Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
Ben Masada

But Really, Why Was Jesus Crucified?

641 posts in this topic

Again, this all seems a bit unnecessary. You haven't proved anything. You haven't even succeeded in demonstrating that one genealogy was Joseph's, and the other Mary's. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mary was ever intended to play a part in either genealogy. It is, on the other hand, quite clear that both were intended to show a genealogy from Joseph--there is not a "first" and "second" genealogy: neither author knew of the other. Both author was likely under the impression that they were the first to write out the genealogy of Jesus: the simply disagree, because they are both incorrect. There is no historical evidence to indicate that either genealogy is even remotely valid: we have no way of knowing whether or not Joseph, and thus Jesus, was actually related to any of the people listed.

Basically, you are free to believe that the two geneologies are in conflict, if that is what you prefer, but just so you know, there are other equally valid options...

Unnecessary?, not in the least, It would be unnecessary, if the correct reading were applied today as it was when it was written. The fact that we have ample precedent throughout the bible for what I have said, shows this to be true. You yourself may not be able to accept it, I see no reason to reject it.

You say that the authors did not know of each other?

I can accept that, but I doubt it.

Scholars postulate the existence of a Q Source, from which Luke and Matthew took their information.

200px-Synoptic_problem_two_source_colored.png

They also postulate that all 3 Gospels could have had a common source as well, which has since been lost.. There are in fact quite a number of theories, all of which could simply be avoided if things were taken at face value, as is. In that case, each author not only knew of the other (they were contemporaries after all), but drew from the same well of information, but each author intentionally wrote a geneology, that was specific for thier target audience.

Matthew wrote with the Jewish church in mind, it is the perspective of the Messianic Jew, the Jew who has recognized the Messiah. His geneology, therefore shows that Jesus is the Messiah, his bloodline is that of the tribe of Judah and he is the foretold son of David. The geneology presented, demonstrates this clearly, sending the message it was intended to do.. It also happens to be Josephs actual geneology, albeit incomplete, purposefully so, there are a whole 14 generations missing from the geneology.

Luke on the other hand is complete, in his generations, it can only be an actual bloodline, and thus it could only have been Mary's. And Luke is known for having tried to be as factual as complete as possible, something the others ignored. There is more historical accuracy than in any of the other Gospels, due to Lukes detailed accounts. That many of the names are actually unknown in the biblical record, demonstrate that this is not a fabrication, but an actual record. Luke is establishing to his target audience, the gentiles and the gentile church, a human being, not a demi-god of some kind, albeit one born in miraculous circumstances. Because the demi-god, is what they expect of a woman who gave birth to a child fathered by a god.

Lukes geneology could only be Marys', for the simple reason that she is his only direct biological ancestor, and this is an actual biological geneology. No other view has this much wheight behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea and we can RELY on a mere dream lol....Ben....stop right there... Taking ones word for it is not something I do easy.. you do...I see that.. But come on a dream?? Oh it was a dream then it MUST be true ?

Sigh... I have heard it all now Dreams are proof lol w00t.gif

Who ever said here that what comes on a dream is proof of any thing? A dream to prove any thing, it must be interpreted metaphorically. Nothing can

be proved literally. Maybe, to you, what happens in a dream must be true. Not to me.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bollywocks, Ben... and I'm being kind here...

How interesting, metaphorical language saves the Jewish interpretation of the Tanach, the literal rendering however confirms the christian viewpoint without justifying any of it... I wonder who could be wrong here.

Numbers 12:6 says no such thing... unless you are purposefully trying to obfuscate the obvious... God was speaking directly to Aaron and Miriam for speaking badly of Moses, they weren't having a dream or a vision. They were all three standing before God who was within the pillar of cloud. At this very moment, neither Aaron nor Miriam were having a vision of any kind... the whole camp of Israel could see the pillar. All three could hear God who was right in front of them.

And yet you claim that He only appeared to Moses who was special... so Abraham wasn't even more special?, how about Jacob, for whom the entire nation is named.. Israel? These weren't special to God?

You are so taking things out of context that it is blatantly obvious to everyone who reads this. I understand why you are doing it, it just doesn't make you right.

You are right on this one. The literal interpretation confirms the Christian viewpoint. That's why the Christian concept of God is so anthropomorphistic. Read Isaiah 46:5. "Whom would you compare Me with, as an equal, or match Me against, as though we were alike?" That's why God, for Christians, has form and is born on earth as a man. At least, take from Jesus who said that God is Spirit. A spirit is incorporeal. (John 4:24)

Here is what Numbers 12:6 says: "Should there be a prophet among you, in visions will I reveal myself to him. In dreams will I speak to him." I don't know what kind of Bible translation you have to say that's not what is written in Numbers 12:6. And I never said that God appeared only to Moses. He never appeared to any one whosoever. Neither to Moses nor to Abraham, and not to Jesus either. It was all in their dream/visions.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who ever said here that what comes on a dream is proof of any thing? A dream to prove any thing, it must be interpreted metaphorically. Nothing can

be proved literally. Maybe, to you, what happens in a dream must be true. Not to me.

But I do agree with you that Moses neversaw anything of God, but in dreams and visions. As you know, any thing is possible to see in a dream.

And yet Moses is believed by many....That's all I was saying. Nothing more to be added UNLESS you wish to derail If so I am not interested..

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange, I was always under the impression that "No man hath seen God at any time"...

And you are right. Keep on the good impression. Indeed, no man hath ever seen God at any time of his life. God is Spirit, and incorporeal at that.

(John 4:24)

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When exactly does Sunday start according to the Jewish calendar?

It starts at sundown on Saturday...

Being Jewish and all you should know this... As it stands, History is quite evident on this issue, even if you personally don't practice it nowadays.

The 1st day of the week is Sunday, but let me tell you something you evidently didn't know when you quoted Matthew 28:1. The word Sabbbath in the text is plural!!!

The correct translation of the text is the following:

Matthew 28:1

After the Sabbaths [plural], when it was growing light on the "first of Sabbaths" [day one of the week], Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to view the grave.

So how many Sabbaths are you counting?

I count two, the reference is to the Passover and to the weekly sabbath. Thus the 1st day after the sabbaths can only be the 1st day of the week or Sunday, as we generally call it. As I said, Sunday would have started at 6 PM on Saturday according to how the hebrews reckoned their days...

Well, you have a strange Bible translation. I have three here with me. None of the three gives "sabbaths" but "sabbath." I think we are wasting our

time discussing on different Bibles. We will never get anywhere.

And for when Sunday starts it is with the sunset of Saturday. I gave that night as the second night. So, you have two days and two nights. Matthew 12:40 says three days and three nights. Where is the third day and the third night? As you can see, it is all balderdash.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for when Sunday starts it is with the sunset of Saturday. I gave that night as the second night. So, you have two days and two nights. Matthew 12:40 says three days and three nights. Where is the third day and the third night? As you can see, it is all balderdash.

Ben

Wednesday morning - Jesus crucified

Wednesday afternoon - Jesus died and put in tomb

Wednesday evening, beginning of Passover, the SABBATH that was being prepared for - Night 1

Thursday morning - Day 1

Thursday evening - Night 2

Friday morning - Day 2

Friday evening, beginning of the regular Sabbath - Night 3

Saturday morning - Day 3

Saturday evening - Jesus rises

Sunday morning - Empty tomb discovered

Count them - three days and three nights :yes: Only your preconception that Passover was not Thursday stops this, and from experience you seem unwilling to entertain the possibility of a Thursday Passover. Just because Christians traditionally celebrate Easter from Friday-Sunday does not mean that this is how it went. Heck, Christmas is celebrated on December 25, and Jesus wasn't born anywhere near that month (depending on various sources, the most likely time was somewhere between July and September).

~ PA

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wednesday morning - Jesus crucified

Wednesday afternoon - Jesus died and put in tomb

Wednesday evening, beginning of Passover - Night 1

Thursday morning - Day 1

Thursday evening - Night 2

Friday morning - Day 2

Friday evening - Night 3

Saturday morning - Day 3

Saturday evening - Jesus rises

Sunday morning - Empty tomb discovered

Count them - three days and three nights :yes: Only your preconception that Passover was not Thursday stops this, and from experience you seem unwilling to entertain the possibility of a Thursday Passover

~ PA

Well that looks pretty straight forward to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was talking of the moral law, and to exemplify his point, the rest of the chapter deals with such examples of moral law. The moral law trumps the ceremonial laws and are superior. As such Jesus demonstrates the superiority of the moral law by going beyond what the ceremonioal law asks of us.

21“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherb will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Now you tell me why you refuse to touch on what I stated regarding Isaiah 53 demonstrating beyond doubt that a human figure, becomes a guilt offering?

Isaiah 53 is talking about the Suffering Servant. If you read Isaiah 41:8,9 and 44:1,2,21, Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name. There

is a consensus that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, who cannot be an individual but the collective in Israel, the whole Jewish People. An individual cannot become a guilt offering for another. It is against the Scriptures. (Exo. 32:33; Jer. 31:30) But the collective in Israel

became for Judah. That's when Israel, the Tabernacle of Joseph, was rejected by God, Who confirmed Judah, according to Psalm 78:67-69.

And for the Law that Jesus came to confirm is the Law of the Ten Commandments. There is no other. That's the Law Jesus confirmed and Paul said that was abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15)

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't read what I post I won't bother to answer you...

"I firmly believe that there will take place a revival of the dead at a time which will please the Creator, blessed be His name."

Saadia also, in his "Emunot we-De'ot" (following Sanh. x. 1), declared the belief in resurrection to be fundamental.

Ḥasdai Crescas, on the other hand, declared it to be a specific doctrine of Judaism, but not one of the fundamental teachings, which view is taken also by Joseph Albo in his "'Iḳḳarim" (i., iv. 35-41, xxiii.).

The chief difficulty, as pointed out by the latter author, is to find out what the resurrection belief actually implied or comprised, since the ancient rabbis themselves differed as to whether resurrection was to be universal, or the privilege of the Jewish people only, or of the righteous only.

This again depends on the question whether it was to form part of the Messianic redemption of Israel, or whether it was to usher in the last judgment.

Saadia sees in the belief in resurrection a national hope, and endeavors to reconcile it with reason by comparing it with other miraculous events in nature and history recorded in the Bible. Maimonides and Albo in their commentary on Sanh. x. 1, Ḳimḥi in his commentary on Ps. i. 5, Isaac Aboab in his "Menorat ha-Ma'or" (iii. 4, 1), and Baḥya ben Asher in his commentary on Gen. xxiii. extend resurrection to the righteous only.

On the other hand, Isaac Abravanel in his "Ma'yene Yeshu'ah" (ii. 9) concedes it to all Israel; Manasseh ben Israel, in his "Nishmat Ḥayyim" (i. 2, 8), and others, to all men.

Maimonides, however (see his commentary, l.c., and "Yad," Teshubah, viii.), took the resurrection figuratively, and substituted for it immortality of the soul, as he stated at length in his "Ma'amar Teḥiyyat ha-Metim"; Judah ha-Levi also, in his "Cuzari," took resurrection figuratively (i. 115, iii. 20-21).

The various examples above demonstrate beyond doubt that Jewish Wisemen differed in their opinions, of which Rambam, was only one such.

As for the Tanach...

Job 19:25-27

25 I know that my Redeemer lives,

and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.

26 And after my skin has been destroyed,

yet in my flesh I will see God;

27 I myself will see him

with my own eyesI, and not another.

How my heart yeans within me!

You do know that Job is traditionally the oldest book of the bible? Yet it is evident even there.

Isaiah 26:19

But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead.

Daniel 12:2

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

You asked for one, I gave you three.

None of them above makes reference to bodily resurrection. According to Isaiah 53:8,9, when the Jewish People are forced into exile, it is as if we have been cut off from the land of the living and graves have been assigned to us in the Diaspora, among the Gentiles. Then, according to Ezekiel 37:12, when the exile is over, the Lord opens those graves and brings His People back to the Land of Israel. That's what we all refer to as metaphorical resurrection and not literal. That's the difference between us and you. Prophetical visions cannot be taken literally, but metaphorically.

And for Daniel 12:2, those of us who decide to return to the Land of Israel at the end of exile are considered to have chosen everlasting life; and those who have decided to stay in exile are considered to live in contempt, like the slave whose freedom is given and prefers to keep on being a slave to the same master.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore, some pious forgery was in order. For instance, that Pilate had been forced by the Jewish authorities to crucify Jesus, hence the washing of Pilate's hands, by which, guilt would be transferred from Rome unto the Jews. For another, they even set Peter charging the Jews with having crucified Jesus in a speech written by Luke but never delivered in Jerusalem. (Acts 2:14,36) Though it made no sense, as they were well aware, it didn't matter; the Church needed that promotion, and any thing else would be justified. Anyways, the Jews needed to pay for rejecting the new religion.

Ben

This is nuts. All of the Bible was written long before Constantine. Archeologists have dug up very old sections of the New Testament. The sections from before Constantine put together have almost the whole of the Book. Also: how do you explain how they rewrote the Bible in a highly literate, mostly pagan, society with nobody mentioning it? I suggest that your view is based on religious prejudice, as indicated by your use of the anti-Christian ACE in place of AD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah so Moses isn't the writer?

To me he was, I'm sorry you don't believe that he wrote the Torah... I take it as truth, not a metaphorical or a literary invention. To me these things happened. As such you can believe what you want, you are the one who has to live with that belief. My source of belief is there written in black and white.

That's because you are moved by faith. Disraeli, a former British Prime Minister once said that where faith begins, knowledge ends. And according to Hosea 4:6, people perish for lack of knowledge. No wonder the faithfuls of Jim Jones were poisoned to death. Whenever you read the Torah again, focus on the grammar used by the writer. The third person. Do you think Moses wrote about someone else? Besides, it was written by someone already in the Land of Israel telling about the history of the world and of Israel. And it does not matter to me who wrote the Torah, as long as he was Jewish.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you say contextual evidence is needed, you've been throwing out the context from the beginning, including that passage you used, yet again.

They were not cousins, no matter how much you want to ignore that now.

She could have been an aunt, twice removed and you still wouldn't be right.

Mary was NOT of the tribe of Levi, there is nothing in those verses that confirms your view. If the actual greek word was cousin, I would give you reason... it ain't get over it.

If Elizabeth, had a sister, and she had married Marys' father, Heli, that would have made Mary, the daughter of a levite woman and a man of Judah, whose tribe would she belong to?

Don't ignore the fact that we have the geneologies of Jesus, one from each side of the family. We have Josephs, and we have Marys, and she is descended from david, putting her in the tribe of Judah without a doubt.

And I have told you more than several times, that tribal inheritance cannot be transmitted through the mother, according to Judaism, but you just don't get it. Besides, Luke is not talking about the genealogy of Mary but of Joseph. Nice try but Christians get nowhere with this fake attempt against the truth. Unless, for you, Jesus was not Jewish but Greek.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that is the problem here... authenticity...

Even by using your own NT, you cannot prove lack of authenticity in my argument.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with the evidence staring you in the face you don't give up, do you?

Show me please, how you can prove, that they were cousins and I will give you this victory.

The problem is that you are relying on a word that does not mean cousin, in any form whatsoever... my nephew or niece 5 times removed, would still be a kinsman or kinswoman. So would my great aunt twice removed...

Kin does not mean cousin, translation are touchy things, go to the origianl Greek text... I gave you the links...

Even if they were two strange women, there is nothing that tells me that Mary was of the Tribe of Judah. And even if she had been, it would be of no

help to Jesus. This had to be a biological son of Joseph's to be of the tribe of Judah. That's closed case.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, no need to be so condescending in your tone. You're only making yourself look bad.

That said, I am not disagreeing that Jesus rose on Sunday, the first day of the week. Nor am I disagreeing that this was the day after the Sabbath. Saturday is the Sabbath. Now, my point - At this time of year, there is another Sabbath. Passover is considered a high Sabbath by the Jews, unless you care to correct me on that. Hence Jesus could easily have been crucified the day before Passover (Sabbath) on the Wednesday afternoon, and then rose again the day after a totally different Sabbath (regular Saturday), on the first day of the week.

~ PA

Sorry for making myself look bad. I was just in a mood for a joke. Never mind when you think Jesus rose again, if Saturday, Sunday or Wednesday. Just

show me in the gospels an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus and I give you my word that I'll become a Christian.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for making myself look bad. I was just in a mood for a joke. Never mind when you think Jesus rose again, if Saturday, Sunday or Wednesday. Just

show me in the gospels an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus and I give you my word that I'll become a Christian.

Ben

There's no dispute as to when Jesus rose, it was Sunday morning. When he died is where our dispute seems to rise. Since I believe Jesus rose on Saturday evening and the first we hear (in the gospels) of the resurrection is the Sunday morning, I guess there are no "eye-witness accounts". But I'm pretty sure you already knew that, hence your quickness to claim willingness to convert. Seriously, I have no desire to turn you into a Christian so there's no reason to give me promises that you would become Christian IF I meet criteria x, y, or z (which I know you already know the answer to, so there you have it).

~ PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may continue to maintain this belief in the face of evidence, but Saul of Tarsus was a Pharisee, originally a persecutor of the early Christian movement, and eventually converted to Christianity and changed his name to Paul. That's the way it is, but I understand why you would think he was a Hellenistic Jew instead :yes:

~ PA

Paul was not a Pharisee. The sect of the Pharisees would never accept a Hellenistic Jew to become a Pharisee. Paul never in the whole of his life persecuted a single Christian. Christians are not found in the synagogues of the Jews. (Acts 9:1,2) Paul never converted to Christianity; he founded

Christianity in the city of Antioch. (Acts 11:26) Paul was called Paulus, a Hellenistic name for many Jews with the end "us". That's rather the way

it is. The difference between us is that you do not quote anything you say. Who said that he was a Pharisee, himself? Of course! His word could never

be taken for granted. Where is it written that he persecuted Christians? Nowhere. You see? Where is it written that he changed his name? Amazing!

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet Moses is believed by many....That's all I was saying. Nothing more to be added UNLESS you wish to derail If so I am not interested..

We believe the prophets. Nevertheless, they got their messages through dreams and visions. Not because we believe in dreams, but because they, the

prophets spoke according to the Law and the testimony. (Isa. 8:20)

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between us is that you do not quote anything you say.

You present yourself as such a learned Bible scholar, I figured I didn't need to quote specific passages. Everything I am saying can be found in the Bible, I can give you scripture, if you want. You may not believe Paul was a Pharisee (yes, I use the word "believe"), but just because his theology does not match with what you see as Jewish theology, it does not mean he was therefore not a Pharisee. That's the way of things, that's all I'm saying :tu:

~ PA

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You present yourself as such a learned Bible scholar, I figured I didn't need to quote specific passages. Everything I am saying can be found in the Bible, I can give you scripture, if you want. You may not believe Jesus was a Pharisee (yes, I use the word "believe"), but just because his theology does not match with what you see as Jewish theology, it does not mean he was therefore not a Pharisee. That's the way of things, that's all I'm saying :tu:

~ PA

I've always been under the impression that Jesus was an Essene; he was quite critical of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been under the impression that Jesus was an Essene; he was quite critical of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

A popular theory. In some respects I can see where these proponents are coming from, in others I disagree. Did Jesus inspire the Essene movement or the Nazarene movement, or one of a number of alleged beginnings.... I'm just going by the earliest texts available (the four canonical gospels being the four earliest gospels written). The rest is up to each individual to decide.

~ PA

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right on this one. The literal interpretation confirms the Christian viewpoint. That's why the Christian concept of God is so anthropomorphistic. Read Isaiah 46:5. "Whom would you compare Me with, as an equal, or match Me against, as though we were alike?" That's why God, for Christians, has form and is born on earth as a man. At least, take from Jesus who said that God is Spirit. A spirit is incorporeal. (John 4:24)

Here is what Numbers 12:6 says: "Should there be a prophet among you, in visions will I reveal myself to him. In dreams will I speak to him." I don't know what kind of Bible translation you have to say that's not what is written in Numbers 12:6. And I never said that God appeared only to Moses. He never appeared to any one whosoever. Neither to Moses nor to Abraham, and not to Jesus either. It was all in their dream/visions.

Ben

Thank you for agreeing on this issue. On the concept of anthropomorphism, why is it so impossible for God to take on a human body whenever he wants, to interact with other humans on a physical level?

I mean we ARE talking about God after all? Don't you think you are limiting him by saying what he can and can't do?

God created the universe but is not part of the universe. In other words God is not the creation you see around you. God interacts with his creation but is not a part of his creation. What you may not realize is that even the spiritual world is part of creation, that includes all spirtual beings af all types. Angels, Sons of God, and everything else is part of the created natural universe. Only God is uncreated, eternal and existed before creation.

Since God, as uncreated spirit (Gen 1:1; John 4:24) is not of the created material world, He by nature cannot be detected with the five human senses. We have no way to process who and what He is. As a result, God has always choosen some "intermediary strategy" to make himself known to humankind. This is God’s normal modus operandi with only one or two spectacular exceptions. We are inhabitants of the physical world, and so we can only process as reality that which our senses (particularly the visual) can detect, either directly or with respect to things that tangibly affect the physical world around us. Christians know that the ultimate solution to this dilemma was the incarnation, where God became human in the person of Jesus Christ. This is why Jesus was called the “exact representation” of God (Heb. 1:3).

As a matter of fact by his very own nature no spiritual being can see God either. Thus the Angels and the Sons of God cannot SEE God, even in the spirtiual world. They are as blind to him as we are. Thus God, to interact with his creation made a part of his greatness visible to all and it is this part of God, this visible part of God that is the "agent" and representation of God to the creation.

The Old Testament is quite clear on this and calls this visible Manifistation of God the "Memra of God", The "WORD" of God. It is through the "Word of God" that all things were created, it is through the "Word of God" that all creation stands, that includes the angels and the Sons of God. Thus he also acquired a title, he is "THE SON OF GOD". Not a created son, but simply Gods material representaion to the spiritual and physcial universe.

It is this manifestation of God,that occupied a physcial body and became known to us as Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you have a strange Bible translation. I have three here with me. None of the three gives "sabbaths" but "sabbath." I think we are wasting our

time discussing on different Bibles. We will never get anywhere.

And for when Sunday starts it is with the sunset of Saturday. I gave that night as the second night. So, you have two days and two nights. Matthew 12:40 says three days and three nights. Where is the third day and the third night? As you can see, it is all balderdash.

Ben

Ben, you would suggest you use the original Greek. This is the language inwhich the New Testament was written, it is there that you will find this plural sabbath. Also if you if you search you will find that this term is used many times in the New Testament, while it is not reflected in the translations themselves.

But if one goes to Youngs Literal Interpretation, which attempts to give a word for word translation as far as possible, we find the term there. If one uses any Greek online Dictionary, we will also find that it is a plural.

σαββάτων [(neu) gen pl]

A good source for you... Kata Biblon Greek New Testament and Wiki English Translation‏

If you don't want to do the work, it has already been done for you HERE.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wednesday morning - Jesus crucified

Wednesday afternoon - Jesus died and put in tomb

Wednesday evening, beginning of Passover, the SABBATH that was being prepared for - Night 1

Thursday morning - Day 1

Thursday evening - Night 2

Friday morning - Day 2

Friday evening, beginning of the regular Sabbath - Night 3

Saturday morning - Day 3

Saturday evening - Jesus rises

Sunday morning - Empty tomb discovered

Count them - three days and three nights :yes: Only your preconception that Passover was not Thursday stops this, and from experience you seem unwilling to entertain the possibility of a Thursday Passover. Just because Christians traditionally celebrate Easter from Friday-Sunday does not mean that this is how it went. Heck, Christmas is celebrated on December 25, and Jesus wasn't born anywhere near that month (depending on various sources, the most likely time was somewhere between July and September).

~ PA

And Even if the Passover were on a Friday, it would still count as 3 days. Jesus would have been crucified on the previous day, Thursday and we would count Thursday itself as one day inclusively, since he died on that day. In many calculations the ancient world counted inclusively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.