What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[smokydot]

Nope.

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

And how do you know the testimony of the NT is not true that the gospel accounts were written by those who either were eye witnesses
to much of what they report (Lk 1:2-3), or carefully investigated everything from the beginning of the life of Jesus (Lk 1:3)?

Is the testimony of the NT in Lk 1:1-3 a lie?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And how do you know the testimony of the NT is not true that the gospel accounts were written by those who either were eye witnesses
to much of what they report (Lk 1:2-3), or carefully investigated everything from the beginning of the life of Jesus (Lk 1:3)?

Is the testimony of the NT in Lk 1:1-3 a lie?

I didn't say it wasn't true.

What I meant was we weren't talking about the same thing.

 

[smokydot]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2281635-post834.html ----> "common knowledge" that the gospels were created from oral tradition

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.

angellous_evangellous responded:

Nope.

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

Okay. . .
if it's made up. . .and

if according to Lk 1:1-3, et al, the writers of the gospel accounts were either eye witnesses to most of what they wrote,
or had carefully investigated everything from the beginning of Jesus' life, and

if Luke, et al, weren't flat out lying about those facts,

then whose "oral tradition" would they have been relaying instead of their own?

 

[esmith]

From what I have gathered from a respected religious seminar. The Gospel of Mark says on Passover; However, the Gospel of John changed it to the Day Of Preparation for the Passover so that Jesus would be "the lamb of God".

Scholars believe that the authors of Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark plus the "Q" document and their own sources. They then retold stories, changing them as they desired. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are Synoptic Gospels. Again according to scholars the books were written as follows:
Mark 65-70 CE
Matthew & Luke 80-85 CE
John 90-95 CE

Try reading the books without perceived knowledge of the other books using the Criterion of Independent Attestation, Criterion of Dissimilarity, and Criterion of Contextual Credibility.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

then whose "oral tradition" would they have been relaying instead of their own?

That's the $64,000 question.:beach:

 

[smokydot]

From what I have gathered from a respected religious seminar.

And this would be what seminar. . .and respected by whom?

The Gospel of Mark says on Passover; However, the Gospel of John changed it to the Day Of Preparation for the Passover so that Jesus would be "the lamb of God".

Are you sure about that. . .and are you sure that is a change?

God commanded Passover be on Nisan 14 (Lev 23:5), which date Mark could have been using when he called it Passover.
However, during the time of Jesus, Nisan 14 was commonly referred to as the Day of Preparation for the Passover,
because it was the day the Passover lamb was slaughtered. . .and then eaten that evening, which would have been Nisan 15.

The Passover meal was not eaten on the date God commanded for Passover, Nisan 14.
That is the cause of what seems to be a difference, it is not a falsification by John to make Jesus the Passover Lamb.
That is a latter day notion woven from novel speculations. . .2,000 years after the facts.

Scholars believe that the authors of Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark plus the "Q" document and their own sources. They then retold stories, changing them as they desired.

The main problem with that is the writers of the synoptics (Lk 1:1-2), as well as John (Jn 1:14, 19:35, 21:24; 1 Jn 1:1-3, 4:14), claimed either to be eye witnesses
of much of what they wrote, or to have carefully investigated everything from the beginning of the life of Jesus (Lk 1:3).
That leaves no room for "re-told stories," unless their claims were flat out lying.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are Synoptic Gospels. Again according to scholars the books were written as follows:

That is one of several opinions on the subject. Another opinion appears in red.
Mark 65-70 CE
Matthew & Luke 80-85 CE---or in the 70's
John 90-95 C---or as early as the 50's and no later than the 70's

Try reading the books without perceived knowledge of the other books using the Criterion of Independent Attestation, Criterion of Dissimilarity, and Criterion of Contextual Credibility.

The Bible was not given as literature. It was given as revelation.
All 66 books make up one consistent whole, and any one book can be correctly understood only in light of all the other books.
There is no correct understanding of the Bible when consideration is limited to one book only.

That false method of understanding the Bible is what is yielding all these latter day novel and false speculations regarding it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Bible was not given as literature. It was given as revelation.

All 66 books make up one consistent whole, and any one book can be correctly understood only in light of all the other books.

Now this is the unfortunate result of an entire library of ancient works compiled in one publication.

If the Bible has anything to do with revelation, it is the record of revelation and not revelation itself.

But the claim that it is a consistent whole is beyond silly.

 

[smokydot]

That's the $64,000 question.:beach:

Ya' know, if the premise--that eye-witnesses of events would use someone else's oral tradition to record what they themselves had personally witnessed--if that weren't such an absurd notion, it wouldn't be a $64,000 question.

 

[fallingblood]

Ya' know, if the premise--that eye-witnesses of events would use someone else's oral tradition to record what they themselves had personally witnessed--if that weren't such an absurd notion, it wouldn't be a $64,000 question.

The premise is sound. Luke even claims that he used other sources. John seems to be composed of multiple writers. Matthew and Luke both heavily borrowed from Mark, as well as the Q Gospel. And all of the Gospel writers could not have witnessed everything they stated, as some of it was down in private (such as Pilate's court, not fully private, but we are told no disciples were around, and doubtful any followers of Jesus were around), other parts are Jesus own thoughts, when he was alone, and some others were done before Jesus had any followers.

There is no denying that some oral tradition is involved.

 

[smokydot]

Now this is the unfortunate result of an entire library of ancient works compiled in one publication.
If the Bible has anything to do with revelation, it is the record of revelation and not revelation itself.

Is that a distinction without a difference?

Jesus said it is the Word of God (Mt 15:6, Jn 5:38), as does Heb 4:12.

But the claim that it is a consistent whole is beyond silly.

Where do you find inconsistencies taken in the context of the whole?

 

[fallingblood]

That's the $64,000 question.:beach:

It that's all the answer is worth, I think I will wait until the price is upped.

 

[esmith]

And this would be what seminar. . .and respected by whom?

Professor Bart D. Ehrman is the Bowman and Gordon Gray Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Are you sure about that. . .and are you sure that is a change?

God commanded Passover be on Nisan 14 (Lev 23:5), which date Mark could have been using when he called it Passover.
However, during the time of Jesus, Nisan 14 was commonly referred to as the Day of Preparation for the Passover,
because it was the day the Passover lamb was slaughtered. . .and then eaten that evening, which would have been Nisan 15.

The Passover meal was not eaten on the date God commanded for Passover, Nisan 14.
That is the cause of what seems to be a difference, it is not a falsification by John to make Jesus the Passover Lamb.
That is a latter day notion woven from novel speculations. . .2,000 years after the facts.

Mark 14:12 Alive to eat the Passover meal at night (Last Supper)
John 19:14 Dead on the Day of Preparation for Passover

The main problem with that is the writers of the synoptics (Lk 1:1-2), as well as John (Jn 1:14, 19:35, 21:24; 1 Jn 1:1-3, 4:14), claimed either to be eye witnesses
of much of what they wrote, or to have carefully investigated everything from the beginning of the life of Jesus (Lk 1:3).
That leaves no room for "re-told stories," unless their claims were flat out lying.
That is one of several opinions on the subject. Another opinion appears in red.
Mark 65-70 CE
Matthew & Luke 80-85 CE---or in the 70's
John 90-95 C---or as early as the 50's and no later than the 70's
The Bible was not given as literature. It was given as revelation.
All 66 books make up one consistent whole, and any one book can be correctly understood only in light of all the other books.
There is no correct understanding of the Bible when consideration is limited to one book only.

That false method of understanding the Bible is what is yielding all these latter day novel and false speculations regarding it.

Read Mark 3:20 It appears his family thinks he is out of his mind for doing what he is doing. Doesn't seem to know that he is the Son of God. However, doesn't Matthew and Luke both indicate that Mary and Joseph know he is the Son of God prior to his birth. Matthew says he is directly related to King David (skips a couple of generations in the genealogy) and is the Jewish Messiah. Luke traces his genealogy back to Adam and Eve (mythological people) and thus will be the savior of all humanity. Also doesn't Mark have Jesus attempting to hide from the masses that he is the Son of God (Mark 3:12) . Yet in John doesn't he make it a point to make them understand who he is (John 11). I am not disputing your right to believe in what you believe but one shouldn't believe everything they read. A majority of the Gospels were transcribed from oral stories. Every played the game telephone where someone starts a story then passes it around in a circle and it ends up totally changed by the time it gets back to the start. Also if you are trying to convince people of something you will embellish the stories and actually make up stories to make things sound better.

 

[smokydot]

The premise is sound. Luke even claims that he used other sources. John seems to be composed of multiple writers. Matthew and Luke both heavily borrowed from Mark, as well as the Q Gospel. And all of the Gospel writers could not have witnessed everything they stated, as some of it was down in private (such as Pilate's court, not fully private, but we are told no disciples were around, and doubtful any followers of Jesus were around), other parts are Jesus own thoughts, when he was alone, and some others were done before Jesus had any followers.

The gospel writers were eye-witnesses of much of what they recorded (Lk 1:1-2).
Talking to the people involved, as in talking to Mary about the events related to Jesus' birth, is not "oral tradition," it is a personal interview of the subject in the account.

There is no denying that some oral tradition is involved.

But all you've presented are written, not oral sources--from Mark's and the Q Gospels.
And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that anything recorded from the mind of someone could easily have been relayed by the person involved.
That would not be "oral tradition."
Where is the factual certainty that "oral tradition" was involved?

Regarding Pilate's court: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"Doubtful" any followers of Jesus were around, is not "certain" from the accounts that no follower of Jesus was around.

All of this is nothing more than latter day novel speculation, in which those who seek to discredit the NT like to traffic.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is that a distinction without a difference?

Jesus said it is the Word of God (Mt 15:6, Jn 5:38), as does Heb 4:12.
Where do you find inconsistencies taken in the context of the whole?

Whatever do you mean? Earlier you were insisting that the writer and the text were the same thing, and now you can't tell the difference between the text and what it says?

And there is no whole.

 

[smokydot]

Professor Bart D. Ehrman is the Bowman and Gordon Gray Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

That's better than I expected. Following red letters are my edit.

Mark 14:12 Alive to eat the Passover meal at night (Last Supper)--Nisan 15, according to Jewish reckoning of days, which is the first day of Unleavened Bread.
John 19:14 Dead on the Day of Preparation of Passover Week

Oh. . .and the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15-21, was also called Passover (Lk 22:1), which is the meaning of "Passover Week" in Jn 19:14.
Also, the "Day of Preparation" was what Fridays were always called.

So in Jn 19:14, the "Day of Preparation of Passover Week" is the Friday of Passover Week, Nisan 15, which is the first day of Unleavened Bread,
and the same date of his death in Mark 14:12.

Read Mark 3:20 It appears his family thinks he is out of his mind for doing what he is doing. Doesn't seem to know that he is the Son of God. However, doesn't Matthew and Luke both indicate that Mary and Joseph know he is the Son of God prior to his birth.

Family = relatives.
Those with him were not his immediate family, but were cousins, etc.

Matthew says he is directly related to King David (skips a couple of generations in the genealogy) and is the Jewish Messiah. Luke traces his genealogy back to Adam and Eve (mythological people) and thus will be the savior of all humanity. Also doesn't Mark have Jesus attempting to hide from the masses that he is the Son of God (Mark 3:12) . Yet in John doesn't he make it a point to make them understand who he is (John 11).

Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, but he did not make that known to his relatives, for the same reason he hid it from the masses.

I am not disputing your right to believe in what you believe but one shouldn't believe everything they read. A majority of the Gospels were transcribed from oral stories. Every played the game telephone where someone starts a story then passes it around in a circle and it ends up totally changed by the time it gets back to the start. Also if you are trying to convince people of something you will embellish the stories and actually make up stories to make things sound better.

So that such a scenario would not occur, Jesus promised them empowerment to recall and understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15, Lk 24:48-49).

Your latter day novel speculation is overturned by the NT testimony.

 

[smokydot]

Whatever do you mean? Earlier you were insisting that the writer and the text were the same thing, and now you can't tell the difference between the text and what it says?

Perhaps you could show what you mean in each case.

And there is no whole.

That's not what the Reformers said.

The whole Bible has the same author, the Holy Spirit.

Can you show where the import of any one book is not in agreement with the import of any other book, understood in the light of the whole Bible?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Perhaps you could show what you mean in each case.
That's not what the Reformers said.

The whole Bible has the same author, the Holy Spirit.

Can you show where the import of any one book is not in agreement with the import of any other book, understood in the light of the whole Bible?

So? (I'm not confident that you're familiar enough with the Reformers to make this kind of judgment.)

 

[fallingblood]

The gospel writers were eye-witnesses of much of what they recorded (Lk 1:1-2).
Talking to the people involved, as in talking to Mary about the events related to Jesus' birth, is not "oral tradition," it is a personal interview of the subject in the account.

Actually, Luke 1:1-2 explicitly states that the information was spread through oral tradition. And it never states the the Gospel writers were eye-witnesses. It states the opposite thing. That, Luke at least, was not an eye-witnesses, but depending on other sources, some written, some oral.

Again, Luke 1:1-2 does not state he was an eye-witness, or even implies such a thing. He states exactly the opposite.

But all you've presented are written, not oral sources--from Mark's and the Q Gospels.
And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that anything recorded from the mind of someone could easily have been relayed by the person involved.
That would not be "oral tradition."
Where is the factual certainty that "oral tradition" was involved?

Regarding Pilate's court: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"Doubtful" any followers of Jesus were around, is not "certain" from the accounts that no follower of Jesus was around.

All of this is nothing more than latter day novel speculation, in which those who seek to discredit the NT like to traffic.

How do we know there were no followers of Jesus in Pilate's court? Because they would have been killed as well. It is as simple as that. That is why the disciples ran away.

More so, again, we have information supposedly from Jesus, when he was completely alone. Thus, impossible to have eyewitnesses.

As for oral tradition, Luke specifically states that he relied on oral tradition. You've pointed out the verses already, Luke 1:1-2.

More so, there is no credible evidence that eye-witnesses wrote the accounts. Thus, oral tradition is a must. It is as simple as that.

 

[esmith]

Your latter day novel speculation is overturned by the NT testimony.

Then what you are basically saying is that no matter what is presented to you, you will not accept any possibility that there is possible errors in the bible. Just what do you mean by "novel speculation"? All of the information that I have given you are directly from Professor Ehrman

 

[fallingblood]

So in Jn 19:14, the "Day of Preparation of Passover Week" is the Friday of Passover Week, Nisan 15, which is the first day of Unleavened Bread,
and the same date of his death in Mark 14:12.

That doesn't make sense. You don't prepare for Passover week on the day of Passover. Why? Because Passover is part of Passover week. You can't exclude Passover from Passover week. Thus, John is talking about something entirely different.

More so, we know from John that Passover had not yet come. Why? John 18:28 states specifically that Passover had not yet occurred.

Family = relatives.
Those with him were not his immediate family, but were cousins, etc.

That's not what scripture states. Anyway, we are told that his aunt, and cousin, know who Jesus really is. Luke states this. More so, why would his family not know who he really is? If he was born of a virgin, from God, his family, meaning cousins and all, would have heard about it.

Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, but he did not make that known to his relatives, for the same reason he hid it from the masses.

How? How did he hide the fact that his father was God, and not Joseph? I mean, we know from Luke that Elizabeth knew. John obviously knew. Do you think that Mary would have lied to all of her family? She wasn't married, and all of a sudden, she's pregnant. Obviously, she is going to say something.

So that such a scenario would not occur, Jesus promised them empowerment to recall and understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15, Lk 24:48-49).

Your latter day novel speculation is overturned by the NT testimony.

Actually, NT testimony doesn't agree with itself all of the time. As in, it contradicts itself.

Second, it doesn't matter if Jesus made such a promise, as the people writing down the accounts weren't there in the first place. They were getting the accounts from second, third, or even more hand accounts. His disciples did not write a single word about Jesus, as far as we know. More so, we are told that his followers, or at least some of them, were uneducated, and thus would not be able to write.

Finally, if we stick to the tradition, Mark was based on oral tradition. It wasn't an eyewitnesses, it was someone who was copying what Peter said, long after the fact. Luke, by tradition, was a traveling partner of Paul, who was not even a disciple, and thus, was reliant on oral tradition.