• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What Day was Jesus Crucified?

S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
Dirty Penguin said:
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...:confused:
Click to expand...
So crucifixion on the 15th means he was crucified on a Sabbath, the first day of Unleavened Bread?
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
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.
Click to expand...
All of them to die again. . .Jesus did not die again, he lives forever.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
Harmonious said:
Eh. The whole resurrection thing, while the bread and butter of your belief system, is meaningless to me.
Click to expand...
If Jesus did not rise from the dead, my faith is in vain.

We'll have to wait until the end of time to settle that one.
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.
Click to expand...
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
That's moving the goal posts quite a bit.
Click to expand...
That's speaking from a NT perspective, where referring to Jesus rising from the dead always includes the understanding that he did not die again,
and therefore is not comparable to the child of the Shunamite woman, or to Lazarus.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
Harmonious said:
Smoky...

I don't know if you've been paying attention, but people have been complaining about your directing people to various posts.

It would help your argument if you either turned your listing of a post number into a link or cut and paste the pertinent information from said post.

It would help your argument because people could focus on the ideas you are trying to discuss rather than getting annoyed about hunting for whatever post.

Many of the posts you reference are at least 20 pages earlier than the current conversation, and you even discussed a post in a different thread. If YOU have chosen to use posts from all over the place, swell. But if you want to impress anyone with the research you've done, don't tell people where to go. Give us a link or paste in some relevant information.
If someone chooses to look back at the post after you linked it to view it in context, that's a beautiful thing.
But all you are doing is drawing the scorn and annoyance of people who have asked you repeatedly to do more than list a post number.
Click to expand...
Sorry, guys. I will post a link from now on. . .and will go back and do the same for as many as I can.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
Ah, but what the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away.
Because, without your "qualifiers," the Septuagint parthenos does not mean virgin in Mt 1:23, right?
Click to expand...

The reason why parthenos is a good translation of almah is this: both refer to a young woman unless otherwise clarified.

We can't assume that a young woman is a virgin unless we have some intimate knowledge of her life.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
smokydot said:
All of them to die again. . .Jesus did not die again, he lives forever.
Click to expand...
Where does it say that they died again? Scripture does not say it. By your logic, that would be pure conjecture after 2,000 years.

Plus, you never qualified your post by saying that they had to live forever.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
smokydot said:
That's speaking from a NT perspective, where referring to Jesus rising from the dead always includes the understanding that he did not die again,
and therefore is not comparable to the child of the Shunamite woman, or to Lazarus.
Click to expand...
Nope. You're moving the goal posts. You were shown to be wrong, and then you redefined your point; or in other words, moved your goal posts.

Also, can you show me where it is implied that Lazarus, or those individuals in Matthew are said to have died again?
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
Where does it say that they died again?
Click to expand...
The same chapter where it says that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Peter died. . .Bible 11:27.
Scripture does not say it. By your logic, that would be pure conjecture after 2,000 years.
Click to expand...
That would be absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Plus, you never qualified your post by saying that they had to live forever.
Click to expand...
Not reading the post again, huh?

That was explained to you in post #544.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2276072-post544.html
 
Last edited:
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
smokydot said:
The same chapter where it says that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Peter died. . .Bible 11:27.
That would be absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Not reading the post again, huh?

That was explained.
Click to expand...
You're ignoring the many saints spoken about in Matthew.

I also like how to twist everything to fit your idea. I point out what you say I'm doing, but in one of your posts, and that's fine. But I do it, it simply is pure conjecture. You have to make up your mind here.

And just talking about absence of evidence, which I don't think you fully understand in a historical context, means nothing. It is just a dodge on your part.

As for reading your post, I did. That's why my response to you was in the manner it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top