The Death and True Resurrection of Jesus.

HARK! said:

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

This is not proof of your assertion.

Click to expand...

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

HARK! said:

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

1 Thessalonians 5:21

Click to expand...

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

HARK! said:

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?

Click to expand...

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...

HARK! said:

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

Click to expand...

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! said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

HARK! said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Bro.T said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

HARK! said:

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

Click to expand...

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!