What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[Harmonious]

This is one of the reasons why I've put my focus on the events as described in the NT. Trying to use the OT to reconcile the NT seems futile in most cases. The writers are writing the gospels with bias or a preconceived notion trying to tie in previous events that have obvious happened already and making them into "prophecy".....

I fully admit I have no idea why the gospels seem to be talking about two separate Passover Preparation events but what is clear is that the last passover surrounding the supposed death of Yeshua and his crucifixion is clear that it was near the (Friday-Saturday) Sabbath and the women appeared after that Sabbath on the morning of the first day of the week (Sunday morning)....This leaves the (3 day/3night) prophecy in a suspect position. I don't think the writers thought future readers would cognizant of this....

To be honest, I'm not sure what the authors of the gospels had in mind.

It wasn't to record events accurately. There are FAR too many details that don't match up. The "three days and three nights," while the main focus of this thread, are actually one of the least problematic of issues concerning Jesus' supposed trial.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

To be honest, I'm not sure what the authors of the gospels had in mind.

It wasn't to record events accurately. There are FAR too many details that don't match up. The "three days and three nights," while the main focus of this thread, are actually one of the least problematic of issues concerning Jesus' supposed trial.

Agreed...

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'm not wed to that day of the week for Passover, that's just a consideration at this time.

As you create new timelines, I'm telling you what's wrong with them. And that's what was wrong with that one.

 

[Poisonshady313]

But, of course, for me the OT Scriptures are the authority on this matter.

As far as you're concerned, Harmonious and I are the authority on what the OT scriptures say regarding Passover, because we understand it a whole lot better than you do, for reasons already enumerated by Harmonious.

I'm just trying to reckon with her differences from those Scriptures.

It's simple. She understands the scripture. You don't.

At this point, I have many reasons to use the OT Scriptures as my source for understanding the practices of Jesus' time.

Problem is, you clearly don't understand the OT scriptures that you claim to so heavily rely on.

 

[smokydot]

Not sure what that writer meant there. There's no fly in the ointment. Mark is clear as two what "preparation" he's talking about given it shows Yeshua expiration right before the preparation happened and his body being removed and laid in the tomb before the start of the (Friday-Saturday) Sabbath. We know that to be the Sabbath considering the women arrived at the tomb during sunrise on Sunday (1st day of the week) and discovered there was no body. Whether or not they held multiple Passovers, not sure why, means very little considering the actual Passover surrounding the crucifixion is right before the Sabbath. He was taken down on the Preparation day before the Sabbath and the first day of the week after the Sabbath the women are at the tomb....

Anybody want to tell me which day of Nisan each of these were?

1) The Passover is two days away--and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified. - Mt 26:2

2) On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples asked, "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover? . .so the disciples did as Jesus directed them and prepared the Passover - Mt 26:17-19

3) The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate. - Mt 27:62

4) Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away. - Mk 14:2

5) On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb. . .the disciples prepared the Passover - Mk 14:12-16

6) (Jesus' burial) was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath) - Mk 15:42

7) Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching - Lk 22:1

8) Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrified. . .they prepared the Passover - Lk 22:7,13

9) (They laid Jesus in the tomb) on Preparation Day and the Sabbath was about to begin. - Lk 23:54

10) By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. - Jn 18:28

11) It was the Day of Preparation of Passover Week - Jn 19:14

12) (The day Jesus was crucified) was the Day of Preparation and the next day was to be a special Sabbath - Jn 19:31

 

[smokydot]

Smoky, I'm only going to say this once. Levitical law, as you call it, isn't just what you see in the text of the Five Books of Moses. It is accompanied with an Oral Tradition that was handed to Moses by God, and taught teacher to student through the generations in an unbroken chain.

If God gave it to Moses, why is it not a part of your Sacred Scriptures, as are all the other things God gave to Moses?

I don't trust oral tradition as much as you do.

If you think that your "understanding" of what you are calling "Levitical law" actually covers the reality of the situation, you are seriously delusional.
Jewish law has EVER been thus.
If all you are using is the text of Leviticus, you are seriously missing... just about EVERYTHING in the picture.

I have Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

The holidays are as I have described them.

I appreciate the information you have provided, but surely you can understand why the Sacred Scripture is my first authority, over Oral Tradition.

Jews know how to celebrate what we've been celebrating for thousands of years.
You, who probably believe that all of the commandments are null and void anyway,

Yes, the NT says the Levitical laws have been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth and are now obsolete.

wouldn't know how to accomplish even ONE of these commandments if the opportunity to do it passed in your direction.
You asked me how Jews did things, and I told you.
You choose to ignore what I've said, because you - who have never performed these commandments in your life - obviously know better than Jews who have performed most of the accomplishable commandments, and studied the currently unaccomplishable commandments for the better part of their lives.
And all of this posturing on your part is NOT to fully understand the commandments.

It is to correctly understand the practices reported in the NT.

It is merely to make sense out of a time line which is nonsense to start with, as the only way to believe any of the events happened as written, you have to seriously believe how many Jews would seriously have to completely ignore Jewish law, in public, on one of the most important holidays of the year.
But, of course, you know better, because it says so in the gospels, ignoring everything about Jewish law, due process, and protocol according to anything Jewish.
:sarcastic
I'll keep that in mind.

I did not mean to offend. You offered your corrections to my understanding of the OT Scriptures.
So I have been trying to reconcile the two, but they do not.
Therefore, because I don't trust oral tradition as much as you do, I am going to rely on the Sacred Scriptures from the four OT books
to correctly understand the practices reported in the NT.

And BTW, it is not important to me that I be able to reconcile the practices reported in the NT, for I believe them exactly as they are written, and that the problem is simply one of nomenclature from 2,000 years ago.

And again, thanks Harmonious for your input.

 

[Poisonshady313]

smokydot, the last piece of the puzzle is, the NT is not sacred scripture. It is nonsense, either written by ignorant men, or for ignorant men. The reason why you cannot reconcile our understanding with the OT and the NT is because they are irreconcilable.

The "OT" and the "NT" are irreconcilable.

What the "NT" says is absolutely irrelevant. It is NOT an accurate accounting of Jewish law. It is NOT an accurate accounting of prophecy. It is NOT an accurate accounting of how first century Jews lived. It is NOT an accurate accounting of anything.

 

[outhouse]

but surely you can understand why the Sacred Scripture is my first authority, over Oral Tradition.

they were all created by oral tradition

 

[angellous_evangellous]

smokydot, the last piece of the puzzle is, the NT is not sacred scripture. It is nonsense, either written by ignorant men, or for ignorant men. The reason why you cannot reconcile our understanding with the OT and the NT is because they are irreconcilable.

The "OT" and the "NT" are irreconcilable.

What the "NT" says is absolutely irrelevant. It is NOT an accurate accounting of Jewish law. It is NOT an accurate accounting of prophecy. It is NOT an accurate accounting of how first century Jews lived. It is NOT an accurate accounting of anything.

Now just a second here.

I understand your frustration with smokydot, believe me. But that's no reason to dismiss the NT so causticly. The NT most certainly is sacred scripture, there's simply no way to deny that it is sacred and has been sacred to Christians for more than 2,000 years.

And, like smokydot here who can't understand Jewish life and religion from his interpretation of the "OT," which is not justification for anyone to say that the OT is not sacred, it's not right to say that the NT is "either written by ignorant men, or for ignorant men" because you don't care to look at it in such a way that it can be valuable to you.

 

[Harmonious]

If God gave it to Moses, why is it not a part of your Sacred Scriptures, as are all the other things God gave to Moses?

Because God wanted there to be a human element involved in the conveyance of the laws and customs. A teacher-student relationship. Something that shows that this can only truly be understood if you learn with a teacher, a father, someone who loves and cares.

There is something intimate about being taught by a teacher who cares about his pupils, who loves the material he's teaching, that you just can't get if you read something.

I don't trust oral tradition as much as you do.

Yet, clearly, Jesus' commentary and oral tradition seems to mean a lot to you.

So, the Jewish Oral Tradition, which is over a thousand years older than Jesus, is something you decide you can't trust. Gotcha.

I have Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers.

Wonderful. And you can't even translate that which you read. You can't punctuate it based on the cantilation notes, and you don't understand the greater context, particularly when the only explanation given is "as commanded", yet the "as commanded" part isn't in black and white.

And you also choose to ignore Deuteronomy 17, where it says:
9. And you shall come to the Levitic kohanim and to the judge who will be in those days, and you shall inquire, and they will tell you the words of judgment.

10. And you shall do according to the word they tell you, from the place the Lord will choose, and you shall observe to do according to all they instruct you.

11. According to the law they instruct you and according to the judgment they say to you, you shall do; you shall not divert from the word they tell you, either right or left.

That is GOD'S command to pay attention to the Oral tradition, as is taught by the Rabbis, which you have decided to ignore, except as Jesus had no problem going against the Rabbis of his day, if the gospels are to believed.

I got that, too.

I appreciate the information you have provided, but surely you can understand why the Sacred Scripture is my first authority, over Oral Tradition.

Except you only like the verse YOU like, as opposed to ALL of the sacred scripture (of Tanach), which tells you that the Oral Tradition is just as important as the text.

Yes, the NT says the Levitical laws have been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth and are now obsolete.

Which completely ignores the fact that in Leviticus (and elsewhere), God promised that the covenant is everlasting, and will NEVER end. You know, Leviticus 26:44-45: ... I will not grow so disgusted with them nor so tired of them that I would destroy them and break My covenant with them, since I am God, their Lord. I will therefore remember the covenant with their original ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations, so as to Be a God to them. I am God.

So... If you believe that the NT says that the Levitical laws have been fulfilled and are now obsolete, you have declared that God LIED in Leviticus.

So much for believing in the text of scripture...

It is to correctly understand the practices reported in the NT.

Not if the authors of the gospels lied. Or, at least, were dead wrong.

I did not mean to offend.

Interesting.

You offered your corrections to my understanding of the OT Scriptures.
So I have been trying to reconcile the two, but they do not.

You're right. They don't. Because the authors of the Christian scriptures ignored Jewish law, and everything else that I described in earlier posts.

The authors of the gospels couldn't add, and they couldn't be bothered to actually describe Jewish law as it happened. And so, you get the bizarre mishmash that you are currently trying to make sense of.

Therefore, because I don't trust oral tradition as much as you do, I am going to rely on the Sacred Scriptures from the four OT books to correctly understand the practices reported in the NT.

Which is clear that you AREN'T actually relying on the Sacred Scriptures, as you blithely ignore the verses I've already pointed out.

I'll give you enough credit to believe that you only do so because that is how you have been taught. But now you know better. Don't pretend you care about what it says as far as law is concerned in the Tanach, because that whole Oral Law business is as much a part of Torah law as what is written in the Scriptures, which you are heedless of, as it suits your fancy.

And BTW, it is not important to me that I be able to reconcile the practices reported in the NT, for I believe them exactly as they are written, and that the problem is simply one of nomenclature from 2,000 years ago.

So you believe people who have no problem lying about timing, and accept the word of people ignorant of Jewish law as authorities on Jewish law, and you are only worried about names.

Gotcha.

And again, thanks Harmonious for your input.

I do try.

 

[smokydot]

smokydot, the last piece of the puzzle is, the NT is not sacred scripture. It is nonsense, either written by ignorant men, or for ignorant men. The reason why you cannot reconcile our understanding with the OT and the NT is because they are irreconcilable.
The "OT" and the "NT" are irreconcilable.
What the "NT" says is absolutely irrelevant. It is NOT an accurate accounting of Jewish law. It is NOT an accurate accounting of prophecy. It is NOT an accurate accounting of how first century Jews lived. It is NOT an accurate accounting of anything.

I understand that is what you believe.

 

[smokydot]

they were all created by oral tradition

According to your opinion.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I understand that is what you believe.

[youtube]5PiWd96LldM[/youtube]
YouTube - Earth Angel

 

[angellous_evangellous]

They were all created from oral tradition according to your opinion.

(according to common knowledge)

 

[Harmonious]

[youtube]5PiWd96LldM[/youtube]
YouTube - Earth Angel

I like it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I like it.

Well this one is for you then

[youtube]CyYBRe6kXgo[/youtube]
YouTube - A Song For You-Leon, Willie, and Ray

 

[Harmonious]

Thank you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thank you.

:takeabow:

 

[smokydot]

Because God wanted there to be a human element involved in the conveyance of the laws and customs. A teacher-student relationship. Something that shows that this can only truly be understood if you learn with a teacher, a father, someone who loves and cares.
There is something intimate about being taught by a teacher who cares about his pupils, who loves the material he's teaching, that you just can't get if you read something.

I like that.

Yet, clearly, Jesus' commentary and oral tradition seems to mean a lot to you.
So, the Jewish Oral Tradition, which is over a thousand years older than Jesus, is something you decide you can't trust. Gotcha

Okay, you're not gonna' like this, but I got it from the NT's report of what Jesus said (Mk 7:6-13).

Wonderful. And you can't even translate that which you read. You can't punctuate it based on the cantilation notes,

Jewish scholars have done it for me.

and you don't understand the greater context, particularly when the only explanation given is "as commanded", yet the "as commanded" part isn't in black and white.

Do you have an example where the "as commanded" is not stated in previous verses?

And you also choose to ignore Deuteronomy 17, where it says:
9. And you shall come to the Levitic kohanim and to the judge who will be in those days, and you shall inquire, and they will tell you the words of judgment.
10. And you shall do according to the word they tell you, from the place the Lord will choose, and you shall observe to do according to all they instruct you.
11. According to the law they instruct you and according to the judgment they say to you, you shall do; you shall not divert from the word they tell you, either right or left.

But in their context, these instructions are in regard to verdicts of the judges, in cases of bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults which come before their law courts (Deut 17:8-13). They are not in regard to oral tradition.

That is GOD'S command to pay attention to the Oral tradition, as is taught by the Rabbis, which you have decided to ignore,

But the context shows it is not about oral tradition, but is about the verdicts of judges in criminal cases in their law courts (Deut. 17:8-13).

except as Jesus had no problem going against the Rabbis of his day, if the gospels are to believed.
I got that, too.

What Jesus said was that, because the teachers of the law and the Pharisees sat in the Seat of Moses, the people must obey them and do everything they tell them.
But the people are not to do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. (Mt 23:2-3)

Except you only like the verse YOU like, as opposed to ALL of the sacred scripture (of Tanach), which tells you that the Oral Tradition is just as important as the text.

The ones you have presented, as in Deut 17:9-11 above, are not in regard to oral tradition, but in regard to verdicts by the judges, in criminal cases in their law courts.

Which completely ignores the fact that in Leviticus (and elsewhere), God promised that the covenant is everlasting, and will NEVER end. You know, Leviticus 26:44-45: ... I will not grow so disgusted with them nor so tired of them that I would destroy them and break My covenant with them, since I am God, their Lord. I will therefore remember the covenant with their original ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations, so as to Be a God to them. I am God.

That would be the Covenant of Circumcision made between Abraham and his descendants only (Gen 17:1-14), where God promised to be their God, conditioned on their obedience (v.4, v.9--as your me, as for you), and of which circumcision was the sign of their total consecration to God.
However, the covenant could be broken for anyone who disobeyed it (v.14).

So... If you believe that the NT says that the Levitical laws have been fulfilled and are now obsolete, you have declared that God LIED in Leviticus.
So much for believing in the text of scripture...

The Covenant of Circumcision was everlasting, not the Levitical laws of the Mosaic covenant given on Mt. Sinai (Ex 24:4-11).
And the Covenant of Circumcision was everlasting only on the part of God. The disobedient Israelite could break and end it for himself (Gen 17:14).

The NT letter to the Hebrews teaches that the Levitical laws of the Mosaic covenant are now obsolete, faulty, inferior and of lesser promises (Heb 8:6,7,13)
than the New Covenent made in the blood of Jesus the Christ, whose blood was poured out for the forgiveness of sin (Mt 26:28), and which blood cleanses
those who believe in him from all sin (1 Jn 1:7), just as the blood of the sacrificial animal was poured out and sprinkled on the brazen altar to cleanse it
from the sin laid on it in the sacrifice (Lev 1:3-5).

Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant made in his blood (Heb 8:6, 9:15, 12:24), just as Moses was the mediator of the Old Mosaic Covenant made in the blood of animals (Ex 24:4-13). It is the New Covenant which God had previously promised (Heb 8:7-13).

Not if the authors of the gospels lied. Or, at least, were dead wrong.

I believe the gospels are the true Word of God written.

Interesting.
You're right. They don't. Because the authors of the Christian scriptures ignored Jewish law, and everything else that I described in earlier posts.
The authors of the gospels couldn't add, and they couldn't be bothered to actually describe Jewish law as it happened. And so, you get the bizarre mishmash that you are currently trying to make sense of.
Which is clear that you AREN'T actually relying on the Sacred Scriptures, as you blithely ignore the verses I've already pointed out.

But the verses you've pointed out above are not in regard to what you say they are, which I have shown above.

I'll give you enough credit to believe that you only do so because that is how you have been taught.

My faith in the NT is not based on what I have been taught. It is based in the power of the Holy Spirit who has given me to know with certainty
that the Scriptures are the true Word of God written.

But now you know better.

My faith that the Scriptures are the true Word of God written is not based on anyone's teaching, and therefore cannot be changed by anyone's teaching.

Don't pretend you care about what it says as far as law is concerned in the Tanach, because that whole Oral Law business is as much a part of Torah law as what is written in the Scriptures, which you are heedless of, as it suits your fancy.

I am not heedless of the canonical OT and NT Scriptures. I believe they are the true Word of God written.

So you believe people who have no problem lying about timing, and accept the word of people ignorant of Jewish law as authorities on Jewish law,

I believe and accept the testimony of the NT.

and you are only worried about names.
Gotcha.

Only in so far as they help me sort out the dates of Nisan to which they are referring.

I do try.

And you do very well.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That common knowledge would be regarding the "oral tradition" relayed by the very ones who wrote the gospel accounts, and who testify that they were either eye witnesses to much of what they wrote (Lk 1:2), or they carefully investigated everything from the beginning of the life of Jesus (Lk 1:3).

And then there's that promise to them from Jesus. . .to recall and understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15, Lk 24:48-49).

That's pretty good divine insurance.

Nope.

Just because you make it up, doesn't mean that it's common knowledge.