What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[outhouse]

smokey have you ever admitted your wrong??

Or that you dont know more then a preacher/priest about the bible???

What makes you a authority on the bible?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I implore you to abandon your need to discredit me so that you can consider, without prejudice and bias, the facts I am presenting on this.

I'm sorry that you feel that I am attempting to discredit you - I really don't need to.

I don't see how you can't see that you insult people's intelligence with almost every one of your posts, mostly responding to criticism with insult. And I think that you project that onto others - for example, thinking that I'm out to discredit you (a personal trek) rather than focusing on the substance of your posts (a non-personal trek).

I know that it's hard learning how to debate, expecially in what you may consider a hostile environment. But it's not going to get any better on your present course.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

smokey have you ever admitted your wrong??

Yeah, that's the key.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Latter day doesn't mean last year.

Would you consider "latter day" to be 100CE?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

.
Not as much as I wonder why you have so much vested in misunderstanding me. . .and accusing me falsely.

It has all the signs of discrediting me in lieu of conclusively discrediting my arguments.

For what it's worth, I don't think that "all your arguments" stand or fall on your inability to understand Greek. However, all of your arguments that are based on an understanding of Greek are only as good as your ability to read an interlinear and use Strong/Vine. This is fine - learning Greek is a privlidge in our culture - a minority of people will be able to take it in college/grad school and even fewer in grade school.

But pretending to know it and argue from it is worse than dispicable to me, plagiarism is even worse, and I won't overlook such deception.

 

[smokydot]

Only in so much as it is both Shabbat and Yom Tov (holiday) at the same time.
However, the Shabbat before Passover is always called Shabbat Hagadol, or the Great Sabbath.

So no matter what day of the week Nisan 13 fell, it was always a Great Sabbath before Passover, Nisan 14?

And when Leviticus seems to indicate that Nisan 15, first day of Unleavened Bread, was a Sabbath, no matter what day of the week, it was not?

 

[smokydot]

smokey have you ever admitted your wrong??

Ask harmonious or fallingblood if I have ever admitted I was wrong.
But admitting you are wrong is cause for ridicule from some.

Or that you dont know more then a preacher/priest about the bible???

I have no idea how my knowledge of the Bible compares to a preacher/priest.

What makes you a authority on the bible?

You can read the texts of the Bible which I post. . .decide for yourself if I am corrrect regarding them.

 

[smokydot]

I'm sorry that you feel that I am attempting to discredit you - I really don't need to.
I don't see how you can't see that you insult people's intelligence with almost every one of your posts, mostly responding to criticism with insult. And I think that you project that onto others - for example, thinking that I'm out to discredit you (a personal trek) rather than focusing on the substance of your posts (a non-personal trek).
I know that it's hard learning how to debate, expecially in what you may consider a hostile environment. But it's not going to get any better on your present course.

I'm more interested in the truth of the matter than in winning debates.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have no idea how my knowledge of the Bible compares to a preacher/priest.

And this was the 666th post.

You can compare your knowledge to me - I'm an ordained minister (12 yrs experience)and pretty much a Ph.D. in New Testament with a minor in Theological Interpretation. I'm halfway through my dissertation, and I have four years experience lecturing on the seminary level (Masters of Religion, M.Div., and certificate programs). I've also published an article in a scholarly journal and had the privlidge of speaking with scores of internationally recognized biblical scholars at various conferences.

On a typical day I read 1000 pages of research, and write from 1 to 4 pages.

 

[smokydot]

For what it's worth, I don't think that "all your arguments" stand or fall on your inability to understand Greek. However, all of your arguments that are based on an understanding of Greek are only as good as your ability to read an interlinear and use Strong/Vine. This is fine -

I should hope so, since they were translated by scholars.
Why do you think your newly-gained understanding of Greek trumps theirs, and from what it appears, to you is basically useless?

learning Greek is a privlidge in our culture - a minority of people will be able to take it in college/grad school and even fewer in grade school.
But pretending to know it and argue from it is worse than dispicable to me, plagiarism is even worse, and I won't overlook such deception.

And you shouldn't. . .when you have proof, rather than just assumption, that it actually occurred.

 

[Harmonious]

So no matter what day of the week Nisan 13 fell, it was always a Great Sabbath before Passover, Nisan 14?

No.

If the first night of Passover was Wednesday, the Shabbat before that would be Shabbat Hagadol.

If Passover fell on Shabbat, the previous Shabbat would be Shabbat Hagadol.

And when Leviticus seems to indicate that Nisan 15, first day of Unleavened Bread, was a Sabbath, no matter what day of the week, it was not?

No. It might be called "a Sabbath" because there was no regular work (besides that involved in cooking and carrying), and writing and court functions ceased for the day, and lots of things like that.

It is that distinction that I use to explain why I can drive and travel on Purim and Chanukah, but I can't on Passover.

But in and of itself? No, Passover isn't Shabbat.

That might be confusing, but by using the word "Sabbath" in Leviticus, it explains the level of observance that is required by a Jew on the holiday, not to rearrange the days of the week.

There are those, like the Sadducees (and today's Kara'ites) who insisted that the first day of Passover MUST fall out on Shabbat (Friday night and Saturday), so they purposefully tried to sabotage the declaration of a New Moon to force the issue.

But the proper way, the Orthodox way, is as I described it.

 

[Harmonious]

smokey have you ever admitted your wrong??

He did, actually. And I gave him Frubals for it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I should hope so, since they were translated by scholars.
Why do you think your newly-gained understanding of Greek trumps theirs, and from what it appears, to you is basically useless?

And you shouldn't. . .when you have proof, rather than just assumption, that it actually occurred.

Why do you call it "newly"? I've been reading Greek since 2001.

I don't think that my knowledge of Greek trumps anyone - I just don't think that someone who doesn't know Greek can use a translation to argue their point. Such a person can't determine why the text was translated a certain way, and certainly can't know about developments in the understanding of the Greek text since the translation was published. This becomes more acute the oldre the text is.

 

[waitasec]

Are you being sarcastic?

(if not, just go back through the quotes)

nope.

to be honest i didn't know what the word meant. so i looked it up and this is what i found....
"The act of shuffling, or quibbling"

so i thought the way he answered you was apropos to the meaning of the word....

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I should hope so, since they were translated by scholars.
Why do you think your newly-gained.

One more word on this: I know two people that were on the NIV translation committee, and they were damn good at Greek. I know what it's like to talk shop with people on that level, and their knowledge is a bit scary.

Also, when I started my Ph.D., a senior student worked part time on a translation committee his entire program, and they gave him a full time job when he graduated. This guy was a freaking genius. He knew everything about everything about Greek.

So no, I know first hand how awesome translators are. But there's always room for alternative translations, and those who know Greek can identify them and determine which is the best translation.

 

[waitasec]

One more word on this: I know two people that were on the NIV translation committee, and they were damn good at Greek. I know what it's like to talk shop with people on that level, and their knowledge is a bit scary.

curious, are these people theists or follow the christian religion in the "normal way"?





is that a dumb question?

 

[smokydot]

This wasn't a dodge. I explained why we can not assume that there were non-Jews who followed Jesus. Whether or not there were gentiles in Israel during that time is completely besides the point. There being Arabs in North Dakota doesn't mean that they are Lutheran.

Oh, you have a lot riding on the answer to the question you are dodging: "Were there no non-Jews in Israel at the time?". . .which is why you have been dodging it
(as seen in the link below).
Because if there were non-Jews in Isreal, your argument falls that there could have been no followers of Jesus employed in Pilate's household, and therefore,
in a position to report what transpired in the praetorium at Jesus' trial. . .thus disabling your attempt to descredit the NT reports of Jesus' trial.
You previously dodged that question in post #620, and others, which dodging is the very prevarication with which you charge me.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2276923-post620.html

Because I show a flaw in your reasoning, I'm being disingenuious? If you can't debate what I say, just ignore it. That is better than insulting me.
Oh, and I believe that would fit prevarication. You're acting or speaking in an evasive manner. As in, you're dodging the question by insulting me.
Not even logical. Scholars can know that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. It really isn't debated. Why you may ask? It is because scholars can compare the Greek, and see that parts were copied.
Plus, Luke tells us specifically that he uses sources. So your point is moot.
That's great, because you were using the silence as to what happened to those other resurrected individuals to show that they died a natural death. You're floundering here.
How about you not dismissing Eusebius because he disagreed with you?
What says a lot is that instead of actually debating in a mature manner, you continuously attack those who disagree with you. That's one big reason why I have such a problem with Christians, is because of condescending people like you.

Nice attempt at transfer of guilt. . .but your problems with Christians are due to nothing more than your unbelief in Jesus Christ.

The answers aren't the same. Case in point, you implied the answer no. I specifically stated that my answer was yes. There is a difference there.
Why would I have to abandon logic in that case?
If you aren't willing to pay attention, I'm not going to waste the time to keep you up to date.
Nope. We know that some of Paul's letters were written after he is said to have died. We know that some of the letters attributed to Paul were not written by him. If you did even the briefest amount of research on the subject, if you looked at any of the scholarship, you wouldn't need to make such a lame attempt to discredit it.
Honestly that is your defense? Do you understand how dumb it is? All you're doing is showing that you will not actually take the time to read and understand what is being said. Instead, you have to resort to childish name calling and condescending remarks.
Of course, because you've never read any of the scholarship. You admit that yourself. And can you show me where the Gospels say who they are written by? No you can't. Instead, all you can do is make condescending remarks.
You've never shown that I don't read your posts. More so, you've shown, beyond a doubt, that you simply don't read. Because if you did, you know it would destroy any argument you had.

Having not prevailed in the arguments, you seek to prevail in the arguments about the arguments.

What's next. . .arguments about the arguments about the arguments?

You're in drama mode again.

 

[smokydot]

That doesn't justify open dishonesty.
When I asked if you could read it, you should have just said, "no."

So your purpose wasn't its meaning after all! . .you had another agenda! . .which evidently I derailed in thinking you were asking for, and so I gave, its meaning. . .
and you're still hot under the collar about that agenda being derailed. . .so much so that you have to accuse me of just making stuff up, lying, deceit, plagiarization, dishonesty, etc., etc., etc.

Your bizarre false accusations on this issue of translating parthenos, your determination to make me immoral, and your refusal to view my explanation without prejudice
and bias. . .it's all beginning to come together in unity now.

The real problem was not my "dishonesty". . .the real problem was that, without realizing it, I derailed your covert agenda.
You must have had a lot riding on your translation of parthenos, based on your reaction to my inadvertently derailing your presentation of it.
Who knew?

And now you have to kick up all this cloud of dirt (pun intended), by accusing me of immorality while showing forth your righteousness, in an effort to distract and hide what was your real agenda.

And, of course, we are always quick to accuse others of the very things of which we ourselves are guilty.

Boy, all the pique and dirt kicking from you is really beginning to make sense now.

The puzzle is solved. . .no need for me to waste any more time on it.

I implore you to examine your own motives and behavior.

On your reaction to my translation of parthenos in Rev 14:4, I say "the lady doth protest too much". . .and there I go, plagiarizing again!

BTW: I don't have to consult the numerous Greek scholars personally to know their determination, regarding the latter day invention which requires qualifiers in order for parthenos to mean virgin.

 

[smokydot]

No.
If the first night of Passover was Wednesday, the Shabbat before that would be Shabbat Hagadol.
If Passover fell on Shabbat, the previous Shabbat would be Shabbat Hagadol.
No. It might be called "a Sabbath" because there was no regular work (besides that involved in cooking and carrying), and writing and court functions ceased for the day, and lots of things like that.
It is that distinction that I use to explain why I can drive and travel on Purim and Chanukah, but I can't on Passover.
But in and of itself? No, Passover isn't Shabbat.That might be confusing, but by using the word "Sabbath" in Leviticus, it explains the level of observance that is required by a Jew on the holiday, not to rearrange the days of the week.
There are those, like the Sadducees (and today's Kara'ites) who insisted that the first day of Passover MUST fall out on Shabbat (Friday night and Saturday), so they purposefully tried to sabotage the declaration of a New Moon to force the issue.
But the proper way, the Orthodox way, is as I described it.

Well, at this point it seems that what I know from the NT record is that he rose on the first day of the week after a Sabbath. (Matthew 28:1-15)

What is meant by "the next day after Preparation Day"?

 

[smokydot]

One more word on this: I know two people that were on the NIV translation committee, and they were damn good at Greek. I know what it's like to talk shop with people on that level, and their knowledge is a bit scary.

And those are the very Greek scholars who translated parthenos as virgin in Mt 1:23, 25:1,7,10. . .you just hung yourself with your own rope!

You might want to reconsider your accusation about me and Greek scholars.

Also, when I started my Ph.D., a senior student worked part time on a translation committee his entire program, and they gave him a full time job when he graduated. This guy was a freaking genius. He knew everything about everything about Greek.
So no, I know first hand how awesome translators are. But there's always room for alternative translations, and those who know Greek can identify them and determine which is the best translation.

As can those those Greek scholars who provided them in the first place.