• 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?

A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
So the types in Scripture are not honest ground now?

Absolutely.

EDIT: The "types" simply aren't there. The construction of a "type" in interpreting the Scripture is artificial and reckless, because we have the advantage of hindsight added to a heritage of interpretation. When this is the case, we are forcing a later reading onto the text. Therefore, the type comes from our reading of the text and not the text itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

smokydot

Well-Known Member
Absolutely.

EDIT: The "types" simply aren't there. The construction of a "type" in interpreting the Scripture is artificial and reckless, because we have the advantage of hindsight added to a heritage of interpretation. When this is the case, we are forcing a later reading onto the text. Therefore, the type comes from our reading of the text and not the text itself.
Tell it to Peter, John and the author of Hebrews, for starters.

Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, which is shown in the following link, remains groundless.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Tell it to Peter, John and the author of Hebrews, for starters.

OK. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Do you think that your hishonesty compares to what these three did?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

smokydot

Well-Known Member

1) That would be Peter who said that Christ our Passover Lamb was sacrificed, an anti-type, or

2) the author of Hebrews who said that Jesus was our High Priest, the once-for-all sacrifice, our Mediator (typied by Moses), all anti-types, or

3) John who said Jesus' blood cleanses from all sin, an anti-type.

You place yourself above the Scriptures in the following link when you reject the types and anti-types of the NT:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285025-post921.html

Very, very, very interesting. . .

Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, which is shown in the following link, remains groundless.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
1) That would be Peter who said that Christ our Passover Lamb was sacrificed, an anti-type, or

2) the author of Hebrews who said that Jesus was our High Priest, the once-for-all sacrifice, our Mediator (typied by Moses), all anti-types, or

3) John who said Jesus' blood cleanses from all sin, an anti-type.

You place yourself above the Scriptures in your rejection of the types and anti-types of the NT.

Um, no. I discipline myself with sound rules for interpretation.

If you give the verses that you're refering to, I can easily show how you're misinterpreting them. I will not venture to guess.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
I would like to see a few examples of that. . .
Don't need to. If you read the Bible you would clearly see that it revolves around me. The law giver? Me. Because I set down rules here, or at least some claimed. The passover lamb? Me, because I can be slung over someone's shoulder. Seed of God? Me again. My mom was a virgin at one time, and then she had me. See my point.
So says you. . .
And as we saw above, what I say goes as the Bible revolves around me.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Hey fallingblood,

I'm just glad that I have the original post in a quote of mine where smokydot can't touch it.

It's so rewarding to catch someone red-handed, and frustrating when you can prove the lie.
I agree. Wouldn't be surprised if he claims that it is all just a conspiracy to discredit him though.
 

smokydot

Well-Known Member
Um, no. I discipline myself with sound rules for interpretation.
If you give the verses that you're refering to, I can easily show how you're misinterpreting them. I will not venture to guess.
What happened to your not elaborating anymore with me on Scripture and that I should stop asking, that I had missed my chance
and could just read what you had to say from someone else's thread? See following link:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285002-post913.html

1) First, you showed that you didn't even know what a Scriptural type was:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284859-post877.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284877-post882.html

2) Then you said Scriptural types didn't prove anything:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284878-post883.html

3) Then you said Scriptural types were a lower level of thinking and an insult to everyone's intelligence:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284885-post886.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284917-post892.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284937-post898.html

4) Then you said there were no Scriptural types:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285002-post913.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285025-post921.html

5) Then you said Peter, John and the author of Hebrews were dishonest in their use of Scriptural types:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285042-post924.html

6) Now, after saying you would no longer elaborate with me on Scripture, you want me to elaborate on the Scriptural types.
Well. . .that has already been done, and everything you want to know is here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html

You place yourself above the Scriptures when you reject the Scriptural types and anti-types which the NT presents in the above link.

Very, very, very interesting. . .
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
What happened to your not elaborating anymore with me on Scripture and that I should stop asking, that I had missed my chance
and could just read what you had to say from someone else's thread? See following link:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285002-post913.html

1) First, you showed that you didn't even know what a Scriptural type was:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284859-post877.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284877-post882.html

2) Then you said Scriptural types didn't prove anything:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284878-post883.html

3) Then you said Scriptural types were a lower level of thinking and an insult to everyone's intelligence:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284885-post886.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284917-post892.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284937-post898.html

4) Then you said there were no Scriptural types:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285002-post913.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285025-post921.html

5) Then you said Peter, John and the author of Hebrews were dishonest in their use of Scriptural types:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285042-post924.html

6) Now, after saying you would no longer elaborate with me on Scripture, you want me to elaborate on the Scriptural types.
Well. . .that has already been done, and everything you want to know is here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html

You place yourself above the Scriptures when you reject the Scriptural types and anti-types which the NT presents in the above link.

Very, very, very interesting. . .

The only thing remotely interesting in this post is your profound lack of reading and reasoning skills.

You will note that I didn't say that I would no longer debate with you - I said that I would not address the issue concerning the unity of Scripture.
 

smokydot

Well-Known Member
I find this quite interesting. . .

You say, in the following link (at the bottom of that post), that my "profound lack of reading and reasoning skills" caused me to misunderstand you (in my quoted post below), and that you didn't say you would no longer debate with me, but that you would no longer "address the issue concerning the unity of Scripture". . . which I think is a good decision on your part, knowing no more of the actual Scriptures than you do.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285389-post930.html

So what was it I misundersood? . .because there you were in the first link of my quoted post below, again "addresssing the issue of the unity of Scripture," which
you were no longer going to address.

Methinks that what is more than "remotely interesting" here is that the lack of "profound reading and reasoning skills" have been applied to the wrong one.

And your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, as is shown in the following link, remains groundless.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html

What happened to your not elaborating anymore with me on Scripture and that I should stop asking, that I had missed my chance
and could just read what you had to say from someone else's thread? See following link:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285002-post913.html

1) First, you showed that you didn't even know what a Scriptural type was:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284859-post877.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284877-post882.html

2) Then you said Scriptural types didn't prove anything:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284878-post883.html

3) Then you said Scriptural types were a lower level of thinking and an insult to everyone's intelligence:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284885-post886.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284917-post892.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284937-post898.html

4) Then you said there were no Scriptural types:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285002-post913.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285025-post921.html

5) Then you said Peter, John and the author of Hebrews were dishonest in their use of Scriptural types:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285042-post924.html

6) Now, after saying you would no longer elaborate with me on Scripture, you want me to elaborate on the Scriptural types.
Well. . .that has already been done, and everything you want to know is here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html

You place yourself above the Scriptures when you reject the Scriptural types and anti-types which the NT presents in the above link.

Very, very, very interesting. . .
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
but that you would no longer "address the issue concerning the unity of Scripture."

haha, o I see.

The issue of "types" doesn't unify Scripture. That's why I was talking with you about it.

And I asked you for the Scriptures you were referring to so that I could show you why.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, which is shown in the following link, remains groundless.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html

For the sake of clarficiation, smoky, THIS is the question that I will not address.

That means that, with you, I will not go more into detail about that specific topic with you. I will not give basis, your satisfaction, for my previous statement.

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.

You can read about that in another thread if I choose to address it.
 

smokydot

Well-Known Member
haha, o I see.
The issue of "types" doesn't unify Scripture. That's why I was talking with you about it.
Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, as is shown in the following link, remains groundless.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html

The evidence speaks for itself. . .and each can judge it for himself,

(something I suspect you would not like to see happen).

And I asked you for the Scriptures you were referring to so that I could show you why.
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, as is shown in the following link, remains groundless.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html

The evidence speaks for itself. . .and each can judge it for himself.

haha - that's what I'm talking about.

You're just mindlessly repeating yourself. I understand that your very proud of your previous posts, but they prove nothing except that you can't understand anything. :shrug:
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, as is shown in the following link, remains groundless.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html

The evidence speaks for itself. . .and each can judge it for himself,

(something I suspect you would not like to see happen).
Smoky, smoky, smoky. I already told you that your assertion that the Bible is a whole is groundless, times an infinity. So you might as well just stop repeating yourself, as I win.
 

look3467

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well, I would like to cast in my view on the subject to which will be foreign in nature to many of you because it is not thought anywhere.
But you will hear it here.

God is a methodical God. I think that not having to prove it in light of all the cosmos, the earth and the oceans beneath is evidence enough.

The story of the Fathers creation is 7 days. He worked 6 and rested on the seventh day.

The story of the Son's creation is one day, and then He rested as part of that day.

If Jesus was stated as being in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights, then His crucifixion would have commenced on a Wednesday for the full completion of the 3 days and 3 nights.

That would place Jesus' resurrection on the Sunday morning as stated.

However, there is one problem, and that is that if Jesus was to rest on the Sabbath Sunday following, then Jesus must have been crucified on a Friday.

That would come in conflict with the 3 days and 3 nights in that if He were crucified on a Friday, His resurrection would then be on Monday morning instead of Sunday morning but not in conflict with His resting on the eve of the Sabbath, being Saturday.

The claim is, Sunday morning resurrection.

Explanation on why that is true.

Let me first reference a few scriptures to make my point.

The day Jesus is crucified is referenced to "in that day" as meaning one full day.

Ref: Isa 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

So we see that "In that day" His rest shall be glorious, meaning mission accomplished and resting, seated at the right hand of the Father.

That day does have significance as if that day were the 7 day creation story, but done in one whole day instead of 7.

God, being a methodical God follows that Jesus should rest on the 7th day.

Jesus then is crucified on a day, Friday, resting on the Sabbath as planned.

Here is how that is accomplished so that the full 3 days and 3 nights are fulfilled completely.

Refs: Job 3:4 Let that day be darkness; let not God regard it from above, neither let the light shine upon it.
Job 3:5 Let darkness and the shadow of death stain it; let a cloud dwell upon it; let the blackness of the day terrify it.
Job 3:6 As for that night, let darkness seize upon it; let it not be joined unto the days of the year, let it not come into the number of the months.
Job 3:7 Lo, let that night be solitary, let no joyful voice come therein.

Here God has cursed that day : Jer 20:14 Cursed be the day wherein I was born: let not the day wherein my mother bare me be blessed.

That day is the Day, Christianity was born, but not before taking the curse of death away by it.

That day then was taken out of time : ..."let it not be joined unto the days of the year, let it not come into the number of the months."...

What God has done was take that Friday out of time, because that day was cursed (6th day) shifting the 7th in the 6th place, the 8th day in the 7th's place.

Counting then the full 3 days and three nights Jesus was in the tomb, resurrecting 3 full days and nights later on the 8th day, or the first day of the week.

The week in time was broken between two creations, the old and the new by taking out one day.

The old was nailed to the cross while the new was resurrected in a new week.

That is consistent with the week and or of years of Jubilee.

Lev 25:11 A jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed.

You see, when Jesus accomplished His work, He liberated us all to where we can now rest from our works as in "
ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it", for God in Jesus has already fulfilled the need for us, allowing to rest in Jesus.

Jesus then is our rest, our Sabbath.

Read up on the passages about the Jubile and see if you can not see the works of Jesus in them.

Blessings, AJ
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Well, I would like to cast in my view on the subject to which will be foreign in nature to many of you because it is not thought anywhere.
But you will hear it here.

God is a methodical God. I think that not having to prove it in light of all the cosmos, the earth and the oceans beneath is evidence enough.

The story of the Fathers creation is 7 days. He worked 6 and rested on the seventh day.

The story of the Son's creation is one day, and then He rested as part of that day.

If Jesus was stated as being in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights, then His crucifixion would have commenced on a Wednesday for the full completion of the 3 days and 3 nights.

That would place Jesus' resurrection on the Sunday morning as stated.

However, there is one problem, and that is that if Jesus was to rest on the Sabbath Sunday following, then Jesus must have been crucified on a Friday.

That would come in conflict with the 3 days and 3 nights in that if He were crucified on a Friday, His resurrection would then be on Monday morning instead of Sunday morning but not in conflict with His resting on the eve of the Sabbath, being Saturday.

The claim is, Sunday morning resurrection.

Explanation on why that is true.

Let me first reference a few scriptures to make my point.

The day Jesus is crucified is referenced to "in that day" as meaning one full day.

Ref: Isa 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

So we see that "In that day" His rest shall be glorious, meaning mission accomplished and resting, seated at the right hand of the Father.

That day does have significance as if that day were the 7 day creation story, but done in one whole day instead of 7.

God, being a methodical God follows that Jesus should rest on the 7th day.

Jesus then is crucified on a day, Friday, resting on the Sabbath as planned.

Here is how that is accomplished so that the full 3 days and 3 nights are fulfilled completely.

Refs: Job 3:4 Let that day be darkness; let not God regard it from above, neither let the light shine upon it.
Job 3:5 Let darkness and the shadow of death stain it; let a cloud dwell upon it; let the blackness of the day terrify it.
Job 3:6 As for that night, let darkness seize upon it; let it not be joined unto the days of the year, let it not come into the number of the months.
Job 3:7 Lo, let that night be solitary, let no joyful voice come therein.

Here God has cursed that day : Jer 20:14 Cursed be the day wherein I was born: let not the day wherein my mother bare me be blessed.

That day is the Day, Christianity was born, but not before taking the curse of death away by it.

That day then was taken out of time : ..."let it not be joined unto the days of the year, let it not come into the number of the months."...

What God has done was take that Friday out of time, because that day was cursed (6th day) shifting the 7th in the 6th place, the 8th day in the 7th's place.

Counting then the full 3 days and three nights Jesus was in the tomb, resurrecting 3 full days and nights later on the 8th day, or the first day of the week.

The week in time was broken between two creations, the old and the new by taking out one day.

The old was nailed to the cross while the new was resurrected in a new week.

That is consistent with the week and or of years of Jubilee.

Lev 25:11 A jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed.

You see, when Jesus accomplished His work, He liberated us all to where we can now rest from our works as in "
ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it", for God in Jesus has already fulfilled the need for us, allowing to rest in Jesus.

Jesus then is our rest, our Sabbath.

Read up on the passages about the Jubile and see if you can not see the works of Jesus in them.

Blessings, AJ


I'm sorry you had to post such a long winded response but most of this we've already gone over and sadly...you are mistaken. :thud:
 

smokydot

Well-Known Member
Well, now in addition to the six steps (in my internal second quoted post below),
and your "quite interesting" explanation (in my first quoted post below), which makes seven steps,
I have eight steps: the eighth being a fig leaf (cyoa) to cover your return to "the unity of Scripture," which you said you would no longer discuss with me (step 6).

8) Despite the fact that my demonstration of the unity of Scripture consisted solely of types, you now maintain in the following link
that a return to discussing the types is not a return to discussing "unity of Scripture,"
because "the types don't unify Scripture". . .not-with-standing that types were my sole basis for the "unity of Scripture" in that post. . .go figure.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285953-post932.html

This is the kind of stuff of which you accuse me. . .and for which you heap the opprobrium.
I find this "quite interesting". . .

7) You say, in the following link (at the bottom of that post), that my "profound lack of reading and reasoning skills" caused me to misunderstand you (in my quoted post below), and that you didn't say you would no longer debate with me, but that you would no longer "address the issue concerning the unity of Scripture". . . which I think is a good decision on your part, knowing no more of the actual Scriptures than you do.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285389-post930.html

So what was it I misundersood? . .because there you were in the first link of my quoted post below, again "addresssing the issue of the unity of Scripture," which
you were no longer going to address.

Methinks that what is more than "remotely interesting" here is that the lack of "profound reading and reasoning skills" have been applied to the wrong one.

And your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, as is shown in the following link, remains groundless.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html

What happened to your not elaborating anymore with me on Scripture and that I should stop asking, that I had missed my chance
and could just read what you had to say from someone else's thread? See following link:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285002-post913.html

1) First, you showed that you didn't even know what a Scriptural type was:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284859-post877.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284877-post882.html

2) Then you said Scriptural types didn't prove anything:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284878-post883.html

3) Then you said Scriptural types were a lower level of thinking and an insult to everyone's intelligence:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284885-post886.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284917-post892.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284937-post898.html

4) Then you said there were no Scriptural types:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285002-post913.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285025-post921.html

5) Then you said Peter, John and the author of Hebrews were dishonest in their use of Scriptural types:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285042-post924.html

6) Now, after saying you would no longer elaborate with me on Scripture, you want me to elaborate on the Scriptural types.
Well. . .that has already been done, and everything you want to know is here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html

You place yourself above the Scriptures when you reject the Scriptural types and anti-types which the NT presents in the above link.

Very, very, very interesting. . .
 
Last edited:
Top