They used different times.
John used Roman time (1:39b, 19:14), while Matthew used Jewish time (Mt 27:45-46).
Last edited:
-
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?
- Thread starter fallingblood
- Start date
John used Roman time (1:39b, 19:14), while Matthew used Jewish time (Mt 27:45-46).
Not as "direct" as you would like. . .
1) the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew and Mark wrote their gospels (NIV introductions to Gospels of Matthew and Mark),
and the early church father, Clement of Alexandria, held that John wrote his gospel (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.7),
which shows the contrary, regarding the writers of the gospels not knowing each other,
2) and unless the writers of the NT were lying in the following, they also claim otherwise regarding eye witnesses:
Jn 1:14, 19:35, 21:24, 1 Jn 1:1-3, 4:14;
Ac 2:32, 3:15, 4:20, 5:32, 10:39, 41, 13:31;
1 Pe 5:1; 2 Pe 1:16
Your "direct proof" falls somewhat short.
Jesus acted to guarantee the recollection of the apostles would always be correct, by empowering them to recall and understand all things correctly:
Jn 14:26, 16:13-15; Lk 24:48-49
The early church gives (above) the lie to this latter day novel speculation, 2,000 years after the fact, in which those who seek to discredit the NT like to traffic.
Last edited:
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
That is why it is a waste to even try to have a conversation with you as you simply dismiss everything that disagrees with you. Raymond E. Brown is a highly respected scholar. But I'm sure you've never read anything from him. Because that would take research on your part.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Wow, and that's exactly what you've done throughout this thread. Do you honestly not realize that?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
That's why appealing to nameless scholars - for smoky - is self-defeating. He doesn't know which scholars argue for an interpretation similar to his or what the arguments are against it. If smoky were paying attention to scholarship, just about everything he says would have to be edited. Again.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Not much. Brown is easily accessible.
For me, Brown is very easy to read - being well written, carefully documented, and just a smooth read. I can read his introduction in one sitting, but I guess I can do that with most other books. Brown just has a special place in my heart for being not only a world-class scholar but a gifted writer.
Your " highly respected scholar," that is, among those who traffic in latter day novel speculations, got it wrong here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2303235-post1158.html
and that makes him a certified (by the facts) lousy student of Scripture.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
It's not every day that one finds a person who can play all three Stooges in one of their misadventures.
That is true. . .and it can't shield me from my opponent's criticism if the facts of the matter aren't on my side. . .all it can do is make my argument more clear, concise and understandable. . .which are good reasons for doing it.
Why do you care that I edit?
There's scholarship. . .and there's "scholarship," so called. . .i.e., that of the latter day "scholars' who like to traffic in novel speculations.
I've taken their measure, and they have come up short in their knowledge of Scripture. . .Raymond E. Brown being the latest example presented here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2303235-post1158.html
Last edited:
That brings this misadventure to mind: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2300254-post1077.html.
Now that's some misadventure on a grand scale. . .
Last edited:
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Because it misconstrues your arguments. It shows your deception, and willing to outright lie in order to try to make your argument credible at all.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
It's not Brown's fault that you haven't read any of the scholarship. And it's not my fault you haven't actually read Brown's work. Maybe once you pick up a book on modern scholarship, your opinion will have some weight.
As A_E points out, Brown is a relatively easy read. He is a great writer, and it shouldn't be too hard for you to follow him.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
At first I was hesitant on reading Brown. I picked up his short book on the Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection, as was happily surprised at his insight. You are very right though, he is a gifted writer.Not much. Brown is easily accessible.
For me, Brown is very easy to read - being well written, carefully documented, and just a smooth read. I can read his introduction in one sitting, but I guess I can do that with most other books. Brown just has a special place in my heart for being not only a world-class scholar but a gifted writer.
Even if that were true (which it is not), what does it have to do with refuting the argument? . .answer: it has nothing to do with it. . .
the argument stands on its own merits.
Either the argument has the facts on its side, or it doesn't. . .facts can't be created by editing. . .and the facts are what matter.
You just don't want me working to present my argument as well and as clearly as I can, as in this example: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2300254-post1077.html,
while that false charge above is just another smokescreen to cover inability to refute the facts of the arguments.
Last edited:
Another dodge of my argument which presents Brown's ignorance of the Scriptures in:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2303235-post1158.html.
Any work of Brown's is based on his certified (by the facts) ignorance of the actual Scriptures.
True scholarship demands that you at least know your subject matter, in this case the Scriptures.
I don't know how he treats the virgin birth or the bodily resurrection, but based on how he treats Jewish guilt of the murder of Jesus, and the time/day of Jesus' resurrection, as mentioned here, I suspect (but I could be wrong) that he is not in agreement with the NT reports.
Somebody surprise me on this one.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Damn, one thing that sure catches my craw is when I see a world-class NT scholar who doesn't know the NT. Sure, accidentally slipping once or twice is expected, but to call someone like Brown ignorant?
It's like saying Derek Jeter doesn't know how to play baseball because he didn't win the World Series last year. But then again, the person criticizing him would be someone who had never even heard of baseball before but knows what a stadium is because he watches football.
It's like saying Derek Jeter doesn't know how to play baseball because he didn't win the World Series last year. But then again, the person criticizing him would be someone who had never even heard of baseball before but knows what a stadium is because he watches football.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
haha
That's a bit above his reading level.
But just for poops and giggles:
Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy
That's getting close to ridicule: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2302655-post1156.html.haha
That's a bit above his reading level.
That reads too much like one man's reconstructionist interpretation of history, which he neither witnessed nor experienced nor received from anyone who did. . .
but composed. . .about 2,000 years after the fact.
Don't you just love the way the "testimony," 2,000 years after the fact, has more weight with some
than does the testimony of those who were there, or who received it from those who were?
Somehow. . .2,000 years later assures that their "testimony" is above the "human fallibility" of recorded history. . .yeah, when horses fly.
Last edited: