What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[esmith]

There were numerous Christian cults among these were the Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnostics, and Proto-orthodox(current Christians). All of these groups had books to support their beliefs. The Proto-orthodox became the dominate group completely eradicating, so they thought, the other groups and their scriptures. How you ask? The traditional answer comes to us from Eusebus (c260-340) in his book Ecclesiastical History which basically said that the Proto-orthodox was the "Major" religion of the time and the others were just minor off-shoots. Along comes Constantine 1st who converts to Christianity. Rome, the capital of the empire, has the largest church and greatest resources to further the "EMPERORS" group (Proto-orthodox). Literature is written to substantiate the Proto-orthodox beliefs and if something didn't agree with their "beliefs" the writings were changed. Proto-orthodox became the dominate religion and the history of Christianity (Eusebus) was held until 1934 when Walter Bauer wrote "Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity". He maintained that Eusebus had not given an objective account but had rewritten the history to support his beliefs. He found that Proto-orthodoxy was only the majority in Rome. We have proof of this in the "Letter of 1 Clement" written by the church in Rome to another church. There had been a coup and the leaders had been replaced. The letter to the church said to put the original leaders back into power because the leaders had been appointed by APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

 

[smokydot]

There were numerous Christian cults among these were the Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnostics, and Proto-orthodox (current Christians). All of these groups had books to support their beliefs. The Proto-orthodox became the dominate group completely eradicating, so they thought, the other groups and their scriptures. How you ask? The traditional answer comes to us from Eusebus (c260-340) in his book Ecclesiastical History which basically said that the Proto-orthodox was the "Major" religion of the time and the others were just minor off-shoots. Along comes Constantine 1st who converts to Christianity. Rome, the capital of the empire, has the largest church and greatest resources to further the "EMPERORS" group (Proto-orthodox). Literature is written to substantiate the Proto-orthodox beliefs and if something didn't agree with their "beliefs" the writings were changed. Proto-orthodox became the dominate religion and the history of Christianity (Eusebus) was held until 1934 when Walter Bauer wrote "Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity". He maintained that Eusebus had not given an objective account but had rewritten the history to support his beliefs. He found that Proto-orthodoxy was only the majority in Rome. We have proof of this in the "Letter of 1 Clement" written by the church in Rome to another church. There had been a coup and the leaders had been replaced. The letter to the church said to put the original leaders back into power because the leaders had been appointed by APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

Good post. . .

But Bauer is the guy who reads like a reconstructionist interpretation of history. . .he reeks of subjectivity, in spite of his accusing Eusebius of the same. . .the early Roman dominance thing is not working for me, in light of the strong church in Jerusalem in the beginning. . .there's too much of what looks like conjecture in his stuff.

I'm sorry, the guy just does not pass muster with me. . .got something better?

 

[esmith]

.the early Roman dominance thing is not working for me, in light of the strong church in Jerusalem in the beginning. . .there's too much of what looks like conjecture in his stuff.

I'm sorry, the guy just does not pass muster with me. . .got something better?

What makes you say that there was strong Proto-orthodoxy church in Jerusalem? From what I understand the apostles wanted anyone becoming a Christian had to convert to Judaism first until Paul did some "arm-twisting".

 

[smokydot]

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?

I appreciate that. . .but it's not an "accidental slip once or twice" when the basis of your argument is false. . .whether it be that the Jews were not guilty of Jesus' death,
or that the NT does not say Jesus rose on Sunday.

That's not a "slip up". . .that's ignorance (being uninformed).

But then Brown believes much of the NT is not factual. . .so I'm sure he doesn't believe the virgin birth is factual. . .which means he doesn't believe
that the divinity of Jesus is factual. . .and that makes Brown a heretic in the true sense of the word--"choosing" what to believe and what not to believe in the NT,
and espousing true heresy--gospel-eradicating doctrine. . .like the necessesity of circumcision in order to be right with God (righteous) was in Paul's day.

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.

Your analogy "limps" a little there.

It's more like saying Berney Brown doesn't know how to play golf because he never gets under 150, being said by someone who's never played golf.

 

[Danmac]

I raised this question in another thread. It was claimed that there were no disagreements in the Bible, or the story of Jesus. As I have done on various occasions, I raised this question, on what day was Jesus crucified?

Upon a close examination of the Gospels, this simple question becomes a little difficult. For reference, the translation I will be using for various verses will be the NRSV.

We will begin with what Mark states (I use Mark as Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source and generally agree).

Mark 14:12 "On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed, his disciples said to him, 'Where do you want us to go and make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?"

In other words, the passage is referring to the Day of Preparation of the Passover; the day before Passover.

Mark 15:25, it still being Passover, tells us that jesus was crucified at nine o'clock in the morning. So clearly, in Mark, and the synoptics follow along, Jesus was crucified on the day of Passover. For instance, Matthew 26:17 states "On the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "where do you want us to make the preparations for your to eat the Passover?"

Another key here is that both Matthew and Mark place the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Break on the day of Preparation of the Passover; the day before Passover. Luke simply lumps it all together: Luke 22:1 "Now the festival of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was near." There is no doubt that in any of these three accounts, the authors are talking about the festival that lasted 8 days.

It should also be noted that the synoptics all portray the last supper as a Passover meal.

Now, moving to John, we see a difference. John 19:14 "Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon." The context of this verse is with Jesus' trial before Pilate. At this point, Jesus had already been flogged, and is now getting the verdict; he will be crucified, as stated in verse 16. So for John, is is the Day of Preparation for the Passover; or the day before Passover, that Jesus is crucified. Clearly, there is a disagreement here.

However, this is not the only evidence we have that Passover had not yet occurred. John 18:28 "Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate's headquarters. It was early in the morning. They themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover." Clearly, this shows that Passover had not yet occurred. Since, in the account of John, the last supper had already occurred, there is no way it could have been a Passover meal; according to John.

Now, some have claimed that John 19:31 ["Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the sabbath, especially because that sabbath was a day of great solemnity."] points to the idea that it had to be Passover. However, the main reason for the confusion is a lack of understanding of the terms Day of Preparation for the Passover, and day of Preparation. Some try to combine these two phrases to make them both signify one thing. However, that simply can not logically be done.

The Day of Preparation for the Passover is a term that signifies the day before the Passover. On this day, the sacrificial lamb was slaughtered in the temple. The term can only mean one day, and that is the day before Passover.

The day of Preparation was the day before the Sabbath. In other words, it was Friday. The day of Preparation, and the Day of Preparation for the Passover though could be the same day on occasion. It all has to do with when Passover falls. A big mistake that Christians do is assume that it falls always on a Friday. That simply is not true. We place it on Friday because of theological reasons. However, the Jewish Calendar, and our calendar do not sync up perfectly. For instance, Passover this coming year (2011), Passover will begin at sunset of April 19th, which is a Tuesday.

That is why some translations use the term Special Sabbath. When Passover fell on the Sabbath, it was considered a Special Sabbath.

As we can see then, the synoptics and John disagree on the day in which Jesus is crucified.

Well we know they had to remove him from the cross before the sabbath which was Saturday, which means he was crucified the day before the sabbath, which was Friday. And we know they weren't allowed to carry the spices to put on his grave on the sabbath so they had to wait until the sabbath was over, which was Sunday.

 

[smokydot]

What makes you say that there was strong Proto-orthodoxy church in Jerusalem? From what I understand the apostles wanted anyone becoming a Christian had to convert to Judaism first until Paul did some "arm-twisting".

Well, I'm not referring to Proto-orthodoxy, and won't be. . .that's Bauer's word, and I don't like it. Call it apostolic teaching. . .that's what it is.

I'm simply referring to dominance of a church, and I don't think the Roman church was in early dominance, because of the church in Jersalem which was large, established and where Peter, James and John were the leaders. That's a bit formidable to be superseded early. . .later, yes, but I don't think it was early.

 

[smokydot]

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.

This from one who thinks the types claimed by the NT writers are artificial and reckless, and are an antiquated way of looking at Scripture,

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html,

has but has no problem with spiritualizing the Scripture?

Who woulda' thought it?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This from one who thinks the types claimed by the NT writers are artificial and reckless, and are an antiquated way of looking at Scripture

I did not say that. I said that it is reckless for us to do it, and if it appears in Scripture it is rare and the Scriptures do not give us a method of identifying types.

Observe:

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.

The whole question of types is completely insignificant to biblical interpretation. It's useless, usually harmless, and sort of a thing that is tolerated because it's entertaining.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK, here's an analysis:

From BDAG:

tuops, ou, o`—1. mark J 20:25.—2. image, statue Ac 7:43.—3. form, figure, pattern, mold Ro 6:17; perh. content Ac 23:25.—4. (arche) type, pattern, model, design—a. technically Ac 7:44; Hb 8:5.—b. in the moral life example, pattern Phil 3:17; 1 Th 1:7; 2 Th 3:9; 1 Ti 4:12; Tit 2:7; 1 Pt 5:3.—5. the types given by God as an indication of the future Ro 5:14; 1 Cor 10:6, 11 v.l.* [-type, combining form, as in antitype, electrotype, prototype] [pg 203]

There's only one use of "type" in the NT that speaks of Jesus.

 

[smokydot]

I did not say that. I said that it is reckless for us to do it, and if it appears in Scripture it is rare that the Scriptures do not give us a method of identifying types.

Misleading response. . .

"Us doing it" was never suggested. The NT writers doing it was what you denied (bottom link).

The whole question of types is completely insignificant to biblical interpretation. It's useless, usually harmless, and sort of a thing that is tolerated because it's entertaining.

Misleading response. . .

The issue of types was not presented in relation to Biblical interpretation, it was presented in relation to the unity of the Bible. . .
and this "useless, usually harmless sort of a thing that is tolerated because it's entertaining". . .is repeatedly used by the writers of the NT,
as shown below in the (contentious) review of your denial of types in the Bible, and in its presentation of types used in the NT:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Misleading response. . .

"Us doing it" was never suggested. The NT writers doing it was what you denied (bottom link).
Misleading response. . .

The issue of types was not presented in relation to Biblical interpretation, it was presented in relation to the unity of the Bible. . .
and this "useless, usually harmless sort of a thing that is tolerated because it's entertaining". . .is repeatedly used by the writers of the NT,
as shown below in the (contentious) review of your denial of types in the Bible, and in the presentation of types used in the NT:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html.

How is it misleading to say "we"? You didn't even read my post (at least, I hope not because your response is almost insanely stupid) because there's no way anyone could mistake "we" to include the apostles, especially when I'm talking about interpreting their works. Calling that misleading is just silly and either demonstrates abysmal laziness or incompetence.

If "type" is repeated in the NT, why is there only one example in the NT that uses the word as you do.

I also realize that in your unsurpassed arrogance you think that when you frame an argument for the unity of Scripture, you are not interpreting it.

Try looking up a definition for "interpret," if you can.

 

[smokydot]

OK, here's an analysis:

From BDAG:

tuops, ou, o`—1. mark J 20:25.—2. image, statue Ac 7:43.—3. form, figure, pattern, mold Ro 6:17; perh. content Ac 23:25.—4. (arche) type, pattern, model, design—a. technically Ac 7:44; Hb 8:5.—b. in the moral life example, pattern Phil 3:17; 1 Th 1:7; 2 Th 3:9; 1 Ti 4:12; Tit 2:7; 1 Pt 5:3.—5. the types given by God as an indication of the future Ro 5:14; 1 Cor 10:6, 11 v.l.* [-type, combining form, as in antitype, electrotype, prototype] [pg 203]

The definition in blue is the sense being used by the NT writers.

Yes, the NT presents Adam as a type of Christ in the OT (Ro 5:14). I should add it to the list. The NT also presents many other types of Christ in the OT.
You're getting close to an understanding of types as used by the NT writers.

There's only one use of "type" in the NT that speaks of Jesus.

Not quite, when you understand the NT writers use of them in speaking of Jesus.

I presented 11 types of Jesus used by the NT writers in ---> Religious Education Forum - View Single Post - What Day was Jesus Crucified?

I could have also included Adam as one of them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The definition in blue is the sense being used here.

OK smoky - the verses in the blue definition, do they match what you're doing with "type"?

type, pattern, model, design—a. technically Ac 7:44; Hb 8:5.—b. in the moral life example, pattern Phil 3:17; 1 Th 1:7; 2 Th 3:9; 1 Ti 4:12; Tit 2:7; 1 Pt 5:3.—5

It seems like the definition that I chose is close to what you're doing. Well, primarily because it refers to Christ as the anti-type as you do.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Misleading. . .or ignorant, take your pick. . .response, in light of the following. . .

You've been throwing around that word [ignorant] so much and at the wrong people.... it's losing its meaning [at least, coming from you].

Even if I didn't have three degrees in biblical interpretation, 12 years experience in the ministry, learned four languages so I could better read the bible and its interpreters, I would at least have the courtesy of listening to what someone like that has to say.

And calling Brown ignorant? Then me (who is far below him), and everyone else who thinks differently than you, it really makes you look bad. You are embarrassing yourself.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them ignorant.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The definition in blue is the sense being used by the NT writers.

Yes, the NT presents Adam as a type of Christ in the OT (Ro 5:14). I should add it to the list. The NT also presents many other types of Christ in the OT.
You're getting close to an understanding of types as used by the NT writers.

Not quite, when you understand the NT writers use of them in speaking of Jesus.

I presented five types of Jesus used by the NT writers, at your third quote in ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html,

and I presented six more types of Jesus used by the NT writers, in the bottom half of ---> Religious Education Forum - View Single Post - What Day was Jesus Crucified?

I could have also included Adam as one of them.

You missed the ONE TIME that "type" is used in the NT as you as using it?

That's too rich, man. :biglaugh:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You're getting close to an understanding of types as used by the NT writers.

For my BA in religion, we talked about typology for about three minutes. It was on the exam. Now that's once in 36 hours of course work.

For my MA, nothing... unless someone was presenting a paper on a church father or medieval writer. That's another 36 hours of course work.

In my Ph.D., which was 48 hours of coursework and tons of reading and hearing research from my fellows.... nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Typology is not hard to understand. Other than the one reference in the NT, it's comic book stuff... I guess it's like the Left Behind series. It's fun for people to read, but it's not thoughtful and responsible biblical interpretation.

 

[fallingblood]

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.

There is no need to dodge. I'm suggesting you inform yourself before you make a fool out of yourself. You read one small quote from a magazine. Why not actually see what Brown has to fully say on the subject? See how he uses scripture to support his position. Why not read anything by him, not just a small statement? Actually become informed before you make such a statement.

Until you actually inform yourself, what you suspects means absolutely nothing.

 

[fallingblood]

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.

Facts aren't something that you have. You have lies, dishonesty, and circular reasoning.

You have yet to have an argument that stands on its own merits. Instead, you dismiss all evidence to the contrary, ignore the sources that show you to be wrong, and simply go round and round with your circular reasoning.

 

[fallingblood]

I appreciate that. . .but it's not an "accidental slip once or twice" when the basis of your argument is false. . .whether it be that the Jews were not guilty of Jesus' death,
or that the NT does not say Jesus rose on Sunday.

That's not a "slip up". . .that's ignorance (being uninformed).

But then Brown believes much of the NT is not factual. . .so I'm sure he doesn't believe the virgin birth is factual. . .which means he doesn't believe
that the divinity of Jesus is factual. . .and that makes Brown a heretic in the true sense of the word--"choosing" what to believe and what not to believe in the NT,
and espousing true heresy--gospel-eradicating doctrine. . .like the necessesity of circumcision in order to be right with God (righteous) was in Paul's day.

Your analogy "limps" a little there.

It's more like saying Berney Brown doesn't know how to play golf because he never gets under 150, being said by someone who's never played golf.

Seriously? You are judging what Brown believes because you read one statement from him? That is just incredibly ignorant. Maybe before you make such foolish statements, you may want to actually read what he has to say. Because he does in fact believe in the virgin birth.

It is clear you have no want to become informed, instead, you will just ignorantly dismiss all of the sources that show you to be wrong.

 

[fallingblood]

Well, I'm not referring to Proto-orthodoxy, and won't be. . .that's Bauer's word, and I don't like it. Call it apostolic teaching. . .that's what it is.

I'm simply referring to dominance of a church, and I don't think the Roman church was in early dominance, because of the church in Jersalem which was large, established and where Peter, James and John were the leaders. That's a bit formidable to be superseded early. . .later, yes, but I don't think it was early.

And yet we know very little about this church. What we do know is that they believed that the followers of Jesus had to be Jewish. Paul and Acts record a debate Paul and the group at Jerusalem had. It centered on circumcision. The Jerusalem group advocated circumcision, as in according to Jewish law. They meant the followers of Jesus to be Jewish.

More so, it is not their form of Christianity that survived to what we have now. It was the form purported by Paul and later evolved by others. L. Michael White's book From Jesus to Christianity is a great source. Or, if you don't want to spend the time reading, the PBS special, from Jesus to Christ will give an overview.