Crucifixion Dating of Jesus Christ

[prodromos]

Therefore, the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th were the weekly sabbath days.

This is a false assumption on your part. Everything else you claim is wrong because it is based on this assumption.

 

[cfposter]

This is a false assumption on your part. Everything else you claim is wrong because it is based on this assumption.

It would first have to be an assumption before it could be a false assumption.

The Hebrew Sabbath (i.e. Creation Sabbath) was originally a Sabbathon…it was celebrated at intervals of seven days, corresponding with the changes in the moon’s phases. Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1899, p. 4180.

 

[JSRG]

It would first have to be an assumption before it could be a false assumption.

The Hebrew Sabbath (i.e. Creation Sabbath) was originally a Sabbathon…it was celebrated at intervals of seven days, corresponding with the changes in the moon’s phases. Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1899, p. 4180.

I looked this up. Let's read this in more context (this is from volume 4 of Encyclopaedia Biblica, by the way). Note that the quotation differs a little from what's actually said; the "i.e. Creation Sabbath" is not in the article, and it also changes "corresponding with changes in the moon's phases" to "corresponding with the changes in the moon's phases". The latter isn't a change in meaning, but it is odd it happens. Anyway, here's it with some more context, and I've helpfully bolded the quoted portions:

"Jensen is cautious and reserved on the question of a Babylonian origin of the Sabbath, which, however, Gunken (Schöpf. 14) and Jastrow (op. cit.) expressly affirm. The bridge which Gunkel fails to construct between the Babylonian atonement-Sabbath and the Hebrew rest-Sabbath, Jastrow endeavours to point out. He remarks that the Heb. Sabbathon does in fact, like the Bab. sabbatum, convey the idea of propitiation or appeasement of the divine anger, and he is of opinion that the Hebrew Sabbath was originally a Sabbathon–i.e., a day of propitiation and appeasement, marked by atoning rites. At this state of development it was celebrated at intervals of seven days, corresponding with changes in the moon's phases, and was identical in character with the four days in each month (7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th) that the Babylonians regarded as days which had to be converted into days of propitiation. There were also, however, sabbathon days, such as the New Year's Day, the Day of Atonement, the first and eighth days of the annual pilgrimage to the chief sanctuary.

The introduction, in consequence of profound changes in religious conceptions among the Hebrews, of the custom of celebrating the Sabbath every seventh day, irrespective of the relationship of the day to the moon's phases, led to a complete separation from the ancient view of the Sabbath, whilst the introduction, at a still later period, of the doctrine that the divine work of creation was completed in six days removed the Hebrew Sabbath still further from the point at which the development of the corresponding Babylonian institution ceased. Hence the position of the Sabbath in the Priestly Code. The field, however, is still open for further investigation."

As you hold up this as apparently authoritative enough that simply quoting from it is sufficient, do you agree with the related assertions your source makes that the Sabbath did not begin as a day of rest among the Hebrews, but was rather a holy day of propitiation among the Babylonians that the Hebrews took and changed into a rest day? Or that (after the Hebrews later on changed it from the Babylonian timing to instead be once every 7 days) they came up with the "creation week" in Genesis to justify it after the fact?

In fact, even if the above claims of the article was true (and note the article clearly identifies this as a theory, not hard fact), it actually eviscerates your argument. First, it explicitly states that the days were the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th, but you based your own claim on the premise it was the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th. Second, it explicitly says that "the custom of celebrating the Sabbath every seventh day" predates "the introduction, at a still later period, of the doctrine that the divine work of creation was completed in six days." In other words, this shift occurred prior to the writing of the Book of Genesis. And the writing of the Book of Genesis was pretty clearly done prior to the time of the New Testament. In other words, your own source asserts that long prior to the New Testament period, Jews were having a Sabbath every 7 days, which would mean they were doing so in the New Testament.

 

[prodromos]

I looked this up. Let's read this in more context (this is from volume 4 of Encyclopaedia Biblica, by the way). Note that the quotation differs a little from what's actually said; the "i.e. Creation Sabbath" is not in the article, and it also changes "corresponding with changes in the moon's phases" to "corresponding with the changes in the moon's phases". The latter isn't a change in meaning, but it is odd it happens. Anyway, here's it with some more context, and I've helpfully bolded the quoted portions:

"Jensen is cautious and reserved on the question of a Babylonian origin of the Sabbath, which, however, Gunken (Schöpf. 14) and Jastrow (op. cit.) expressly affirm. The bridge which Gunkel fails to construct between the Babylonian atonement-Sabbath and the Hebrew rest-Sabbath, Jastrow endeavours to point out. He remarks that the Heb. Sabbathon does in fact, like the Bab. sabbatum, convey the idea of propitiation or appeasement of the divine anger, and he is of opinion that the Hebrew Sabbath was originally a Sabbathon–i.e., a day of propitiation and appeasement, marked by atoning rites. At this state of development it was celebrated at intervals of seven days, corresponding with changes in the moon's phases, and was identical in character with the four days in each month (7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th) that the Babylonians regarded as days which had to be converted into days of propitiation. There were also, however, sabbathon days, such as the New Year's Day, the Day of Atonement, the first and eighth days of the annual pilgrimage to the chief sanctuary.

The introduction, in consequence of profound changes in religious conceptions among the Hebrews, of the custom of celebrating the Sabbath every seventh day, irrespective of the relationship of the day to the moon's phases, led to a complete separation from the ancient view of the Sabbath, whilst the introduction, at a still later period, of the doctrine that the divine work of creation was completed in six days removed the Hebrew Sabbath still further from the point at which the development of the corresponding Babylonian institution ceased. Hence the position of the Sabbath in the Priestly Code. The field, however, is still open for further investigation."

As you hold up this as apparently authoritative enough that simply quoting from it is sufficient, do you agree with the related assertions your source makes that the Sabbath did not begin as a day of rest among the Hebrews, but was rather a holy day of propitiation among the Babylonians that the Hebrews took and changed into a rest day? Or that (after the Hebrews later on changed it from the Babylonian timing to instead be once every 7 days) they came up with the "creation week" in Genesis to justify it after the fact?

In fact, even if the above claims of the article was true (and note the article clearly identifies this as a theory, not hard fact), it actually eviscerates your argument. First, it explicitly states that the days were the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th, but you based your own claim on the premise it was the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th. Second, it explicitly says that "the custom of celebrating the Sabbath every seventh day" predates "the introduction, at a still later period, of the doctrine that the divine work of creation was completed in six days." In other words, this shift occurred prior to the writing of the Book of Genesis. And the writing of the Book of Genesis was pretty clearly done prior to the time of the New Testament. In other words, your own source asserts that long prior to the New Testament period, Jews were having a Sabbath every 7 days, which would mean they were doing so in the New Testament.

As soon as I saw the ellipsis in the text he quoted, I didn't consider it worth paying any further attention.

 

[cfposter]

I looked this up. Let's read this in more context (this is from volume 4 of Encyclopaedia Biblica, by the way). Note that the quotation differs a little from what's actually said; the "i.e. Creation Sabbath" is not in the article, and it also changes "corresponding with changes in the moon's phases" to "corresponding with the changes in the moon's phases". The latter isn't a change in meaning, but it is odd it happens. Anyway, here's it with some more context, and I've helpfully bolded the quoted portions:

"Jensen is cautious and reserved on the question of a Babylonian origin of the Sabbath, which, however, Gunken (Schöpf. 14) and Jastrow (op. cit.) expressly affirm. The bridge which Gunkel fails to construct between the Babylonian atonement-Sabbath and the Hebrew rest-Sabbath, Jastrow endeavours to point out. He remarks that the Heb. Sabbathon does in fact, like the Bab. sabbatum, convey the idea of propitiation or appeasement of the divine anger, and he is of opinion that the Hebrew Sabbath was originally a Sabbathon–i.e., a day of propitiation and appeasement, marked by atoning rites. At this state of development it was celebrated at intervals of seven days, corresponding with changes in the moon's phases, and was identical in character with the four days in each month (7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th) that the Babylonians regarded as days which had to be converted into days of propitiation. There were also, however, sabbathon days, such as the New Year's Day, the Day of Atonement, the first and eighth days of the annual pilgrimage to the chief sanctuary.

The introduction, in consequence of profound changes in religious conceptions among the Hebrews, of the custom of celebrating the Sabbath every seventh day, irrespective of the relationship of the day to the moon's phases, led to a complete separation from the ancient view of the Sabbath, whilst the introduction, at a still later period, of the doctrine that the divine work of creation was completed in six days removed the Hebrew Sabbath still further from the point at which the development of the corresponding Babylonian institution ceased. Hence the position of the Sabbath in the Priestly Code. The field, however, is still open for further investigation."

As you hold up this as apparently authoritative enough that simply quoting from it is sufficient, do you agree with the related assertions your source makes that the Sabbath did not begin as a day of rest among the Hebrews, but was rather a holy day of propitiation among the Babylonians that the Hebrews took and changed into a rest day? Or that (after the Hebrews later on changed it from the Babylonian timing to instead be once every 7 days) they came up with the "creation week" in Genesis to justify it after the fact?

In fact, even if the above claims of the article was true (and note the article clearly identifies this as a theory, not hard fact), it actually eviscerates your argument. First, it explicitly states that the days were the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th, but you based your own claim on the premise it was the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th. Second, it explicitly says that "the custom of celebrating the Sabbath every seventh day" predates "the introduction, at a still later period, of the doctrine that the divine work of creation was completed in six days." In other words, this shift occurred prior to the writing of the Book of Genesis. And the writing of the Book of Genesis was pretty clearly done prior to the time of the New Testament. In other words, your own source asserts that long prior to the New Testament period, Jews were having a Sabbath every 7 days, which would mean they were doing so in the New Testament.

Very good observations and I'm glad your digging into this. Because TRUTH matters. But to this, the article presents that Jastrow is stating what can only be seen as a presumed fact which was that the Sabbath was observed by the phases of the moon at the time. But the rest of the context is presenting Jastrow's "opinion". I put opinion in quotes because the article explicitly states it as

As to the days of the week mentioned 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th, those are as referenced by Jastrow to the Babylonians specifically here (see below where I quoted in bold). But in the same manner the Hebrews also observed the weeks according to the phases of the moon. The Babylonians started their month at the first sliver of the moon while the Hebrew started their first week at the first sliver of the moon.

At this stage of development it was celebrated at intervals of seven days, corresponding with changes in the moon's phases, and was identical in character with the four days in each month ( 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th) that the Babylonians regarded as days which had to be converted into days of propitiation.

Also, concerning the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th days, while the Hebrews did observe the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th as Sabbaths of the month, in the course of sabbath weeks these will still be the 7th 14th, 21st, and 28th days. Why? you may ask. The answer is because the New Moon was not counted in the WEEKS of the year as laid forth in the lunar cycles. Therefore, a solar year only had 49 weekly Sabbaths.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

That's so historically and Biblically incorrect, I don't even know where to begin refuting it. I suppose we can start with the fact that he rose from the dead on the first day of the week, the day you say he was crucified, which all the gospels unanimously agree was the third day since he was crucified. If you can provide a competent answer to that particular inconsistency, maybe we'll discuss this further.

Also, I was pretty specific in stating that, "Jesus died on a Friday. Anyone who wants to dispute that . . . answer to the first paragraph above before wasting any time arguing." That first paragraph was this:


Unless you have an answer to this, the crucifixion didn't occur on the 14th. The gospels are clear on that point, and I won't argue it.

Pesakh is on the 14th. Chag HaMatzot is on the 15th. There is your answer. The lambs were killed on the 14th.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

You're not understanding because you believe that the Jews followed a solar based calendar. They actually followed a Lunar based calendar. The month was based on the lunar cycle. Therefore, the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th were the weekly sabbath days.

From the above, you can see that the 15th is a Sabbath day. Therefore, this means the Feast of Unleavened Bread which occurs on the 15th of the first month is ALWAYS a High Sabbath Day. The preparation day is the day before (14th).

Next you have to understand that the Feast of Unleavened bread and the Passover are TYPES meant to teach us and not a replacement for the actual things they represent. Therefore, while the Jews would have observed those days strictly to the dates, the Christians did not. They observed them according to a Spiritual lens of those feast days. They don't need to sacrifice a Lamb today for example.

The moon was a type of this for the Jewish Feast. For the feast was to be observed when the light was not overtaken by darkness for seven days. (Refer to the The Paschal Canon; fragments by Anatolius of Alexandria).

Now since the year and its equinox (springing forth) had come, Jesus and His disciples need not wait to observe it. For they had the TRUE Light with them in Christ.

So with the above it should be understood that in 31 AD this happened. This means that the Spring Equinox occurred right at the 4th day of the Lunar week which was the 12th of the month. Therefore, the 5th day of the week was the 13th, the 6th day was the 14th.

This also aligns with 31 AD as being the first year of 40 years in the destruction of the Temple which was finally completed by the Romans in 70 AD. So from 31 AD to 70 AD are 40 years inclusive. We know of the Veil being rent at the Crucifixion. But Jewish sages recorded much more to show that the Temple was no longer the place of service to Him for those 40 years.

Not true at all. Rosh Chodesh used the moon and other things but NOT the weekly Sabbath. Otherwise you WILL break the weekly continuous cycle.

 

[cfposter]

Not true at all. Rosh Chodesh used the moon and other things but NOT the weekly Sabbath. Otherwise you WILL break the weekly continuous cycle.

The weekly continuous cycle was based on the lunar weeks nothing was broken because it was based on the lunar cycle. There was always 49 lunar weeks in a solar year. BTW, there is NOT always 52 weeks in the modern solar fixed year.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The weekly continuous cycle was based on the lunar weeks nothing was broken because it was based on the lunar cycle. There was always 49 lunar weeks in a solar year. BTW, there is NOT always 52 weeks in the modern solar fixed year.

A lunar sabbath is false...simple as that.

 

[cfposter]

A lunar sabbath is false...simple as that.

Shall we wait your exegesis on that?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Shall we wait your exegesis on that?

Very easily done and I have done it numerous times. Go search my posts. i mean Judaism itself refutes it.

 

[cfposter]

Very easily done and I have done it numerous times. Go search my posts. i mean Judaism itself refutes it.

I'm not going to search your posts. I don't have time for that. If you don't have time to support your position in this current discussion then you will be at a disadvantage. And no Judaism doesn't refute - on the contrary they observed them according to their 24 courses of the Priests serving twice a year.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I'm not going to search your posts. I don't have time for that. If you don't have time to support your position in this current discussion then you will be at a disadvantage. And no Judaism doesn't refute - on the contrary they observed them according to their 24 courses of the Priests serving twice a year.

Of course you won't because I have already refuted you previously lol! Judaism absolutely refutes you. There is no such thing within Judaism as the weekly lunar Sabbath. Creation week proves you wrong too...and you know it.