What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[smokydot]

He didn't. He used parthenos.

Christians translate it as virgin, and indeed some Christian traditions believe that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. But the word itself does not have the strength to mean "virgin" by its plain usage -- it needs a qualifier, like "no man has ever touched her, so she was a virgin."

There are numerous Greek scholars who say parthenos needs no qualifier to mean "virgin."

That is a latter day invention of those who traffic in novel speculations trying to prove the NT is not true.

But this ruse does not alter the NT report that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, because a "qualifier" is exactly what we find in Lk 1:35:

"God sent the angel Gabriel to a virgin pledged to be married to Joseph. The virgin's name was Mary. . .'How shall this be?' Mary asked the angel,
'since I know not man?' " (Lk 1:26-35) And there's your "qualifier."

Whether it's Matthew's use of the Septuagint, or Luke's gospel, the NT leaves no doubt that it reports Mary was a virgin, parthenos.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well, it's less that it is unlawful as much as it is immodest.

If there was no one else to perform the burial rites, members of the opposite sex should do it. But if members of the same sex are available, it is far more preferable for them to do it.

I actually had a thread to ask that very question. This is where I asked about it.

WOW, I remember that thread. I was all over that one...(let the conspiracy theories fly...)......

Seriously, I'm just asking questions and giving some of my opinions is all. The story(s) strikes me a s a little weird but in the end it's nice to get an understanding how everyone views those scriptures.

 

[smokydot]

i never claimed to believe the bible as the word of god....you did
through faith,
i'm just saying this talk of faith is a load of horse puckey

Because you don't have faith, you don't know how it operates, so it's not surprising you would think that.

thank you for proving my point

doin' my best. . .

 

[smokydot]

Other Jewish leaders also claimed to be Messiah, or had disciples who called them that as well. The fact is, none of them have fulfilled Messianic prophecy, and none have the right to be referred to as the Jewish Messiah. A basic understanding of Judaism would greatly help you here.

And a good understanding of the NT would help you here.

Not to mention it was the Jewish apostles who believed he was the Messiah.
None before or since have risen from the dead.

 

[smokydot]

Considering you didn't provide a translation that is "yours," you aren't in a position to interact with what I have to say on the subject.

Slow down, man! . .don't get your panties in a wad. . .

With an interlinear, you're not reading Greek... you're reading English, and someone else's translation at that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There are numerous Greek scholars who say

Who would have ever thought that you would start a sentence like that.

Particularly because both of us know you haven't consulted any scholars and are just making stuff up.

 

[Harmonious]

None before or since have risen from the dead.

The child of the Shunamite woman doesn't count, huh? (A miracle performed by Elisha, Elijah's protege.)

 

[smokydot]

Who maintains "maiden"....the past few posts some have maintained "virgin".....

See post #424.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2273397-post424.html

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Greek didn't evolve out of Hebrew. . .there's no connection of the meaning of the Greek parthenos to the Hebrew almah.
That's fabricated from whole cloth.

Obviously you have no clue what "dynamic equivalent" means.

HINT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_equivalence

 

[smokydot]

No one's going to steal my thunder.......I said this back in post #482....If FB said it first then cool...:bow:
But I'm glad you chimed in because this is the way I've always understood the burial rites of men and women in Judaism. I couldn't imagine it was lawful for a woman that is not married to the man to be able to look upon his body or touch that person, be they alive or dead. This is just one of the reasons I find the women visiting the tomb to be suspect.
Not that you care but If the body of Yeshua was removed, dressed and wrapped in the burial linen them I'm confused as to why there was a secondary visit...and by women bringing oils etc to anoint the body. This procedure sounds out of place. If Yeshua was alive in the tomb and the women were acting as nurses to attend to his wounds that would make sense (i guess)....
Interesting...in the tomb for 2 days, 2 nights (if that long at all)....couple hundred pounds of expensive aloe and myrrh (which I suspect are healing ointments of the day)...and women visiting the tomb after he had already been wrapped in the burial linen

doesn't sound like a successful crucifixion to me....

He was dead, the definition of a "successful crucifixion."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is reminiscent of other posts I've seen where one is criticized and called ignorant when they acknowledged their mistakes, as I referenced in post #169.

The thing is, they are pointing out the obvious.

How do you expect people to think that you know what you are talking about when you pretend to know more than you do, flagrantly plagiarize, and then - most recently - respond to something that I wasn't even talking about because you couldn't understand me - and didn't even bother to try.

 

[fallingblood]

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.

Neither do you, and we can't assume any were. Especially since John 18:28 shows why the Jews did not enter Pilate's household, so they could participate in Passover. As in they wanted to remain ritually clean. I see no reason to suggest that there were Jews in Pilate's household.

As for Luke, highly doubtful he was there. Tradition states that he learned his information from Paul. More so, if Luke was an eyewitness, why did he have to use sources? Certainly if he had to use sources, he wasn't recalling things from memory.

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

We are speaking about history, not a court of law. Two different things.

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

First, how would they know? Second, nope. First, many scholars agree that it was probably written by various authors. Eusebius disagrees with what you stated above as well. He states that Gospel was written by John the Apostle and the Book of Revelation by John the presbyter.

Also, some scholars argue that Irenaeus attributed authorship of the Gospel of John not to John the Apostle, but John, the disciple of the Lord, which he does differentiate between.

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

Mine is based on scholarly research. Saying it's 2,000 years after the fact means absolutely nothing if the scholarship is good.

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

You misunderstood what I was saying. His promises is void because we don't have the testimony of eye witnesses.

The arrogance of which you accuse others is showing.

First, I've only accused you of arrogance. And I agree, your arrogance is showing.

 

[fallingblood]

No one's going to steal my thunder.......I said this back in post #482....If FB said it first then cool...:bow:

You were first. :bow: I don't think I even stated it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So what else is left for this thread? We have established the actual day of the biblical Yeshua's crucifixion. With that said.....is moving on to how many days/nights spent in the tomb something for another thread...considering the day on which he was supposedly crucified...

 

[fallingblood]

And a good understanding of the NT would help you here.

Not to mention it was the Jewish apostles who believed he was the Messiah.
None before or since have risen from the dead.

So the classes I've taken mean nothing? Or the fact that I've read carefully through the NT, with various commentaries handy in order to help my understanding, various times.

Also, the term Jewish apostles really means nothing. Those Jewish apostles composed a minority of Jews. So if we want to take the opinion of Jews here, you're still wrong.

As for none have risen from the dead before or after? And you criticize my understanding of the NT. What about Lazarus? Or here is a nice little passage. Coming from the NIV, so you have nothing to complain about

Matthew 27: 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

So, we are told others were raised from the dead, as they came back from the dead.

 

[smokydot]

Who would have ever thought that you would start a sentence like that.
Particularly because both of us know you haven't consulted any scholars and are just making stuff up.

Like the stuff I made up in post #386 in response to misinformation there?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2273397-post386.html

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Like the stuff I made up in post #386 in response to misinformation there?

Dude, post a link to those old posts.

I'm not looking for them anymore.

 

[smokydot]

The child of the Shunamite woman doesn't count, huh? (A miracle performed by Elisha, Elijah's protege.)

So was Lazarus in the NT, but both were brought back by the miraculous assist of a prophet, to die again.

No prophet assisted Jesus, and he did not die again, he lives forever. . .and will return at the end of time.

 

[Harmonious]

So was Lazarus in the NT, but both were brought back by the miraculous assist of a prophet, to die again.

No prophet assisted Jesus, and he did not die again, he lives forever. . .and will return at the end of time.

Eh. The whole resurrection thing, while the bread and butter of your belief system, is meaningless to me.

It is your right to hold it in such high esteem. However, that doesn't mean that I am required to acknowledge it as meaningful, except to understand what you believe and why.

 

[smokydot]

Obviously you have no clue what "dynamic equivalent" means.
HINT: Dynamic and formal equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Dynamic equivalence" has absolutely no bearing on Matthew's use of a 200-year-old translation of the Hebrew, which was an accepted translation in his day,
where the Hebrew almah was translated into the Greek parthenos (virgin) by Jewish translators who would, 200 years before the birth of Christ,
know the accepted meaning of almah in their time to be "virgin" (parthenos), and is why they used parthenos to translate it in the Septuagint.

"Dynamic equivalence" is another latter day invention to legitimize loose handling of the texts, for the obvious reason of some.
There is no need for "dynamic equivalence" when texts are plain and simple, as is Mt 1:23, and no "dynamic equivalence" is going on there.
That's a ruse foisted on the NT by those who seek to discredit it.