Ben Masada
Well-Known Member
There is something I do not understand here. How could such a silly question have produced 1341 replies? Gullibility is limitless.
-
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
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
haaha - most of it was irritating smoky.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Now you're just repeating me. Just look at my post before yours. Exact same thing.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
He agrees!
Then why did you whine so much about your feeling how irritating I was?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I wasn't talking to you.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
That I was not talking to you notwithstanding...
WITHOUT having edited my posts, I don't think that you'll be able to find me saying that you were irritating or frustrating.... and if you can, these posts are quite rare.
I don't think that you have any basis for this comment.
Grammatically, that means I am able to edit your posts. . .you know well that I can't edit your original post, that it remains as you posted it. . .an implied false assertion
to add to all the other actual false assertions at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2312047-post1340.html
and if you can, these posts are quite rare.
I don't think that you have any basis for this comment.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Only in your wildly odd fantasy world.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I think you know damn well what I meant, but if you're seriously having trouble understanding me, I will clarify:
I challenge you to find posts where I complained about you irritating me.
And I have not edited many of my posts, so you cannot assume that complaints have been removed BY ME.
Thanks for the clarification.
I withdraw my allegation of an implied false assertion, based in not understanding what you meant.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
My pleasure.
Then why did you whine so much about your feeling how irritating I was?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
The verses are not in disagreement. Christ's death occurred before the Sabbath. This was not the weekly Sabbath (Fri. sunset to Sat. sunset), but a Holy Day Sabbath, a "high day" as mentioned in Jn. 19:31. It was the First day of Unleavened Bread (Ex. 12:16-17; Lev. 23:6-7). This high-day Sabbath was a Wed. night and Thur. morning. So Christ was laid in the tomb just before sunset, just before the First Day of Unleavened Bread. After this Holy Day Sabbath had passed, then Mary Magdalene was able to buy and prepare the spices to anoint Christ with (which could not be done on a Sabbath because that would violate God's law). So, after buying and preparing the spices and oils on Fri., they rested for the weekly Sabbath, observed from Fri. sunset to Sat. sunset (Lk 23:56). In comparing details in both Gospels of Mark and Luke, it is clear that there are two separate Sabbaths mentioned here, the first a "high day", the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Jn 19:31), which in A.D.31, fell on a Thurs. and the second being the weekly seventh-day Sabbath. After the weekly Sabbath rest, they went to the tomb early on the first day of the week, Sun., to find Christ was already resurrected (Mt. 28:1-6; Mk 16:2-6; Lk 24:1-3). Christ gave the length of his entombment as the only sign, or proof, that He was the Messiah, three days and three nights (Mt. 12:38). This is three days and three nights. I hope this helped.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
This has all been gone through. What you are doing here is combining four Gospels into one, making a completely new Gospel. The writers of the Gospels did not intend for readers to compare their Gospels with other ones, and then make a story. They wrote the story as they saw it.
One key to understanding the bible is comparing texts and compiling related scriptures before jumping to any conclusions on a subject. That is not making a new story, but shedding light on a story with multiple accounts about that same story. These accounts are the same story told by different authors, not different stories. Being so, they complement each other giving us more insight, a bigger picture, than what we can see from only one single account. The bible is like a jigsaw puzzle, one cannot understand one piece without understanding the others also. You have to put the pieces together before you can have enough information to see the finished product, the big picture. An easy example of this can be found in comparing the accounts found in the four gospels about the words written and placed on the stake of Jesus' crucifixion.
Mt. 27:37; "THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
Mk. 15:26; "THE KING OF THE JEWS"
Lk. 23:38; "THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
Jn. 19:19; "JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS"
These accounts in different gospels are recorded differently. When put together, they give us an increased understanding. John tells us that Pilate wrote it. Luke lets us know that the inscription was written in three different languages (Lk. 23:38). This would account for the wording to be varied in the four separate accounts. Combining the four gospel accounts, we get a more complete message: "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews." A.T. Robertson's: A Harmony of the Gospels, can be a very helpful tool studying the gospel accounts in harmony. It lays out the gospels side by side in chronological order.
With that being said, is their anything else you can see where I am inaccurate? Please do not take that comment in the wrong way. I truly am interested in your opinion.
Mt. 27:37; "THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
Mk. 15:26; "THE KING OF THE JEWS"
Lk. 23:38; "THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
Jn. 19:19; "JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS"
These accounts in different gospels are recorded differently. When put together, they give us an increased understanding. John tells us that Pilate wrote it. Luke lets us know that the inscription was written in three different languages (Lk. 23:38). This would account for the wording to be varied in the four separate accounts. Combining the four gospel accounts, we get a more complete message: "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews." A.T. Robertson's: A Harmony of the Gospels, can be a very helpful tool studying the gospel accounts in harmony. It lays out the gospels side by side in chronological order.
With that being said, is their anything else you can see where I am inaccurate? Please do not take that comment in the wrong way. I truly am interested in your opinion.
That's your idea of a refutation?
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
The problem is that they were never intended to be read side by side.
Mark was first written around 70 C.E. He had no idea that people would later include his Gospel into the NT. It never dawned on him as there was no such thing as the NT.
Later, Matthew and Luke, both independent of each other, decided they would write their own accounts. However, they clearly saw that there were problems with Mark's version. Which is why they changed it. Luke and Matthew took Mark's version, as well as various other sources, and put them together to stress the points they wanted. Doing so, they changed the Gospel of Mark to suit their needs.
Next, John, independent of the others (or at least for the most part), wrote his account. He focused more on the theological aspects of Jesus. Again, he (or hes, as there was possibly various writers who put together John) had no idea that his Gospel would be included with the others.
None of the Gospel writers were aware that there Gospels would be included with the others. And for the longest time, they simply were not. Some groups took only Matthew, while others preferred Luke. Others took various other Gospels that don't appear in the New Testament. None of them were intended to compliment the others. And none of them were meant to be included into the Bible, or be scripture.
Since there is no evidence that any of the Gospel writers intended to be included into a canon, there is little reason to compare them. They were written to stand alone.
Now, in both a theological and historical sense, the Gospels as a whole can be used to learn. However, if one Gospel leaves out information, it can't be assumed they meant to include the information, or even that they were aware of that information. If the writer of a particular Gospel leaves out information, it could even be possible that they thought that information was wrong.
At the same time, if two accounts seem to disagree with each other, there is little reason to try to smooth it out by trying to combine the Gospels. As my initial argument points out, there is a distinction in the Gospels. John makes it clear that Jesus was crucified before Passover. The synoptics state it was afterwards. One of them must be wrong then.
That doesn't mean the Gospels are wrong on theological grounds. Historically, there is a problem. Theologically, there doesn't necessary need to be one. And a contradiction does not mean that the Gospels should be ignored. It just shows that the writers were humans, dealing with human sources, which are flawed.
Ben Masada
Well-Known Member
I want to bring to your attention the Passover of the year 30 CE. It was supposed to be the last one that Jesus would partake of, and he missed it.
According to John 19:31, that Sabbath was a solemn Sabbath, which is what we call in Hebrew a Shabbaton. That's when a festival falls on the Sabbath. The KJV brings: "For that Sabbath day was a high day."
That Sabbath was the 14th of the month of Nissan; the first day of Passover. The beginning of it is celebrated with the Passover Supper at the evening of the previous day, or Friday in that year. That's what we call the Seder Meal.
In the year 30 CE, the Passover Supper was held on the evening of that Friday. No wonder, everyone somehow connected with the events taking place on the Calvary that day, had to leave it in a hurry to prepare themselves and their houses for the Passover Supper.
Jesus missed that Passover Supper because he was on the cross, and soon afterwards, in the tomb. But then again, how to understand that he celebrated his Passover Supper on the evening of Thursday, which was the 13th of Nissan? He didn't. In Israel, no Jew would celebrate Passover in a different day alone or in a small group when everyone else would be doing it next day.
This discrepancy is perhaps due to the fact that the gospel writer, writing somehwere in the world, and realizing that the Jews in the Diaspora would celebrate every festival in two days, thought he could have Jesus celebrate the Passover Supper on the 13 of Nissan. It would have worked if Jesus was a Diaspora Jew; but in Israel there is no such a thing.
There is an option in Judaism to celebrate the Passover later, even a month later, if the person was not for some reason ready for it; but NEVER before. It means that, definitely, Jesus missed that Passover celebration, because his reported "Last Supper" did not have anything to do with the Passover Supper.
The gospel writer had either no idea what he was writing about or simply thought we would never find out about his blunder.
Ben