Well, I've decided that the Church had it right all the time, that Jesus died on Friday and rose on Sunday, based on the clarification of Mk 14:12 and Jn 19:14,
here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2303344-post1160.html
--
-
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
here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2303344-post1160.html
--
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I can do better than that.
He was condemned and crucified late Thursday, died Friday morning, and rose on Sunday. I don't remember offhand if he had all of the trials on Thursday - that really is quite a few events to happen all in one day - I read one scholar who said that they would literally have to be running from place to place to do it all on Thursday.
That doesn't agree with the time in the grave reported in the gospels, does it?I can do better than that.
He was condemned and crucified late Thursday, died Friday morning, and rose on Sunday.
Well, the distances were very short, like around the town square, and part of it (#3, below) was illegally (according to Jewish law) conducted during the night. . .
so there was time for it all in the time frame given in the gospels.
1. Arrest - Thursday evening
2. Before Annas (father-in-law of Caiaphas) - Thursday evening (Jn 18:12-13)
3. Trial before Sanhedrin and Caiaphas, High Priest - during the night Thursday/Friday (Jn 18:28, Mk 15:1)
4. Second session of the Sanhedrin to give appearance of legality to the illegal first session (#3, above) - daybreak Friday morning (Lk 22:66)
5. Before Pilate - early Friday morning
6. Before Herod - Friday morning
7. Back to Pilate - later Friday morning
8. Sentenced to death
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Well, obviously I disagree with the distances - particularly between Herod and Pilate but also between Annias and Caiaphas. There's just not enough time.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I can do better than that.
He was condemned and crucified late Thursday, died Friday morning, and rose on Sunday. I don't remember offhand if he had all of the trials on Thursday - that really is quite a few events to happen all in one day - I read one scholar who said that they would literally have to be running from place to place to do it all on Thursday.
Pardon me, I got my times backwards.
He would have been crucified Friday morning and died Friday afternoon, rising from the dead of course on Sunday. I'll have to locate my source that outlines the times of the trials, but I still am not convinced that there was enough time between Thursday and Friday morning.
esmith
Veteran Member
I notice that smokydot uses the gospel of John in the above post. From what I have read and understand is that John's writings are considerably different that the Synoptic Gospels. In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus does miracles and refuses to say who he is. But in John he does miracles to prove who he is. I believe John was written 60+/- 5 years after the death of Jesus, yet his recall of words is remarkable. John has Jesus doing miracles that are not mentioned in the other 3 gospels. It also appears that John considers that Jesus was God come to earth to provide salvation, totally different than what is said in the other 3. The gospel of John sounds very much like the beliefs of Marcion's views which started the Marcionites sect. However, the Marcionites were considered heretics. However, in many ways his teachings live on today among Christians. Many Christians continue to contrast the Old Testament God of wrath and the New Testament god of mercy; many also think that the law of Moses is for the Jews, not Christians.
Thought I would muddy the waters with these comments.
Thought I would muddy the waters with these comments.
What were the distances?
Then we are in agreement on the day of his death, which is the issue. . .
It's the same God. . .the wrath of God is also found in the NT.
See: Mt 3:7; Lk 21:23; Jn 3:36; Ro 1:18, 2:5, 8, 4:15, 5:9, 9:22, 12:19, 13:4, 13:5; Eph 2:3, 5:6; Col 3:6; 1Th 1:10, 2:16, 5:9.
Do you mean the Decalogue, or all the laws given by Moses, such as Leviticus?
esmith
Veteran Member
Halakha. Didn't Paul teach that Jewish law is not the way to have a right standing before God but only through Jesus? Galatians Chapters3-5
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
A long ways.
So the gospels are lying when they report all those events occurred between Thursday evening and Friday noon?
Those whom Jesus said were "witnesses of these things" (Lk 24:48) couldn't get it straight?
You do realize this is just baseless sophomoric conjecture on your part, which contradicts the record of the NT, right?
Last edited:
Yes, the laws he deals with in Galatians 3-5 are the ceremonial laws of the Sinaitic covenant, found in the Pentateuch.
Some background: Since the beginning with Abraham, a right relationship with God was based on faith, not law keeping, for Abraham was declared right with God because of his faith, not because of his obedience, or law keeping (Gen 15:6).
Then 430 years later with Moses, God began the preparation of a wayward people, infested with the idolatry of the Egyptians, to understand the meaning of being his people (set apart from sin), and to understand the meaning of the promised Messiah he would send them (savior from the wrath of God on their sin).
The first thing they had to learn was the meaning of sin and the meaning of holiness, which is the source of God's wrath on sin. So, to the requirement of faith as the means of righteousness, was temporarily added the laws of the Sinaitic covenant, or the Levitical or ceremonial laws, in which the meaning of holiness, sin and the Messiah were marvellously illustrated in concrete pagaents of sacrifices, cleansings, feasts, etc.
Then ~1600 years later with the coming of the Messiah, as revealed in the letter to the Hebrews, both the temporary ceremonial laws, as well as the Sinaitic covenant which established them, were set aside, because the realities in the Messiah which they had prefigured were now fulfilled, and the Sinaitic covenent made in the blood of animals was replaced with the New Covenent made in the blood of the Messiah.
So this is the background for Paul's teaching that obedience/law keeping is not the way to a right standing before God.
It goes all the way back to the beginning of God calling out a people for himself in Abraham.
Hopefully, this will lead to a better understanding of the issue.
Last edited:
esmith
Veteran Member
Is it not true that the Book of Hebrews is not really Paul's writings but a forgery? Hebrews is really a sermon to Christians that stresses not to leave the church and become Jewish. Indicates that Jesus fulfilled the prophesies of Judaism thus Judaism is obsolete.
The 4th century CE began the persecution of Jews. Were these writings the bases for this persecution? Thus Christians understood or misunderstood, however you want to put it, that their interpretation of God's laws were correct and the Jewish laws could be interpreted as they, the Christians, understood them.
Paul didn't write Hebrews. If you've read both Hebrews and Paul's epistles, you would know that. . .I'm inclined to think it was Apollos, but I don't know that.
It's a letter, no more a "sermon" than any other writing, warning Jewish Christians not to lapse back into Judaism (they were being ostracized by Jews) because of the eternal consequences of God's wrath on their unforgiven sin.
Yes, that is the basic revelation of the letter to the Hebrews.
My guess is their rejection of the Messiah would be the more likely cause. But that's just a guess. . .I wasn't there.
No, it's not about the interpretation of Jewish law, it's about its authority being set aside because its purpose--to prefigure the Messiah, to teach the meaning of sin and holiness--no longer exists.
Last edited:
esmith
Veteran Member
Guess I am going to drop this since, at this time, all I believe is that Jesus preached to the Jewish population and nothing more.
The word translated, "between the two evenings, used in Ex 12:6 has two schools of thoughts about its interpretation. One being from noon to sunset (or at what time one believe the sun is descending). The other defines it as that small gap of time from sunset to dark. My option is with the latter of the two.
Scripture says the passover was originally killed and eaten on/during the 14th and the Feast of Unleavened Bread was kept on the 15th, twenty four hours later:
Ex 12:6,8: it is killed the evening of the 14th and eaten "in that night", not the next day
Lev. 23:5,6: the passover is on the even of the 14th and the Feast of Unleavened Bread is the 15th, the next day, 24 hours later
Num. 9:5: they kept the full passover on the 14th. Reading on you see that the second passover, one month later on the 14th they are instructed to "KEEP it and EAT it", on the same day, the 14th.
Joshua 5:10,11: they kept the entire passover "on the 14th day of the month at eve." and ate unleavened cakes the next day.
Ezra 6:19,22: people returning to Jerusalem "kept the passover upon the 14th" and then kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread the next day
Looking back on the OT, where the origins of the Passover are presented, God gave the Israelites instruction on it. On the 14th of Nisan, at even, they were to kill a lamb. They took the lamb on the 10th (Ex12:3) and kept it until the 14th (v6) and kill it in the evening, placing it's blood on the posts of their houses (v7). The death angle came and took the firstborn, but PASSED OVER the house that had the lambs blood on them. The Israelites were to eat the lamb that night and nothing was to remain by daylight. They were still there, in Egypt, the next morning, still the 14th
Then, the morning of the 14th, the Isrealites burned what was left of the lamb, got stuff from the Egyptians and gathered up their stuff. That night, now the 15th, the day after the Passover, they left Egypt. Num. 33:3 shows it to be the 15th and Deut. 16:1 shows it was at night when they left. Now, if the Passover was on the 15th, how could they of left the night of the 15th if they were ordered not to come out of their homes until morning while the death angle passed over? Impossible. The Passover was the night before, at the beginning of the 14th.
Notice Num. 28:16, 17. "And IN the 15th day of the first month is the passover of the lord.", "And IN the 15th day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten." In those two separate days are two separate occasions. One of the Passover and the other, the Feast of Unleavened Bread. If you keep reading you will see, on the 1st day of Unleavened Bread (the Feast, Sabbath, Holy Day, whatever you want to refer to it by), they were instructed to make sacrificial offerings, not the Passover Lamb, for this High Day, not the Passover. This was to be done in the morning, not the evening. This was offerings for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the 15th of Nisan.
Now, if you take the above information (Passover the 14th and Unleavened Bread beginning the 15th), if you don't agree, humor me, and put it into the time-line that all 4 gospels make, it fits, with all of them. Now you have three occasions: the Passover on the 14th, the Days of Unleavened Bread on the 15th and the weekly Sabbath.
Tues. Christ ate Passover with the disciples on the 14th (beginning part) when He instituted the New Covenant, was betrayed by Judas, arrested and taken to the high priest
Wed. Christ is crucified, died and His body was placed in a tomb before sunset. This was preparation day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, not the weekly Sabbath.
Thur. First Day of Unleavened Bread (High Day, Holy Day, Sabbath, Feast, etc), Mt. 27:26 calls it the day after the "Day of Preparation".
Fri. After the "High Day", the women bought and prepared spices for the body before resting for the weekly Sabbath, beginning at sunset
Sat. The weekly Sabbath. They rested. Christ rose near sunset. This would be exactly a full three days and a full three nights, fulfilling the only sign He gave of His messiah-ship.
Sun. The women came to anoint Christ while it was still dark, but He was already gone.
Scripture says the passover was originally killed and eaten on/during the 14th and the Feast of Unleavened Bread was kept on the 15th, twenty four hours later:
Ex 12:6,8: it is killed the evening of the 14th and eaten "in that night", not the next day
Lev. 23:5,6: the passover is on the even of the 14th and the Feast of Unleavened Bread is the 15th, the next day, 24 hours later
Num. 9:5: they kept the full passover on the 14th. Reading on you see that the second passover, one month later on the 14th they are instructed to "KEEP it and EAT it", on the same day, the 14th.
Joshua 5:10,11: they kept the entire passover "on the 14th day of the month at eve." and ate unleavened cakes the next day.
Ezra 6:19,22: people returning to Jerusalem "kept the passover upon the 14th" and then kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread the next day
Looking back on the OT, where the origins of the Passover are presented, God gave the Israelites instruction on it. On the 14th of Nisan, at even, they were to kill a lamb. They took the lamb on the 10th (Ex12:3) and kept it until the 14th (v6) and kill it in the evening, placing it's blood on the posts of their houses (v7). The death angle came and took the firstborn, but PASSED OVER the house that had the lambs blood on them. The Israelites were to eat the lamb that night and nothing was to remain by daylight. They were still there, in Egypt, the next morning, still the 14th
Then, the morning of the 14th, the Isrealites burned what was left of the lamb, got stuff from the Egyptians and gathered up their stuff. That night, now the 15th, the day after the Passover, they left Egypt. Num. 33:3 shows it to be the 15th and Deut. 16:1 shows it was at night when they left. Now, if the Passover was on the 15th, how could they of left the night of the 15th if they were ordered not to come out of their homes until morning while the death angle passed over? Impossible. The Passover was the night before, at the beginning of the 14th.
Notice Num. 28:16, 17. "And IN the 15th day of the first month is the passover of the lord.", "And IN the 15th day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten." In those two separate days are two separate occasions. One of the Passover and the other, the Feast of Unleavened Bread. If you keep reading you will see, on the 1st day of Unleavened Bread (the Feast, Sabbath, Holy Day, whatever you want to refer to it by), they were instructed to make sacrificial offerings, not the Passover Lamb, for this High Day, not the Passover. This was to be done in the morning, not the evening. This was offerings for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the 15th of Nisan.
Now, if you take the above information (Passover the 14th and Unleavened Bread beginning the 15th), if you don't agree, humor me, and put it into the time-line that all 4 gospels make, it fits, with all of them. Now you have three occasions: the Passover on the 14th, the Days of Unleavened Bread on the 15th and the weekly Sabbath.
Tues. Christ ate Passover with the disciples on the 14th (beginning part) when He instituted the New Covenant, was betrayed by Judas, arrested and taken to the high priest
Wed. Christ is crucified, died and His body was placed in a tomb before sunset. This was preparation day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, not the weekly Sabbath.
Thur. First Day of Unleavened Bread (High Day, Holy Day, Sabbath, Feast, etc), Mt. 27:26 calls it the day after the "Day of Preparation".
Fri. After the "High Day", the women bought and prepared spices for the body before resting for the weekly Sabbath, beginning at sunset
Sat. The weekly Sabbath. They rested. Christ rose near sunset. This would be exactly a full three days and a full three nights, fulfilling the only sign He gave of His messiah-ship.
Sun. The women came to anoint Christ while it was still dark, but He was already gone.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
If he did, that is a serious reason that Jews should ignore Paul and despise him and anything else he had to say.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
There seems to be a problem with the thought that Jesus had two trials in one day. Not only that but that the courts ordered him flogged in one trial but later that day condemned him to death for the same crime in a separate trial. It goes against several, not one, but several of the laws they held dear.
The only way this is possible is if the trials were held days, if not weeks, or even months apart.
The only way this is possible is if the trials were held days, if not weeks, or even months apart.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
It doesn't work. At all.
Two courts would not find one person guilty of the same crime TWICE. Further, they would only get ONE punishment.
However... The Romans were bloodthirsty so-and-sos, so if they decided to torture and then kill Jesus... That almost makes sense.
But the whole thing with trying to find a logical time stamp such that the Jews would actually have held this court, or anything else to do with this trial is never going to happen.
I understand that the gospels contain major points of faith for Christians. But knowing Torah law, what people would have been doing when (both members of the Sanhedrin and other Jews in general), and the bizarre logic (forget about time) conflicts... I can't see that the gospels, particularly when discussing the trial, crucifixion, and whatever else that goes with it, are anything more than really bad fan fiction.