What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[angellous_evangellous]

I understand what you were saying with "we," but your assertion where you used it is false.

I did not say "we" should construct types as a way of "interpreting" Scripture.
The issue was not "interpretation," the issue was "unity of the Bible."

That is all explained here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html
Then go forward. . .show where I am wrong there. . .

No, the issue was that you said something that I did not say.

 

[smokydot]

No, the issue was that you said something that I did not say.

He said, she said. . .

This must be where we went off:

1) You said, "The 'types' simply aren't there. The construction of a 'type' in interpreting the Scripture is aritficial and reckless."

2) I understood: "the types simply aren't there" to mean: types are not in the Scriptures.

Therefore, I understood: "the construction of a type. . .is artificial and reckless" to mean: types are artificial and reckless.

I said you were accusing the apostles of being artificial and reckless.

Okay. . .so it all went wrong at "the types simply aren't there."

So what were you talking about when you said that?

 

[smokydot]

Just a second. Are you satisfied with my clarification of "we"?
Fallingblood was perfectly clear. It's you that's avoiding the substance of the argument - like I said, you're dismissing his criticisms out of hand so we can't move forward and get deeper into the conversation.

Stop whining. . .and show where I got it wrong.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

He said, she said. . .

This must be where we went off:

1) You said, "The 'types' simply aren't there. The construction of a 'type' in interpreting the Scripture is aritficial and reckless."

2) I understood: "the types simply aren't there" to mean: types are not in the Scriptures.

Therefore, I understood: "the construction of a type. . .is artificial and reckless" to mean: types are artificial and reckless.

I said you were accusing the apostles of being artificial and reckless.

Okay. . .so it all went wrong at "the types simply aren't there."

So what were you talking about when you said that?

Well, I'm glad to clarify myself.

As to types, you know that I do not think that they are in Scripture.

It's reckless because it is a refusal to interpret the "type" and "anti-type" in its own contexts. It is artificial because we have to make up rules for what a type is and then force the text into a framework in which it doesn't belong... square peg in a round hole so to speak.

 

[smokydot]

That's why you're delusional. We've shown you quite clearly why you're wrong, and it looks like you are just being dismissive - mostly because you just repeat yourself and link to your previous posts instead of responding to the substance of the criticism.

You've made many false assertions of such, but you have yet to show where I got it wrong.

So we're really not having a debate.

Well, you got that right.
Debate is about demonstrating your assertions.

You are posting stuff, we respond with criticism, you repeat yourself a hundred times.... and then repeat.

Criticism is not demonstration. . .show where I got it wrong.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Stop whining. . .and show where I got it wrong.

How you mistake that for whining I have no idea.

I'll let fallingblood deal with you regarding what he said.

As you can see, I'm more concerned with your slander against me.

 

[smokydot]

No, what's shocking is that someone can be so sure that they are taking the Scripture "at its meaning" and be so far from any resemblence of a possible meaning of the texts in question.

Misrepresentation again. . .

I said "words at their meaning," which is not the same as "Scripture at its meaning". . .and you know that.

You're even misreading it literally,

I'm reading the NIV. . .any "misreading" will be that of the eminent Jewish and Greek scholars of the NIV, and their sources of accuracy. . .it won't be mine.

which is what I assume you think that's what it means... and somehow that your reading of these Scriptures are infalliable.

Tell it to the eminent Jewish and Greek scholars of the NIV. . .I'm using their "reading."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Tell it to the eminent Jewish and Greek scholars of the NIV. . .I'm using their "reading."

No you are not!

Not one of them identifies types. That's entirely your doing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

show where I got it wrong.

I think that you may be confusing "showing you where you're wrong" or "demonstrating a case" with "convincing you that you're wrong."

I hope that you can appreciate the difference.

Why should we demonstrate something over and over and over again, when you just pretend that it's not there? The criticism is there. The proof is abundant and it's clear. It may not be to your satisfaction, but taking a huge crap on the entire thread because you can't handle the truth is just wrong.

 

[smokydot]

I think that you may be confusing "showing you where you're wrong" or "demonstrating a case" with "convincing you that you're wrong."
I hope that you can appreciate the difference.

Can you appreciate the difference between criticism and demonstration?

Why should we demonstrate something over and over and over again,

Because you never demonstrated it the first time, you just criticized and asserted.

when you just pretend that it's not there? The criticism is there. The proof is abundant and it's clear. It may not be to your satisfaction, but taking a huge crap on the entire thread because you can't handle the truth is just wrong.

Then demonstrate that what I say is wrong. . .you can't. . .because it's not. . .and this is all just a smokescreen to avoid demonstration.

 

[smokydot]

Smoky,
That's exactly what you are doing.
There's one example of "type."

Are you sure about that? . .you're (gun is) going off half cocked here. . .I appreciate your desire to be able to handle the Scriptures, but your knowledge of them is too minuscule for that. . .that's just the demonstrable facts of the situation, and we both know it. . .don't overplay your hand here.

So slow down. . .and try to assimilate the following. . .let yourself be taught for a change. . .

Now let's begin.
(1) First of all, the definition of type, pattern, design, shadow, picture, copy, symbol is given in Col 2:16-17:

a prefigure in the OT of things that were to come in the NT--Col 2:16-17.

(2) Col 2:16-17 is the rule for types. . .and the method of identifying them.

Wherever there are matters in the OT which correspond as prefigures of matters in the NT, there is a type. And the Scriptures are filled with them.

(3) Now since you think there is only one example of type, and evidently don't know how to find the other words which mean types in the NT, I'll refer you to:

Heb 8:5-6, 9:23, 10:1; Col 2:17 for more examples of them there.

(4) And I'll point out a specific statement in the letter to the Hebrews which claims that the whole Levitical law is a type (Heb 10:1). . .that claims a lota' stuff that are types. . .even though each individual regulation is not specifically pointed out in the NT. If a Levitical law corresponds as a prefigure to something in the NT, then according to Heb 10:1, it's a type. . .you really got it wrong here, Sparky. . .the NT writers claim more types than you can imagine!

I think I'll compose a list showing what they all are, in addition to the 11 claimed by the NT writeres that I have already shown in link following (but just plain don't really exist, because you know more about it than they do), . .but the list will take three postings because of its length. . .nevertheless, I'm liking the idea. . .stay tuned. . . http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html

(5) The NT writers even claim physical types, copies, shadows of things in heaven itself (Heb 8:5-6).

(6) And finally, why don't you just lay down your prejudice that "the Bible is not a whole" of unified parts, your prejudice that "it is just an arbitrary collection of disparate writings". . .and receive the clear testimony of the NT writers regarding its unity. . .what do you have to lose. . .but your pride?

You ADD to what the Scriptures say, forcing them to say what you want. That's just as bad - for you - as not reading literally.

The truth of the matter is: it is you who SUBTRACTS from what the Scriptures say. . .in order to deny the unity of the Bible, which is so clearly illustrated by
the NT principle of types, shadows, copies, patterns, designs, as stated in Col 2:17.

 

[smokydot]

Well, I'm glad to clarify myself.
As to types, you know that I do not think that they are in Scripture.

So that is what you meant by "the types just aren't there"? I didn't misunderstand you after all.
And the necessary conclusion in the following is true after all--see http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305234-post1242.html.

It's reckless because it is a refusal to interpret the "type" and "anti-type" in its own contexts. It is artificial because we have to make up rules for what a type is and then force the text into a framework in which it doesn't belong... square peg in a round hole so to speak.

You might want to give serious reconsideration of that in light of post #1251 at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305523-post1251.html

 

[smokydot]

No you are not!
Not one of them identifies types. That's entirely your doing.

Your ignorance of Scripture is showing again. . .this gives the lie to that assertion: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305523-post1251.html

 

[smokydot]

That's why you're delusional. We've shown you quite clearly why you're wrong, and it looks like you are just being dismissive - mostly because you just repeat yourself and link to your previous posts instead of responding to the substance of the criticism.

So we're really not having a debate. You are posting stuff, we respond with criticism, you repeat yourself a hundred times.... and then repeat.

And just what is the "substance of the criticism" to which I failed to respond in the issue at hand here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2304726-post1225.html?

Show how my response fails to address the "substance of the criticism," whatever that is.

 

[fallingblood]

Back to drama. . .did you read the part in red above in my post?

So now. . .you "have to conclude that I am simply a liar". . .looks to me like you get most of your exercise jumping to conclusions.
I'm a liar because I said Brown denied the Jews were guilty of the death of Jesus?

Since what I actually said was Brown denied their guilt, but not their responsibility for the death of Jesus, does that not make you a liar?

And since you said I couldn't show Brown's error, and it was dishonest of me not to say so. . .and then low and behold! . .there above is the error of Brown which you said I didn't show. . .does that make you a liar, or dishonest?

What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. . .

I will show you why you are in error. Brown is not disagreeing with scripture. So yes, your actions were dishonest. It also shows a lack of understanding of scripture on your part.

Background on what Brown is speaking about.
Brown is speaking specifically about the trial and execution of Jesus. Brown clearly states that the Jews (specifically those in charge) held some responsibility in the death of Jesus. If you read his book on the subject, he would explain this in more detail. However, it should be enough to state that Brown is specifically stating that the Jews held partial responsibility in the death of Jesus.

Moving to your verses that supposedly contradict Brown.
First verse, Jn 8:38-47:

38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”

39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

And an important verse: John 8:31

31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

I posted both verses from the NIV, as I know that is a translation you trust. The second verse I pointed out is especially needed, as it clearly shows that Jesus is saying that there were Jews who followed and believed him. Thus, not all Jews could be guilty anyway.

Now, going to the verse you posted. Where does it talk about Jesus dying? These verses have nothing to do with the death of Jesus. The context of these verses is a debate that Jesus is having with fellow Jews. It has nothing to do with Jesus being put to death. It doesn't even lead up to his death. It is not concerning the death of Jesus at all, and thus can not show guilt of some Jews who have nothing to do with the death of Jesus. The scripture does not support what you are saying. And Brown is not even referring to this separate incident at all.

Now to your second verse: Matthew 23:29-36

29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

Again, this has nothing to do with Jesus being sentenced to death. It has nothing to do with his trial, or execution. Again, it is a discussion with fellow Jews. Again, Brown is not even referencing this passage. He is not contradicting this passage, or even speaking about it.

I won't expand any further than that, because that is as far as any discussion needs to go. You were being dishonest, as was shown with my post here. More so, Brown states that the Jews were at least partially responsible for the death of Jesus. That is what the Gospels say as well. You need to read him in order to state anything about his position. If you don't read what he has to say, then any comment about his position from you will remain ignorant.



Just as a side note, I'm still waiting for you to point out in scripture where it specifically, what day Jesus rose from the grave. All you've shown is that scripture states he rose from the grave, not on which day.

 

[smokydot]

Well, I'm glad to clarify myself.
As to types, you know that I do not think that they are in Scripture.

WAIT A MINUTE!!!

If you think there are no types in Scripture, and

if you think types are reckless and artificial. . .see http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305234-post1242.html

then you're saying that the types which are, in fact, given by the NT writers are reckless and artificial,

which means that the apostles themselves employ reckless and artificial methods in the NT. . .which is exactly what I said you were claiming in the following: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305543-post1252.html

So, I did not accuse you of saying what you did not say!

You did say what I indicated you said--that the apostles employed artificial and reckless methods!
You cannot say here that types are artificial and reckless without thereby accusing the writers of the NT of using artificial and reckless methods.

You denied the clear, conclusive and necessary import of what you in fact did assert.

So who's the one who is really delusional and a liar here?

It's reckless because it is a refusal to interpret the "type" and "anti-type" in its own contexts. It is artificial because we have to make up rules for what a type is and then force the text into a framework in which it doesn't belong... square peg in a round hole so to speak.

That is so lame. . .it is pure poppycock!

First, you've got some serious reconsidering to do regarding your claim there is only one example of type in the NT.

I have given several more just like that one, I have presented from the NT the rule of types, and
I have presented from the NT the method by which types can be identified in: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305523-post1251.html

Second, in the type of the sacrificial lamb in the OT and its anti-type in the NT, just how is the "interpretation" of the sacrificial lamb in the OT, or the "interpretation" of Jesus' sacrifice in the NT, not being interpreted "in its own context," as you proffer above?

Ah ha!!! . .I just got it! . .typology has to be denied in order to separate the connection to the sacrificial lamb, and make Jesus' death nothing more
than just the death of another Jew in Jerusalem. . .I got it now. . .

If you can disconnect Jesus from all the OT types which physically show, not just say, who Jesus really is, then you can try to discredit all the claims in the NT
regarding who he really is.
It's all making sense now! . .as to why, when the NT claims the fulfillment in Jesus of so many types, anyone would say "the types just aren't there."
(deja vu ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2277247-post678.html)

No wonder the typology of the Scriptures is denied!
No wonder the concept is so scorned by the heretical latter day novel speculators, as an antiquated approach, and reflecting a low level of intelligence!
No wonder! . .because it all comes straight from the father of lies himself, ole' Slewfoot. . .who wants to unseat the Bible's irrefutable evidence of who Jesus really is.
No wonder. . .

And that spirit, masquerding as an angel of light,
has got you convinced of denying the typology claimed by the NT writers, which unites all of Scripture by giving physical and irrefutable pictures of who Jesus is, and
has got you believing his lie.

 

[smokydot]

I will show you why you are in error. Brown is not disagreeing with scripture. So yes, your actions were dishonest. It also shows a lack of understanding of scripture on your part.

Brown leaves open a question which Jesus and the NT writers have shut--the question of murder guilt. . .that is disagreeing with Scripture, because it is not an open question.

Background on what Brown is speaking about.
Brown is speaking specifically about the trial and execution of Jesus. Brown clearly states that the Jews (specifically those in charge) held some responsibility in the death of Jesus. If you read his book on the subject, he would explain this in more detail. However, it should be enough to state that Brown is specifically stating that the Jews held partial responsibility in the death of Jesus.
Moving to your verses that supposedly contradict Brown.

Brown stated no conclusion regarding guilt. Therefore, the verses do not "contradict" him, because he said nothing to contradict.
It is the saying nothing and leaving the question open that puts Brown at odds with the NT.
For it is not an open, but a shut question in the NT. To agree with Scripture, he should have agreed that the Jews responsible for Jesus death were guilty of innocent blood. But he did not (it's a concept he doesn't understand--Mt 27:24-25). That leaves him in disagreement with the NT.

First verse, Jn 8:38-47:
And an important verse: John 8:31

Yes, it refers to the Jews who had said they believed him, like the ones in Jn 6:66, but whose words in v.34 and in v.41--which appear to be a veiled slander
aimed at Jesus' virgin birth, show they were not true believers.

But let's start with the NT testimony of the apostles that the Jews were guilty of murdering the Righteous One: Ac 5:28, 7:51-53, 3:12-15; 1 Th 2:15.

I posted both verses from the NIV, as I know that is a translation you trust. The second verse I pointed out is especially needed, as it clearly shows that Jesus is saying that there were Jews who followed and believed him. Thus, not all Jews could be guilty anyway.

I didn't say all Jews were guilty. The ones who arranged to have him killed are guilty, not just responsible, but also guilty of innocent blood.

Now, going to the verse you posted. Where does it talk about Jesus dying? These verses have nothing to do with the death of Jesus. The context of these verses is a debate that Jesus is having with fellow Jews. It has nothing to do with Jesus being put to death. It doesn't even lead up to his death. It is not concerning the death of Jesus at all, and thus can not show guilt of some Jews who have nothing to do with the death of Jesus.

I did not say all Jews were guilty. Only the ones responsible for his death are guilty of innocent blood.

The scripture does not support what you are saying. And Brown is not even referring to this separate incident at all.

The operative words in this passage are:
1) "you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word" - v.37--that's a charge of murderous intent
2) "you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God" - v.40--that's a charge of murderous intent
3) "you belong to your father the devil and you want to carry out his desires (of murder), for he was a murderer from the beginning - v.44--that's a charge of murderous intent

You do the math. . .

Now to your second verse: Matthew 23:29-36
Again, this has nothing to do with Jesus being sentenced to death. It has nothing to do with his trial, or execution. Again, it is a discussion with fellow Jews. Again, Brown is not even referencing this passage. He is not contradicting this passage, or even speaking about it.

In this passage, Jesus condemns and enlarges even further the guilt of the Jews, in three areas:
1) they are descendants of those who murdered the prophets (v.31), and will murder him (v.32) , the prophet
who was to come (Dt 18:17-19; Jn 1:21, 6:14) -v.32--that's a charge of murder
2) they cannot escape condemnation to hell because they will also kill, crucify, flog, and pursue from town to town the apostles and disciples
Jesus sends - vv.33-34--that's a charge of murder
3) they are guilty of the shedding of all innocent blood from Abel to Zechariah - vv.35-36--that's a charge of murder

I won't expand any further than that, because that is as far as any discussion needs to go. You were being dishonest, as was shown with my post here. More so, Brown states that the Jews were at least partially responsible for the death of Jesus.

I said that Brown states the Jews were responsible. My issue with Brown here is that he does not state their widespread guilt of innocent blood, in agreement with the NT. Both Jesus and the apostles make clear the extent of Jewish guilt of innocent blood.

That is what the Gospels say as well. You need to read him in order to state anything about his position. If you don't read what he has to say, then any comment about his position from you will remain ignorant.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Just as a side note, I'm still waiting for you to point out in scripture where it specifically, what day Jesus rose from the grave. All you've shown is that scripture states he rose from the grave, not on which day.

That has already been explained to you here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2303235-post1158.html -- just what part of it do you not understand?

Just a side note, you did a conscientious job of covering for Sparky for a while.
I will tell him how well you did.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

WAIT A MINUTE!!!

If you think types are not in Scripture, and

if you think types are reckless and artificial. . .

then you're saying that the types which are, in fact, given by the NT writers are reckless and artificial,

which means that the apostles themselves employ reckless and artificial methods in the NT.

So, I did not accuse you of saying what you did not say!

You did say what I indicated you said--that the apostles employed artificial and reckless methods!

You denied the clear and conclusive import of what you in fact did assert!

So who's the one who is really delusional and a liar here?

That is so lame. . .it is pure poppycock!

First, you've got some serious reconsidering to do regarding your claim there is only one example of type in the NT.
I have given several more just like that one, I have presented from the NT the rule of types, and
I have presented from the NT the method by which types can be identified in: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305523-post1251.html

Second, just how is the "interpretation" of the sacrificial lamb, or the "interpretation" of Jesus' sacrifice, not being interpreted "in its own context," as you proffer above?

Ahhh. . .I've got it! . .typology has to be denied in order separate the connection to the sacrificial lamb, and make Jesus' death nothing more
than just the death of another Jew in Jerusalem. . .I got it now. . .

No wonder the typology of the Scriptures is denied!
No wonder the concept is so scorned by the heretical latter day novel speculators, as an antiquated approach, and reflecting a low level of intelligence!
That comes straight from the father of lies himself, ole' Slewfoot.

And that spirit, masquerding as an angel of light, has got you convinced of denying the typology which unites all of Scripture and gives concrete pictures of who Jesus is,
and has got you believing his lie.

The lengths to which you will go to embarrass yourself is truly impressive.

My only response is this: WOW!

 

[fallingblood]

Brown leaves open a question which Jesus has shut--the question of murder guilt. . .that is disagreeing with Scripture, because it is not an open question.

Maybe you would want to read his book. It would probably give you a better view of his opinion compared to a few statements.

Brown stated no conclusion regarding guilt. Therefore, the verses do not "contradict" him, because he said nothing to contradict.
It is the saying nothing and leaving the question open that puts Brown at odds with the NT.
For it is not an open, but a shut question in the NT. To agree with Scripture, he should have agreed that the Jews responsible for Jesus death were guilty of innocent blood. But he did not. That leaves him in disagreement with the NT.

Wow. So, since he doesn't oppose what the NT says, and really says nothing, that means he is disagreeing with the NT? Did you even think before you posted that?

Again, reading his book would probably give you a better view of what he meant. Because you clearly have no idea what he says.

More so, you've never supported the idea that the scripture supports what you are saying. Especially since it is not a clear cut situation. The Romans are technically those who executed Jesus, as in the ones who killed him. The Gospels all agree that it was the Romans who placed Jesus on the cross.

So no, you're wrong, and your logic fails. Especially since you haven't even read Brown.

I didn't say all Jews were guilty. The ones who arranged to have him killed are guilty, not just responsible, but also guilty of innocent blood.
I did not say all Jews were guilty. Only the ones responsible for his death are guilty of innocent blood.

So Jesus says that they are guilty of innocent blood? In the verses that you stated, Jesus specifically states they are guilty of innocent blood? Please, point out where Jesus specifically states that.

The operative words in this passage are:
1) "you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word" - v.37--that's a charge of murderous intent
2) "you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God" - v.40--that's a charge of murderous intent
3) "you belong to your father the devil and you want to carry out his desires (of murder), for he was a murderer from the beginning - v.44--that's a charge of murderous intent
You do the math. . .

Can you show those same Jews had anything to do with his death? I highly doubt it. Especially since this is a very different encounter. One that Brown isn't not referencing, as it has nothing to do with the death of Jesus. Please, pick up your Bible, and read it. Read it in context.

In this passage, Jesus condemns and enlarges the guilt of the Jews even further in three areas:
1) they are descendants of those who murdered the prophets (v.31), and will murder him (v.32) , the prophet
who was to come (Dt 18:17-19; Jn 1:21, 6:14) -v.32--that's a charge of murder
2) they cannot escape condemnation to hell because they will also kill, crucify, flog, and pursue from town to town the apostles and disciples
Jesus sends - vv.33-34--that's a charge of murder
3) they are guilty of the shedding of all the innocent blood from Abel to Zechariah - vv.35-36--that's a charge of murder

So you can prove that Jesus is speaking to Jews who had him killed? You can prove that these same Jews that Jesus is speaking with are the same ones who killed him? I highly doubt it. Again, this has nothing to do with the trial of Jesus or the death of Jesus. And still, you haven't read Brown, and have no idea what he even believes because instead of doing any research, you would rather remain in the dark. What are you afraid of?

I said that Brown states the Jews were responsible. My issue with Brown is that he does not state their widespread guilt of innocent blood, in agreement with the NT.

Yeah, because the NT says that the Jews placed Jesus on the cross and killed him. Maybe you want to actually first read the Bible, and then read Brown.

Jesus makes clear in this passage just how far the guilt of the Jews extended.

Only to you. Because these verses have nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus or his death. They are just one of the various disagreements Jesus had with the Jews. Maybe you want to read the Bible and see who crucified Jesus. Because it definitely wasn't the Jews.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

That is exactly what you are doing. You assume you know what Brown thinks, and it clearly isn't what he does. Why? Because you've taken no time to actually do research. You choose to remain in the dark instead. And truly, that is the only place that your beliefs will be safe.

That has already been explained to you here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2303235-post1158.html -- what part of it don't you understand?

Do I really need to repeat myself? I guess so. Nothing you explained shows what day Jesus was raised from the dead. The only thing you pointed out is the day the angel/s appeared to Mary or the women and told them what happened. It never says anyone saw Jesus being risen from the dead. By the time they go there, Jesus has already risen.

So here is the situation. Jesus is placed in a tomb. No one visits until after the sabbath. There was a guard at the tomb, and the tomb was sealed by a rock (as in, no one could see into the tomb, so no one could see when Jesus was raised from the dead). As far as we know, Jesus could have been raised from the dead immediately. He could have been raised on the Sabbath. He could have been raised just when the rock rolled away (most likely not, because Jesus clearly wasn't there). All we are told is that when the women come to the tomb, the rock is rolled away and an angel/s tell them that Jesus has risen. As in past tense. It is the rock being rolled away and the appearance of an angel/s that makes the guard run away. It wasn't Jesus rising from the dead, as he was already gone. Remember, the tomb was empty.

So again, show me a verse that states what day Jesus was raised from the dead. Because your explanation doesn't do so.

Just a side note, you did a conscientious job of covering for Sparky for a while.
I will tell him how well you did.

 

[fallingblood]

WAIT A MINUTE!!!

If you think types are not in Scripture, and

if you think types are reckless and artificial. . .

then you're saying that the types which are, in fact, given by the NT writers are reckless and artificial,

which means that the apostles themselves employ reckless and artificial methods in the NT.

So, I did not accuse you of saying what you did not say!

You did say what I indicated you said--that the apostles employed artificial and reckless methods!

You denied the clear and conclusive import of what you in fact did assert!

So who's the one who is really delusional and a liar here?

I think you've truly proven who.