How come good Friday is only two days from Easter Sunday?

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Junior Member
Aug 22, 2008
1,409
63
✟14,946.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Shalom AFraizer, I disagree, I really feel we will be in agreement. Let's look one more time at John 13:1-2. You know I did let you slide a little with your explanation as to how it was "before the feast of the Passover," that they were eating the Last Supper. I didn't ask you about John 13:29. Why would some of the Disciples think Yeshua was telling Judas to go out and buy what was needed for the Feast? IF this gathering of Yeshua and His Disciples were truly BEFORE the feast of the Passover, then does it not make sense that the Disciples would be thinking Yeshua was sending Judas out to BUY what was needed for the upcoming Feast? Please explain. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Keenly and correctly observed. Well done and thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Shabbat Shalom Der Alter, did you confuse the 14th day of Nissan with the 15th day of Nissan? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.
I quoted Jewish sources. I could not find one instance when the Talmud calls ULB a Sabbath.
JPS Exodus 12:18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.
JPS Leviticus 23:5 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at dusk, is the LORD'S passover.
Talmud Book 3: Tracts Tracts Pesachim, Yomah and Hagiga CHAPTER V.
If the eve of Passover, however. fell on Friday, when the paschal lamb must be roasted before the Sabbath set in, the literal text of the passage in the Scriptures is abided by, and the daily offering is slaughtered as soon as the sun commences setting towards the west, i.e., half an hour after noon.
...
R. Eliezer says: "If the 14th (of Nissan) occurred on a Sabbath, one person would place his left hand on the right shoulder of another, the latter would place his right hand on the left shoulder of the former, and thus suspending the sacrifice on the arms would remove the skin with their right hands."
Tract Pesachim (Passover): Chapter V: Regulations Concerning the Sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb

CHAPTER VI.
"For," said R. Eliezer, "this is surely a logical sequence; if slaughtering an animal, which is prohibited on the Sabbath as being a principal act of labor, is allowed in this instance (of the Passover) and even supersedes the Sabbath, does it not follow that these two acts, which are only prohibited by rabbinical law, should also in this instance supersede the Sabbath?" R. Jehoshua answered and said: "The laws concerning the festival will prove the contrary; for many things prohibited on the Sabbath as being principal acts of labor are nevertheless permitted on the festival,

How can the Passover-sacrifice, however, be brought as an ordinary animal in the Temple on the Sabbath? It is not allowed to consecrate things on the Sabbath? This applies only to ordinary articles which were to be consecrated, but not to such as it was a duty to consecrate; for R. Johanan said, that Passover sacrifices may be consecrated on a Sabbath and a festival sacrifice on a festival.

Tract Pesachim (Passover): Chapter VI: Regulations Concerning Acts Which Supersede the Due Observance of the Sabbath; The Paschal Offering; What if One Sacrifice is Confounded with Another

MISHNA: If the fourteenth (of Nissan) fall on the Sabbath, all leaven must be removed
before the Sabbath commences. Such is the dictum of R. Meir; but the sages say that it should be done at the proper time. R. Elazer 1ben Zadok says: "The heave-offering must be removed before the Sabbath, and non-consecrated things at the proper time."

Tract Pesachim (Passover): Chapter III: Regulations Concerning Articles Which Cause Transgression of the Law Prohibiting Leaven to be Seen or Found in the House of an Israelite.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Junior Member
Aug 22, 2008
1,409
63
✟14,946.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hey I think you are getting it. Only when 1st ULB falls on a weekly Sabbath is it a "great day."

“Preparation Day was”, “the great day”, ONLY “because it was”,
(1, because John wrote it; and ONLY
(2, “because it was” the passover, historically.

It was not the Sabbath because historically, it was not. And it was not the Sabbath because John did not write, it was the Sabbath.

But John wrote of “the Preparation”, that it, “was”; and of “the Preparation”, that “the day was great of” it --of the Preparation Day.

John did not write, <<the Sabbath>> or ‘of the Sabbath’; he wrote, “of THAT sabbath”—“THAT sabbath” of the passover. It was “THIS THAT BONE-DAY” of the passover-“sabbath”. Leviticus 23:11,15,16.
 
Upvote 0

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Junior Member
Aug 22, 2008
1,409
63
✟14,946.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The disciples made ready the passover. This is blatant scripture, and there is no alternate interpretation that can be made for it.
Blatant Scripture is, "The disciples made ready the passover"; not, 'ate the passover'--your, <<alternate interpretation>>, that cannot be made for it.
 
Upvote 0

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Junior Member
Aug 22, 2008
1,409
63
✟14,946.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You said: "<<That next Day the 15th, the Feast of Unleavened Bread>>, "was great day of that sabbath ... since the Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath was going on."

What you have in quotes please provide the source, the scripture. Thanks

With pleasure, mam,
The source of this, dear lady, is you, here,
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-come-good-friday-is-only-two-days-from-easter-sunday.8004545/page-70#post-71280271#1383
And where I quoted you, first lady, was here,
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-come-good-friday-is-only-two-days-from-easter-sunday.8004545/page-70#1394
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
“Preparation Day was”, “the great day”, ONLY “because it was”,
(1, because John wrote it; and ONLY
(2, “because it was” the passover, historically.
It was not the Sabbath because historically, it was not. And it was not the Sabbath because John did not write, it was the Sabbath.
But John wrote of “the Preparation”, that it, “was”; and of “the Preparation”, that “the day was great of” it --of the Preparation Day.
John did not write, <<the Sabbath>> or ‘of the Sabbath’; he wrote, “of THAT sabbath”—“THAT sabbath” of the passover. It was “THIS THAT BONE-DAY” of the passover-“sabbath”. Leviticus 23:11,15,16.
There is no such thing as a bone day. The words bone and day do not occur in the same verse anywhere in the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation of the OT or the 225 BC LXX translation. If there was a "bone day" surely the native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars who translated these two versions would certainly have included it in their translations.
The Hebrew word עצם/etsem occurs 22 times in the OT. It is translated "bone" eleven times Here is the relevant definition from Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew lexicon.

H6106 עצם etsem
1) bone, essence, substance
1a) bone
1a1) body, limbs, members, external body
1b) bond (of animal)
1c) substance , self


 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
So to this Gentile layperson, what Western day of the week was Jesus crucified, Friday, or earlier? I would like to hear from everyone.

Simply say the day of the week, so I can understand when reading your long posts, which day you are talking about.

Thanks everybody!
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So to this Gentile layperson, what Western day of the week was Jesus crucified, Friday, or earlier? I would like to hear from everyone.
Simply say the day of the week, so I can understand when reading your long posts, which day you are talking about.
Thanks everybody!

Friday, See my discussion why in my [post #282] this thread.
 
Upvote 0

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Junior Member
Aug 22, 2008
1,409
63
✟14,946.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So to this Gentile layperson, what Western day of the week was Jesus crucified, Friday, or earlier? I would like to hear from everyone.
Simply say the day of the week, so I can understand when reading your long posts, which day you are talking about.
Thanks everybody!
"BEFORE the feast" John 19:1,2. "The feast" was the day from "evening the Preparation ... since the Preparation was / began" Mark 15:42 John 19:31 Luke 23:50 Matthew 27:57 until "That Day the Preparation ending the Sabbath nearing" Luke 23:54.

Therefore the day "BEFORE the feast...the Preparation".

Call it Thursday if you like. John called it "The Preparation-Day-of-the-Passover" Feast-day / sabbath which Feast-day-sabbath was on Firday "the Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath". John 19:14 Mark 15:42

.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Junior Member
Aug 22, 2008
1,409
63
✟14,946.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I see the logic in what you're saying. But there is also logic in the priests being especially anxious to get the bodies down before the sabbath since that sabbath was not only the sabbath, but also a high day in the festival week.

NO priests were involved in getting the bodies down! Down for what? The priests were only interested in getting Pilate so far as to get the crosses bodies and all taken away before daylight would advertise them to the world as emblems of Roman bondage on Freedom Day of the Jews.

Remarkable history that in 1948 David Ben Gurion proclaimed "That Day BONE Day" the national day of the sovereign State of Israel. Bitter irony! Israel-Juda FOREVER FORFEITED true independence and sovereignty "THAT DAY...the day of that passover-sabbath was great."
 
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

ImAHebrew

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
553
38
St. Louis, MO
Visit site
✟67,313.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I quoted Jewish sources. I could not find one instance when the Talmud calls ULB a Sabbath.
JPS Exodus 12:18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.
JPS Leviticus 23:5 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at dusk, is the LORD'S passover.
Talmud Book 3: Tracts Tracts Pesachim, Yomah and Hagiga CHAPTER V.
If the eve of Passover, however. fell on Friday, when the paschal lamb must be roasted before the Sabbath set in, the literal text of the passage in the Scriptures is abided by, and the daily offering is slaughtered as soon as the sun commences setting towards the west, i.e., half an hour after noon.
...
R. Eliezer says: "If the 14th (of Nissan) occurred on a Sabbath, one person would place his left hand on the right shoulder of another, the latter would place his right hand on the left shoulder of the former, and thus suspending the sacrifice on the arms would remove the skin with their right hands."
Tract Pesachim (Passover): Chapter V: Regulations Concerning the Sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb

CHAPTER VI.
"For," said R. Eliezer, "this is surely a logical sequence; if slaughtering an animal, which is prohibited on the Sabbath as being a principal act of labor, is allowed in this instance (of the Passover) and even supersedes the Sabbath, does it not follow that these two acts, which are only prohibited by rabbinical law, should also in this instance supersede the Sabbath?" R. Jehoshua answered and said: "The laws concerning the festival will prove the contrary; for many things prohibited on the Sabbath as being principal acts of labor are nevertheless permitted on the festival,

How can the Passover-sacrifice, however, be brought as an ordinary animal in the Temple on the Sabbath? It is not allowed to consecrate things on the Sabbath? This applies only to ordinary articles which were to be consecrated, but not to such as it was a duty to consecrate; for R. Johanan said, that Passover sacrifices may be consecrated on a Sabbath and a festival sacrifice on a festival.

Tract Pesachim (Passover): Chapter VI: Regulations Concerning Acts Which Supersede the Due Observance of the Sabbath; The Paschal Offering; What if One Sacrifice is Confounded with Another

MISHNA: If the fourteenth (of Nissan) fall on the Sabbath, all leaven must be removed
before the Sabbath commences. Such is the dictum of R. Meir; but the sages say that it should be done at the proper time. R. Elazer 1ben Zadok says: "The heave-offering must be removed before the Sabbath, and non-consecrated things at the proper time."

Tract Pesachim (Passover): Chapter III: Regulations Concerning Articles Which Cause Transgression of the Law Prohibiting Leaven to be Seen or Found in the House of an Israelite.
Shalom Der Alter, I was only commenting on the fact that you believe the 15th fell on the Sabbath, not the 14th.

How do you rectify what the commentators say about Luke 6:1. They almost all consider the 15th day of the 1st month to be a Sabbath in their explanations. Here is what they say:

Gill
"But what seems most likely is, that this sabbath was, as it may be rendered, 'the first sabbath after the second'; that is, the first sabbath after the second day of the passover, when the shear of the firstfruits was offered, and the harvest might be begun; which suits well with the ears of corn being ripe at this time, which the disciples rubbed.

JFB
Luke 6:1 1. second sabbath after the first—an obscure expression, occurring here only, generally understood to mean, the first sabbath after the second day of unleavened bread. The reasons cannot be stated here, nor is the opinion itself quite free from difficulty.

Poole
The Jews had several sabbaths; besides the seventh day sabbath, which was weekly, all their festival days were called sabbaths. On the fourteenth day of the first month, at evening, began the passover; on the fifteenth day began their feast of unleavened bread, which held seven days, every one of which was called a sabbath; but the first day and the seventh day were to be days of holy convocation, in which no work was to be done that was servile, Lev 23:7. Then they had their feast of first fruits. Fifty days after that they had their feast of pentecost. Some understand by the second sabbath after the first, the seventh day of the feast of unleavened bread. Others, their second great festival. It is very hard to resolve, and not material for us to know. For the history itself: See Poole on "Mat 12:1", and following verses to Mat 12:8.

Der Alter, how is it that these commentators can call the festival days "sabbaths," and you, along with the Apostle John cannot? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
"BEFORE the feast" John 19:1,2. "The feast" was the day from "evening the Preparation ... since the Preparation was / began" Mark 15:42 John 19:31 Luke 23:50 Matthew 27:57 until "That Day the Preparation ending the Sabbath nearing" Luke 23:54.

Therefore the day "BEFORE the feast...the Preparation".

Call it Thursday if you like. John called it "The Preparation-Day-of-the-Passover" Feast-day / sabbath which Feast-day-sabbath was on Firday "the Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath". John 19:14 Mark 15:42

.

Thank you, but all I needed was "Thursday."
 
Upvote 0

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Junior Member
Aug 22, 2008
1,409
63
✟14,946.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Shalom Der Alter, I was only commenting on the fact that you believe the 15th fell on the Sabbath, not the 14th.

How do you rectify what the commentators say about Luke 6:1. They almost all consider the 15th day of the 1st month to be a Sabbath in their explanations. Here is what they say:

Gill

JFB

Poole

Der Alter, how is it that these commentators can call the festival days "sabbaths," and you, along with the Apostle John cannot? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Refer
http://www.biblestudents.co.za/books/Book%203,%201,%202,%203.Pentecost.pdf
pp 193 to 198
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Shalom Der Alter, I was only commenting on the fact that you believe the 15th fell on the Sabbath, not the 14th.
How do you rectify what the commentators say about Luke 6:1. They almost all consider the 15th day of the 1st month to be a Sabbath in their explanations. Here is what they say:
Gill
JFB
Poole
Der Alter, how is it that these commentators can call the festival days "sabbaths," and you, along with the Apostle John cannot? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.
What part of the sources I posted do you not understand?
What historical evidence do these "commentators" provide to support their conclusion?
There is nothing to rectify with the scholars you posted.

Gill: "But what seems most likely is, that this sabbath was, as it may be rendered,;the first sabbath after the second day of the passover.
"Seems most likely" Speculation not a definitive statement. Also it does not say "the first Sabbath after the second Sabbath" but "the first sabbath after the second day of the passover."
JFB": an obscure expression, occurring here only, generally understood [by whom?] to mean, the first sabbath after the second day of unleavened bread. The reasons cannot be stated here, nor is the opinion itself quite free from difficulty.
"Obscure expression" "not quite free from difficulty." Not definitive.
Poole "Some understand [Who?] by the second sabbath after the first, the seventh day of the feast of unleavened bread. Others, [Who?] their second great festival. It is very hard to resolve, and not material for us to know. For the history itself:"
Two different opinions "very hard to resolve, and not material for us to know." Not definitive.
Matthew Henry
"This story here has a date, which we had not in the other evangelists; it was on the second sabbath after the first (Luk_6:1), that is, as Dr. Whitby thinks is pretty clear, the first sabbath after the second day of unleavened bread, from which day they reckoned the seven weeks to the feast of pentecost; the first of which they called Sabbaton deuteroprōton, the second deuterodeuteron, and so on."
 
Upvote 0

Jan001

Striving to win the prize...
Supporter
Oct 17, 2013
2,079
310
Midwest
✟101,789.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Shalom Jan001, thank you for the response. Most feel that the destruction of the temple in 70 ad is when the Old Covenant ended, and all I am saying is that IF the Jews rebuild the temple, will they not follow the Old Covenant in their worship, and if they will then the Old Covenant has not vanished away. But I feel that as long as sinners are sinning, the Old Covenant is still in effect for sinners, and has not vanished away. As long as we still have sinners, the Old Covenant is still in effect.

Jesus replaced the first covenant with His new covenant, but the Jews today believe that their first covenant (Law of Moses) is still in effect.

BUT, the fact is that the believing Jews (PETER. JAMES, JOHN, and thousands of other Jews) converted to Christianity (New Covenant) in the first century A.D. before the temple was destroyed. Therefore, the first covenant that pertained to the Jews is no longer in effect. The Jews today believe that they are still under the first covenant, but they are mistaken, and if these Jews ever begin to offer animal sacrifices to God, they will tremendously anger God. God sent His own Son to offer Himself as the perfect sacrifice 2000 years ago.

Concerning Acts 15:14 with James referencing what Peter had related to them, James is speaking about Acts 15:7, where Peter related how by HIS MOUTH the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles, I really doubt that Peter had spoken to Abraham. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written,
16 ‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will set it up,
17 that the rest of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name
,
18 says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.’ rsv
God personally visited the Gentiles two thousand years before Peter visited them and it was God who called out Abram out of the Gentiles (Semitic Hebrews) for Himself in order to make him (Abraham) the biological father of His Chosen People.

David was born a thousand years after Abraham. David's kingdom was in ruins when Jesus Christ was born. But, Jesus Christ, the new Davidic king, died as a ransom for all mankind.

Jesus Christ's death on the cross has made it possible for all peoples of all nations to become His disciples and His death has made it possible for all people to inherit eternal life. (Not everyone will become His disciple and not everyone will inherit eternal life.)

Peter preached to the Gentiles a thousand years after David died.

Acts 15:7-9
Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days (OF CHRISTIANITY) God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles (CORNELIUS WAS THE FIRST GENTILE TO HEAR PETER PREACH) should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us (JEWS) and them (GENTILES), but cleansed their hearts by faith. rsv​
 
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

Jan001

Striving to win the prize...
Supporter
Oct 17, 2013
2,079
310
Midwest
✟101,789.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Shalom Jan001, thank you again for responding. So then there should not have been any difference between Timothy and Titus. If one would be circumcised, then the other should have also, or if one did not get circumcised, then the other should not have been circumcised. You don't think Paul wanted Titus to accompany him the way he wanted Timothy to? Logically, the only difference between Timothy and Titus is the fact that Timothy would have been considered a Jew by birth, and Titus would have been considered a Gentile by birth, and Paul believed that Jews were to be circumcised, and Gentiles weren't (they had freedom). Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

You are correct. Neither Timothy nor Titus needed to be circumcised. Both were Christians.

Titus became a Christian when he heard Paul preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Titus accompanied Paul to Jerusalem to attend the Council in Jerusalem. However, Titus did not continue to accompany Paul after the Council in Jerusalem.

After the Council in Jerusalem, it was Timothy, not Titus, who went with Paul to preach the gospel to the Jews who still practiced Judaism.

The Jews who still practiced Judaism would not have accepted either Paul or Timothy in their midst if Timothy had not been circumcised. Both Paul and Timothy would have been shunned. Jews who practiced Judaism did not associate with uncircumcised men and Paul would have also been shunned because of his association with an uncircumcised man.
 
Upvote 0

Jan001

Striving to win the prize...
Supporter
Oct 17, 2013
2,079
310
Midwest
✟101,789.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Shalom Jan001, thank you again for responding. So then there should not have been any difference between Timothy and Titus. If one would be circumcised, then the other should have also, or if one did not get circumcised, then the other should not have been circumcised. You don't think Paul wanted Titus to accompany him the way he wanted Timothy to? Logically, the only difference between Timothy and Titus is the fact that Timothy would have been considered a Jew by birth, and Titus would have been considered a Gentile by birth, and Paul believed that Jews were to be circumcised, and Gentiles weren't (they had freedom). Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

Timothy's mother converted to Christianity before she married and so Timothy was born to Christian parents. All Christians are equal in dignity in the Body/Church of Jesus Christ. It is baptism which makes a male person a disciple of Jesus Christ. It is not circumcision which makes a male person a disciple of Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:19

Christian males are not ever circumcised for religious reasons. That is why Timothy was not circumcised. Timothy was born to parents who practiced Christianity, not to parents who practiced Judaism.
 
Upvote 0

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Junior Member
Aug 22, 2008
1,409
63
✟14,946.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I said before...

There were two moments or situations where time was of the essence during the three days of Jesus' Last Passover of Yahweh Suffering.

One, as the result of the darkness that was driven out by bright daylight and there was an earthquake "the ninth hour" when Jesus died and "everybody RUSHED AWAY breast-beating", FOR FEAR!

Two, After Pilate had given Joseph permission to have the body of Jesus after he on the Jews' request had sent soldiers to crush the bones of the crucified so that they would sooner die and their bodies and crosses could be taken away out of sight, and Joseph had to hurry to be in time to prevent Jesus' already dead body to be thrown away, and he could receive it for proper -passover- burial.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ImAHebrew

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
553
38
St. Louis, MO
Visit site
✟67,313.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Timothy's mother converted to Christianity before she married and so Timothy was born to Christian parents. All Christians are equal in dignity in the Body/Church of Jesus Christ. It is baptism which makes a male person a disciple of Jesus Christ. It is not circumcision which makes a male person a disciple of Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:19

Christian males are not ever circumcised for religious reasons. That is why Timothy was not circumcised. Timothy was born to parents who practiced Christianity, not to parents who practiced Judaism.
Shalom Jan001, I thought that Timothy was circumcised by Paul (Acts 16:3). Are you sure you have this correctly understood? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.
 
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

ImAHebrew

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
553
38
St. Louis, MO
Visit site
✟67,313.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What part of the sources I posted do you not understand?
What historical evidence do these "commentators" provide to support their conclusion?
There is nothing to rectify with the scholars you posted.

Gill: "But what seems most likely is, that this sabbath was, as it may be rendered,;the first sabbath after the second day of the passover.
"Seems most likely" Speculation not a definitive statement. Also it does not say "the first Sabbath after the second Sabbath" but "the first sabbath after the second day of the passover."
JFB": an obscure expression, occurring here only, generally understood [by whom?] to mean, the first sabbath after the second day of unleavened bread. The reasons cannot be stated here, nor is the opinion itself quite free from difficulty.
"Obscure expression" "not quite free from difficulty." Not definitive.
Poole "Some understand [Who?] by the second sabbath after the first, the seventh day of the feast of unleavened bread. Others, [Who?] their second great festival. It is very hard to resolve, and not material for us to know. For the history itself:"
Two different opinions "very hard to resolve, and not material for us to know." Not definitive.
Matthew Henry
"This story here has a date, which we had not in the other evangelists; it was on the second sabbath after the first (Luk_6:1), that is, as Dr. Whitby thinks is pretty clear, the first sabbath after the second day of unleavened bread, from which day they reckoned the seven weeks to the feast of pentecost; the first of which they called Sabbaton deuteroprōton, the second deuterodeuteron, and so on."
Shalom Der Alter, this is a real good post for someone who likes to follow after all of these "authorities." Their consensus was that the most reasonable explanation is that the 1st day of ULB was considered to be a Sabbath. I know, you always state that there is NO SCRIPTURE which "word for word" calls these days of "holy convocation" and these days of "rest" SABBATHS. So if you are not in agreement with them, what else is there for me to say? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.
 
Upvote 0