referring to ? (you have been very active these past days)

ps. a faint recollection of your post has just come to mind. Since this gets complicated i will start another reply.

 

[Beta]

The Kingdom of God was a physical Kingdom that would replace the Earthly Kingdom, which at that time was Rome. It did not refer to a kingdom in heaven, but one on this Earth.
When this Kingdom came, the righteous would be resurrected in a general resurrection, and live in this Kingdom. From what I recall, it was also a time in which people would be judged.
It isn't as simple as that, but that is pretty much the basics. I know some believed that the Messiah was suppose to rule in this Kingdom, and usher it in.
It did not refer to heaven, and contrary to what Smoky said, the Kingdom of God that Jesus was speaking about was the same idea that was prevalent in Judaism during that time.

I kind of agree with the idea you roughly presented though you did not give one single scripture.
But what happened to the 'jewish notion' of an earthly Kingdom when Jesus died like a common criminal (falsly accused) ????? The jewish hope of an earthly/material Kgd also died and was buried with him. Jesus has been denied and denounced by Jews ever since because their interest is entirely on material gain. :sad4:That is OT teaching !

 

[Beta]

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.

Since you have judged me to be unworthy of communication please don't talk about me behind my back .

 

[Beta]

Smokydot , I have looked back over many pages and found your question in # 304 (p32) as to why the women waited 3 days before anointing the body of Jesus for a proper burial ? (is that the question you want answered ?)
Firstly) Jesus was not intended to stay buried so a full anointing was not required. Of course the women did not know that but GOD delayed this process in such a way it never could take place.
However) to give a resemblance of anointing we need to see Joh.12v3-7 which fulfilled certain requirements.
Also) Joh.19v40 Jesus' body was wrapped in linen and spices according to jewish burial. That would have sufficed until sunday morning when he could be fully anointed.
Since there were 2 Sabbaths between Jesus burial and resurrection (the first day of unl.bread a Holy Day or Sabbath and the following weekly Sabbath) the women only had friday in which to buy and prepare ointment - hence 3 full days (72 hours) by the time they returned. All necessary requirements had been observed.
Hope I have explained it simple enough to follow. :bow:

 

[smokydot]

Smokydot , I have looked back over many pages and found your question in # 304 (p32) as to why the women waited 3 days before anointing the body of Jesus for a proper burial ? (is that the question you want answered ?)
Firstly) Jesus was not intended to stay buried so a full anointing was not required. Of course the women did not know that but GOD delayed this process in such a way it never could take place.
However) to give a resemblance of anointing we need to see Joh.12v3-7 which fulfilled certain requirements.
Also) Joh.19v40 Jesus' body was wrapped in linen and spices according to jewish burial. That would have sufficed until sunday morning when he could be fully anointed.
Since there were 2 Sabbaths between Jesus burial and resurrection (the first day of unl.bread a Holy Day or Sabbath and the following weekly Sabbath) the women only had friday in which to buy and prepare ointment - hence 3 full days (72 hours) by the time they returned. All necessary requirements had been observed.
Hope I have explained it simple enough to follow. :bow:

Well, at this point there is no reason to disagree with you.
I have one more chronological authority I need to consult.

 

[smokydot]

Actually it is Matthew's fault for using a flawed translation.
Some scholars even argue that Matthew could have read the Hebrew as well, but decided to stick with the flawed version to fit his theological needs. Either way, he could have consulted someone, or even read Isaiah in context.

Are you sure you are in a postion to evaluate true scholarship? Because those "scholars" of yours are nothing but speculators and creators of speculation
based on any novel idea they can come up with.

As for Luke, he may not directly quote, as in cite a source, but there is little doubt he is using Isaiah 7:14 as well. I believe most scholars agree on that.

So purported "scholars," 2,000 years after the fact, think they know Luke's unspoken mind. . .pure speculation.

I prefer Luke's words that he carefully investigated everything from the beginning of Jesus' life, which would include talking to Mary, where he learned of the virgin birth. That is in the account, and not just speculation 2,000 years after the fact.

You can be such a lightweight. . .because you know so little of the NT record. . .and are so given to the novel.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Seventy Jewish scholars translated the Septuagint. Why wouldn't they know the accepted meaning of almah in their own language?

Now that's just precious.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Actually it is Matthew's fault for using a flawed translation. Some scholars even argue that Matthew could have read the Hebrew as well, but decided to stick with the flawed version to fit his theological needs. Either way, he could have consulted someone, or even read Isaiah in context.

As for Luke, he may not directly quote, as in cite a source, but there is little doubt he is using Isaiah 7:14 as well. I believe most scholars agree on that.

But parthenos doesn't mean "virgin." It's a dynamic equivalent to almah, which doesn't mean virgin, either. Both mean "young girl" or "unmarried girl" but neither require her to be a virgin.

 

[smokydot]

Not a refutation. Do you think they would have been able to interview Pilate? No.

You don't know how many believers of Jesus might have served in Pilate's household. You don't know that Luke or someone else wasn't out in the praetorium to witness those events.

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. . .in any court, and which is the only position from which you argue your novel speculations.

The early Church Fathers also couldn't agree on who actually wrote John, as in what John it was.

Wrong.
Irenaeus, Clement,Tertullian and Origin all agreed it was John, son of Zebedee, first cousin of Jesus, and writer of Revelation.

There testimony on this aspect really is useless.

And yours isn't. . .based in novel speculation 2,000 years after the fact?

I wasn't voiding it. I stated that it was already void.

Nor are you in a position to declare the promises of Jesus void.

The arrogance of which you accuse others is showing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You don't know how many believers of Jesus served in Pilate's household. You don't know that Luke or someone else wasn't out in the praetorium to witness those events.

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. . .in any court, and which is the only position from which you argue your novel speculations.
Wrong.

Irenaeus, Clement,Tertullian and Origin all agreed it was John, son of Zebedee, first cousin of Jesus, and writer of Revelation.

And yours isn't. . .based in novel speculation 2,000 years after the fact?
Nor are you in a position to declare the promises of Jesus void.

The arrogance of which you accuse others is showing.

Novel speculations?

Who the heck said that there were followers of Jesus in Pilate's household?
That's extremely novel. No church father or scholar that I know of has said anything of this sort.


There are rules to arguing from silence, and you're not following them, aside from your cute little sentence about absence of evidence.

 

[smokydot]

But parthenos doesn't mean "virgin." It's a dynamic equivalent to almah, which doesn't mean virgin, either. Both mean "young girl" or "unmarried girl" but neither require her to be a virgin.

It's used in 1 Co 11:2 and in Rev 4:14 of men to mean just that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's used in 1 Co 11:2 and in Rev 4:14 of men to mean just that.

How would you know? (Seriously...)

By the way, there is no Rev 4:14.

 

[smokydot]

Novel speculations?
Who the heck said that there were followers of Jesus in Pilate's household?
That's extremely novel. No church father or scholar that I know of has said anything of this sort.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. . .in any court.

There are rules to arguing from silence, and you're not following them, aside from your cute little sentence about absence of evidence.

Not in court. . .that is the rule.