A scripturally accurate view of the events celebrated in the Easter season

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
That makes no sense at all.

How could Jesus have referenced the Talmud and used the Mishnah agains them when the Mishnah wasn't written until almost 200 years later and rest of the Talmud wasn't written until hundreds of years after that?
Many of the teachings in our existing copy of the Talmud predate Jesus. There are topics and issues discussed that go back to Samuel. And given many of the other Jewish writings, I guarantee that the Mishnah existed in written form much earlier than you think.
 
Upvote 0

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
My take: Do you understand they're arguing as we are? Rabbi Judah c200ad, whose son is Tema, taught Passover on the 14th (at its evening/night and its day) is when the Passover/hagigah is slain and eaten.

AND IT IS EATEN FOR TWO DAYS etc. Our Mishnah is not in agreement with the son of Tema. For it was taught: The son of Tema said: The hagigah which comes with the Passover is as the Passover, and it may only be eaten a day and a night, whereas the hagigah of the fifteenth1 is eaten two days and one night; again, the hagigah of the fourteenth, a man discharges therewith [his duty] on account of rejoicing, but he does not discharge therewith [his duty] on account of hagigah.2 What is the son of Tema's reason?3 — As R. Hiyya taught his son, Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast [zebah hag] of the passover be left unto the morning:4 ‘zebah hag,’ this is the hagigah; ‘the passover’ is what it implies, and the Divine Law saith, ‘it shall not be kept overnight’.5
http://juchre.org/talmud/pesachim/pesachim3.htm#70a
Understood. The argument is based on the Mishnah. The rule (Mishnah) is stated, and the rule is then discussed in the gemara to establish an understanding of the ruling's substantiation and purpose. The above statement is later confirmed, and the particulars of the hagigah of the 15th are discussed in detail. It's just not feasible to quote whole sections in a forum format. It's pages and pages of material. That was one highlight that illustrated the point. The objection in the above gemara had to do with the amount of time that was permitted to eat it, not with what it was called or the date on which it was required, as anyone can readily discover by reading the relevant section further. If I were trying to argue how long they were allowed to eat it, it might not have been a very definitive passage, but for the establishment of the existence of the hagigah of the 15th and its relationship to the passover lamb, it serves the purpose.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Understood. The argument is based on the Mishnah. The rule (Mishnah) is stated, and the rule is then discussed in the gemara to establish an understanding of the ruling's substantiation and purpose. The above statement is later confirmed, and the particulars of the hagigah of the 15th are discussed in detail. It's just not feasible to quote whole sections in a forum format. It's pages and pages of material. That was one highlight that illustrated the point. The objection in the above gemara had to do with the amount of time that was permitted to eat it, not with what it was called or the date on which it was required, as anyone can readily discover by reading the relevant section further. If I were trying to argue how long they were allowed to eat it, it might not have been a very definitive passage, but for the establishment of the existence of the hagigah of the 15th and its relationship to the passover lamb, it serves the purpose.
Ok, so you understand that the earliest tradition was the same as scripture; that is, the flock/herd offerings called Passover were on the 14th. This was John's view. It was on the same night/day.

But later, some divided the offerings into two nights/days to include the 15th. That is now your view and interpretation of John.

As mentioned before, RC believes Christ died on the 15th (your view), while EO believes Christ died on the 14th. You've simply found an example of the argument apart from Christianity. Appreciate it, btw.
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
On what basis are you so quick to dismiss what prior to being written was transmitted orally?
I don't dismiss it completely.

I put it secondary to what the scriptures teach by themselves when compared one with the other.

I approach the writings of all non-believers the same way that I approach, for instance, the writings and opinions of the cults.

I listen to them with respect. Then I consider what they do to important basic doctrines if included in one's theology. If they change the overall picture - I either dismiss them completely or I put them on the shelf and reference them very sparingly.
 
Upvote 0

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Ok, so you understand that the earliest tradition was the same as scripture; that is, the flock/herd offerings called Passover were on the 14th. This was John's view. It was on the same night/day.

But later, some divided the offerings into two nights/days to include the 15th. That is now your view and interpretation of John.

As mentioned before, RC believes Christ died on the 15th (your view), while EO believes Christ died on the 14th. You've simply found an example of the argument apart from Christianity. Appreciate it, btw.
That's not what I said at all. What I said is that there is plenty of information in following sections of the same tractate demonstrating the hagigah of the 15th, and that the Talmud is representative of the practices of the Jews during Jesus' time period. The Talmud may indeed be an example of the 15th argument from an outside source, but it is also an argument of how Jews did things and why. Your assumption that John was saying the 14th for the crucifixion is nothing less than a declaration that the scriptures are in contradiction, and that the apostles didn't agree with each other on which day the crucifixion took place. I don't accept that. And any argument you present that results in that contradiction, I reject.
 
Upvote 0

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I don't dismiss it completely.

I put it secondary to what the scriptures teach by themselves when compared one with the other.

I approach the writings of all non-believers the same way that I approach, for instance, the writings and opinions of the cults.

I listen to them with respect. Then I consider what they do to important basic doctrines if included in one's theology. If they change the overall picture - I either dismiss them completely or I put them on the shelf and reference them very sparingly.
In the topic at hand, it's not a matter of doctrine. It's a matter of establishing a credible historical timeline according to known historical evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
In the topic at hand, it's not a matter of doctrine. It's a matter of establishing a credible historical timeline according to known historical evidence.
Except that it is a later recorded understanding of what the traditions were before the destruction of the temple.

So long as there is another way that the statement in Mark about the "day of unleavened bread" can be taken - I will take John at his word concerning the Passover being on it's way and the day of preparation being the day of the crucifixion.

I know that you read the original as saying that Jesus arrived for the last supper just as it was "becoming" evening. But that's not the way the language reads as I understand it nor is it the way anyone that I know of translates it. They just say "after the evening had come" and other such translations.

I'll go with that and leave what John said undisturbed in my thinking because it fits with other things I have found the scripture to say (i.e. the spices situation, 3 days and 3 nights, the typology of the lamb and the Exodus and many other such things).

Obviously you won't agree with me. I can live with that.:)
 
Upvote 0

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Except that it is a later recorded understanding of what the traditions were before the destruction of the temple.

So long as there is another way that the statement in Mark about the "day of unleavened bread" can be taken - I will take John at his word concerning the Passover being on it's way and the day of preparation being the day of the crucifixion.

I know that you read the original as saying that Jesus arrived for the last supper just as it was "becoming" evening. But that's not the way the language reads as I understand it nor is it the way anyone that I know of translates it. They just say "after the evening had come" and other such translations.

I'll go with that and leave what John said undisturbed in my thinking because it fits with other things I have found the scripture to say (i.e. the spices situation, 3 days and 3 nights, the typology of the lamb and the Exodus and many other such things).

Obviously you won't agree with me. I can live with that.:)
That it is a "later understanding" of the traditions is your opinion, and it can't be supported by any fact.

There is no other way Mark's statement can be understood. There is only one "first day of unleavened bread," and only one passover that is slain on said day. It is the fact of the combination of the two criteria that makes the day being referenced beyond dispute.

How I read the statement about evening is how it translates. I do study Greek. "after" does not exist in the clause, and "had come" is past perfect rather than the present passive participle of γενομένης. Combined with the genitive in agreement with the genitive for evening, the phrase is "And evening beginning ..." or something very similar. It may be worded differently in some translations for the sake of readability in our language, but that's what it says nevertheless.

So again, advocacy for the interpretation of John's gospel as many would have it is the advocacy for errant scripture and contradiction.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
............... There is only one "first day of unleavened bread," and only one passover that is slain on said day. It is the fact of the combination of the two criteria that makes the day being referenced beyond dispute.
It is still disputable because of the fact that John and Peter may have been sent after dusk.

Add to that the other considerations that come into play and any viable alternative should be looked at IMO.
.the phrase is "And evening beginning ..." or something very similar. It may be worded differently in some translations for the sake of readability in our language, but that's what it says nevertheless.
While your learning is impressive (no dig intended here just truth:)) - there are teams of translators over a great many years who have labored long and hard on many versions. They have never, in any translation that I am aware of, translated it as you say.

It would be very easy to convey what you are saying had they found it as you do. They could have said something like, "now as it was turning dark" or "when it was becoming evening" or any number of other such things. They did not.

Not to slight you skills at translation - but I just have to go with the professionals and the teams who crosschecked them on this. I can't rely on the opinion of an anonymous person on an internet forum no matter how impressive he sounds.

P.S.
I do agree with one thing in particular that you have told me.

I do definitely put a lot of stock in what the Son of God said concerning 3 days and 3 nights. That is and will be my starting point always.

He made it a point to say "and nights" and not just days.

No appeal to "inclusive counting" or any other such things will cancel the fact that the Holy Spirit has made it a point to point that out to us and, combined with the fact that the many statements concerning this are from the lips of God incarnate, I just have to give more credence to that fact than to any other.

If I take what God says at face value - I end up with things as I see them. This is particularly true considering the situation with the spices - which can never be resolved without a day between two Sabbaths.

Even if the disciple on the road to Emmaus did say that it was "the third day since these things took place" - that is still only a statement of fact concerning what a mere man said rather than something that God is telling us was the actual time.

It really has no more value concerning firm doctrine than do the words of Peter and what happened concerning "Mathias" being chosen as a replacement for Judas. That's just a fact of what happened. It can't be construed to teach that one of the 12 foundations for the new Jerusalem is Mathias rather than Paul for example.

The same principles of interpretation apply here IMO. We have to take every possible thing into consideration line upon line and comparing scripture to scripture etc.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
It is still disputable because of the fact that John and Peter may have been sent after dusk.
The concept of them being sent "after dusk" has to be proven or demonstrated in lieu of γενομένης, when Jesus and the others came. If not for that, I might say you had a valid potential argument. While I would still likely disagree with your conclusion, it would be harder to contradict. But if Jesus and the others came as evening was beginning, then everything else happened before evening was beginning; viz. the afternoon, or possibly even the morning.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
While your learning is impressive (no dig intended here just truth:)) - there are teams of translators over a great many years who have labored long and hard on many versions. They have never, in any translation that I am aware of, translated it as you say.

It would be very easy to convey what you are saying had they found it as you do. They could have said something like, "now as it was turning dark" or "when it was becoming evening" or any number of other such things. They did not.

Not to slight you skills at translation - but I just have to go with the professionals and the teams who crosschecked them on this. I can't rely on the opinion of an anonymous person on an internet forum no matter how impressive he sounds.
Young's Literal Translation — And evening having come, he cometh with the twelve.

Most versions try to make it readable in our language since the verb form here has no proper English parallel. Young's is more or less what I said. He chose "having come," among a choice of similar phrases. γενομένης is to come into existence, to be created, exist by creation, to be born, to arise, come on, occur, to come, approach, etc. And so I said, '"And evening beginning ..." or something very similar.' In Young's case, it's "having come." In my one example, it's "beginning." It could also be "coming to exist," "arising," "coming on," "occurring," etc. Again, most translations are just giving the most readable version they can, which is simply enough demonstrated in the fact that most of them include the verb to be ("was"), which is not in the Greek text. They just wanted it to read well, which I can agree with. To be honest, I expect that they weren't expecting anyone to challenge the reading of such an innocuous passage, since the majority of people accept it as read and don't try to reinterpret it as meaning the night before. So even in versions like the NASB, NRSV, and others, "when it was evening" still means the same thing to me, and the inference is still that Jesus and the others came when it became evening. "after" is not in the text in any way, shape or form.

I do understand your reluctance to accept this from someone on the internet. If you don't have this particular knowledge, it's not unwise to be mindful of accepting what someone anonymous says. But feel free to look up the word yourself in the Greek, parse it, and then look up the mood, tense, voice, etc. yourself. You'll find that it is as I said. And to reiterate, Young's, which doesn't read very well, matches my version of translation, albeit with a different, but synonymous word. So there is substantiation for the participle form I gave you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
No appeal to "inclusive counting" or any other such things will cancel the fact that the Holy Spirit has made it a point to point that out to us and, combined with the fact that the many statements concerning this are from the lips of God incarnate, I just have to give more credence to that fact than to any other.

[...]

Even if the disciple on the road to Emmaus did say that it was "the third day since these things took place" - that is still only a statement of fact concerning what a mere man said rather than something that God is telling us was the actual time.
So you're saying that there are parts of the Bible that are less inspired than others? Some parts are "real" because Jesus "said" them (ignoring the fact that it's technically hearsay since someone else is relating what "he said"), but other parts can be discarded because someone else said them? Is that what you're advocating here?

Don't bother answering that. I didn't think you did. And I hope you recognize your error in reasoning in the statement quoted above (the part referenced is not visible with the way quotes are minimized, so expand for the specific part).

In either case, as was said going all the way back to page one of this thread, three full days and three full nights, beginning at sunset on Wednesday and ending on Saturday at sunset puts the resurrection on the fourth day. That contradicts other things Jesus himself also said, such as that he would rise "the third day," in agreement with the disciples in Emmaus that you want to dismiss. And we know from all four gospels that Jesus rose not only on the third day, but that it was the first day of the week. And it is worth noting that while Luke gives the specifics of the encounter with the disciples in Emmaus, Mark 16:9-12 mentions the same encounter in brief. His version also says that Jesus was risen on the third day, and that it was the first day of the week. Mark's version also shows that Jesus' appearance to the other two disciples was the same day as his resurrection.

On your other point, I've addressed this several times, and it's starting to get a little old. No one is "appealing" to inclusive counting. That is how they counted. It's not debatable. And your contention concerning this point is incredibly ironic, because you view it as though people are warping things to their Friday perspective by employing inclusive counting, when the truth is that you're warping things against a Friday perspective by employing modern counting. To interpret the passage correctly, you have to understand the culture. Inclusive counting is how they counted. Period. End of story. They didn't count like we do today. Just accept it. It's a historical fact, and there are many, many, MANY examples that can be given to demonstrate the fact of this.
 
Upvote 0

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
If I take what God says at face value - I end up with things as I see them. This is particularly true considering the situation with the spices - which can never be resolved without a day between two Sabbaths.
This was also thoroughly addressed. Let me quote a section from the book where I discuss this (and you may notice in the footnotes that I included something just because of you).

_____________________________

The other existing arguments really lose their punch beyond this point, lacking any real substance or evidence. The double Sabbath, for example, is really just a matter of semantics. Mark says that after the passing of the Sabbath, they bought spices, whereas Luke says the women prepared spices and ointments and then rested the Sabbath day.[1]

Three things happened. Spices were bought and prepared, they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment, and they came to the sepulcher early on the first day of the week, bringing with them the spices they “had prepared.”[2] There were, at the very least, five women involved in this scenario. Between Mark and Luke, we know that Mary Magdalene, Joanna the wife of Chuza, who was Herod’s steward, Mary the mother of James the less and Joses, Salome, the mother of Zebedee’s children, and at least one other woman according to the plural, “other women,” in Luke, were all present at the sepulcher.[3] And it’s highly probable that the same women who had been ministering to Jesus all along were also participating, being “many other women” according to Mark.[4] In which case, any alleged facts that might be derived from the variance that exists between these two passages is inconclusive at best. Who’s to say which women bought what, when they bought it, who did the preparing, etc.? Did the women all stay at the same house on the Sabbath, or were they separated? Perhaps Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James and Joses, prepared some spices they procured from Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, while Salome and Joanna bought different, or additional spices either at the close of the Sabbath, or early on the first day of the week.[5] We’re talking about two separate points of view from two separate authors, who likely got their information from different sources, relating to us the mundane happenings of five or more women over the course of three days, with no details to clarify the particulars.

Furthermore, one would also have to wonder, if the women rested Thursday and bought spices on Friday, why didn’t they just bring the spices on Friday before the Sabbath? Why wait until Sunday when the body was four days old, and “stinketh” as Lazarus’ body had, when they could have dealt with it when it was only a day and a half old?[6]

The whole argument basically hangs on semantics and attempts to make something work that not only doesn’t work, but that creates conflicts with other facts when you try, not the least of which being that the enumeration provided by this hypothesis has Christ rising on the fourth day rather than the third, which defies their own semantic logic.

[1]. Mark 16:1; Luke 23:56. The word in Mark is ἠγόρασαν, which is 3 pers. pl. aor. act. indic., meaning “they bought,” as opposed to the Authorized King James translation that renders it, “had bought,” which is a past perfect tense rather than aorist. Other versions, like the NIV, NASB and NRSV correctly render it “bought.”

[2]. Luke 23:56, 24:1.

[3]. Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40-41, 16:1; Luke 8:3, 24:10.

[4]. Mark 15:41.

[5]. John 19:38-40. Nicodemus brought a hundred-pound mixture of myrrh and aloes to help prepare Jesus’ body with Joseph of Arimathea.

[6]. In my various discussions on this particular point, I have heard it argued that the women didn’t come on Friday because they feared the guards. However, in Matt. 28:1-6 (specif. 28:4), the keepers were still there when the women arrived at the sepulcher. Their delay clearly had nothing to do with the soldiers, but with the Sabbath.

_____________________________
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Young's Literal Translation — And evening having come, he cometh with the twelve.

Young's is more or less what I said.................... Young's, which doesn't read very well, matches my version of translation, albeit with a different, but synonymous word. So there is substantiation for the participle form I gave you.
More or less is not synonymous. No one translates it the way you do.
So you're saying that there are parts of the Bible that are less inspired than others? Some parts are "real" because Jesus "said" them (ignoring the fact that it's technically hearsay since someone else is relating what "he said"), but other parts can be discarded because someone else said them? Is that what you're advocating here?

Don't bother answering that. I didn't think you did.
No not even close - and, as you say, you know it.
And we know from all four gospels that Jesus rose not only on the third day, but that it was the first day of the week.
It doesn't say that He rose on the first day of the week.

And putting the burial and resurrection at exactly dusk in both cases changes what you say to something else entirely. You are simply seeing it the way you want to IMO.
............That is how they counted. It's not debatable.......
It's a historical fact, and there are many, many, MANY examples that can be given to demonstrate the fact of this.
Jesus made it a point to say "days and nights. He didn't leave an appeal to inclusive counting as an option.

Show me somewhere where there is emphasis on days and nights and then they count "inclusively" and I will consider it.

Since there are so "many" examples it shouldn't be too difficult.
In my various discussions on this particular point, I have heard it argued that the women didn’t come on Friday because they feared the guards. However, in Matt. 28:1-6 (specif. 28:4), the keepers were still there when the women arrived at the sepulcher. Their delay clearly had nothing to do with the soldiers, but with the Sabbath.
It doesn't say that the guards were still there - only that the angel was still there. You are simply seeing it again the way you want to see it IMO.

It seems that you have a lot more time on your hands than I do right now.:)

You're welcome to it for a while.
 
Upvote 0

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
More or less is not synonymous. No one translates it the way you do.
For crying out loud, bro, you're nit-picking. Forgive my turn of phrase! "evening having come" and "evening beginning" are synonymous statements. It's "when evening came" and "when evening began." They mean the same thing. And Young's Literal Translation is where that comes from. The verb here is a participle. Don't give me grief about this.

It doesn't say that He rose on the first day of the week.
Yes it does. Mark 16:9 — "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils."

And although it is not spelled out that perfectly in the other gospels, it is clearly implied to anyone who isn't trying to find a way to make it say something else.

And putting the burial and resurrection at exactly dusk in both cases changes what you say to something else entirely. You are simply seeing it the way you want to IMO.
Not really. If it's before sunset in both instances, then Wednesday day is the first day, Wednesday night is the first night. Thursday day is the second day, Thursday night is the second night. Friday day is the third day, Friday night is the third night. By your reckoning of the dates that the event occurred, that makes these days Wed-14/15, Thurs-15/16, Fri-16/17 (three days and three nights), and then Sat-17. The 14th is the first day, the 15th is the second day, and the 16th is the third day. The 17th is the fourth day.

Jesus made it a point to say "days and nights." He didn't leave an appeal to inclusive counting as an option.
You don't get it. They didn't have two methods of counting that they chose between as they arbitrarily felt like it. We refer to it today to differentiate between modern and ancient counting. Inclusive is the only way they counted, because it's the only way anyone knew to count.

The three days and three nights, relative to the third day, is, as has been told to you since page one of this thread, synecdochical. It is a figure of speech. And you're hanging your hat on it.

Show me somewhere where there is emphasis on days and nights and then they count "inclusively" and I will consider it.

Since there are so "many" examples it shouldn't be too difficult.
Uuhhhhhh, no. If this were a proper argument where facts were accepted and positions adjusted relative to evidence, I would be willing to put that time into it, but it's not one of those kinds of discussions. While I do enjoy this debate with you, I'm well aware that you are the sort who would argue that water isn't really wet if you had made up your mind that it wasn't. Sooooo ... can't spend that kind of time looking stuff up in vain.

It doesn't say that the guards were still there - only that the angel was still there. You are simply seeing it again the way you want to see it IMO.
Sure does. Matthew 28:1-5 — "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified."

It clearly shows that both the women and the keepers were there, that they all witnessed the angel of the Lord descend, with a countenance like lightning and raiment white as snow. The keepers shook and became as dead men, while the women were told not to fear.

So what other denials of plain evidence do you have to offer?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's not what I said at all. What I said is that there is plenty of information in following sections of the same tractate demonstrating the hagigah of the 15th, and that the Talmud is representative of the practices of the Jews during Jesus' time period. The Talmud may indeed be an example of the 15th argument from an outside source, but it is also an argument of how Jews did things and why. Your assumption that John was saying the 14th for the crucifixion is nothing less than a declaration that the scriptures are in contradiction, and that the apostles didn't agree with each other on which day the crucifixion took place. I don't accept that. And any argument you present that results in that contradiction, I reject.
I understand your desire not to have the gospels contradict, but that has nothing to do with the matter discussed.

The Babylonian Talmud tells us there was an argument about the Passover offerings. The earliest agreed that flock/herd took place only on the 14th. Later it was decided on the 14th/15th. You should at least acknowledge this and let your readers know of the conflict. IOW, this is your "revision understanding" of John's Passover term, while the reality is John falls on the 14th only side.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes it does. Mark 16:9 — "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils."

Now when Jesus was risen, early the first of the week he appeared to Mary. In this way it aligns to John's gospel.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Sure does. Matthew 28:1-5 — "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified."

It clearly shows that both the women and the keepers were there, that they all witnessed the angel of the Lord descend, with a countenance like lightning and raiment white as snow. The keepers shook and became as dead men, while the women were told not to fear.

The women were on the way when this event took place. The guards fall as dead. Later the women talk to the angels. Later Jesus appears to them and they too fall on their faces (though to worship).
 
Upvote 0

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I understand your desire not to have the gospels contradict, but that has nothing to do with the matter discussed.

The Babylonian Talmud tells us there was an argument about the Passover offerings. The earliest agreed that flock/herd took place only on the 14th. Later it was decided on the 14th/15th. You should at least acknowledge this and let your readers know of the conflict. IOW, this is your "revision understanding" of John's Passover term, while the reality is John falls on the 14th only side.
What you just said is not true at all. Have you read this section of the Talmud? As I already stated, and as you clearly ignored, the debate in the section you are referencing was over the amount of time permitted to eat it. What sacrifices there were, and on which days they were offered, was not in dispute.

Nor am I revising John. How John is understood has everything to do with the gospels not contradicting. John can be interpreted more than one way. The Synoptics cannot. If they are in agreement rather than contradiction, then John is not saying what you think he is.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Now when Jesus was risen, early the first of the week he appeared to Mary. In this way it aligns to John's gospel.
Except that that's not how it reads according to the Greek. The break in the clause exists where it does for a reason.
 
Upvote 0