• 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?

esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
Just a quick question. Is this debate's purpose to show the inconsistencies of the bible or is it to prove the Christian belief that Jesus was the "sacrificial lamb" to atone for human sins? If it is to show the inconsistencies of the bible I would think that there are a lot more easier ways to do it. If it is the "sacrificial lamb" point.....let them believe what they want to believe, you would have a better chance of changing the worlds oceans to fresh water than get a devout Christian to admit the bible has "inconsistencies".
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
esmith said:
Just a quick question. Is this debate's purpose to show the inconsistencies of the bible or is it to prove the Christian belief that Jesus was the "sacrificial lamb" to atone for human sins? If it is to show the inconsistencies of the bible I would think that there are a lot more easier ways to do it. If it is the "sacrificial lamb" point.....let them believe what they want to believe, you would have a better chance of changing the worlds oceans to fresh water than get a devout Christian to admit the bible has "inconsistencies".
Click to expand...
It's about What Day was Jesus Crucified?

which seems to boil down to a seeming "inconsistency" between Mk 14:12 and Jn 19:14, regarding "Friday,"

which is resolved here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2303344-post1160.html, and removes the non-existenct "inconsistency."
 
Last edited:
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
smokydot said:
It's about What Day was Jesus Crucified?

which seems to boil down to a seeming "inconsistency" between Mk 14:12 and Jn 19:14, regarding "Friday,"
Click to expand...

So it is just inconsistencies on which day?
Not inconsistencies in any part of the bible?
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
esmith said:
Just a quick question. Is this debate's purpose to show the inconsistencies of the bible or is it to prove the Christian belief that Jesus was the "sacrificial lamb" to atone for human sins? If it is to show the inconsistencies of the bible I would think that there are a lot more easier ways to do it. If it is the "sacrificial lamb" point.....let them believe what they want to believe, you would have a better chance of changing the worlds oceans to fresh water than get a devout Christian to admit the bible has "inconsistencies".
Click to expand...

It is pointing out an inconsistency in the Bible. It was raised in another thread, when Smokydot claimed there was no contradictions in the Bible. I pointed to this one as it is a fairly large contradiction, that would satisfy what he called a material contradiction. I personally thought it was a clear cut contradiction at the synoptics and John clearly show a difference, and it is a contradiction that nearly all critical scholars agree is a contradiction.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
It is pointing out an inconsistency in the Bible. It was raised in another thread, when Smokydot claimed there was no contradictions in the Bible. I pointed to this one as it is a fairly large contradiction, that would satisfy what he called a material contradiction. I personally thought it was a clear cut contradiction at the synoptics and John clearly show a difference, and it is a contradiction that nearly all critical scholars agree is a contradiction.
Click to expand...
"Nearly all critical scholars agree it is a contradiction." . . .and why not all?

Emphasis here is on critical "scholars," whose "scholarship" is suspect at best.

Because there it is. . .reconciled! . .oh, the horror of it! . .the NT writers are not in conflict! . .could the unbiased, fully informed critical "scholars" possibly be wrong?

Reconciliation of supposed NT "contradiction" is @ http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2303344-post1160.html

Got another supposed material contradiction, that cannot be reasonably understood, which you would like to present? . .because Mk 14:12 and Jn 19:14 sure aren't one.
 
Last edited:
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
smokydot said:
"Nearly all critical scholars agree it is a contradiction." . . .and why not all?

Emphasis here is on critical "scholars," whose "scholarship" is suspect at best.

Because there it is. . .reconciled! . .oh, the horror of it! . .the NT writers are not in conflict! . .could the unbiased, fully informed critical "scholars" possibly be wrong?

Reconciliation of supposed NT "contradiction" is @ http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2303344-post1160.html
Click to expand...
You may as well stop replying to me, because I'm not going to enter into a game of cat and mouse. All you do is retort with ignorance and dishonesty. And after this thread, most logically minded people will be able to see just how you deal with debates; fabrication and dishonesty.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
You may as well stop replying to me,
Click to expand...
Translate: I'm tired of being on the wrong side of the argument with you. . .so there's no way I'm going to present anymore of my ridiculous supposed material "contradictions". . .I'm tired of gettin' plowed under . . .
because I'm not going to enter into a game of cat and mouse.
Click to expand...
Mouse say: You can have the damn cheese! . .just lemme outa' this trap!
All you do is retort with ignorance and dishonesty.
Click to expand...
Well, then show the "ignorance and dishonesty" with some facts, for cryin' out loud! . .and stop whining about it!
And after this thread, most logically minded people will be able to see just how you deal with debates; fabrication and dishonesty.
Click to expand...
This "facrication and dishonesty" here? ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2320607-post540.html
 
Last edited:
B

BigRed

Member
According to the Synoptic gospels, the last supper is a Passover meal, which is eaten after sundown on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. This day is a Sabbath on which no laborious work is to be done.

The Jewish day starts at Sundown. By the afternoon of that same day, the first day of unleavened bread, Jesus was carrying his cross up to the place of execution according to John's gospel.

Think about this ...wasn't Jesus working on a day when no work is permitted by carrying a cross?
Jesus could have refused to carry his cross....couldn't he?
NT writers say Jesus never sinned....But he sinned by carrying his cross on the first day of unleavened bread.

BigRed
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
BigRed said:
According to the Synoptic gospels, the last supper is a Passover meal, which is eaten after sundown on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. This day is a Sabbath on which no laborious work is to be done.

The Jewish day starts at Sundown. By the afternoon of that same day, the first day of unleavened bread, Jesus was carrying his cross up to the place of execution according to John's gospel.

Think about this ...wasn't Jesus working on a day when no work is permitted by carrying a cross?
Jesus could have refused to carry his cross....couldn't he?
NT writers say Jesus never sinned....But he sinned by carrying his cross on the first day of unleavened bread.

BigRed
Click to expand...
In John, Jesus is not walking up to the place of the cross on a Sabbath. That is besides the point though. It would not be a sin if he was forced to carry his cross. He wouldn't have been able to refuse. And either way, that wouldn't be considered a sin. I don't think any Jew would see it as that.

Again though, John does not say that Jesus was crucified on the Sabbath.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Sure. You've feebly called me out on the record a few times,
Click to expand...
Is that what is supposed to pass for "acknowledgment" of being on the wrong side of seven arguments, following?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2315945-post492.html -- fifth response, near bottom
and I'm happy to stand by my words.
But your "record" is so heavily redacted that it hardly counts for anything valuable. Instead, it makes you appear weak and dishonest.
Click to expand...
There are ways to prove when the record has been materially altered. . .and I wouldn't have any trouble doing so. . .so why don't you back up your false charge
with some facts and proof? . .because you can't. . .because there are no material alterations.

My editing for clarity, conciseness and understanding (which is my consistent practice) is just your thinly-veiled cover for
not being able to show your charges from the record. . .because they are false and don't exist.

There are ways to prove that the record has been materially altered (as you so lamely attempted to do regarding the post @

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299585-post1070.html -- 45 types: i.e., patterns, signs pointing to, Jesus in the OT.

Like your buddy, there's no way you're signing up to be on the wrong side of the argument again, because, like him, you're tired of gettin' plowed under. . .see http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2320844-post1387.html

I'm willing to let the record speak for me, or to show where it has been materially altered. . .are you? ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2318652-post514.html
 
Last edited:
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
Last edited:
B

BigRed

Member
fallingblood said:
In John, Jesus is not walking up to the place of the cross on a Sabbath. That is besides the point though. It would not be a sin if he was forced to carry his cross. He wouldn't have been able to refuse. And either way, that wouldn't be considered a sin. I don't think any Jew would see it as that.

Again though, John does not say that Jesus was crucified on the Sabbath.
Click to expand...

The time line is different in the synoptics and in John's gospel.
When I wrote "Sabbath" in my post, I was not refering to the weekly, saturday, Sabbath. The first day of unleavened bread is also called a Sabbath because no work is permitted on that day.

Jesus could have refused to carry his cross. What could they do if he didn't? Kill him?
BigRed
 
waitasec

waitasec

Veteran Member
smokydot said:
At least you don't, because you seldom post a complete sentence.

And you don't get to be the judge of that. . .the author gets to decide when it is clear, concise and understandable, as desired.

So show where the record has been materially altered, because

I am willing to let the record speak for me. . .are you? ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2318652-post514.html
Click to expand...

gee i wonder, is this the peace the good lord in heaven above bestows to his faithful?
:sarcastic
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
BigRed said:
The time line is different in the synoptics and in John's gospel.
When I wrote "Sabbath" in my post, I was not refering to the weekly, saturday, Sabbath. The first day of unleavened bread is also called a Sabbath because no work is permitted on that day.

Jesus could have refused to carry his cross. What could they do if he didn't? Kill him?
BigRed
Click to expand...
Are you aware of crucifixion? The Romans would have made him carry his cross, one way or another. And really, that can't be seen as a sin anyway.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
fallingblood said:
Are you aware of crucifixion? The Romans would have made him carry his cross, one way or another. And really, that can't be seen as a sin anyway.
Click to expand...

It would be working on the Sabbath. :shrug:

I'm sure you'll recall that men could not carry a heavy load or walk a certain distance on the Sabbath.

It's a strict interpretation, I know, but it's possible.
 
H

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
It would be working on the Sabbath. :shrug:

I'm sure you'll recall that men could not carry a heavy load or walk a certain distance on the Sabbath.

It's a strict interpretation, I know, but it's possible.
Click to expand...
If you are being forced to do something upon penalty of death, all bets are off except for murdering someone, idolatry, and illicit sex. It is more important to save a life than to worry about those other sins.

It is better to break one Shabbat so one can live to celebrate other Shabbatot properly.

But when one is under penalty of death or torture, the only three things which death would be better than doing (under Torah law) is murder, idolatry, and illicit sex. Otherwise, we are commanded to choose life.

If someone forces a Jew to carry stuff outside on Shabbat at gunpoint, preserving one's life is NOT a sin.

So... If Jesus was forced by the Romans to carry his cross on Shabbat under penalty of torture or immediate execution, he was not sinning by carrying the cross.

(I'm quick to point out where Jesus sinned. I'm equally quick to point out where he really didn't.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top