Easter

[BreadOfLife]

Well then rustle up two more and let's see what they have to say! While we are at it we can ask them if Jewish fasts that are called for 3 days and 3 nights can include partial days. That's what Ester called for. I don't think you are going to win that point.

If you want to go to true apostolic tradition (the gospels) I am game!

You bring to the table "it's common knowledge it's an idiom". When did any Apostle say that or any theologian in the 1st century? The earliest date I can find is between 1546 and 1555. I, on the other hand, brought to the table a Rabbi. I would think he may know something about HIS history and HIS traditions and HIS idioms.

You want to say he is just a 21st century quarterback who is espousing his own opinions, then so be it. At least I brought something beyond "common knowledge" which hasn't been proved.

Never said they did. I am not saying they didn't either. But I am saying that it is wrong.

"True" Apostolic Tradition encompasses only the "Gospels"??
WHO told you that?? Certainly NOT the Bible.

The Bible itself defies Apostolic Tradition as everything the Apostles taught WHETHER BY an oral statement - OR BY a letter of theirs (2 Thess. 2:15). Whoever told you it was "just" the Gospels LIED to you.

As for Esther's request for a fast from the people - this was NOT an "official" Jewish fast based on the Law - but a prayerful request. According to the Senior Researcher (Rich Robinson) at "Jews For Jesus", it states that this time frame does NOT necessarily mean 3 24-hour periods.

According to Jewish Christian scholar David Baron of "Messianicgoodnews.org":
"The expression, “three days and three nights,” is an Old Testament idiom carried over into the New Testament, and means not necessarily three whole days and three whole nights, but in round numbers a period of about three days."

"According to Jewish law, part of the day stands for the whole, for “if a day has been once entered in, even for a few minutes, the whole twenty-four hours were reckoned to the person who had so entered on the day.” If a child is born in the last hour or even in the last few minutes of a day, it is counted as a whole day of the period of the time within which he must be circumcised."

So, there you have it - 2 eminent Protestant scholars and 2 Jewish scholars to YOUR 1 Rabbi.

 

[FHII]

True" Apostolic Tradition encompasses only the "Gospels"??
WHO told you that?? Certainly NOT the Bible.

The Bible itself defies Apostolic Tradition as everything the Apostles taught WHETHER BY an oral statement - OR BY a letter of theirs (2 Thess. 2:15). Whoever told you it was "just" the Gospels LIED to you

Well when you can produce evidence that the apostles taught that Jesus wascrucified on Friday and/or 3 days and 3 nights means anything else but 3 full days and 3 full night's, get back to me.

people - this was NOT an "official" Jewish fast based on the Law - but a prayerful request. According to the Senior Researcher (Rich Robinson) at "Jews For Jesus", it states that this time frame does NOT necessarily mean 3 24-hour periods.

Fine. So what? Can you show me anywhere that a fast wasn't 3 full days or nights when it was called for? No, you can't.

According to Jewish Christian scholar David Baron of "Messianicgoodnews.org":

I could not find a name of who authored that, but I don't discount that it may have been written by David Baron. But I can assure you that David Baron is not affiliated with messianicgoodnews.org.

At least not the David Baron who died in 1926 and converted to Christianity.

According to Jewish law, part of the day stands for the whole, for “if a day has been once entered in, even for a few minutes, the whole twenty-four hours were reckoned to the person who had so entered on the day

This was addressed. If you say "a day" it may be an idiom. It you say a day and a night, it's no longer an idiom. Furthermore, ypur whole idiom theory falls apart because it wasn't even partial 3 days and 3 nights.

So, there you have it - 2 eminent Protestant scholars and 2 Jewish scholars to YOUR 1 Rabbi.

I didn't ask for such. I asked for 2 Rabbis. I was asking for two folks who we're practicing Jews who had a sense of history of their culture.

The bottom line is that there is absolutely no proof that a Jewish fast is nothing less than what the prescribed time says. That eliminates your Ester reference.

You have failed to produce a Rabbi... And I know you searched for one. What you produced was a Jewish convert to Christian mythology. If you want to go to the Bible then.... I am game! Because I don't need idiom arguements to prove that a Friday crucifixion is impossible.

 

[FHII]

So, there you have it - 2 eminent Protestant scholars and 2 Jewish scholars to YOUR 1 Rabbi.

By the way... You only gave 2 references in your post, yet you say you gave a total of 4? I see Rich Robinson and David Baron. 1+1=2.

Being able to actually count to at least 3 is important for this topic. I'm just saying...

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well when you can produce evidence that the apostles taught that Jesus wascrucified on Friday and/or 3 days and 3 nights means anything else but 3 full days and 3 full night's, get back to me.
Fine. So what? Can you show me anywhere that a fast wasn't 3 full days or nights when it was called for? No, you can't.

I could not find a name of who authored that, but I don't discount that it may have been written by David Baron. But I can assure you that David Baron is not affiliated with messianicgoodnews.org.

At least not the David Baron who died in 1926 and converted to Christianity.

This was addressed. If you say "a day" it may be an idiom. It you say a day and a night, it's no longer an idiom. Furthermore, ypur whole idiom theory falls apart because it wasn't even partial 3 days and 3 nights.

I didn't ask for such. I asked for 2 Rabbis. I was asking for two folks who we're practicing Jews who had a sense of history of their culture.

The bottom line is that there is absolutely no proof that a Jewish fast is nothing less than what the prescribed time says. That eliminates your Ester reference.

You have failed to produce a Rabbi... And I know you searched for one. What you produced was a Jewish convert to Christian mythology. If you want to go to the Bible then.... I am game! Because I don't need idiom arguements to prove that a Friday crucifixion is impossible.

Regarding the fast that Esther called for - she herself approached the King PRIOR to the fact's completion. The day had not yet ended, nor had the night. She approached him ON the 3rd day - not AFTER.

As for more Rabbinic evidence regarding the Jewish idiom about "3 days and 3 nights" . . .
From the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), edited by Gerhard Kittel, under "DAY":
"The difficulty has often been advanced that there is a discrepancy between the ['on the third day'] of Matthew, Luke, and Paul and the usual ['after three days'] of Mark. But in this connection it has to be remembered that difficulties always arise in the reckoning of days according to Jewish usage. Thus 'in Halachic statements PART of a day is reckoned as a WHOLE day' [Footnote has RABBINIC SOURCE Str-B I,649 and the original Hebrew 'part of a day counts as a whole day' e.g. bNazir 5b; Pes 4,2]

". . . and already in the first century A.D. we read: 'A day and a night constitute a -onah- ([Hebrew for] a full day), and part of a -onah- counts as a whole -onah-' (jShab 12a,15,17).

READ it and weep . . .

Finally – you have to completely ignore Mark’s Gospel to arrive at your perverted outcome:
- Day 1 (Mark 10:32) "They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem..."
- Day 2 (Mark 11:12) "On the following day..."
- Day 3 (Mark 11:20) "The next morning as they passed by the fig tree..."
- Day 4 (Mark 14:1) "Two days before the Passover..."
- Day 5 (Mark 14:12) "On the first day of Unleavened Bread..."
- Day 6 (Mark 15:1) "As soon as it was morning..." (This is the day of the crucifixion)
- Day 7 (not mentioned) (This is the Sabbath)
- Day 8 (Mark 16:1) "When the sabbath was over..."

There is no way to squeeze six consecutive non-sabbath days into the week without the final one being a Friday, This puts Palm Sunday on a Sunday, the Crucifixion on a Friday, and the Resurrection on the next Sunday.

Case CLOSED.

 

[BreadOfLife]

By the way... You only gave 2 references in your post, yet you say you gave a total of 4? I see Rich Robinson and David Baron. 1+1=2.

Being able to actually count to at least 3 is important for this topic. I'm just saying...

WRONG again.

2 Protestant scholars in post #13 - and 2 Jewish scholars in post #21.
2+2 =4.

Get back to me when you learn how to count . . .

 

[Webers_Home]

.

when you can produce evidence that 3 days means anything else but 3 full
days

There exists quite a bit of textual material testifying that Jesus Christ's crucified
dead body was restored to life during the third day rather than later when
the whole day was over and done with.

● Matt 17:22-23 . . Jesus said unto them: The Son of man shall be betrayed
into the hands of men: and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be
raised again.

● Mark 9:31 . . He taught his disciples, and said unto them: The Son of man
is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he
is killed, he shall rise the third day.

● Luke 9:22 . .The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by
the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and
on the third day be raised to life.

● Luke 24:21-23 . .We trusted that it had been he which should have
redeemed Israel: and beside all this, today is the third day since these
things were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us
astonished, which were early at the sepulcher; and when they found not his
body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which
said that he was alive.

● Luke 24:46 . . He said unto them: Thus it is written, and thus it behooved
Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day

● Acts 10:40 . . God raised him up the third day

● 1Cor 15:4 . . he rose again the third day
_

 

[FHII]

The Bible itself defies Apostolic Tradition as everything the Apostles taught WHETHER BY an oral statement - OR BY a letter of theirs (2 Thess. 2:15). Whoever told you it was "just" the Gospels LIED to you.

I see a major typo there!!! Least I hope so.

I have quite a bit to say about what you wrote. For now, I will keep it short and easy:

[Footnote has RABBINIC SOURCE Str-B I,649 and the original Hebrew 'part of a day counts as a whole day' e.g. bNazir 5b; Pes 4,2]

Really? Ok. Give me his name. Quote the footnote.

jShab 12a,15,17).

Is this another rabbinic reference. Great! What's his name?

 

[FHII]

WRONG again.

2 Protestant scholars in post #13 - and 2 Jewish scholars in post #21.
2+2 =4.

Get back to me when you learn how to count . . .

How many did you give me?

 

[FHII]

There exists quite a bit of textual material testifying that Jesus Christ's crucified
dead body was restored to life during the third day rather than later when
the whole day was over and done with.

What we have to realize is that the Gospels never give a near exact time Jesus rose. All 4 gospels give a near exact time when it was discovered that he was no longer in the tomb. In other words, when it was discovered he was no longer in the tomb is NOT the same as when he left.

Unfortunately, the different accounts have about a 12 hour difference. Matthew ways it was as the Sabbath was ending. Another says it was at sunrise.

But there is something they have in common: he was already risen when they approached the tomb.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I see a major typo there!!! Least I hope so.
I have quite a bit to say about what you wrote. For now, I will keep it short and easy:

It was a typo: "Defines"

The Bible itself "defines" Apostolic Tradition as everything the Apostles taught WHETHER BY an oral statement - OR BY a letter of theirs (2 Thess. 2:15). Whoever told you it was "just" the Gospels LIED to you.

At any rate - YOUR claim that "true" Apostolic Tradition is found ONLY the Gospels is a load of rubbish.

Really? Ok. Give me his name. Quote the footnote.
Is this another rabbinic reference. Great! What's his name?

In Esther 4:16, she asks for people to pray for her for three days and three nights.

According to traditional rabbinical interpretation (from targumim & Abraham Ibn Ezra) is that her words meant prayer for “two” days, with the event itself happening during the third day.

Also - the following article is from Joseph Hoffman Cohen, DD - son of the founder of "The Chosen People Ministeries", Rabbi Leopold Cohen. It is a clear Rabbinic defense of the Friday Crucifixion - Sunday Resurrection of Chroist based on the Jewish idiom of "Three Days and Three Nights" that YOU reject:
http://www.messianicgoodnews.org/three-days-and-three-nights/

Finally - you have YET to address the timeline from Mark’s Gospel:
- Day 1 (Mark 10:32) "They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem..."
- Day 2 (Mark 11:12) "On the following day..."
- Day 3 (Mark 11:20) "The next morning as they passed by the fig tree..."
- Day 4 (Mark 14:1) "Two days before the Passover..."
- Day 5 (Mark 14:12) "On the first day of Unleavened Bread..."
- Day 6 (Mark 15:1) "As soon as it was morning..." (This is the day of the crucifixion)
- Day 7 (not mentioned) (This is the Sabbath)
- Day 8 (Mark 16:1) "When the sabbath was over..."

There is no way to squeeze six consecutive non-sabbath days into the week without the final one being a Friday, This puts Palm Sunday on a Sunday, the Crucifixion on a Friday, and the Resurrection on the next Sunday.

 

[BreadOfLife]

How many did you give me?

I already told you:

2 Protestant scholars in post #13 - and 2 Jewish scholars in post #21.
2+2 =4.

 

[FHII]

It was a typo: "Defines"

The Bible itself "defines" Apostolic Tradition as everything the Apostles taught WHETHER BY an oral statement - OR BY a letter of theirs (2 Thess. 2:15). Whoever told you it was "just" the Gospels LIED to you.

At any rate - YOUR claim that "true" Apostolic Tradition is found ONLY the Gospels is a load of rubbish.

I was a pretty funny typo

I never made such claims, by the way. I simply challenged you to look at the gospels. They prove by themselves that a Friday crucificixion is false and nothing else the Apostles say changes that.

In Esther 4:16, she asks for people to pray for her for three days and three nights.

According to traditional rabbinical interpretation (from targumim & Abraham Ibn Ezra) is that her words meant prayer for “two” days, with the event itself happening during the third day.

No... I asked you for a name or to quote the footnote. I didn't ask you for another reference. Can you give me a name for the reference or can you quote the footnote?

We can discuss new business once we settle the old. So.. give your references to this Gerhard Kittel reference.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Matthew ways it was as the Sabbath was ending.

Apparently the Greek for "in the end" is a bit ambiguous. The NKJV, the NIV,
the NAS, the NASV, the ESV, the RSV, the Catholic Bible, and even the Jehovah's
Witness Bible; all translate it "after the sabbath".
_

 

[marksman]

.


Most everyone the world over knows that Easter commemorates Jesus
Christ's resurrection; but the thing that needs to be told over and over again
is that without it, his crucifixion would've been futile.

● 1Cor 15:17 . . If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are
still in your sins.

Let me explain.

● Rom 4:25 . . He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to
life for our justification.

The first half of that verse speaks of Isa 53:6

"We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way;
and The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

The second half of Rom 4:25 speaks of "justification" which is translated
from the Greek word dikaiosis (dik-ah'-yo-sis) which means acquittal;
defined as an adjudication of innocence.

In other words; it's by means of Christ's resurrection that people can get
their records spoken of in Rev 20:11-15 cleared so that on the books it's as
though they've never been anything but 100% innocent.

Were I the Devil, the one component of Christianity that I would make my
mission in life to invalidate is Christ's resurrection because it is by means of
belief in his resurrection that hell-bound people have the opportunity to
obtain an acquittal. Failure to believe it will result in losing their one
God-given chance to wipe the books; and thus they'll remain on a sure-fire
path to the sum of all fears.
_

doesn't alter the fact that Ester is not mentioned in the bible.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

doesn't alter the fact that Ester is not mentioned in the bible.

This all may seem like just another Jane Austin book club bull session to
you, but make no mistake; there is only one last breath between you and
your worst nightmare if you fail to accept that Jesus Christ's crucified dead
body was restored to life.

● 1Cor 15:1-4 . . Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I
preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which
also you are saved if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless
you believed in vain.

. . . For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was buried,
and that He was raised on the third day according to the scriptures,

Have you heard the expression fiddling while Rome burns? It means to
major on a minor while neglecting a higher priority. And then there's the red
herring; which is a distraction from something far more important. And
jousting windmills; which means to engage an imaginary enemy. And there's
making a mountain out of a mole hill, and a tempest in a tea cup.

Now if you go on making an issue out of something as silly as a missing
word in the Bible, then you'll be at risk of finding yourself at the dirty end of
the stick down the road. Do you really want that?
_

 

[BreadOfLife]

I was a pretty funny typo
I never made such claims, by the way. I simply challenged you to look at the gospels. They prove by themselves that a Friday crucificixion is false and nothing else the Apostles say changes that.

Ummmmm, first of all - you DID make the claim that the Gospels were the "TRUE" Apostolic Tradition back in post #20:
"If you want to go to true apostolic tradition (the gospels) I am game!"
Your denial of it now is a LIE that can be easily fact-checked by going back to that post . . .

As for the Gospels proving the "falsehood" of a Friday Crucifixion - actually, they don't when you read them in CONTEXT. Context is ALWAYS a problem to people like YOU who try to find fault with Scripture.

You STILL haven't addressed the timeline in the GOSPEL of Mark:
- Day 1 (Mark 10:32) "They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem..."
- Day 2 (Mark 11:12) "On the following day..."
- Day 3 (Mark 11:20) "The next morning as they passed by the fig tree..."
- Day 4 (Mark 14:1) "Two days before the Passover..."
- Day 5 (Mark 14:12) "On the first day of Unleavened Bread..."
- Day 6 (Mark 15:1) "As soon as it was morning..." (This is the day of the crucifixion)
- Day 7 (not mentioned) (This is the Sabbath)
- Day 8 (Mark 16:1) "When the sabbath was over..."

There is no way to squeeze six consecutive non-sabbath days into the week without the final one being a Friday, This puts Palm Sunday on a Sunday, the Crucifixion on a Friday, and the Resurrection on the next Sunday.

No... I asked you for a name or to quote the footnote. I didn't ask you for another reference. Can you give me a name for the reference or can you quote the footnote?
We can discuss new business once we settle the old. So.. give your references to this Gerhard Kittel reference.

I'll have to concede that I don't have the book and the online source doesn't list the actual reference source. It only lists the reference code. I'll have to leave it you to either trust the published source code or not.

In any case - I gave you TWO more Jewish rabbinic sources in post #30.

 

[FHII]

I'll have to concede that I don't have the book and the online source doesn't list the actual reference source. It only lists the reference code. I'll have to leave it you to either trust the published source code or not.

Yea... You didn't even read it. In fact, you copied and pasted that response from another forum. Furthermore, the person you copied it from also copied and pasted it from another source. You really should research what you copy and paste a little bit. More on that later

 

[Marymog]

Nice cut and paste but the word or idea of Easter is not found in scripture.

The "idea" for Christmas and wedding celebration's are not in Scripture either but we have the "idea" on how to celebrate them. It's called tradition!

2 Thessalonians 2:15

Bible study Mary

 

[Marymog]

If you want to go to true apostolic tradition (the gospels) I am game!

Hi FHII,

Apostolic Tradition would be any tradition AFTER the Apostles. Tradition doesn't begin WITH the Apostles, it begins with the men that the Apostles taught by word of mouth or letter: 2 Timothy 2:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna would be the best examples since they carried on Apostolic Traditions. Read their writings and you have TRUE apostolic tradition!!

Bible study and Historical Mary

 

[FHII]

Hi FHII,

Apostolic Tradition would be any tradition AFTER the Apostles. Tradition doesn't begin WITH the Apostles, it begins with the men that the Apostles taught by word of mouth or letter: 2 Timothy 2:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna would be the best examples since they carried on Apostolic Traditions. Read their writings and you have TRUE apostolic tradition!!

Bible study and Historical Mary

Ok, thanks