Easter

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,020
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.


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?
_

There is nothing silly about demanding the Bible not be altered to fit a doctrine.

Pentecost was at the time to celebrate the Passover, a very important historical event in the Bible. It was not to celebrate Easter, an event invented by Catholicism 300 years later.

Neither Catholicism or Easter existed in biblical times.

It remains a holiday taken from the ancient worship of Ishtar.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
19,090
2,880
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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
No - I copied it from a "Jews for Jesus" article. Besides - I've already conceded this point because I don't have the book that was referenced - so your point is moot.

NOW - are you FINALLY going to address Mark's timeline - or are you simply going to continue to RUN as you have in your last 3 posts??
You have YET to address the following:
- 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.

You ALSO ignored the other 2 rabbinic sources I presented in post #30:
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 Christ based on the Jewish idiom of "Three Days and Three Nights" that YOU reject:
Three days and three nights?

Waiting
for your response . . .
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
9,720
1,404
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Neither Catholicism or Easter existed in biblical times.

It remains a holiday taken from the ancient worship of Ishtar.

Neither Mormonism or Protestantism or your beliefs existed in biblical times sooo your point is????....o_O

Easter is the celebration of Christ rising from the dead sooooo how did it not exist in biblical times.....o_O

Some people have inferred that “Easter” is the English derivation of the Greek “Astarte,” but there is no linguistic or historical basis for this. In addition, the English word Easter is said to have derived from an Anglo-Saxon pagan goddess named Eostre. This theory was based on an incorrect conclusion by St. Bede the Venerable about the etymological origins of the English month that coincides with spring and the celebration of Easter, “Eosturmonath.” But, as Anthony McRoy, a fellow of the British Society for Middle East Studies, notes, there is no historical basis for this derivation. He notes that St. Bede himself said that his conclusion was based on his interpretation rather than a generally held position or proven fact.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
19,090
2,880
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Neither Catholicism or Easter existed in biblical times.
It remains a holiday taken from the ancient worship of Ishtar.
I already schooled you on another thread about your idiotic notions regarding "Ishtar" worship and Easter. However - since you are a glutton for punishment - I'll teach you again . . .

Only ignorant people who believe that the entire world speaks ENGLISH would make up an asinine argument like this "Ishtar/Easter" nonsense.

NOT all Christians refer to the Feast of the Resurrection "Easter". Byzantine Christians use the Greek term Pascha, a transliteration of the Hebrew word Pesach, or Passover. Pascha is also the name of this feast in Latin, the official language of the Roman Rite. The Romance languages reflect this usage; the Italian word Pasqua, the French Paques and the Spanish Pascua each derive from Pascha, and ultimately from Pesach.

Some philologists (historical linguists) say that Easter comes from the word "east", referring to the rising of the sun, a metaphor for the Resurrection of Christ (see Malachi 4:2).

The Dictionary of Bible and Religion indicates another possible origin:
"Recent studies seem to indicate that Easter may be derived from the Latin phrase hebdomada alba, the old term for Easter week based upon the wearing of white robes by the newly baptized. The octave of Easter, the following week, was known as post albas, the time when the white robes were put away....Easter may thus mean "white" and be named from early Christian baptismal practices."
{"Easter", The Dictionary of Bible and Religion, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1986) 287}

As for Easter eggs being some "pagan fertility" symbol - again, this is based on an abject ignorance of Church history.

In the early centuries of the Church, during Lent - the 40 days prior to Easter Sunday - fasting and abstinence were MUCH more rigorous than today. ALL dairy product and eggs were to be avoided during this period. On Easter, eggs were colored Red, which is the traditional Liturgical color of the Lent and Pentecost.

It's NO WONDER your own forum died and you had to come here.
Do your HOMEWORK . . .
 

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,020
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Neither Mormonism or Protestantism or your beliefs existed in biblical times sooo your point is????....o_O

Easter is the celebration of Christ rising from the dead sooooo how did it not exist in biblical times.....o_O

Some people have inferred that “Easter” is the English derivation of the Greek “Astarte,” but there is no linguistic or historical basis for this. In addition, the English word Easter is said to have derived from an Anglo-Saxon pagan goddess named Eostre. This theory was based on an incorrect conclusion by St. Bede the Venerable about the etymological origins of the English month that coincides with spring and the celebration of Easter, “Eosturmonath.” But, as Anthony McRoy, a fellow of the British Society for Middle East Studies, notes, there is no historical basis for this derivation. He notes that St. Bede himself said that his conclusion was based on his interpretation rather than a generally held position or proven fact.

Catholicism claims Eastern did exist at the time.

The first time Easter was celebrated was 320 A.D.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
9,720
1,404
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
19,090
2,880
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Catholicism claims Eastern did exist at the time.
The first time Easter was celebrated was 320 A.D.
Can you show me documented historical proof for this claim?

While you're at it - can you tell me why there was the Quartodeciman controversy in the 2nd century regarding the celebration of Easter. A controversy that was settled by Pope Victor 1 (circa 191 AD)??

Can't WAIT to read your response . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
19,090
2,880
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is nothing silly about demanding the Bible not be altered to fit a doctrine.
Neither Catholicism or Easter existed in biblical times.
Wanna BET??

Acts 9:31 talks about how the Early Church grew throughout the region. The language used here describes the Catholic Church:
“Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and thus was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the church increased in numbers.”

According to Strong’s Greek Concordance which is used by Protestants AND Catholics alike – the verse is translated as:
“The true Church throughout all Judea . . .”

Here is the phrase in Greek:
η μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ ολης της ιουδαιας


The Catholic Church gets its name from the GREEK for “according to the whole” and “universal” - εκκλησια καθ ολης, which is pronounced “katah-holos”.

Εκκλησια (ekklesia) - A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly; CHURCH
καθ (katah) - Through out, according to
ολης (holos) - All, whole, completely

"Ekklesia Kata-holos"
= CATHOLIC CHURCH
 

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,020
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your 320 AD time frame is a 130 years off. Let me help you out by teaching you your own Christian history which you refuse to study:

NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Wanna BET??

Acts 9:31 talks about how the Early Church grew throughout the region. The language used here describes the Catholic Church:
“Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and thus was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the church increased in numbers.”

According to Strong’s Greek Concordance which is used by Protestants AND Catholics alike – the verse is translated as:
“The true Church throughout all Judea . . .”

Here is the phrase in Greek:
η μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ ολης της ιουδαιας


The Catholic Church gets its name from the GREEK for “according to the whole” and “universal” - εκκλησια καθ ολης, which is pronounced “katah-holos”.

Εκκλησια (ekklesia) - A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly; CHURCH
καθ (katah) - Through out, according to
ολης (holos) - All, whole, completely

"Ekklesia Kata-holos"
= CATHOLIC CHURCH

Except for your and statement claim none of that says Catholic Church.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
19,090
2,880
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Except for your and statement claim none of that says Catholic Church.
WRONG.
I gave you the phrase in Greek - AND the translation:
η μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ ολης της ιουδαιας

It says: "Catholic Church".
 

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,020
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
WRONG.
I gave you the phrase in Greek - AND the translation:
η μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ ολης της ιουδαιας

It says: "Catholic Church".

Catholic Church there does not mean the Catholic Church you mean.

It means all the born-again by the Holy Spirit after the resurrection.

You mean all those who claim to be Christian under the authority of the Pope.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
19,090
2,880
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Catholic Church there does not mean the Catholic Church you mean.
It means all the born-again by the Holy Spirit after the resurrection.
You mean all those who claim to be Christian under the authority of the Pope.
"Catholic Church" means what it means. It is the Universal Church of Christ.

It was ALWAYS the Catholic Church. Your Protestants broke away some 1500 years later and formed your splinters (denominations) of that ONE Catholic Church.

The fruit of that is tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects - ALL teaching different doctrines and ALL claiming that they were "led" by the Holy Spirit.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
9,720
1,404
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Except for your and statement claim none of that says Catholic Church.
Got it....You can't refute what I provided: Documented historical evidence that your 320AD THEORY is wrong.

Instead you make another childish statement....How sad for you:(

mary
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,840
2,503
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No - I copied it from a "Jews for Jesus" article. Besides - I've already conceded this point because I don't have the book that was referenced - so your point is moot.


Ok... I will allow you to concede. Too bad for me because even in the statement you copied the are so many problems and errors that it would've been fun to go through them.

You ALSO ignored the other 2 rabbinic sources I presented in post #30:
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.

Well ok. Let's do it! "From targumim & Abraham In Ezra". How well do you understand that reference? I admit, I had no understanding, but I have the ability to research and figure things out. Now, at this point (before you start googling the words) do you understand it?

This is not one reference, but two references that have a link. Not a strong link, but the link is there.

The Targumim (singular for "Targum") was a spoken translation of the Hebrew scripture. It was a translation from Hebrew to another language. It's date is around the 1st century BC. Aramaic was becoming the dominant language replacing Hebrew in the Hebrew community. So it was necessary to translate. According to my reference, it was illegal to actually write it down. But, it happened. The source also alledges that such readings became more than merely translations, but turned into sermons. I have no doubt about that, given human nature.

Targum - Wikipedia

Yes, I know this is all boring, but it's necessary in making my point. HERE IS THE POINT: Targumim was a necessary "evil". It cannot be considered accurate beyond what it's purpose.

Now, about Abraham Ibn Ezra. Died around 1167 AD. He was a Jewish Bible commentator. Not a Rabbi. Sounds like an interesting chap and someone to put on my reading list.

Apparently he wrote a commentary on the Book of Esther. In that commentary, he concluded that the fast in chapter 4 was really only 2 days. I have not read the actual commentary (have you, BOL?) so I don't know the reason why he believes the way he did.

The two are connected because there is a possibility that his commentary was based on one of them bootleg copies of the Targumim.

There are just too many red flags here to take this seriously at this time. I actually downloaded a Targumim on Esther... Read chapter 4 and 5. 3 days and 3 nights remained in the text. There is absolutely no reason to believe the fast was only 2 days.

So BOL, if you can produce what AIE actually said and the version of Targumim he was commenting on (and mind you.. he wasn't commenting on actual Hebrew text but on a translation) then I will consider whether this is proof.

In the mean time, it is worthy of investigation but no... It is not a rabbinic reference as neither Targumim nor AIE are rabbi's or rabbinic references.

Frankly, if I were you... I would concede this one too.

Later I will deal with your other reference. I know you are itching for me to talk about Mark's account. In time I will. But you can help expedite that by not throwing so many garbage references my way.
 

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,020
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Maybe you should rely on your "concrete evidence" theory....;)
Ok... I will allow you to concede. Too bad for me because even in the statement you copied the are so many problems and errors that it would've been fun to go through them.



Well ok. Let's do it! "From targumim & Abraham In Ezra". How well do you understand that reference? I admit, I had no understanding, but I have the ability to research and figure things out. Now, at this point (before you start googling the words) do you understand it?

This is not one reference, but two references that have a link. Not a strong link, but the link is there.

The Targumim (singular for "Targum") was a spoken translation of the Hebrew scripture. It was a translation from Hebrew to another language. It's date is around the 1st century BC. Aramaic was becoming the dominant language replacing Hebrew in the Hebrew community. So it was necessary to translate. According to my reference, it was illegal to actually write it down. But, it happened. The source also alledges that such readings became more than merely translations, but turned into sermons. I have no doubt about that, given human nature.

Targum - Wikipedia

Yes, I know this is all boring, but it's necessary in making my point. HERE IS THE POINT: Targumim was a necessary "evil". It cannot be considered accurate beyond what it's purpose.

Now, about Abraham Ibn Ezra. Died around 1167 AD. He was a Jewish Bible commentator. Not a Rabbi. Sounds like an interesting chap and someone to put on my reading list.

Apparently he wrote a commentary on the Book of Esther. In that commentary, he concluded that the fast in chapter 4 was really only 2 days. I have not read the actual commentary (have you, BOL?) so I don't know the reason why he believes the way he did.

The two are connected because there is a possibility that his commentary was based on one of them bootleg copies of the Targumim.

There are just too many red flags here to take this seriously at this time. I actually downloaded a Targumim on Esther... Read chapter 4 and 5. 3 days and 3 nights remained in the text. There is absolutely no reason to believe the fast was only 2 days.

So BOL, if you can produce what AIE actually said and the version of Targumim he was commenting on (and mind you.. he wasn't commenting on actual Hebrew text but on a translation) then I will consider whether this is proof.

In the mean time, it is worthy of investigation but no... It is not a rabbinic reference as neither Targumim nor AIE are rabbi's or rabbinic references.

Frankly, if I were you... I would concede this one too.

Later I will deal with your other reference. I know you are itching for me to talk about Mark's account. In time I will. But you can help expedite that by not throwing so many garbage references my way.

Citing modern Judaism as the authoritative source of interpreting the Old Testament is beyond belief.

They reject Christ, Trinity, born-again and a lot of other things central to Christianity and the Bible.

A lot of them believe Israel is Messiah. That the suffering of the nation provides forgiveness of sin.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
19,090
2,880
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ok... I will allow you to concede. Too bad for me because even in the statement you copied the are so many problems and errors that it would've been fun to go through them.
Well ok. Let's do it! "From targumim & Abraham In Ezra". How well do you understand that reference? I admit, I had no understanding, but I have the ability to research and figure things out. Now, at this point (before you start googling the words) do you understand it?

This is not one reference, but two references that have a link. Not a strong link, but the link is there.

The Targumim (singular for "Targum") was a spoken translation of the Hebrew scripture. It was a translation from Hebrew to another language. It's date is around the 1st century BC. Aramaic was becoming the dominant language replacing Hebrew in the Hebrew community. So it was necessary to translate. According to my reference, it was illegal to actually write it down. But, it happened. The source also alledges that such readings became more than merely translations, but turned into sermons. I have no doubt about that, given human nature.
Targum - Wikipedia
Yes, I know this is all boring, but it's necessary in making my point. HERE IS THE POINT: Targumim was a necessary "evil". It cannot be considered accurate beyond what it's purpose.

Now, about Abraham Ibn Ezra. Died around 1167 AD. He was a Jewish Bible commentator. Not a Rabbi. Sounds like an interesting chap and someone to put on my reading list.

Apparently he wrote a commentary on the Book of Esther. In that commentary, he concluded that the fast in chapter 4 was really only 2 days. I have not read the actual commentary (have you, BOL?) so I don't know the reason why he believes the way he did.

The two are connected because there is a possibility that his commentary was based on one of them bootleg copies of the Targumim.

There are just too many red flags here to take this seriously at this time. I actually downloaded a Targumim on Esther... Read chapter 4 and 5. 3 days and 3 nights remained in the text. There is absolutely no reason to believe the fast was only 2 days.

So BOL, if you can produce what AIE actually said and the version of Targumim he was commenting on (and mind you.. he wasn't commenting on actual Hebrew text but on a translation) then I will consider whether this is proof.

In the mean time, it is worthy of investigation but no... It is not a rabbinic reference as neither Targumim nor AIE are rabbi's or rabbinic references.

Frankly, if I were you... I would concede this one too.

Later I will deal with your other reference. I know you are itching for me to talk about Mark's account. In time I will. But you can help expedite that by not throwing so many garbage references my way.
First of all - you have it backwards.
"Targumim" is the PLURAL of "Targum".

Secondly - this IS a valid source because, as your wikipedia link states:
"Today, the common meaning of targum is a written Aramaic translation of the Bible."

YOU keep referring to a 21st century rabbi as your "ultimate proof" - so I can use the written Targum. Therefore - my reference to it still stands.

For further rabbinic proof of the Jewish idiom regarding "three days and three nights" (onahs) - I give you the the Babylonian Talmud. This is as authoritative a source as you will find. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, tenth in the descent from Ezra was very specific:
“A day and a night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it” [J.Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and b.Talmud, Pesahim 4a].

As for Abraham Ibn Ezra - he wasn't just a "Jewish Bible commentator". He is regarded in Jewish circles throughout history as a "MASTER" Torah commentator- one of the most important and influential.

Placing your opinions and those of your obscure 21st century rabbinic source over a giant like Abraham Ibn Ezra is as comical as pitting your high school science teacher against Albert Einstein . . .

Finally - This is about the FOURTH or FIFTH time I've had to ask you this, but - are you EVER going to address Mark's timeline to "prove" your flawed theories about the Crucifixion, Burial and Resurrection of our Lord??

Here is is again for your review . . .
- 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.
 

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
5,243
1,866
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Here is is again for your review . . .
- 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.

Jesus was on His way up to Jerusalem from Jericho on the afternoon of Friday. He arrived at Bethany around the time that the sun set, at the beginning of the Sabbath Day of worship.
After the sun had set on Saturday Jesus rode an ass into Jerusalem, whet into the Temple and then returned back to Bethany. The next day he went into the Temple once more to teach.

Jesus arrived six day before the Passover at Bethany at the very start of the Sabbath Day. The Passover was on the Friday and Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation on the Thursday. He was taken down and put into the Tomb at the beginning of the Sabbath Day of the Passover on the Friday.

Whatever you may present, we have to consider all of the information presented in all four gospels to arrive at when Christ was crucified.

Shalom
 
  • Like
Reactions: FHII

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,840
2,503
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Secondly - this IS a valid source because, as your wikipedia link states:
"Today, the common meaning of targum is a written Aramaic translation of the Bible."
Yes, TODAY. Today it's is referred to as a WRITTEN Aramaic translation. Today it is accepted, back then it wasn't. Back then it was forbidden. Now have you actually read what he wrote or are you cutting and pasting again?

For further rabbinic proof of the Jewish idiom regarding "three days and three nights" (onahs) - I give you the the Babylonian Talmud. This is as authoritative a source as you will find. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, tenth in the descent from Ezra was very specific:
“A day and a night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it” [J.Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and b.Talmud, Pesahim 4a].
Haha! Yeah... Sure! Why don't you tell us all what he was referring to! Explain this quote in context!

Finally - This is about the FOURTH or FIFTH time I've had to ask you this, but - are you EVER going to address Mark's timeline to "prove" your flawed theories about the Crucifixion, Burial and Resurrection of our Lord??
I will give you a full Biblical timeline once you stop throwing all these garbage references at me.

I seriously doubt you've read any of them. You are just cutting and pasting without researching them.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
19,090
2,880
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jesus was on His way up to Jerusalem from Jericho on the afternoon of Friday. He arrived at Bethany around the time that the sun set, at the beginning of the Sabbath Day of worship.
After the sun had set on Saturday Jesus rode an ass into Jerusalem, whet into the Temple and then returned back to Bethany. The next day he went into the Temple once more to teach.

Jesus arrived six day before the Passover at Bethany at the very start of the Sabbath Day. The Passover was on the Friday and Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation on the Thursday. He was taken down and put into the Tomb at the beginning of the Sabbath Day of the Passover on the Friday.

Whatever you may present, we have to consider all of the information presented in all four gospels to arrive at when Christ was crucified.

Shalom
Sorry - but you misrepresented Mark's timeline.
Read the LAST part of my last post:
"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."

It all starts on a SUNDAY - not a Friday.