What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[smokydot]

You haven't posted the information that is required - namely, the OT verses.

Look again. . .they are the verses given for the (type-->Lev etc.)

And yes, I can easily show how you're misinterpreting the OT, as long as I know which verses you're referring to.
I would consider it a cheap trick -- or a matter of stupidity -- for thinking that their interpretation is the text.

More of the dance. . .movement four. . .words don't mean what they say, because they really have no meaning. . .we have to give them our personal meaning. . .

Reality check: all that matters is whether the words are true or not, regarding Jesus legal descent from the royal line of David. . .which is it?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Look again. . .they are the verses given for the (type-->Lev etc.)

Hense the question.

Do you think that you've proven the "types" of Christ that unify the OT and NT? As far as I can tell, you haven't tried, but who knows.

Show me EXACTLY where it is.

You've been known to change your posts...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Reality check: all that matters is whether the words are true or not

The real reality check: it matters whether the words are "true" or not, but it also matters how those words are presented and interpreted.

In your limited and uncreative mind, you've presented a choice of your interpretation (which you grossly mistake for "fact") and what you think isn't true. You've failed to consider a multitude of other possibilities for interpretation.

And yes, I say "fact" and "truth" because it's utterly beyond you to know the difference between your misunderstanding of the text, the text itself, and the meaning of the text.

Facts and truth mean nothing to a man unwilling to think.

 

[smokydot]

I'm only going to respond to comments that would be relevant to those reading along. I've answered the others, and Smoky is repeating himself, and bringing nonsense that I choose not to address.

So you aren't going to address the clear correspondence between the many OT prophecies and the events which the Jewish NT writers say fulfilled them,
which I presented?
How convenient. . .

It doesn't matter WHERE Mary was from. If Mary was a convert to Judaism, that would not be more or less important than who she was descended from. Women take on the tribe of their husbands. There are exactly three issues that pertain to what tribe a woman is from, and inheritance law is NOT one of them, no matter how much you want it to be, Smoky.
And before you try to cite the daughters of Zelophchad (case in inheritance law in Numbers), the women only received the land IF THEY MARRIED WITHIN THEIR TRIBE. The tribe of the daughters was irrelevant. The tribe only passed from their father to within the tribe if their HUSBANDS were within the tribe.
Other than the three cases (I'll get into them later, if anyone wants to know, but they are completely irrelevant here), no one cares about what tribe a woman comes from. Jewish law only cares that she's Jewish.

So what was the provision of the Jewish law for a child conceived without a human father?

If Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, that means bupkis.
Tribes get inherited via biological fathers. The reign of Davidic Kingship gets inherited via biological fathers.
It is possible for Jews not to belong to a tribe, which brings them into the wonderful category of "Yisrael." They are Jews, just like other Jews.
It isn't a bad thing. It doesn't hurt anyone, though it might make life a bit complicated when we try to reinstate the Jubilee Year. But until we have to worry about that...
Men get the tribe they were born to. If that means they were born without a tribe, they stay tribeless until they die.
If you believe in the virgin birth, it doesn't matter who Joseph's lineage contained. If Joseph didn't contribute sperm, his genealogy is completely irrelevant.
If you believe in the virgin birth, then it is clear that he did not do even that.

fallingblood, I think it was, said that Joseph would be the legal father of Jesus and, therefore, Jesus would be a legal descendant from the royal line of David.

Not a requirement.
And Karl Marx doesn't dictate Jewish law EITHER. Neither does Spinoza.

Nor does Isaiah, Jeremiah or Zechariah.
Messianic prophecies are not about Jewish laws, they are about the Jewish Messiah.

I told you what the Messianic prophecies were. You can bring hundreds of "sources," and they mean nothing.

Jesus and his Apostles mean everything.

World peace. No. All Jews in Israel. No. All Jews Torah observant (at the level of Pharisees, or Orthodox). No. All non-Jews believing in God the same way as Noachides. No. Biological father to son descendant of King David. No.
THOSE are the Messianic prophecies. Anything else that might be mentioned is puff and nonsense.

There are ancient Jews who disagree with you, as in Jesus and his apostles.

Dude - do NOT presume to explain to Jews what Jewish law is. You have NO credibility on any of this.

Not talking about Jewish law. . .talking about Jewish Messiah.

We KNOW what you WANT it to be. But DON'T tell Jews what we believe.

I have a written record of what the ancient Jews, Jesus and the apostles, believed.

More than YOU ever will. I just described what the Messiah is supposed to do. Anything else is irrelevant. (I realize you believe otherwise, but then again... You don't really care about Jewish law, so it doesn't really matter.)
You are seriously not dense enough for me to insult your intelligence with a complete answer.
The idea is that TAKING SOMETHING COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT and LINKING THE IRRELEVANCE TO VERSES does not make the irrelevance more relevant.

Fulfillment of all the verses removes any "irrelevance," making it totally relevant in every aspect.

I'm not wasting more brainpower explaining this concept.

 

[smokydot]

Do you think that you've proven the "types" of Christ that unify the OT and NT? As far as I can tell, you haven't tried, but who knows.
Show me EXACTLY where it is.

How am I supposed to do that. . .put my finger on it?

It's here http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html
Following your third quote, where you see all the red letters, are some types given by
1) Paul,
2) the author of Hebrews, and
3) John.

And you said you would no longer discuss the unity of the Bible with me, that you would discuss only types because they have no bearing on the unity of the Bible. . .or something to that effect.
So this is strictly about my misinterpreting the types.

You haven't given the OT verses.

I gave you their addresses.
Do you need more?

 

[smokydot]

The real reality check: it matters whether the words are "true" or not, but it also matters how those words are presented and interpreted.
In your limited and uncreative mind, you've presented a choice of your interpretation (which you grossly mistake for "fact") and what you think isn't true. You've failed to consider a multitude of other possibilities for interpretation.
And yes, I say "fact" and "truth" because it's utterly beyond you to know the difference between your misunderstanding of the text, the text itself, and the meaning of the text.
Facts and truth mean nothing to a man unwilling to think.

More of the dance. . .movement five. . .ad hominem.

I've considered only the "possibilities for interpretation" presented by the Jewish NT writers.
Nothing else is relevant.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Jesus and his Apostles mean everything.

Jesus and his Apostles mean nothing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that he resides on planet smokydot.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Was the rooster a descendant of Abraham from the house of David?

As much as Jesus was.

The most important requirement for the Messiah was not fulfilled there,

I'm fairly certain you have no idea what is meant by "the most important requirement for the Messiah"

Get back to us when that has been done. . .and show that Jesus of Nazareth has not fulfilled the Messianic prophecies.

Read Isaiah 11, and Ezekiel 37... and understand that Jesus of Nazareth has not fulfilled the Messianic prophecies.

I'm a Jew. I live in Poughkeepsie, New York. That alone proves that Jesus was not the Messiah.

Notice that in Jerusalem, there is no Temple standing where Solomon's Temple once stood. That alone proves that Jesus was not the Messiah.

Pick up any newspaper and understand that there is not peace in the world. The verses about turning swords into ploughshares and spears into pruning hooks, and that nation shall not lift up sword against nation nor learn war anymore... they have not been fulfilled. That alone proves that Jesus was not the Messiah.

Notice in this very forum, there are people who are atheists. That alone proves that Jesus was not the Messiah.

And there's nothing written by those Jewish heretics who wrote the NT that is going to change any of this.

 

[Harmonious]

So you aren't going to address the clear correspondence between the many OT prophecies and the events which the Jewish NT writers say fulfilled them,
which I presented?
How convenient. . .

The connection you made was as tenuous as the connection to the rooster. Therefore, I'm not giving the argument for those connections any more attention than I would give someone who tried to convince me that the rooster filled those "connections."

So what was the provision of the Jewish law for a child conceived without a human father?

The law would be as if the child was born to a non-Jew. The baby is Jewish, but inherits nothing tribally, as non-Jews do not belong to the inheritance system of the 12 (or 13, really) tribes of Israel.

You know... Jewish mysticism has stories of Jewish women being married to demons. (They were forcibly taken at the start, but they stayed.) The babies born therefrom are not human, but they are Jewish. As such, baby boys born thereby need circumcision.

If you are insistent that God is Jesus' father (I'm just as happy to assume that he was born via a Roman soldier, but hey - your belief is your belief), the law would apply as if Jesus' father WAS a Roman soldier.

Jesus was NOT from a father-to-son line to King David, so all Christian claim that Jesus was "from the line of David" is null and void, except in your own hearts and minds.

fallingblood, I think it was, said that Joseph would be the legal father of Jesus and, therefore, Jesus would be a legal descendant from the royal line of David.

Don't pin your silliness on fallingblood.

Joseph would have been the legal father. I know people who are from Yisrael (any of the tribes that are not Cohen or Levi) who have adopted boys who are Cohanim. The babies are STILL Cohanim, even though their legal fathers are Yisraelim.

Jesus is no different than any of the adopted boys I know. He doesn't get the tribe of his adopted father, no matter how much you want reality to be different.

Nor does Isaiah, Jeremiah or Zechariah.

You are right. They DON'T discuss Jewish law. However, their words make sense and are worth heeding ONLY BECAUSE they were inviolate when it came to Jewish law, and their main purpose was ONLY to convince Jews to follow Torah law.

But I would never look at, say, the Book of Mark, to try to figure out how Jews are SUPPOSED to be following Torah law.

I would never look to the Communist Manifesto to figure out how to interact with my fellow humans. I would never assume that Marx's anti-Semitic rants are filled with light and truth just because he was Jewish.

The man was Jewish. That doesn't mean is works were. So, too, with the Christian scriptures.

Messianic prophecies are not about Jewish laws, they are about the Jewish Messiah.

:slap:

If the prophecies fall outside of Jewish law, then it is guaranteed that they are irrelevant for Jews, altogether.

The simple laws of inheritance, the laws of kings and of war MUST be followed, as the PURPOSE of the anointed King of Israel is to teach Torah law and to enforce Torah law.

If what you claim are prophecies fall outside the parameters of Torah law, they are complete drivel and nonsense as far as Jews are concerned, never mind that Jews authored the drivel.

Jesus and his Apostles mean everything.

To you, and to Christians who believe as you do, perhaps.

To Jews and the rest of the world... Not so much.

There are ancient Jews who disagree with you, as in Jesus and his apostles.

And they weren't very good at following Torah law. They were false prophets. Anything they had to say is truly irrelevant.

Not talking about Jewish law. . .talking about Jewish Messiah.

And the Jewish Messiah is going to follow Jewish law, or it is rather obvious that he isn't the Messiah. Or ANYTHING relevant to the Jews.

I have a written record of what the ancient Jews, Jesus and the apostles, believed.
Fulfillment of all the verses removes any "irrelevance," making it totally relevant in every aspect.

And I have a written record of one Hobbit and thirteen Dwarves that travelled across Middle-earth on a treasure-hunt.

How is that relevant to my spiritual growth?

I'm not sure, but it is more relevant to life, the universe, and everything than your story about Jesus and the apostles.

 

[smokydot]

The connection you made was as tenuous as the connection to the rooster. Therefore, I'm not giving the argument for those connections any more attention than I would give someone who tried to convince me that the rooster filled those "connections."

Jesus himself said he fulfilled them (Mt 26:31-32; Lk 20:17-18, 22:22), and he explained them all to his apostles (Lk 24:25, 44-47),
and I guess that's where we will have to leave it, because
I believe the NT is the Word of God written (Mt 15:6, 2 Tim 3:16), while you do not.
It will all get sorted out at the Final Judgment.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2292356-post952.html

The law would be as if the child was born to a non-Jew. The baby is Jewish, but inherits nothing tribally, as non-Jews do not belong to the inheritance system of the 12 (or 13, really) tribes of Israel.
You know... Jewish mysticism has stories of Jewish women being married to demons. (They were forcibly taken at the start, but they stayed.) The babies born therefrom are not human, but they are Jewish. As such, baby boys born thereby need circumcision.
If you are insistent that God is Jesus' father (I'm just as happy to assume that he was born via a Roman soldier, but hey - your belief is your belief), the law would apply as if Jesus' father WAS a Roman soldier.
Jesus was NOT from a father-to-son line to King David, so all Christian claim that Jesus was "from the line of David" is null and void, except in your own hearts and minds.
Don't pin your silliness on fallingblood.
Joseph would have been the legal father. I know people who are from Yisrael (any of the tribes that are not Cohen or Levi) who have adopted boys who are Cohanim. The babies are STILL Cohanim, even though their legal fathers are Yisraelim.
Jesus is no different than any of the adopted boys I know. He doesn't get the tribe of his adopted father, no matter how much you want reality to be different.
You are right. They DON'T discuss Jewish law. However, their words make sense and are worth heeding ONLY BECAUSE they were inviolate when it came to Jewish law, and their main purpose was ONLY to convince Jews to follow Torah law.
But I would never look at, say, the Book of Mark, to try to figure out how Jews are SUPPOSED to be following Torah law.
I would never look to the Communist Manifesto to figure out how to interact with my fellow humans. I would never assume that Marx's anti-Semitic rants are filled with light and truth just because he was Jewish.
The man was Jewish. That doesn't mean is works were. So, too, with the Christian scriptures.
:slap:
If the prophecies fall outside of Jewish law, then it is guaranteed that they are irrelevant for Jews, altogether.
The simple laws of inheritance, the laws of kings and of war MUST be followed, as the PURPOSE of the anointed King of Israel is to teach Torah law and to enforce Torah law.
If what you claim are prophecies fall outside the parameters of Torah law, they are complete drivel and nonsense as far as Jews are concerned, never mind that Jews authored the drivel.
To you, and to Christians who believe as you do, perhaps.
To Jews and the rest of the world... Not so much.
And they weren't very good at following Torah law. They were false prophets. Anything they had to say is truly irrelevant.
And the Jewish Messiah is going to follow Jewish law, or it is rather obvious that he isn't the Messiah. Or ANYTHING relevant to the Jews.
And I have a written record of one Hobbit and thirteen Dwarves that travelled across Middle-earth on a treasure-hunt.
How is that relevant to my spiritual growth?
I'm not sure, but it is more relevant to life, the universe, and everything than your story about Jesus and the apostles.

 

[smokydot]

Jesus and his Apostles mean nothing.

I believe the NT, while you do not. . .and that's where we will have to leave it. . .

 

[smokydot]

As much as Jesus was.
I'm fairly certain you have no idea what is meant by "the most important requirement for the Messiah"
Read Isaiah 11, and Ezekiel 37... and understand that Jesus of Nazareth has not fulfilled the Messianic prophecies.
I'm a Jew. I live in Poughkeepsie, New York. That alone proves that Jesus was not the Messiah.
Notice that in Jerusalem, there is no Temple standing where Solomon's Temple once stood. That alone proves that Jesus was not the Messiah.
Pick up any newspaper and understand that there is not peace in the world. The verses about turning swords into ploughshares and spears into pruning hooks, and that nation shall not lift up sword against nation nor learn war anymore... they have not been fulfilled. That alone proves that Jesus was not the Messiah.
Notice in this very forum, there are people who are atheists. That alone proves that Jesus was not the Messiah.
And there's nothing written by those Jewish heretics who wrote the NT that is going to change any of this.

It will all get sorted out at the Final Judgment.

 

[Harmonious]

Jesus himself said he fulfilled them (Mt 26:31-32; Lk 20:17-18, 22:22), and he explained them all to his apostles (Lk 24:25, 44-47),
and I guess that's where we will have to leave it, because
I believe the NT is the Word of God written (Mt 15:6, 2 Tim 3:16), while you do not.
It will all get sorted out at the Final Judgment.

Fair enough.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think what we have here is the difference between orthodox Christian faith and latter-day Christian faith.

The irony is you can't tell the difference between the two.

And you don't know it.

 

[smokydot]

The irony is you can't tell the difference between the two.
And you don't know it.

So, you're saying I think Biblical Christian faith and non-Biblical Christian faith are the same in
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2294024-post981.html ?

The irony is you can't tell when someone is actually illustrating the difference between the two.

Just more of the dance. . .movement six. . .kick up a lota' dust to cloud the issue at hand which you can't address.

So, back to the issue. . .are you going to show how I have misinterpreted the types in
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html

which you said there that you could easily do? But you can't, can you?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So, you're saying I think Biblical Christian faith and non-Biblical Christian faith are the same in
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2293530-post975.html ?

More directly, you incorrectly think that you can access orthodox Christianity through your (poor) interpretation of the Bible.

And pretending that a modern Reformed / Protestant / reconstructionist Christianity is not latter-day is dishonest and disingenuous.

 

[smokydot]

More directly, you incorrectly think that you can access orthodox Christianity through your (poor) interpretation of the Bible.
And pretending that a modern Reformed / Protestant / reconstructionist Christianity is not latter-day is dishonest and disingenuous.

More of the dance. . .movement six repeated. . .kick up a lota' dust to cloud the issue which you can't address. . .

So where do you fall on the spectrum between Biblical and non-Biblical Christian faith in http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2294024-post981.html ?

And back to the issue. . .are you going to show how I have misinterpreted the types in
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html

as you said there that you could easily do? But you can't, can you?

As you requested, I have shown EXACTLY in-- http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2292920-post965.html --where they are found there.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As you requested, I have shown EXACTLY in-- http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2292920-post965.html --where they are found there.

Nope.

.....

 

[smokydot]

The real reality check: it matters whether the words are "true" or not, but it also matters how those words are presented and interpreted.
In your limited and uncreative mind, you've presented a choice of your interpretation (which you grossly mistake for "fact") and what you think isn't true. You've failed to consider a multitude of other possibilities for interpretation.
And yes, I say "fact" and "truth" because it's utterly beyond you to know the difference between your misunderstanding of the text, the text itself, and the meaning of the text.
Facts and truth mean nothing to a man unwilling to think.

I think what we have here is the difference between orthodox Christian faith and latter-day Christian faith.

Orthodox (Bibilical) Christian faith believes in:
1) the wholly trustworthy and reliable, wholly true and God-breathed Scriptures,
2) the deity of Christ,
3) his virgin birth and miracles,
4) his penal death for our sin, and
5) his physical resurrection and personal return.

Latter-day (non-Biblical) Christian faith takes a little more ink to express. . .implying all of the following to at least some degree, if not completely:

1) God's character is one of pure benevolence--benevolence, that is, without standards.
All men are his children, and sin separates no one from his love. The Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man are alike universal.

2) There is a divine spark in every man. Therefore, all men are good at heart, and need nothing more than encouragement to allow their natural goodness to express itself.

3) Jesus Christ is man's savior only in the sense that he is man's perfect teacher and example. We should regard him simply as the first Christian, our elder brother
in the world-wide family of God. He was not divine in any unique sense. He was God only in the sense that he was a perfectly God-conscious and God-guided man.
He was not born of a virgin; he did not work miracles, in the sense of "mighty works" of divine creative power; and he did not rise from the dead.

4) Just as Christ differs from other men only comparatively, not absolutely, so Christianity differs from other religions not generically, but merely as the best and highest type of religion that has yet appeared. All religions are forms of the same religion, just as all men are members of the same divine family.

5) The Bible is not a record of divine revelation, but a human testament of religion;
and Christian doctrine is not the God-given word which must create and control Christian experience. The truth is the opposite.
Christian experience is directly infectious within the Christian community--it is "caught," like mumps; and this experience creates and controls Christian doctrine.

Doctrine is nothing more than an endeavor to put into words the content of religious feelings, impressions and intuitions.
The only facts to which doctrinal statements give expression are the feelings of those who create them. Doctrine is simply a by-product of religion.

As for the NT, it is simply the earliest attempts to express the Christian experience in words; its value lies in the fact that it is a first-hand witness of that experience. Other generations, however, must express the same experience in different words.
Doctrinal formulae will vary from age to age and place to place, according to the variation of cultural backgrounds.
The first-century theology of the NT cannot be normative for 21st-century man.

But this is no cause for concern, and means no loss. Doctrine is not basic or essential to any form of religion;
no doctrinal statements or credal forms, therefore, are basic or essential to Christianity.
In so far as there is a permanent Christian message, it is not doctrinal, but ethical--the moral teaching of Jesus.
(from J. I. Packer)

An expression of this latter-day Christian faith would be: If you're feeling warm and fuzzy, you're probably self-realizing subjective personal truth. . .which is a good description of self-satisfaction.

And so. . .are you going to show how I have misinterpreted the types in
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html

which you said there that you could easily do? But you really can't, can you?

As you requested, I have shown you EXACTLY in-- http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2292920-post965.html --where they are found.

And then there is a sampling of the prophecies of the OT, which the Jewish NT writers say are fulfilled in the NT, at
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2292356-post952.html

and which likewise show the unity of the whole Bible.

With all the types and all the prophecies of the OT, which the Jewish NT writers say are fulfilled in the NT,
it's hard to see how any Christian can say there is no unity of the Bible.