The Death and True Resurrection of Jesus.

[HARK!]

You need evidence and not inference.

I have enough evidence to support my supposition. You do not have enough evidence to prove your assertion.

1 Thessalonians 5:21

 

[klutedavid]

You said all of them. There are 4 Gospels. 4-1=3.

This is not proof of your assertion.

I will add the other three tomorrow. You need one account with the five days, that's all I ask for, just one account.

 

[klutedavid]

I have enough evidence to support my supposition. You do not have enough evidence to prove your assertion.

1 Thessalonians 5:21

You need a gospel account that actually states your gospel version.

 

[HARK!]

Your directly implying that I do not take Jesus at His word!

Don't confuse your inference with my implication.

 

[HARK!]

You need a gospel account that actually states your gospel version.

My Gospel version? What exactly does that mean?

 

[HARK!]

I will add the other three tomorrow.

It might take you a bit longer than that. Keep trying!

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The link that I asked you for. The link to the logical argument, that you have purported to have presented.

Evidence please.

I'm more than well aware of that. You have not presented a logical argument to me; nor have you provided a link to the relevant argument that you have purported to have made to another member.

More evidence please.

You gave me a bare assertion in absence of scripture to support that assertion

I'm still waiting for you to present the scripture to support your assertion. "Go read it," doesn't cut it. That's why I asked for a link.

This has been covered ad nauseam.

Argumentum ad populum doesn't cut it.

Do you have anything else?

I have provided enough evidence. No link, I just repeated it here for you. Argumentum ad populum does cut it when it happens to be true. You know full well which passage it is...you are just deflecting as usual when you don't like the evidence. That's fine...I can say 1+1=2 and you will keep with the "more evidence please" or "where is the link" or "you have not presented a logical argument" shtick...whatever...

 

[DamianWarS]

Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy,[1][13] specifically a fallacy of relevance,[14][15] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).[13][3][8] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people,[11] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.[11][16]

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

I know what it is but trying to discredit an argument by labelling it doesn't qualify the CVL or your interpretations. you may ignore every other translation and just sweep it under the rug muddling some Latin like "Argumentum ad populum" but that in itself is unsubstantiated and doesn't refute anything (just because it's the popular opinion doesn't mean it's wrong). if you want to say everyone else is wrong you need to substantiate your claims which you are failing to do and because of this I cannot take this claim seriously.

 

[HARK!]

I know what it is but trying to discredit an argument by labelling it doesn't qualify the CVL or your interpretations. you may ignore every other translation and just sweep it under the rug muddling some Latin like "Argumentum ad populum" but that in itself is unsubstantiated and doesn't refute anything (just because it's the popular opinion doesn't mean it's wrong). if you want to say everyone else is wrong you need to substantiate your claims which you are failing to do and because of this I cannot take this claim seriously.

I haven't ignored "every other translation." I've posted more than one translation. This discredits your claim of "every other translation." I've broken down the Greek, word for word, and explained that your translation adds words that aren't in the original text. However even if I hadn't done any of this; claiming that you are right, solely because you agree with the majority, is still a logical fallacy.

 

[HARK!]

I have provided enough evidence. No link, I just repeated it here for you. Argumentum ad populum does cut it when it happens to be true. You know full well which passage it is...you are just deflecting as usual when you don't like the evidence. That's fine...I can say 1+1=2 and you will keep with the "more evidence please" or "where is the link" or "you have not presented a logical argument" shtick...whatever...

Now you are presenting a strawman fallacy. You made a bare assertion fallacy that a particular chapter proved me wrong; but you failed to provide the verse. I read the chapter twice; and I found no such verse. I asked for the verse more than once; and you said that you had already posted it, to "go read it." I asked for a link to the post which you failed to provide. I'm willing to review your logical argument, if you will provide one. Bare assertions do not qualify as logical arguments.

 

[DamianWarS]

I haven't ignored "every other translation." I've posted more than one translation. This discredits your claim of "every other translation." I've broken down the Greek, word for word, and explained that your translation adds words that aren't in the original text. However even if I hadn't done any of this; claiming that you are right, solely because you agree with the majority, is still a logical fallacy.

YLT is not a good translation to use to support this idea (assuming that's what you're referring to as it's the only other translation you have made reference to). It is a word-for-word literal translation as best as possible and it tries to eliminate interpretation leaving that part to the reader. YLT requires study from the reader to understand its context. CLV however has applied it's own interpretation. YLT says "on the first of the sabbaths" which is a very literal reading of the text. CLV says "on one of the sabbaths" which is a very interpretative reading of the text. but both are missing information that the greek reveals.

Luke 24:1 uses the greek "mia" (one) as an adjective and this adjective is Genative-feminine-Plural. all greek adjectives agree with case, gender, and person to their head noun the problem is what is the head noun because it seems to be absent? it is the word "day" it is not in the text but it is implicit through the inflections as the Greek word for "day" is a feminine noun which agrees with the adjective also feminine. adjectives don't carry their own gender they inherit their gender (and case and number) from the head noun. So in Luke the Greek literally says "one [day] of the sabbaths. this means Sunday as Sunday was called "one Sabbath" and "sabbaths" (sabbaton) means week. If the text said two days of the sabbaths it would refer to monday and if it was three it would refer to tuesday. This is how they called the days of the week by their reference to the sabbath with the exception of Friday which was preparation day and they still do it this way in modern greek. Sunday has changed to the Lord's day but monday is day 2, tuesday day 3, etc..

the text cannot say "on one of the sabbaths" as the greek indicates an implied head noun. It must be on the "one [feminine noun] of the sabbaths. What is "sabbaths" then? is it week. the context of days and weeks are centred around the Sabbath so if you're counting 1 sabbaths, 2 sabbaths, 3 sabbaths you're counting weeks not isolated sabbath days. The text is calling out the one-day of the week (sabbaton) but it's not some random day it is one-day (not two-day or three-day but one-day) this is Sunday.

YLT can't help you. it doesn't support what the CLV is trying to inject.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Now you are presenting a strawman fallacy. You made a bare assertion fallacy that a particular chapter proved me wrong; but you failed to provide the verse. I read the chapter twice; and I found no such verse. I asked for the verse more than once; and you said that you had already posted it, to "go read it." I asked for a link to the post which you failed to provide. I'm willing to review your logical argument, if you will provide one. Bare assertions do not qualify as logical arguments.

Did you just take a debating class or just read a book on debating? "Strawman fallacy" and "bare assertion fallacy"! Wow, I am sure we are all very impressed! Flexing those debating terms on everyone LOL! What verse did you not find? You said you read it twice. The day the women went to the tomb was the 1st day of the week. It was on the same day, which was the 3rd day since the events occurred. Count back...no Wednesday crucifixion...very simple. See the logical argument...?

 

[Bro.T]

LOL all you want. There is no point in continuing after this.
If God had wanted 1st and 7th ULB to be called and observed as Sabbaths it would be clearly stated in scripture. Neither day is called a Sabbath anywhere in either treatment.
The fact that preparing and cooking food is specifically on 1/7 ULB separates them from the Sabbaths.
You are interjecting your assumptions/presuppositions t make scripture seems to support them.

Proverbs 3: 5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

 

[Bro.T]

What happens if the church tradition is true?That is an extremely long day you have there '1 day and 2 nights'.

Jesus in the tomb on the preparation day. Day 1

Jesus in the tomb on the Sabbath day. Day 2

Jesus in the tomb on Sunday night and rises before Mary arrives, Sunday morning. Day 3

Jesus in the tomb for three days and two nights.

We also know that Jesus rose on that third day and not after the third day and third night. This alone proves; that Jesus was not in the tomb for the full three days and nights.

As far as I am concerned, the scripture and church tradition together seals the deal.

In looking at the previous scriptures one should now have a better understanding, as to what took place. Jesus didn't rise Sunday night nor Sunday morning. Remember Mary did not come to the Grave site until the first day of the week which is Sunday, when it was yet. (John 20:1) "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher", And it was early in the morning and it was still dark. But Jesus had already risen. That's because Jesus went into His grave right before the end of the Passover or Wed. evening. The passing of the Passover brought in the Feast of the Unleavened Bread.

 

[Bro.T]

We do not need to! How many times do we have to keep telling you something?!?!?!?!?! You keep ignoring the timeline the eyewitnesses gave on the road to Emmaus...ignoring it is understandable since it proves your timeline wrong...

In looking at the previous scriptures one should now have a better understanding, as to what took place. Jesus didn't rise Sunday night nor Sunday morning. Remember Mary did not come to the Grave site until the first day of the week which is Sunday, when it was yet. (John 20:1) "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher", And it was early in the morning and it was still dark. But Jesus had already risen. That's because Jesus went into His grave right before the end of the Passover or Wed. evening. The passing of the Passover brought in the Feast of the Unleavened Bread.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

In looking at the previous scriptures one should now have a better understanding, as to what took place. Jesus didn't rise Sunday night nor Sunday morning. Remember Mary did not come to the Grave site until the first day of the week which is Sunday, when it was yet. (John 20:1) "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher", And it was early in the morning and it was still dark. But Jesus had already risen. That's because Jesus went into His grave right before the end of the Passover or Wed. evening. The passing of the Passover brought in the Feast of the Unleavened Bread.

How many times do we have to keep telling you something?!?!?!?!?! You keep ignoring the timeline the eyewitnesses gave on the road to Emmaus...ignoring it is understandable since it proves your timeline wrong...

 

[Der Alte]

Proverbs 3: 5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

This applies to you not me.
If God had wanted to designate 1st and last day of unleavened bread, Sabbaths, He would have done so.
But God did not designate 1st and 7th ULB as Sabbaths.
God specifically stated that preparing and cooking food was permitted on 1st/7th ULB.
Preparing/cooking of food is specifically prohibited on the Sabbath.
Thus nobody has the scriptural authority designate 1st/7th ULB as Sabbaths.

Numbers 15:32-35
32 While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day.
33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly,
34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him.
35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp."​

 

[HARK!]

This is how they called the days of the week by their reference to the sabbath with the exception of Friday which was preparation day and they still do it this way in modern greek.

If that is the modern day understanding of these three words; can you explain why when I type μια των σαββατων. into Google Translate, it yields "one of the Saturdays?"

https://translate.google.com/?sl=auto&tl=en&text=μια των σαββατων&op=translate

 

[HARK!]

Did you just take a debating class or just read a book on debating? "Strawman fallacy" and "bare assertion fallacy"! Wow, I am sure we are all very impressed! Flexing those debating terms on everyone LOL! What verse did you not find? You said you read it twice. The day the women went to the tomb was the 1st day of the week. It was on the same day, which was the 3rd day since the events occurred. Count back...no Wednesday crucifixion...very simple. See the logical argument...?

This isn't about winning a debate. I'm sorry if you see it that way. This is about truth. Pointing out your flawed logical arguments should be a learning experience for you, my friend.

"I'm right because I said so" isn't a valid argument.

I'm speaking of your assertion regarding the Road to Emmaus.

I've read that chapter twice now; and I don't see a reference to the day. I've asked you repeatedly to provide the verse that points out the day. See post #525.

I won't ask again.

 

[prodromos]

If that is the modern day understanding of these three words; can you explain why when I type μια των σαββατων. into Google Translate, it yields "one of the Saturdays?"

https://translate.google.com/?sl=auto&tl=en&text=μια των σαββατων&op=translate

Google translate is very limited. It also doesn't translate idioms.
It's pretty obvious you don't know Greek and you are definitely not a qualified translator, yet here you are. What incredible hubris!