More on the Day of Crucifixion Part 5
David Lee
the topic of which day of the week the crucifixion took place.
David Lee
------------------------------
HUNTER
ALSO, Dave Lee, *if* I am to believe the *traditional* view of a
Friday
Crucifixion, heck, we have EVEN another major problem; Christ broke
the Law.
Bet you never saw this one coming.
DAVE
I guess Dave Steiger is so caught up with himself and his bible
knowledge it
never occurred to him that I have heard all this crap before. I have
been
there, done that. It gets rather old. Yes Dave S. I am aware of the
"problem" associated with this Jesus "breaking the law". Really, do
you
actually believe I have never encountered anyone such as yourself
before?
HUNTER
*IF* we accept Dave Lee's Friday Crucifixion story, that means that
Christ
ate the Passover meal on the regular day of the Passover, then the
journey
from Jericho to Bethany, which occurred SIX DAYS before the Passover
(John
12:1), would fall on, (of all things!), a Saturday, that is, the
Jewish
Sabbath. Unless, of course, Dave Lee is going to give us another
lesson in
Jewish Sabbaths. Clearly, Christ's journey would have been against
the Law,
and that just can't be possible!
DAVE
This is one of the many "discrepancies" in the Bible. The fact that
Jesus
broke the law does NOT disprove the Friday crucifixion. The Friday
crucifixion must be argued on its own merits. I am NOT a believer in
bible
inerrancy so I do not have a problem with this dating scheme. YOU, on
the
other hand, are a BELIEVER and it is YOU who believes there are no
errors or
gaffes in the Bible. You think if there is a problem with Jesus riding
into
Bethany from Jericho on the Sabbath that would disprove the Friday
crucifixion. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Now YOU have stated a problem in the text. I agree there IS
a problem. Now if you want to convince me there isn't a problem
you will need to convince me there was a Wednesday
crucifixion. Guess what? You can't do it! You can beg the question of
biblical inerrancy and claim that if Jesus was crucified on a Friday
then we
have a problem with a little trip he made six days earlier. Heck, so
what?
That is not to say that Friday believers have "explained" the
discrepancy. I
may not agree with their "explanations" but there is a problem here.
You
think if you can show me a problem I will just roll over and say "Damn
Steiger! Jesus couldn't have been crucified on a Friday because then
he
would have broken the Sabbath six days earlier!"
No, I see the gospel writers agree that Jesus died on a Friday and
raised
from the dead on the third day. Whether that creates a conflict
somewhere
else is immaterial. Now if you are willing, we can both agree there
are
"errors" in the Bible and I will have no problem with that! I mean,
after
all, since the writers were not inerrant, maybe they got the
crucifixion day
wrong as well, huh? If you want to go that route, I will accept that!
I will
concede the writers made a mistake and we cannot determine on which
day
Jesus died. After all, if John made an error like that, why should I
accept
his word that Jesus died on a Friday, huh?
Dave (earlier)
Sunday would be the *fifth* day since Wednesday according to first
century
Jewish usage.
HUNTER
Uh, Dave? Are you a Jew and holding out on us, or what?
DAVE
Surprising coming from you since you have tried to tell me how Jews
decided
which days were Sabbaths and such. Why is it okay for Steiger to say
the
Jews did such and such but damn! IF Lee does it then he "must be a Jew
holding out on us?" Then you tried to tell us how David Lee was wrong
to
tell us how Jews reckoned days...in other words, Steiger *knows* but
Lee
doesn't! But Lee has the evidence on his side. Steiger has the claims
and
the bark, but not the bite.
Dave (earlier)
>Unlike modern day Americans sometimes do, the Jews
>counted the first day in the series, as well as the last, even if a
small
>portion of the day was involved on either end.
HUNTER
According to Dave Lee, the Bible is now reduced to chit chat the way
we all
talk around here in these here parts, y'all...
DAVE
You did not attempt to refute what I said so I will take it that you
can't.
All you can do is try to be cute but you cannot refute what I wrote
above.
Go ahead, prove me wrong.
Dave (earlier)
>According to the text, Jesus died about three hours before sunset on
Nisan
14, which would be the first day.
HUNTER
Great, now you're on to something, watch what happens when you start
doing
the math...
>The next day would be the second day
Nope, the next day, AT sunset, would, in FACT, be *A* day, day one.
DAVE
BUZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong answer! The day of his death would be the *first
day*.
Deal with it. One of my earlier posts showed how the Jews reckoned the
third
day. Now at least I have offered something to back up my assertions.
You
need to back up yours.
Go ahead, big guy, offer your evidence that the day that followed
would be
day one. HINT: You CAN"T do it.
HUNTER (quoting Dave)
>and Nisan 16 would be the third day.
Sorry, wrongo. That day would be, AT sunset, day 2.
DAVE
Sorry, wrongo. Nisan 16 would be the "third day". Don't just say Nisan
16
would be day 2. Offer your evidence. I have shown in an earlier post
several
verses that clearly showed that the "third day" was the "day after
tomorrow"
of an event or "two days later". Let Steiger show a verse where the
"third
day" of an event is three days past the day the event happened.
HUNTER
And then..., whoops, no day three! Wow, very good, Dave, 1 + 1 = 3!!
DAVE
Steiger's MATH... day 1 is 0 ! day 2 is 1 ! day 3 is 2! and day 4 is
3!
Ergo, 4=3!!!!! Good form!
HUNTER (quoting Dave)
>The scriptures clearly teach Jesus died the day before the "Sabbath"
>(Mark 15:42) which was elsewhere referred to as the Sabbath day
"according
>to the commandment" (Luke 23:54-56).
HUNTER
Yep, now you're back on track. The 'High Day', of John 19:31, which
is the
day spoken of in Exodus 12:16, Leviticus 23:1-7, and Numbers 28:18,
yep,
you're doing fine at the moment...(quotes more Dave)..
>No Gospel writer shows any knowledge of "another Sabbath" other than
the
weekly Sabbath. John refers to the Sabbaths a "MegaSabbath" (John
19:31),
HUNTER continues...
BINGO! YES, that's our day, that's the day of Exodus 12:16. Now
you're
cooking!
>which makes perfect sense since John
>believed that the Sabbath day that followed the crucifixion was also
one of
>the Jewish festival days.
Just below you are going to *tell* me that John took the 'Crucifixion'
and
the 'Sabbath', put them together. and thus considered it to be a
"MegaSabbath". This is your story, have I got that right...?
DAVE
Wrong again! The crucifixion occurred on Nisan 14, not Nisan 15. So
how
could John take the crucifixion, and splice it with the Sabbath? What
I said
is John took the weekly Sabbath and spliced it with Nisan 15. Now that
is a
"MegaSabbath!"
HUNTER
You want me to believe that John somehow 'combined' these
two events, and this is why he calls it a 'MegaSabbath'? Please
correct me if I don't have that right, as I can hardly believe my
eyes as I read it. Want to know why...? Okay, let's see.
DAVE
You do not read very well. Perhaps it was late. What I said is this:
John
believed that the Sabbath day occurred on the same day of a important
Jewish
feast day. That was, for the Jews, a big Sabbath!
HUNTER
"John believed..."? Really, you mean the same 'John' that Luke JUST
had
said the following about...?
DAVE
The same John! Really HUNTER, read what I wrote in context:
"No gospel writer shows any knowledge of "another Sabbath" other than
the
weekly Sabbath. John refers to the Sabbath as a "MegaSabbath" (John
19:31), which makes perfect sense since John also *believed*".....in
WHAT?....The Resurrection? The deity of Christ?....NO! Rather, "John
also
believed that the Sabbath which followed the crucifixion was"...THE
DAY
CHRIST WOULD RISE?...NO!..."was also one of the Jewish FESTIVAL DAYS!"
Now
how in the hell HUNTER can come up with the BULLSHIT below is beyond
me. He
must have been half asleep when he wrote that.
HUNTER writes
(Christ speaking to the 12 just a week before Crucifixion...)
Luke 18:33-34
"And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day
he
shall rise again.
"And they (the 12) understood NONE of these things: and this saying
was HID
from them, NEITHER knew they the things which were spoken."
Sorry, Dave Lee, but you don't know your Bible.
DAVE
Sorry Steiger, not only do you not know the bible, you are a poor
reader who
totally misrepresents what I said. I never claimed that John believed
in
anything but that the day that followed the crucifixion was a Jewish
Festival Day. Do you DENY this?
HUNTER
These guys didn't have a
clue, even as little as a WEEK before, after spending three and a half
years
in the greatest Bible school, under the GREATEST Teacher, and this is
by
their OWN admission, but you're going to tell me that ol' John
*did*...?
Please, you'll need to do better!
DAVE
As I have shown, you misrepresent what I said. I hope you are man
enough to
admit it.
HUNTER
You're putting words into John's mouth that he isn't saying, and it
contradicts what they even thought was going to happen anyway.
DAVE
You are claiming then that John did NOT believe that the day that
followed
the crucifixion was a Jewish Festival? PLEASE!
HUNTER
Read the words of Peter, and then Christ's retort...
Matthew 16:21-23
"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that
he
must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief
priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
"Then
Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee,
Lord:
this SHALL NOT be unto thee.
"But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou
art an
offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but
those
that be of men."
Clearly, Peter had no clue, EVEN AFTER he had been instructed as to
the end
of His Savior's worldly existence.
Also, did you ever consider that AFTER the Crucifixion these guys all
sat
around and moped for days? They had NO IDEA Christ was coming back,
read it
again, for the first time...
DAVE
Why you are writing this is beyond me as I never wrote what you
implied. I
never claimed that John believed that Jesus would rise from the dead
or
anything remotely like it. Gee.
HUNTER
Luke 24:10-13
"It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and
other
women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
"And
their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them NOT."
Did you get that, Dave? These guys didn't even BELIEVE Christ was
resurrected, but you've got John making a FEAST out of the
Crucifixion!
Please, that's just not going to work!
DAVE
You don't read very well. I say again: John believed that the day
that
followed the crucifixion was a Jewish Festival Day as well as the
Sabbath.
That was for the Jews a MegaDay, or a MegaSabbath! Do you deny that I
claimed this? Or do you insist in this strawman that I never
presented?
HUNTER
The Cross of Christ was a VICTORY, but they didn't know it, not yet.
So
don't make John say things that he didn't say, as he didn't know,
either!
Dave, you just dropped your watermelon there, didn't you...? And
after all
we've been through, say it isn't so, Dave...!
DAVE
No, it is you who dropped the watermelon on this one. What gets me
though
Steiger is you did not give the context in which the comment "John
believed"
was made. I wonder why? Did you suppose that the readers would not
know the
difference? Did you think I would NOT notice? I cannot imagine what
justification you could offer for your move.
Why did you quote me elsewhere *in toto* but when you replied to me on
that part you snipped and said I wrote that "John believed..." and
jumped
on it as if I were claiming that John believed Jesus was Messiah or he
was going to rise from the dead? I made my original post on June 17,
1999 in a post titled "Hunter #1".
Ayone can go to dejanews and go to POWERSEARCH, type
"alt.religion.Christian.biblestudy" into the forum box and then type
ro...@infoave.net into the author box and type into the search engine
the
following words: "John refers to the Sabbath as a "MegaSabbath" (John
19:31)" and he can read it for himself. I NEVER wrote what Steiger
claims
above. Steiger, I began with the assumption of *respect* when I began
my
posts to you. After your first smart reply on June 16 or 17 I wrote
that
June 17th response and I was a little abrupt but when I read your
posts on
June 21st (More 3 days and 3 nights for Dave Lee and The 2nd 'long
winded' 3
Days & 3 Nights and the Final long winded 3 Days and 3 Nights......) I
felt
again you had earned my respect because for some reason you were
decent in
your posts. I did NOT see this one however until Sunday afternoon July
4th.
Had I known this on June 21st I would have not been fooled by the
extent
you are willing to reach and responded with a respectful post on June
24th. You obviously like to misrepresent me and no telling whom else
you
misrepresent. If you lie about me you would lie about someone else.
Your
Christianity really shows. Actually it isn't your Christianity because
I
know many fine Christians. They would never misrepresent me as you
did.
HUNTER (quoting Dave)
>Such a combination would indeed be a "MegaSabbath"
>to the Jew. Jesus elsewhere claimed he would be killed and raised the
"third day" (Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19; Luke 9:22, 18:33). If Jesus
were
killed on a Wednesday, then Saturday afternoon would be late on the
*fourth day*,
HUNTER
Bad math, Dave, really bad math. 'MegaSabbath'? Indeed, this was the
day
of the beginning of Unleavened Bread, a holy day of convocation, seven
days
in fact, BUT, not your regular run of the mill 'Saturday'!
DAVE
No, biblical math Steiger.
HUNTER (quoting Dave)
>not the *third*. The Wednesday-Saturday scheme solves Matthew 12:40
but
>creates other difficulties. I have more to write on this but will
wait for
>your response on what I have so far. Until then,
>DAVID LEE
Dave, you can say all you like, but you'll be making a wreck out of
God's
Word in doing so. For some reason, if you feel like maintaining your
position on this issue, that's fine, it's cool. *If* you believe that
Jesus
Christ died for your sins, then you're going to Heaven anyway, and I'm
a
humble guy, I'll accept your apology when we get there. Until then,
this is
a non-issue, as we still come out the same door in the end, anyway.
You
believe, and I believe, at least I guess you do, as you seem to be
protecting your denominational turf here, and I doubt many atheists
would
even bother.
DAVE
Yea, your so humble you lie about what I said and you show no
humility on
this NG. I do NOT blame you for your responses to certain individuals
on
this NG as they are quite willing to dish it out, but you are
certainly NOT
humble. I did think you were HONEST until I saw how you misrepresented
me
above. The fact you deleted part of the quote in which I said "John
believed..." leaves me to suspect it was deliberate.
HUNTER
Heck, the very guy who asked this question (Reverend Jack Schitt, aka
Alan),
HE hasn't even responded! And he's the guy who wanted to know!
DAVE
There are certain individuals who like to post discrepancies but
refuse to
answer the "rebuttals" when they are posted. This kind of "hit and
run"
attack is a big turn off. If you are going to bother with a
discrepancy then
I believe if someone takes the time to offer a response then you
should at
least have the courtesy to reply. However, after your little stunt
above I
am not sure I want to respond to you anymore. I was willing to give
you
"common courtesy" when I began but that has changed.
HUNTER
So, you may not like it, and that's okay, I don't care. It's a
non-essential issue, it really doesn't matter to me. I only care
because I
like to make the Bible harmonize with itself, and my *theory* does
that much
better than yours, sorry, but that's the way I see it.
DAVE
Not even close.
HUNTER
Anyway, rip it up if you feel the need. And, I apologize in advance
if
there are grammatical and spelling errors, as I was cooking pretty
good on
my keyboard when I wrote this one up.
DAVE
I never criticize a man for spelling errors or grammatical mistakes,
not if
I understand what he is saying. I have no desire to "rip this up". I
intend
to print it to show others just how far some professing Christians are
willing to go to misrepresent people they disagree with.
Graham Thomas
>Here is the final part of a Usenet debate that took place in 1999 on
>the topic of which day of the week the crucifixion took place.
>
>David Lee
>------------------------------
<Massive snip for brevity>
>HUNTER
>So, you may not like it, and that's okay, I don't care. It's a
>non-essential issue, it really doesn't matter to me. I only care
>because I like to make the Bible harmonize with itself, and my
> *theory* does that much better than yours, sorry, but that's the
> way I see it.
After laboriously reading through five of these rather lengthy dated
posts, I've come to agreement with HUNTER's astute conclusion, viz.
"It's (viz., calculating the exact day of Christ's Crucifixion) is a
NON-ESSENTIAL ISSUE.
It is also regrettable that you didn't take the time to edit out all
the petty bickering and name-calling for the repost(s) and further
condense the debate so that it would instead concentrate on more
specific details of the doctrine in question.
What I believe is a much more substantial question is; why most
Christians no longer care to observe the fourth commandment (the
Sabbath)? Not debating which day or other the Savior was crucified.
I noticed you stated that you were once a Worldwide Church of God
(WCG) member. What provoked you to abandon faithfully hallowing
the weekly Sabbath?
If you care to debate this IMO much more substantive issue I've
presently posted a three part series on the Sabbath in this NG. You
are more than welcome to join the discussion if it interests you.
Peace be with you and yours,
Graham Thomas
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>