"What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?" Matthew 22:42

Darth Faither

Hi all

I hope it is ok to do this.

I would like to post this invite for the Annual Dr. Gene Scott PhD "Resurrection" Message in the Irish Faith Centre in Dublin.

This message is a must see for all no matter what walk of life you may come from whether you are a Christian with a strong faith in Christ or an agnostic who is simply unsure about what Christianity is really all about.

Please see the flyer below for more details:




Dr. Gene Scott PhD spent three and a half long years studying the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and after putting the last book down he came away absolutely convinced of its truth and of the veracity of its reporters.

This rare one hour video presentation of Dr. Scott’s hard headed study gives the viewer an opportunity to examine for themselves the evidence that is presented therein and will also give a basis for a faith in Jesus Christ as supernatural.

All are welcome to come and see this meticulously researched and exceptional presentation of the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Thank you

robindch

Darth Faither wrote: »

This rare one hour video presentation of Dr. Scott’s hard headed study

Is this the same video that's available on youtube here?

Gene Scott has also appeared in other videos, such as this bizarre one and this more serious one.

JC 2K3

LMFAO,what a legend!

PDN

Soulwinner found a new name?

Pompey Magnus

Darth Faither wrote: »

Dr. Gene Scott PhD spent three and a half long years studying the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and after putting the last book down he came away absolutely convinced of its truth and of the veracity of its reporters.

This rare one hour video presentation of Dr. Scott’s hard headed study gives the viewer an opportunity to examine for themselves the evidence that is presented therein and will also give a basis for a faith in Jesus Christ as supernatural.

I'm sure Gene Scott, through reading the Bible, could convince himself that the resurrection is absolutely true, especially if he regards the Bible as inerrant.

I on the other hand prefer the theory that Joseph of Arimathea intended only to place Jesus temporarily in his private tomb because darkness was fast approaching and Jewish law prohibits leaving executed bodies in the open during the night. Instead he takes Jesus and puts him in his nearby tomb, this was a practise which was allowed by the Talmud. Joseph could not move the body on the Sabbath so he waited instead until sundown on Saturday when the Sabbath ended and took the body of Jesus to the atoning graveyard of Jerusalem where the Mishnah and Torah demand that executed men be buried. The women arrive the next morning and find the entrance opened and the body missing, unaware that Jesus' corpse was moved to decompose in the criminal graveyard before the bones could be collected for proper burial. Joseph perhaps left Jerusalem as soon as Passover was over and was unaware of the excitement he had unintentionally caused and so unable to clear things up. The rest is history.

This scenario would also explain why the guards that Pilate had sent to protect the tomb were conspicuously absent when the women arrived, once Joseph came to take the corpse to the appropriate burial site they would have had no more reason to guard the tomb, mission accomplished. I think this to be far more plausable than the dead returning to life.

Soul Winner

PDN I have seen that presentation before, and it is a very well structured step by step logical analysis of the facts in evidence. Dr. Scott was a true biblical scholar and a true man of God. It is so sad that he is no longer with us today but he has left an astounding legacy of wonderful teaching behind. I recommend all to see this presentation. I will be going to see it again myself on one of the nights that it is showing.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I'm sure Gene Scott, through reading the Bible, could convince himself that the resurrection is absolutely true, especially if he regards the Bible as inerrant.

I on the other hand prefer the theory that Joseph of Arimathea intended only to place Jesus temporarily in his private tomb because darkness was fast approaching and Jewish law prohibits leaving executed bodies in the open during the night. Instead he takes Jesus and puts him in his nearby tomb, this was a practise which was allowed by the Talmud. Joseph could not move the body on the Sabbath so he waited instead until sundown on Saturday when the Sabbath ended and took the body of Jesus to the atoning graveyard of Jerusalem where the Mishnah and Torah demand that executed men be buried. The women arrive the next morning and find the entrance opened and the body missing, unaware that Jesus' corpse was moved to decompose in the criminal graveyard before the bones could be collected for proper burial. Joseph perhaps left Jerusalem as soon as Passover was over and was unaware of the excitement he had unintentionally caused and so unable to clear things up. The rest is history.

This scenario would also explain why the guards that Pilate had sent to protect the tomb were conspicuously absent when the women arrived, once Joseph came to take the corpse to the appropriate burial site they would have had no more reason to guard the tomb, mission accomplished. I think this to be far more plausable than the dead returning to life.

May I suggest you read the following books on the subject. You will truly have an informed opinion on the subject if you do:

The Testimony of the Evangelists - Dr. Simon Greeleaf

Who moved the stone - Frank Morrison

Trial-Witnesses-Resurrection - Thomas Sherlock

Evidence that demands a verdict - Josh McDowell

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

May I suggest you read the following books on the subject. You will truly have an informed opinion on the subject if you do:

I have read one of the books you mentioned, "The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" by Thomas Sherlock, and I can't say I was too impressed. He offered nothing new to the discussion and in fact some of his points made no sense.

For example he discussed the seal on the tomb as if it were fact yet never explained why the women went to the tomb alone. Where were the chief priests and representatives of Pilate? To break a Roman seal was an crime punishable by death yet the Gospels have a group of women unaccompanied on their way to the tomb. To have a grave sealed would be pointless unless the opening of the grave would be properly carried out by officals, not by a group of women who were followers of the dead man. To me the seal story screams out as being a total fabrication by the author of Matthew in an effort to defend accusations of fraud on the part of Christians.

His idea to present the case against the resurrection in the form of a trial was certainly interesting, but was fatally flawed in that the judge, jury, defence and prosecution all were ultimately biased in favour of the Christian account because so too was their author.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I have read one of the books you mentioned, "The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" by Thomas Sherlock, and I can't say I was too impressed. He offered nothing new to the discussion and in fact some of his points made no sense.

For example he discussed the seal on the tomb as if it were fact yet never explained why the women went to the tomb alone. Where were the chief priests and representatives of Pilate? To break a Roman seal was an crime punishable by death yet the Gospels have a group of women unaccompanied on their way to the tomb. To have a grave sealed would be pointless unless the opening of the grave would be properly carried out by officals, not by a group of women who were followers of the dead man. To me the seal story screams out as being a total fabrication by the author of Matthew in an effort to defend accusations of fraud on the part of Christians.

Are you seriously advancing this as an argument?

The same verse that says that a seal was placed on the tomb also says that soldiers were posted to guard it. (Matthew 27:66) These soldiers were appointed and authorised by the same officials who set the seal in place, so would have authority to open it. Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that the women expected the authorised guards to unseal the tomb for them when they arrived there.

BrianCalgary

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I'm sure Gene Scott, through reading the Bible, could convince himself that the resurrection is absolutely true, especially if he regards the Bible as inerrant.

I on the other hand prefer the theory that Joseph of Arimathea intended only to place Jesus temporarily in his private tomb because darkness was fast approaching and Jewish law prohibits leaving executed bodies in the open during the night. Instead he takes Jesus and puts him in his nearby tomb, this was a practise which was allowed by the Talmud. Joseph could not move the body on the Sabbath so he waited instead until sundown on Saturday when the Sabbath ended and took the body of Jesus to the atoning graveyard of Jerusalem where the Mishnah and Torah demand that executed men be buried. The women arrive the next morning and find the entrance opened and the body missing, unaware that Jesus' corpse was moved to decompose in the criminal graveyard before the bones could be collected for proper burial. Joseph perhaps left Jerusalem as soon as Passover was over and was unaware of the excitement he had unintentionally caused and so unable to clear things up. The rest is history.

This scenario would also explain why the guards that Pilate had sent to protect the tomb were conspicuously absent when the women arrived, once Joseph came to take the corpse to the appropriate burial site they would have had no more reason to guard the tomb, mission accomplished. I think this to be far more plausable than the dead returning to life.

Boy depechemode you are putting a lot of faith in another theory?

The women went to the tomb in order to anoint it. This would have been allowed by both Jews and Romans. However on arrival the stone had been rrolled away and tehrest is history.

For someone who places so much faith in science where do you get your proof that the disciples stole the body or that there was no guard? If that is indeed what you are saying.

Pompey Magnus

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Boy depechemode you are putting a lot of faith in another theory?


For someone who places so much faith in science where do you get your proof that the disciples stole the body or that there was no guard? If that is indeed what you are saying.

Ah but you see I don't have to put faith in this theory. I'm not saying the disciples neccesarily stole the body, just that it could have happened. It is possible. Perhaps a vast army of ants walked under the stone, stripped the corpse of Jesus bare and brought it back to their nest piece by pice, leaving the tomb empty. Highly, highly, highly unlikely, but certainly this theory in principle does not contradict any Universal laws so to my mind is more plausable than the reanimation of the dead. Of course I'm not saying this is what I think happened, just that it is possible.

The Christian side has one possible theory and one theory only that it must stick to, that resurrection actually took place. I on the other hand can pick and choose from any of the alternative theories as I wish, because every other theory apart from resurrection results in Christianity being false.

Scenarios in which Christianity is true:

1. The dead body of Jesus after about 48 hours in a tomb suddenly comes back to life, leaves the tomb and visits some friends before going to Heaven.

Scenarios in which Christianity is not true:

1. Jesus was not dead but was given a drug to induce a state which resembled death (was that really vinegar he was given???), he was put in the tomb in a very injured state whilst still alive, treated by healers (who were those men dressed in white seen at the tomb???), he regained some strength and secretely stayed with some of his suppporters but died about a month later from his injuries and was secretely buried.

2. Joseph of Arimathea moving the body to the criminals graveyard on Saturday night as Jewish law demanded him to do.

3. Graverobbers taking the body of a holy man as was a feature of that part of the world at the time.

4. The women going to the wrong tomb as it was getting dark when Jesus was originally buried.

5. The Gospels writers lying.

6. The Roman soldiers who guarded the tomb deciding to play a practical joke on the natives by moving the body to another grave.

7. The soldiers telling the truth when they said that the followers of Jesus took the body

8. Killer ants eating the body :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

etc etc etc

Any of these scenarios are certainly possible, in other words they do not violate the laws of physics. The resurrection story does however. This is why I can pick and choose any of the above and feel confident that they are more likely than the Christian explanation. I don't know what happened, but I do know that I place the Christian explanation pretty close to the bottom in my list of scenarios.

The women went to the tomb in order to anoint it. This would have been allowed by both Jews and Romans. However on arrival the stone had been rrolled away and tehrest is history.

They would have been allowed to normally, but if the Gospel of Matthew is true then this was not a normal situation as there was a Roman seal on the tomb. They could not, by Roman law, break that seal in order to get to the body of Jesus.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

The same verse that says that a seal was placed on the tomb also says that soldiers were posted to guard it. (Matthew 27:66) These soldiers were appointed and authorised by the same officials who set the seal in place, so would have authority to open it. Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that the women expected the authorised guards to unseal the tomb for them when they arrived there.

I'm not an expert of Roman law in the early Empire but I would be highly suprised if Roman infantrymen had the authority to break the seal of the Emperor.

Soul Winner

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The Christian side has one possible theory and one theory only that it must stick to, that resurrection actually took place. I on the other hand can pick and choose from any of the alternative theories as I wish, because every other theory apart from resurrection results in Christianity being false.

Scenarios in which Christianity is true:

1. The dead body of Jesus after about 48 hours in a tomb suddenly comes back to life, leaves the tomb and visits some friends before going to Heaven.

Three days and three nights 48 hours?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Scenarios in which Christianity is not true:

1. Jesus was not dead but was given a drug to induce a state which resembled death (was that really vinegar he was given???), he was put in the tomb in a very injured state whilst still alive, treated by healers (who were those men dressed in white seen at the tomb???), he regained some strength and secretely stayed with some of his suppporters but died about a month later from his injuries and was secretely buried.

So the reporters were liars?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

2. Joseph of Arimathea moving the body to the criminals graveyard on Saturday night as Jewish law demanded him to do.

So why didn’t the Jews and the Romans show the reporters of the resurrection the body? That would have shut them up.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

3. Graverobbers taking the body of a holy man as was a feature of that part of the world at the time.

Not that body. The Jews would have never let it be thrown on a garbage heap. They would have made sure it was kept so that they could disprove any subsequent resurrection story.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

4. The women going to the wrong tomb as it was getting dark when Jesus was originally buried.

Just show them the body from the real tomb.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

5. The Gospels writers lying.

That is one plausible theory. If they were actually lying then why would they all suffer horrific deaths as a result of holding fast to this testimony? If all they were was just liars then they would not have had the character to die horrible deaths for it. And not only that but to die alone.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

6. The Roman soldiers who guarded the tomb deciding to play a practical joke on the natives by moving the body to another grave.

Seeing the controversy in their realm it's untenable that they would not have produced the body. They would have produced the body in a moment in order to dispel the resurrection story and hence bring order back to the city. Remember Pilot appeased the crowds by reluctantly handing Jesus over to be crucified in order to avoid a riot which would have meant him getting into trouble with the Emperor in Rome.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

7. The soldiers telling the truth when they said that the followers of Jesus took the body

So the disciples were lying? See answer to point number 5.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Any of these scenarios are certainly possible, in other words they do not violate the laws of physics. The resurrection story does however. This is why I can pick and choose any of the above and feel confident that they are more likely than the Christian explanation. I don't know what happened, but I do know that I place the Christian explanation pretty close to the bottom in my list of scenarios.

Unless the resurrection actually happened as reported then what would be the point in preaching about it? God testified to the veracity of Jesus’ impossible claims with many signs and wonders the main one being the resurrection. If God set in motion the laws of this universe then those laws have no hold over Him. He can manipulate molecules without causing explosions. He can ascend into the blue because gravity has no power over Him. All these things are impossible for man but not for the God of the Bible if He does truly exist, they would not cause a problem for Him. You’re judging things by man’s limitations and by that reckoning you would be right but we are not dealing with a person who claimed He was merely a man are we?

There are only two theories from your list that you can pick from. 1) The disciples were liars or 2) They were telling the truth. No other theory stands up as pointed out above. The books I mentioned earlier go to great lengths to prove that the disciples were not lying, it is obvious when you look at the record. And if they were not lying then He rose and ascended as reported.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

There are only two theories from you list that you can pick from. 1) The disciples were liars or 2) They were telling the truth.

Or, of course, (3) they could have made a mistake, and passed it on in good faith, as the truth. Wouldn't have been the first time that this happened in human history, wouldn't you agree?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Or, of course, (3) they could have made a mistake, and passed it on in good faith, as the truth. Wouldn't have been the first time that this happened in human history, wouldn't you agree?

I think this is extremely unlikely. Given the extensive details of the resurrection appearances of Christ, including watching Jesus ascend bodily to heaven, it is difficult to see how any such mistake could be made by any sane person.

They were liars, lunatics, or else they were reporting the truth. (Doesn't quite have the alliteration of Lewis' trilemma - but it's the best I can come up with when I'm jetlagged).

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Or, of course, (3) they could have made a mistake, and passed it on in good faith, as the truth. Wouldn't have been the first time that this happened in human history, wouldn't you agree?

Just show them the body!!!

If it was me I would have said: "I know you's meant well lads but He didn't actually rise from the dead. Look here is His body right here where it was laid after being taken down from the cross."

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

Three days and three nights 48 hours?

Three days and three nights? No, he was dead for one complete day, one morning and two nights and did not even make it to 48 hours in the tomb, I was being generous.

He was dead for between 6-9 hours on Friday, all day Saturday brings us to 30-33 hours, gone very early Sunday morning (shall we say 7 am?) means at most he was dead for between 37 - 40 hours. Of course all we know is that he wasn't in the tomb on Sunday morning, but was he there Saturday morning even? But as I say I am feeling generous so I will allow him 40 hours in the tomb.

That is one plausible theory. If they were actually lying then why would they all suffer horrific deaths as a result of holding fast to this testimony? If all they were was just liars then they would not have had the character to die horrible deaths for it. And not only that but to die alone.

The persecution of Christians has been blown out of proportions by Christian myths. The execution of Christians during the 1st century was very rare. Even Acts shows that there was no Roman opposition to Christianity until after 62 AD, Nero did not begin the persecution of the Christians in Rome until 64 AD, over 30 years after the death of Jesus. I assume the vast majority of Christians (and therefore martyrs) at that time were not eye witnesses to Jesus' ministry, just like Paul. In fact Acts only mentions two Christian martyrs:

(1) Stephen who was a later convert and not an eye witness
(2) James, an supposed eye witness but unfortunately we do not know if recanting his claims would have saved him. But if this is the same James as "James the brother of Jesus" which Josephus mentions then he was stoned to death in 62 AD for breaking Jewish law, if this was the case then it wouldn't matter one iota whether he admitted the fraud, he was going to die either way and you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

Seeing the controversy in their realm it's untenable that they would not have produced the body. They would have produced the body in a moment in order to dispel the resurrection story and hence bring order back to the city. Remember Pilot appeased the crowds by reluctantly handing Jesus over to be crucified in order to avoid a riot which would have meant him getting into trouble with the Emperor in Rome.

A number of major flaws in this point so I must disagree. Firstly the resurrection story did not become public for 50 days after the execution. Can you imagine the condition of a corpse in a hot climate after 50 days? What could the Romans do at that stage assuming they even kept track of the body? The corpse would be bloated and rotten beyond any recognition. Nobody would go within a donkey's roar of it for the smell. Secondly can you really imagine the Romans admitting to grave robbing and desecration of a Jewish body? The admission of guilt on their part alone would have sparked a riot.

If it was me I would have said: "I know you's meant well lads but He didn't actually rise from the dead. Look here is His body right here where it was laid after being taken down from the cross."

I can just picture the scene, the disciples and a roman centurion standing 100 metres from a dead body, all heaving at the stench. Then the centurion says:

"There you go lads, there is the rotting, maggot ridden corpse of Jesus, just where we left it. Believe us now that he didn't raise from the dead? What do mean you can't recognise him? Stop throwing up, take a deep breath and run over to take a closer look. Don't blame us that it took you guys nearly two months before deciding to make an issue out of this."

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Three days and three nights? No, he was dead for one complete day, one morning and two nights and did not even make it to 48 hours in the tomb, I was being generous.

He was dead for between 6-9 hours on Friday, all day Saturday brings us to 30-33 hours, gone very early Sunday morning (shall we say 7 am?) means at most he was dead for between 37 - 40 hours. Of course all we know is that he wasn't in the tomb on Sunday morning, but was he there Saturday morning even? But as I say I am feeling generous so I will allow him 45 hours in the tomb.

This thread could easily get side-tracked into a debate about chronology - but it should be noted that the Bible does not say that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. The Jews referred to all holy days as Sabbaths, so the fact that the day after the Crucifixion was a Sabbath does not necessarily mean that it was a Saturday. Jesus may well have been crucified on a Wednesday or a Thursday.

The persecution of Christians has been blown out of proportions by Christian myths. The execution of Christians during the 1st century was very rare.

I think you are on very dodgy ground, historically speaking, to make such a claim. The earliest Christian sources testify to the fact that 10 of the 11 apostles (obviously discounting Judas) were executed. Also, letters such as 1 Peter and Hebrews are contemporary documents that make no sense historically unless the recipients were being persecuted. To simply discount as 'myth' anything that doesn't suit your point of view is not good history.

Even Acts shows that there was no Roman opposition to Christianity until after 62 AD

Firstly, you cannot artificially separate persecution by the Romans from persecution by Jews or pagan mobs.
Secondly, Acts shows no such thing. The Book of Acts limits itself to describing certain events in the life of the early Church, and then focuses particularly on Paul. Your assertion is a particularly poor example of an argument from silence.

James, an supposed eye witness but unfortunately we do not know if recanting his claims would have saved him. But if this is the same James as "James the brother of Jesus" which Josephus mentions then he was stoned to death in 62 AD for breaking Jewish law, if this was the case then it wouldn't matter one iota whether he admitted the fraud, he was going to die either way and you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb

It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. (Acts 12:1-3)
Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. "Tell James and the brothers about this," he said, and then he left for another place. (Acts 12:17)

James, the brother of John and one of the 12 apostles was executed (not by the Romans, but by Jews). This preceded the arrest of Peter. Then, after Peter's escape, he sends a message to James (the brother of the Lord) about what has just happened. I don't see how anyone, apart from a complete lunatic, would suggest that these two guys called James were the same person.

Firstly the resurrection story did not become public for 50 days after the execution.

On what basis are you making this claim?

Can you imagine the condition of a corpse in a hot climate after 50 days? What could the Romans do at that stage assuming they even kept track of the body? The corpse would be bloated and rotten beyond any recognition. Nobody would go within a donkey's roar of it for the smell. Secondly can you really imagine the Romans admitting to grave robbing and desecration of a Jewish body? The admission of guilt on their part alone would have sparked a riot.

You are reading our modern squeamish attitudes to death and corpses back into history. It was a Roman practice to display the decomposing corpses of rebels and criminals - so I fail to see why this would be a problem in this case if they actually possessed a corpse.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

This thread could easily get side-tracked into a debate about chronology - but it should be noted that the Bible does not say that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. The Jews referred to all holy days as Sabbaths, so the fact that the day after the Crucifixion was a Sabbath does not necessarily mean that it was a Saturday. Jesus may well have been crucified on a Wednesday or a Thursday.

Perhaps, but there is no leeway given on when the women arrived. This was the first day of the week, Sunday. If he died on a Wednesday why wait until Sunday before visiting the tomb? Surely you admit that the church tradition makes most sense: burial on Friday evening, can't visit on the Sabbath, Sunday morning they go and make the discovery. It is a good case for Occhams razor.

I think you are on very dodgy ground, historically speaking, to make such a claim. The earliest Christian sources testify to the fact that 10 of the 11 apostles (obviously discounting Judas) were executed. Also, letters such as 1 Peter and Hebrews are contemporary documents that make no sense historically unless the recipients were being persecuted. To simply discount as 'myth' anything that doesn't suit your point of view is not good history.

"Earliest Christian sources" sounds a bit vague. If you are including Peter's martyrdom among the 10 you mention then you would be using the gnostic Acts of Peter as the source as this is the only "early" (if you consider 2-3 generations after his death as being early) Christian document for his martyrdom and if you want to accept this as a trustworthy document then you will also need to accept that Peter rejected the idea of a flesh resurrection and that Jesus meerly rose in spirit.

Perhaps your other 9 apostles have slightly more reliable evidence for their martyrdom though. I might have just picked on the one bad one.

James, the brother of John and one of the 12 apostles was executed (not by the Romans, but by Jews). This preceded the arrest of Peter. Then, after Peter's escape, he sends a message to James (the brother of the Lord) about what has just happened. I don't see how anyone, apart from a complete lunatic, would suggest that these two guys called James were the same person.

Ok, so we still have two martyrs in Acts and the James mentioned by Josephus is a different person to the James in Acts. The question remains as to whether James, brother of John, would have escaped his fate by confessing?

On what basis are you making this claim?

I'm basing it on Pentecost being the start of the Christians making a fuss about the resurrection. This was 50 days after the resurrection I believe.

You are reading our modern squeamish attitudes to death and corpses back into history. It was a Roman practice to display the decomposing corpses of rebels and criminals - so I fail to see why this would be a problem in this case if they actually possessed a corpse.

Squeamishness is one thing, however on thinking about it further I doubt there would have been much of a smell off the body as I assume wild animals would have eaten most of the flesh by that stage. Do you really think a body would be recognisable if left unattended for so long in the blazing sun? There are cases in modern times of people misidentifying bodies of loved ones which have been carefully lying in a cold morgue for just a few hours, what use would Jesus' body have been after that length of time? I would guess that two or three days in the open would leave it pretty unrecognisable and if the Passion of the Christ was right then followers of Jesus would have had a hard time identifying him even before he was dead.

Soul Winner

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Three days and three nights? No, he was dead for one complete day, one morning and two nights and did not even make it to 48 hours in the tomb, I was being generous.

He was dead for between 6-9 hours on Friday, all day Saturday brings us to 30-33 hours, gone very early Sunday morning (shall we say 7 am?) means at most he was dead for between 37 - 40 hours. Of course all we know is that he wasn't in the tomb on Sunday morning, but was he there Saturday morning even? But as I say I am feeling generous so I will allow him 40 hours in the tomb.

Christ said that the Law cannot pass away until every jot and tittle is fulfilled. Part of that law was the Old Testament Feasts or set times of the Lord. The last supper is called the Last supper because it was the last time that the Passover supper was to be observed as Christ fulfilled it by becoming the Passover Lamb for which the kept feast was but type. Paul calls these feasts “Shadows of things to come” but the substance which casts those shadows is Christ. Christ had to be Crucified on the feast of Passover. Once dead He was to be placed in the tomb for three days and three nights fulfilling the OT feast of Unleavened Bread. In this feast in the OT the unleavened bread was hidden for three days and three nights then taken out again. This feast lasted for a week after Passover. In order for Christ to fulfil this feast He must be hidden for three days and three nights in the tomb. He was not killed on Good Friday that was an established pagan feast that has nothing to do with Christianity. The Catholic Church grafted this on in order to appease he masses that observed it for eons. Rather Christ had to be killed on the 14th day of the first month of the Jewish new year in a year where Passover fell on a Wednesday so that He could be in the tomb three days and three nights and rise again on the first day of the week at sundown fulfilling the next feast in the sequence which was First Fruits. Fifty days after First Fruits brings us to Pentecost which is when the Spirit fell on the Disciples and they began the harvest of the Church. Pentecost means ‘Fiftieth’ the number for harvest. There are three more feasts that are still to be fulfilled. Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The persecution of Christians has been blown out of proportions by Christian myths. The execution of Christians during the 1st century was very rare. Even Acts shows that there was no Roman opposition to Christianity until after 62 AD, Nero did not begin the persecution of the Christians in Rome until 64 AD, over 30 years after the death of Jesus. I assume the vast majority of Christians (and therefore martyrs) at that time were not eye witnesses to Jesus' ministry, just like Paul. In fact Acts only mentions two Christian martyrs:

(1) Stephen who was a later convert and not an eye witness
(2) James, an supposed eye witness but unfortunately we do not know if recanting his claims would have saved him. But if this is the same James as "James the brother of Jesus" which Josephus mentions then he was stoned to death in 62 AD for breaking Jewish law, if this was the case then it wouldn't matter one iota whether he admitted the fraud, he was going to die either way and you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

You cannot escape it. The first persecutions where because they preached the resurrection of Christ from the dead. This was understandably done by the Jewish Leaders because their high position in the community was threatened. Put yourself in their shoes. You had pronounced this man a blasphemer and condemned Him for His blasphemy. And He had said that He would rise from the dead and suddenly it is being preached that He is risen from the dead. Where does that leave you religious authority? It was their bread and butter livelihood that was stake and they persecuted the disciples unmercifully for preaching this message. They said to Peter for instance: "Don't you preach this message anymore" to which Peter says: Do I serve man or God?" and he wouldn’t shut up.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

A number of major flaws in this point so I must disagree. Firstly the resurrection story did not become public for 50 days after the execution. Can you imagine the condition of a corpse in a hot climate after 50 days? What could the Romans do at that stage assuming they even kept track of the body? The corpse would be bloated and rotten beyond any recognition. Nobody would go within a donkey's roar of it for the smell. Secondly can you really imagine the Romans admitting to grave robbing and desecration of a Jewish body? The admission of guilt on their part alone would have sparked a riot.

If He rose at all then it was after three days and nights not fifty days. I explained above why the Gospel started to be preached fifty days after the resurrection. It was to fulfil the feast of Pentecost. The disciples and many others had seen Jesus risen before the Gospel was started to be preached on the day of Pentecost.

Either the disciples were liars who not only lied but knew they were lying or they were simple minded reporters reporting what they saw and experienced. Let us assume for argument’s sake that they were liars ok? Put your self in their shoes ok? You are making up this lie in order to save face. You now want to convince people that Jesus was the Son of God. So you collaborate together and write the record even though your accounts differ in certain aspects. You are clever enough to make up the story but you are not very clever at collaborating. Anyway let us continue. You make up this lie about Jesus. You write your account in a book and send it to non-Jews who don’t have the slightest clue what the phrase “Son of Man” means but yet you have Jesus refer to Himself as “Son of man” time and again in your account rather than “Son of God” which is what you are trying to convince these people that Jesus is. Why would you do this if all you care about is saving face and convincing people that Jesus is the Son of God? The Gospel of Mark which was written to Romans or Egyptians but certainly to non-Jews has Jesus referring to Himself as the “Son of Man” more than any other Gospel. Why? Because at the time when Jesus was talking He was geographically located in a Jewish environment where they (the Jews He was then talking to) understood the phrase “Son of Man”, which said phrase conjured up visions of “The Son of Man” (a Hebrew phrase for the Messiah) coming on clouds of glory to set up His Kingdom as Messiah. If all Mark is doing is lying in order to save face or whatever then he isn’t a very good liar is he? Mark is just being honest to what Jesus actually said even though it hurts his story to non-Jews. There is tonnes of intrinsic evidence like this in the Gospel accounts that for me at least tip the scale in the direction of the disciples being truth tellers rather than lie tellers.

Another example of this kind of intrinsic evidence is the fact that they include in their accounts that it was women who first reported the empty tomb and that they spoke to the risen Christ first and that it was they who first told the disciples. Again if you are a liar and know you are a liar and only out to convince people that Jesus was the Son of God then why put in your story that the resurrection be first reported by women? The word of a woman was worthless in those days, not even legal. Yet these lairs use women as the first reporters of the main event itself, the Resurrection. It doesn’t make sense if these mere liars who are only out to save face for the moment and profit for themselves never even conceiving that their words would be analysed globally for centuries after the event would use women as the first reporters. You don’t find this kind of intrinsic evidence in the account of a liar that is out to tell a lie such as this one. It is psychologically inconceivable that these men made up this story in order to save face or for whatever reason. Plus it is fact that all save one disciple dies horrific martyr’s deaths because they told this story. Andrew was still preaching the Gospel on his cross for days before he finally died. Thomas was slain by the sword in India, Peter was crucified upside down and Bartholomew had his skin peeled from his body with a whip. All for telling this story and none of them reneged on it. A lie? Give me a break. Scarcely would a man lay his life down for the truth never mind a lie and not only a lie but a lie about God. Surely even if the disciples believed in a God at all they know that they are liars and obviously going to the wrong place.

Conclusion: They were not lying. Hence He rose, and ascended as reported and is coming back to set up His Kingdom and put down His enemies. My advice is to get a basis for faith before He does. It is not going to be pretty if He comes and finds no faith on the earth.

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

Christ said that the Law cannot pass away until every jot and tittle is fulfilled. Part of that law was the Old Testament Feasts or set times of the Lord.

Right, so Jesus' claim to fulfilling the prophecies must be true because he said it is and we believe him because he is divine, he is divine because he fulfills the prophecies assuming if we take hs word for it, which we would do because he is divine because he says he fulfills the prophecies .............................................

Rather Christ had to be killed on the 14th day of the first month of the Jewish new year in a year where Passover fell on a Wednesday so that He could be in the tomb three days and three nights and rise again on the first day of the week at sundown fulfilling the next feast in the sequence which was First Fruits.

I will try and get this chronology straight in my head. Jewish Passover is celebrated on the 14th of the first month, Nisan. You say this had to be a Wednesday. Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, Sunday morning. Clearly this would mean he was dead four nights, so again you are missing your target for your self fulfilling prophecy of three days and three nights. He would also have been raised on the forth day, not the third as he himself predicted.

Also a Wednesday the 14th Passover and crucifiction means Firstfruits would fall on the Friday 16th so the Firstfruits aspect is incompatible with a Wednesday crucifiction. In order for the crucifiction events to somewhat match scriptural predictions it requires a Friday death. If Jesus was resurrected on Firstfruits (the 16th of Nisan), then Firstfruits must have been a Sunday as the Gospels say he was resurrected on the first day of the week. But the Passover was on the 14th which happens to be the previous Friday, just as 2000 years of Christian tradition claims. You are trying to fit a square block into a round hole, the Passion story cannot 100% match the predictions you are trying to force it to match and the closest approximation is a Friday death.

You cannot escape it. The first persecutions where because they preached the resurrection of Christ from the dead. This was understandably done by the Jewish Leaders because their high position in the community was threatened. Put yourself in their shoes. You had pronounced this man a blasphemer and condemned Him for His blasphemy.

OK, I will put myself in the shoes (sandals?) of the Jewish High Priests. If the Gospels are true then I would have had no option but to have Jesus executed. This man is blaspheming against Yahweh, he is claiming to be God. On consulting my Bible I would find that God is not man (Numbers 23:19) and that God has informed my people not to look for salvation from the son of man (Psalms 146:3). I would concluded that Jesus is a false prophet and so would have him executed for his crime against God. After his death if followers of Jesus started causing trouble I would be obliged to deal with them harshly also.

If He rose at all then it was after three days and nights not fifty days. I explained above why the Gospel started to be preached fifty days after the resurrection. It was to fulfil the feast of Pentecost. The disciples and many others had seen Jesus risen before the Gospel was started to be preached on the day of Pentecost.

I know he wasn't raised after 50 days, but the trouble started after this time. Had the Romans taken the body they would have had no reason to suspect that they needed to reveal the truth, even assuming that they became aware somehow of the claims of some followers that Jesus had been resurrected it would have taken time.

The theory that the body of Jesus was taken and dumped somewhere is entirely possible. It may have been just done on the spur of the moment by a couple of low grade infantry men who had no love for the Jews. They were none too pleased at having to stand outside all night because of some petty sqabble among the natives, after a while one turns to the other and says "Hey Marcus, I just had a mad idea...."


As for your claims that they couldn't be lying because they made it hard on themselves eg women visiting the tombs etc - if I was to lie I'm sure I would do it quite similar to how they did it. By throwing in seemingly unusual and often uncomplementary events it throws people off the scent of the lie. It infact is the sign of either the truth or else a good lie. If you lie when you say women visited the tomb first then you have people saying "He couldn't be lying, if he was lying I would have expected him to have men arrive first".

Soul Winner

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Right, so Jesus' claim to fulfilling the prophecies must be true because he said it is and we believe him because he is divine, he is divine because he fulfills the prophecies assuming if we take hs word for it, which we would do because he is divine because he says he fulfills the prophecies .............................................

You just need to work backwards. If the disciples are not lying about the resurrection then that means He rose. If He rose then that means what He says before the resurrection has validity including the law being fulfilled before it can pass away. Why would God raise a liar and a false prophet from the dead? We still only have the testimony of the disciples to go on so its back to square one. Where they lying? Let us continue.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I will try and get this chronology straight in my head. Jewish Passover is celebrated on the 14th of the first month, Nisan. You say this had to be a Wednesday. Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, Sunday morning. Clearly this would mean he was dead four nights, so again you are missing your target for your self fulfilling prophecy of three days and three nights. He would also have been raised on the forth day, not the third as he himself predicted.

Also a Wednesday the 14th Passover and crucifiction means Firstfruits would fall on the Friday 16th so the Firstfruits aspect is incompatible with a Wednesday crucifiction. In order for the crucifiction events to somewhat match scriptural predictions it requires a Friday death. If Jesus was resurrected on Firstfruits (the 16th of Nisan), then Firstfruits must have been a Sunday as the Gospels say he was resurrected on the first day of the week. But the Passover was on the 14th which happens to be the previous Friday, just as 2000 years of Christian tradition claims. You are trying to fit a square block into a round hole, the Passion story cannot 100% match the predictions you are trying to force it to match and the closest approximation is a Friday death.

Ok let me try and clear this up for you. Passover – Unleavened Bread – First Fruits. The Jewish day starts at sundown not sun up like ours does right? The 14th of Nissan started at 6pm Wednesday evening which is when Jesus was crucified. He was then placed in the tomb for 3 days and 3 nights. 24 hours later brings you to Thursday evening, 48 hours later brings you to Friday evening and 72 hours later brings you to Saturday evening. 6pm Saturday evening is sundown or the start of the first day of the next week. He rose on the first day of the week which was sundown or dusk on the Sunday. Which means he could have been crucified and buried on the Wednesday night and be in the tomb for 72 hours and come out on the sundown on the first day which started the new week and also the feast First Fruits. He did not come out of the tomb on Sunday morning after being crucified on Good Friday at 3pm. This give you less that 48 hours. 50 days after sundown on the first day of the week brings you to Pentecost (which means 50th) which is when the spirit descended on the disciples and began the harvest of the Church. 50 is the number for harvest.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

OK, I will put myself in the shoes (sandals?) of the Jewish High Priests. If the Gospels are true then I would have had no option but to have Jesus executed. This man is blaspheming against Yahweh, he is claiming to be God.

Brilliant. So you concede that He made impossible claims about Himself? Claims no mortal man has a right to make. You’re right, He did. And these claims are all fine and dandy and all but they mean nothing unless He rose from the dead as He Himself prophesied. If the resurrection did not happen as reported then His other claims mean nothing and Christianity is a false religion. Again this brings us back to the reporters. Were they lying? If so then why? How did they profit from it? What did they gain? If they knew they were lying about it then they also knew it would not last long. For 2000 years their words have been analysed and scrutinised, probably more than any other texts in history and nobody has shown them to be lying in all that time. The intellectuals who have tried have only ended up being convinced themselves. Read the books I mentioned earlier for a more detailed study.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

On consulting my Bible I would find that God is not man (Numbers 23:19) and that God has informed my people not to look for salvation from the son of man (Psalms 146:3). I would concluded that Jesus is a false prophet and so would have him executed for his crime against God. After his death if followers of Jesus started causing trouble I would be obliged to deal with them harshly also.

Numbers 23:19 does not say that God is not a man per se. Read the whole thing. God is not a man that he should lie nor the son of man that he should repent.” It means God is not like man in his lying capability. And Psalm 146 “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save.” That is correct when it comes to mortal men. Was Christ mortal though? Unless He rose from the dead then yes He was just a mortal man and a liar and fraud and a nut case. The only thing that can validate Him and His supernatural claims is the Resurrection from the dead. Again this brings us back to the reporters of the story. Were they lying about the resurrection?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I know he wasn't raised after 50 days, but the trouble started after this time. Had the Romans taken the body they would have had no reason to suspect that they needed to reveal the truth, even assuming that they became aware somehow of the claims of some followers that Jesus had been resurrected it would have taken time.

Jesus was a very famous and controversial figure in all the land of Israel at that time. Do you honestly think that the Romans just discarded of His body in this way? You make them out to be real brainless morons. They weren’t. They ruled the then known world. They were told to seal the tomb and not to let anyone go near it. The Jewish leaders prevailed upon the Romans to do this for fear that His disciples would steal the body and claim that He rose. There is no way the body would have been discarded the way you describe. The reason they punished false prophets and false messiahs like this was to make an example of them to the masses so that they don’t get any funny ideas like creating new messiahs. They would not have thrown the body of such a figure as Jesus on a trash heap. Pilot didn’t even want to crucify Him in the first place but he feared the people and submitted to it. The only people that were bothered by the preaching of the resurrection were the Jewish leaders. The Romans weren’t too bothered at all about it except that the controversy it caused might lead to riots and the like so it would have been in their interest not to discard of the body in order that they could put a stop to any subsequent controversy by producing it. The tomb was empty when the women went to it, that is a fact. How it was empty is what is at question. The only theories that stand up as plausible theories are 1) The disciples took it which makes them liars or 2) That Jesus actually rose.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The theory that the body of Jesus was taken and dumped somewhere is entirely possible. It may have been just done on the spur of the moment by a couple of low grade infantry men who had no love for the Jews. They were none too pleased at having to stand outside all night because of some petty sqabble among the natives, after a while one turns to the other and says "Hey Marcus, I just had a mad idea...."

It’s possible but untenable. Their orders were to seal and guard the tomb. Failure to comply with orders meant certain death for them. How hard could it have been to guard a tomb? Why go to the trouble of opening the tomb and discarding the body when they didn’t have to? All they needed to do was seal it and then guard it. Rolling back a huge stone in order to discard of a body they cared nothing for in the first place by throwing it on a trash heap without orders to do so makes no sense at all, even for morons.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

As for your claims that they couldn't be lying because they made it hard on themselves eg women visiting the tombs etc - if I was to lie I'm sure I would do it quite similar to how they did it. By throwing in seemingly unusual and often uncomplementary events it throws people off the scent of the lie. It infact is the sign of either the truth or else a good lie. If you lie when you say women visited the tomb first then you have people saying "He couldn't be lying, if he was lying I would have expected him to have men arrive first".

I find that harder to believe than the story itself. Liars don’t hurt their stories deliberately like that if all they are out to do is convince people that what they are saying is true. If all they were out to do was lie then they would have made it as believable as possible. They would not have deliberately said that women reported the resurrection as a reverse psychological tactic. It makes no sense. It is only after the story is analysed and additions such as the women being used as the original reporters to the resurrection are even questioned that you then say that they did this deliberately so that analysers of their story in later centuries would believe them. They were just being honest by adding that is was women who went to the tomb first and not them. This also shows the disciples up as being cowards who were afraid to go to the tomb first which also gels which other accounts in the story that they all fled when He was being crucified. Why paint themselves in such a bad light? They didn’t even believe the women when they told them about the empty tomb and that they saw the risen Lord. Thomas had to touch Jesus’ wounds before he would believe that He was risen. And using women would probably give credence to their story in later years after they all died but at the time of the first telling using women as the original reporters to the risen Christ would not have given their story much credence at all in fact it would have hurt their story as unreliable due to the account of women.

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

The 14th of Nissan started at 6pm Wednesday evening which is when Jesus was crucified.He was then placed in the tomb for 3 days and 3 nights. 24 hours later brings you to Thursday evening, 48 hours later brings you to Friday evening and 72 hours later brings you to Saturday evening. 6pm Saturday evening is sundown or the start of the first day of the next week. He rose on the first day of the week which was sundown or dusk on the Sunday. Which means he could have been crucified and buried on the Wednesday night and be in the tomb for 72 hours and come out on the sundown on the first day which started the new week and also the feast First Fruits. He did not come out of the tomb on Sunday morning after being crucified on Good Friday at 3pm. This give you less that 48 hours.

Amazingly it still does not add up for me. I think the best thing is to do this properly:

14th Nisan (Tue Night - Wed Dusk): Passover, Crucifiction, Burial.
15th Nisan (Wed Night - Thurs Dusk): Feast of Unleavened Bread, Sabbath day, Guard set at tomb.
16th Nisan (Thurs Night - Fri Dusk): Day of the Firstfruits.
17th Nisan (Fri Night - Sat Dusk) Sabbath Day
18th Nisan (Sat Night - Sun Dusk): The first day of the week. Resurrection. Tomb discovered empty on Sunday dawn.

By this he was raised on the forth day, died on the 14th and was in the tomb for all the 15th, all the 16th, all the 17th and on the 18th he was raised. Jesus said that on the third day he would raise again, this was the 17th but this was the last day of the week, not the first. This would also take him past the 72 hour mark as he died before nightfall, not on the stroke of it so we have a few hours of the 14th which will need adding on also.

Firstfruits falls on the day after the Sabbath feast of Unleavened Bread, this was the Friday if we go with your Wednesday Passover. He could not be dead on a Wednesday Passover, be in a tomb for three days and three nights, and still be resurrected on the Firstfruits AND the first day of the week. It just doesn't add up. But then I forget that God works in mysterious ways so maybe he added two days between the 15th and the 16th ( shall we call them 15a and 15b?), he can do anything after all. Then hey presto the seemingly mathematically impossible becomes possible.

Back in the real world though, the only way the feast of Firstfruits (the 16th) can be on a Sunday is if the Passover (the 14th) is on the Friday. If you want a Wednesday crucifiction then you have to lose a Firstfruits resurrection, you cannot have both.

Again this brings us back to the reporters. Were they lying? If so then why? How did they profit from it? What did they gain?

Why were they lying? For exactly the same reason as why Herostratus decided to burn down the beautiful Temple of Diana at Ephesus knowing that it would mean his certain death. They did what they did so they could achieve the closest thing a human can achieve short of immortality, their names and their stories have lived on for millenia after their bodies had died. Many a man could only dream of being remembered so long after their death. That is one possible reason.

Jesus was a very famous and controversial figure in all the land of Israel at that time. Do you honestly think that the Romans just discarded of His body in this way? You make them out to be real brainless morons. They weren’t. They ruled the then known world. They were told to seal the tomb and not to let anyone go near it.

Well yes I do believe the Roman army had some pretty moronic individuals in it actually, the basic Roman soldier was not recruited for his intellect and it is not as if there is no other evidence for them acting improperly. Josephus mentions that one Roman soldier started a full scale riot among the Jews in Jerusalem when he exposed his rear end in the temple so I don't think they were quite as disciplined and respectful to Jewish sensibilities as you might believe.

It’s possible but untenable. Their orders were to seal and guard the tomb. Failure to comply with orders meant certain death for them. How hard could it have been to guard a tomb? Why go to the trouble of opening the tomb and discarding the body when they didn’t have to? All they needed to do was seal it and then guard it. Rolling back a huge stone in order to discard of a body they cared nothing for in the first place by throwing it on a trash heap without orders to do so makes no sense at all, even for morons.

Huge stone? I doubt it was too big if a few women were confident of moving it, not meaning to be sexist but I think it is going a bit far to assume it would be any challenge to a couple of hardy Roman legionaires. As for certain death, well that would be only if they were caught. Anyways let us not forget that they didn't mind admitting that the were sleeping on the job so they obviously were not too worried about orders.

If they were as concerned about what their superiors told them as you suggest then they would not have slept while on duty. Perhaps the order to discard of the body of this criminal came from one of their commanding officers and they were instructed to claim the disciples stole the body. Obviously this was a rumour going around that this was what happened as Matthew felt obliged to address it by pinning the blame on the Jews.

Why would Roman officers want to do this? Perhaps to cause internal strife among the Jewish community. If the Jews are busy fighting among themselves they will be less likely to cause trouble to the Romans. Let us not forget that Romans were the masters of manipulating natives and situations in order to benefit themselves.

I find that harder to believe than the story itself. Liars don’t hurt their stories deliberately like that if all they are out to do is convince people that what they are saying is true. If all they were out to do was lie then they would have made it as believable as possible.

Well I have to disagree with you. Perhaps you are just too honest but a good liar with an ounce of common sense will not make claims which portray themselves as being 100% correct and everything falling into place as one would expect. Real life does not work like that and people who are making up a good story know that. There are numerous examples of pagan faiths showing some of their gods in less than shining lights during their lives, does this mean by your standards they were all telling the truth?

Soul Winner

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Amazingly it still does not add up for me. I think the best thing is to do this properly:

14th Nisan (Tue Night - Wed Dusk): Passover, Crucifiction, Burial.
15th Nisan (Wed Night - Thurs Dusk): Feast of Unleavened Bread, Sabbath day, Guard set at tomb.
16th Nisan (Thurs Night - Fri Dusk): Day of the Firstfruits.
17th Nisan (Fri Night - Sat Dusk) Sabbath Day
18th Nisan (Sat Night - Sun Dusk): The first day of the week. Resurrection. Tomb discovered empty on Sunday dawn.

By this he was raised on the forth day, died on the 14th and was in the tomb for all the 15th, all the 16th, all the 17th and on the 18th he was raised. Jesus said that on the third day he would raise again, this was the 17th but this was the last day of the week, not the first. This would also take him past the 72 hour mark as he died before nightfall, not on the stroke of it so we have a few hours of the 14th which will need adding on also.

If your gonna do it properly then do it properly:

14th Nisan (Wed Dusk - Thur Dusk): Passover, Crucifixion, Burial, Guard set at tomb.
15th Nisan (Thurs Dusk - Fri Dusk): Feast of Unleavened Bread,
16th Nisan (Fri Dusk - Sat Dusk): Sabbath Day
17th Nisan (Sat Dusk - Sun Dusk) Day of the First Fruits

First Fruits always occurs on the first day of the week within the the feast of unleavened bread.

From Tedmontgomery.com

Feast of Firstfruits

God commanded that, after they entered the land which God had promised to them, the children of Israel would mark a special day acknowledging that God had provided them fertile land on which to grow their crops. This day would be the Feast of Firstfruits (Lev. 23:9-14), because they were to offer to God the first grain (typically barley) of the first spring harvest. This was to take place during the week of the Feast of Unleavened Bread on the day after the regular weekly Sabbath (23:11b). Therefore, this always would occur on the first day of the week (or, more specifically, our sunset Saturday to sunset Sunday).


From The Good News Website:

Jesus Wasn't Crucified on Friday—or Resurrected on Sunday!

How can we fit three days and three nights between a Friday afternoon crucifixion and an Easter Sunday sunrise? The fact is, we can't. So what is the truth about when Jesus was crucified and resurrected?
by Scott Ashley

About one billion Protestants and another billion Catholics believe that Jesus Christ was crucified and entombed on a Friday afternoon—"Good Friday"—and raised to life again at daybreak on Easter Sunday morning, a day and a half later.

Yet when we compare this to what Jesus Himself said about how long He would be entombed, we find a major contradiction. How long did Jesus say He would be in the grave? "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40).

The context in which Jesus Christ said these words is important. The scribes and Pharisees were demanding a miraculous sign from Him to prove that He was indeed the long-awaited Messiah. "But He answered and said to them, 'An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah'" (verse 39).

This was the only sign Jesus gave that He was the promised Messiah: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (emphasis added throughout).

Traditional timing doesn't add up

The Gospels are clear that Jesus died and His body was hurriedly placed in the tomb late in the afternoon, just before sundown when a Sabbath began (John 19:30-42).

By the traditional "Good Friday–Easter Sunday" timing, from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown is one night and one day. Saturday night to Sunday daybreak is another night, giving us two nights and one day.

So where do we get another night and two days to equal the three days and three nights Jesus said He would be in the tomb?

This is definitely a problem. Most theologians and religious scholars try to work around it by arguing that any part of a day or night counts as a day or night. Thus, they say, the final few minutes of that Friday afternoon were the first day, all day Saturday was the second day, and the first few minutes of Sunday morning were the third day.

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

The trouble is, it doesn't work. This only adds up to three days and two nights, not three days and three nights.

Also, John 20:1 tells us that "on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb."

Did you catch the problem here? John tells us it was still dark when Mary went to the tomb on Sunday morning and found it empty. Jesus was already resurrected well before daybreak. Thus He wasn't in the tomb any of the daylight portion of Sunday, so none of that can be counted as a day.

That leaves us with, at most, part of a day on Friday, all of Friday night, a whole daylight portion on Saturday, and most of Saturday night. That totals one full day and part of another, and one full night and most of another—still at least a full day and a full night short of the time Jesus said He would be in the tomb.

Clearly something doesn't add up. Either Jesus misspoke about the length of time He would be in the tomb, or the "Good Friday–Easter Sunday" timing is not biblical or accurate.

Obviously both cannot be true. So which one is right?

Understanding God's time is the key

The key to understanding the timing of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection lies in understanding God's timetable for counting when days begin and end, as well as the timing of His biblical festivals during the spring of the year when these events took place.

We first need to realize that God doesn't begin and end days at midnight as we do—that is a humanly devised method of counting time. Genesis 1:5 tells us quite plainly that God counts a day as beginning with the evening (the night portion) and ending at the next evening—"So the evening [nighttime] and the morning [daylight] were the first day." God repeats this formula for the entire six days of creation.

In Leviticus 23, where God lists all of His holy Sabbaths and festivals, He makes it clear that they are to be observed "from evening to evening" (verse 32)—in other words, from sunset to sunset, when the sun went down and evening began.

This is why Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, followers of Jesus, hurriedly placed His body in Joseph's nearby tomb just before sundown (John 19:39-42). A Sabbath was beginning at sundown (verse 31), when work would have to cease.

Two kinds of "Sabbaths" lead to confusion

As John tells us in verse 31: "Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies [of those crucified] should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken [to hasten death], and that they might be taken away."

In the Jewish culture of that time, the chores of cooking and housecleaning were done on the day before a Sabbath to avoid working on God's designated day of rest. Thus the day before the Sabbath was commonly called "the preparation day." Clearly the day on which Christ was crucified and His body placed in the tomb was the day immediately preceding a Sabbath.

The question is, which Sabbath?

Most people assume John is speaking of the regular weekly Sabbath day, observed from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. From John's clear statement here, most people assume Jesus died and was buried on a Friday—thus the traditional belief that Jesus was crucified and died on "Good Friday."

Most people have no idea that the Bible talks about two kinds of Sabbath days—the normal weekly Sabbath day that falls on the seventh day of the week (not to be confused with Sunday, which is the first day of the week), and seven annual Sabbath days, listed in Leviticus 23 and mentioned in various passages throughout the Bible,
that could fall on any day of the week.

Because traditional Christianity long ago abandoned these biblical annual Sabbath days (as well as the weekly Sabbath), for many centuries people have failed to recognize what the Gospels plainly tell us about when Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected—and why "Good Friday–Easter Sunday" never happened that way.

Most people fail to note that John explicitly tells us that the Sabbath that began at sundown immediately after Jesus was entombed was one of these annual Sabbath days. Notice in John 19:31 his explanation that "that Sabbath was a high day" —" high day" being a term used to differentiate the seven annual Sabbaths from the regular weekly Sabbath days.

So what was this "high day" that immediately followed Jesus Christ's hurried entombment?

The Gospels tell us that on the evening before Jesus was condemned and crucified, He kept the Passover with His disciples (Matthew 26:19-20; Mark 14:16-17; Luke 22:13-15). This means He was crucified on the Passover day.

Leviticus 23, which lists God's festivals, tells us that on the day after the Passover a separate festival, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, begins (verses 5-6). The first day of this Feast is "a holy convocation" on which "no customary work" is to be done (verse 7).

This day is the first of God's annual Sabbaths. This is the "high day" of which John wrote. Several Bible commentaries, encyclopedias and dictionaries note that John is referring to an annual Sabbath here rather than the regular weekly Sabbath day.

Passover began at sundown and ended the following day at sundown, when this annual Sabbath began. Jesus kept the Passover with His disciples, then was arrested later that night. After daybreak the next day He was questioned before Pontius Pilate, crucified, then hurriedly entombed just before the next sunset when the "high day," the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, began.

Leviticus 23 tells us the order and timing of these days, and the Gospels confirm the order of events as they unfolded.

Jesus crucified on Wednesday, not Friday

Several computer software programs exist that enable us to calculate when the Passover and God's other festivals fall in any given year. Those programs show that in A.D. 31, the year of these events, the Passover meal was eaten on Tuesday night and Wednesday sundown marked the beginning of the "high day," the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Jesus, then, was crucified and entombed on a Wednesday afternoon, not on Friday.

Can we find further proof of this in the Gospels? Yes, indeed we can!

Let's turn to a seldom-noticed detail in Mark 16:1: "Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him."

In that time, if the body of a loved one was placed in a tomb rather than being buried directly in the ground, friends and family would commonly place aromatic spices in the tomb alongside the body to reduce the smell as the remains decayed.

Since Jesus' body was placed in the tomb just before that high-day Sabbath began, the women had no time to buy those spices before the Sabbath. Also, they could not have purchased them on the Sabbath day, as shops were closed. Thus, Mark says, they bought the spices after the Sabbath— "when the Sabbath was past."

But notice another revealing detail in Luke 23:55-56: "And the women who had come with [Christ] from Galilee followed after, and they observed the tomb and how His body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment."

Do you see a problem here? Mark clearly states that the women bought the spices after the Sabbath—"when the Sabbath was past." Luke tells us that the women prepared the spices and fragrant oils, after which "they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment."

So they bought the spices after the Sabbath, and then they prepared the spices before resting on the Sabbath. This is a clear contradiction between these two Gospel accounts—unless two Sabbaths were involved!

Indeed when we understand that two different Sabbaths are mentioned, the problem goes away.

Mark tells us that after the "high day" Sabbath, which began Wednesday evening at sundown and ended Thursday evening at sundown, the women bought the spices to anoint Jesus' body. Luke then tells us that the women prepared the spices—activity which would have taken place on Friday—and that afterward "they rested on the Sabbath [the normal weekly Sabbath day, observed Friday sunset to Saturday sunset] according to the commandment."

By comparing details in both accounts, we can clearly see that two different Sabbaths are mentioned along with a workday in between. The first Sabbath was a "high day"—the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which fell on a Thursday. The second was the weekly seventh-day Sabbath. (To see these events spelled out in day-by-day detail, see the chart above.)

The original Greek in which the Gospels were written also plainly tells us that two Sabbath days were involved in these accounts. In Matthew 28:1, where Matthew writes that the women went to the tomb "after the Sabbath," the word Sabbath here is actually plural and should be translated "Sabbaths." Bible versions such as Alfred Marshall's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Green's Literal Translation Young's Literal Translation and Ferrar Fenton's Translation make this clear.

When was Jesus resurrected?

We have seen, then, that Jesus Christ was crucified and entombed on a Wednesday, just before an annual Sabbath began—not the weekly Sabbath. So when was He resurrected?

John 20:1, as noted earlier, tells us that "on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb." The sun had not yet risen— "it was still dark," John tells us—when Mary found the tomb empty.

Obviously, then, Jesus was not resurrected at sunrise on Sunday morning. So when did this take place? The answer is plain if we simply read the Gospels—and Jesus Christ's own words—and accept them for what they say.

"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," said Jesus (Matthew 12:40).

As we have proven, Jesus was entombed —placed "in the heart of the earth"—just before sundown on a Wednesday. All we have to do is count forward. One day and one night brings us to Thursday at sundown. Another day and night brings us to Friday at sundown. A third day and night brings us to Saturday at sundown.

According to Jesus Christ's own words He would have been resurrected three days and nights after He was entombed, at around the same time—near sunset. Does this fit with the Scriptures? Yes—as we have seen, He was already risen and the tomb empty when Mary arrived "while it was still dark" on Sunday morning.

While no one was around to witness His resurrection (which took place inside a sealed tomb watched over by armed guards), Jesus Christ's own words and the details recorded in the Gospels show that it had to have happened three days and three nights after His burial, near sunset at the end of the weekly Sabbath.

Try as you might, it is impossible to fit three days and three nights between a late Friday burial and a Sunday morning resurrection. The Good Friday–Easter Sunday tradition simply isn't true or biblical. But when we look at all the details recorded in the Gospels and compare them with Jesus' own words, we can see the truth—and it matches perfectly.

The words of the angel of God, who so startled the women at the empty tomb, are proven true: "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said" (Matthew 28:5-6, New International Version).

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Firstfruits falls on the day after the Sabbath feast of Unleavened Bread, this was the Friday if we go with your Wednesday Passover. He could not be dead on a Wednesday Passover, be in a tomb for three days and three nights, and still be resurrected on the Firstfruits AND the first day of the week. It just doesn't add up. But then I forget that God works in mysterious ways so maybe he added two days between the 15th and the 16th ( shall we call them 15a and 15b?), he can do anything after all. Then hey presto the seemingly mathematically impossible becomes possible.

Are you making this up as yo go along?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Back in the real world though, the only way the feast of Firstfruits (the 16th) can be on a Sunday is if the Passover (the 14th) is on the Friday. If you want a Wednesday crucifixion then you have to lose a Firstfruits resurrection, you cannot have both.

Please read the posted article on the subject above.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Why were they lying? For exactly the same reason as why Herostratus decided to burn down the beautiful Temple of Diana at Ephesus knowing that it would mean his certain death. They did what they did so they could achieve the closest thing a human can achieve short of immortality, their names and their stories have lived on for millenia after their bodies had died. Many a man could only dream of being remembered so long after their death. That is one possible reason.

I seriously doubt that you believe that but if that's what you believe happened then you are entitled to it.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well yes I do believe the Roman army had some pretty moronic individuals in it actually, the basic Roman soldier was not recruited for his intellect and it is not as if there is no other evidence for them acting improperly. Josephus mentions that one Roman soldier started a full scale riot among the Jews in Jerusalem when he exposed his rear end in the temple so I don't think they were quite as disciplined and respectful to Jewish sensibilities as you might believe.

Any more examples of ignoramia with in the Roman Legions?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Huge stone? I doubt it was too big if a few women were confident of moving it, not meaning to be sexist but I think it is going a bit far to assume it would be any challenge to a couple of hardy Roman legionaires.

Where does it say that the women moved the stone?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

As for certain death, well that would be only if they were caught. Anyways let us not forget that they didn't mind admitting that the were sleeping on the job so they obviously were not too worried about orders.

Why didn't they say that the disciples over powered them and stole the body? They would have if that was actually the case wouldn't they? Why say that they slept when they could have directly implicated the disciples?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

If they were as concerned about what their superiors told them as you suggest then they would not have slept while on duty.

But they didn't sleep did they? They just said they did.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Perhaps the order to discard of the body of this criminal came from one of their commanding officers and they were instructed to claim the disciples stole the body. Obviously this was a rumour going around that this was what happened as Matthew felt obliged to address it by pinning the blame on the Jews.

Pinning what on the Jews? That they stole the body? What are you talking about?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Why would Roman officers want to do this? Perhaps to cause internal strife among the Jewish community.

Then why send soldiers to seal and guard the tomb in the first place if that was their attitude?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

If the Jews are busy fighting among themselves they will be less likely to cause trouble to the Romans. Let us not forget that Romans were the masters of manipulating natives and situations in order to benefit themselves.

The Romans already ruled them and would not tolerate any insurrectionist activity be it amongst themselves or against the Romans.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well I have to disagree with you. Perhaps you are just too honest but a good liar with an ounce of common sense will not make claims which portray themselves as being 100% correct and everything falling into place as one would expect. Real life does not work like that and people who are making up a good story know that. There are numerous examples of pagan faiths showing some of their gods in less than shining lights during their lives, does this mean by your standards they were all telling the truth?

Not necessarily. Jesus wasn't painted in any bad light by the disciples yet they themselves are painted in very bad light, especially before the resurrection and in some cases after the resurrection.

Why don't you just admit that you just don't want to believe the story instead of compiling reams of bad rhetoric dressed up as honest analytical scrutiny of the facts in evidence to try and disprove it?

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

If your gonna do it properly then do it properly:

14th Nisan (Wed Dusk - Thur Dusk): Passover, Crucifixion, Burial, Guard set at tomb.
15th Nisan (Thurs Dusk - Fri Dusk): Feast of Unleavened Bread,
16th Nisan (Fri Dusk - Sat Dusk): Sabbath Day
17th Nisan (Sat Dusk - Sun Dusk) Day of the First Fruits

I see you have the guards set at the tomb on the 14th. Where did you get this from? Matthew is the only person to mention the guard and he says that the chief priests didn't visit Pilate until the following day.

First Fruits always occurs on the first day of the week within the the feast of unleavened bread.

No it doesn't, it falls two days after the Passover, on the 16th, in keeping with the chronology of the original Passover instructions of the OT:

Passover on the 14th:
Josh 5:10 And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal, and kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at even in the plains of Jericho.

Feast of Unleaved Bread the next day, the 15th:
Josh 5:11 And they did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the selfsame day.

Day of First Fruits the day after Unleavened Bread, the 16th:
Josh 5:12 And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any more; but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.

This was to take place during the week of the Feast of Unleavened Bread on the day after the regular weekly Sabbath (23:11b). Therefore, this always would occur on the first day of the week (or, more specifically, our sunset Saturday to sunset Sunday).

I would refer you back to PDN's point earlier on, the Sabbath was not neccesarily Saturday. The Feast of Unleavened Bread (the 15th) was a Sabbath also. The article you quote says Leviticus specifies the "regular weekly Sabbath", in truth Leviticus does nothing of the sort. Levitus 23:11 states: "He is to wave the sheaf before the LORD so it will be accepted on your behalf; the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath." Christians are so fond of telling critics to understand the context of Bible passages so I would suggest you do the same. Leviticus 23:11 shows firsfruits is on the day after the Sabbath but just prior to this it says that the 15th is a Sabbath and then the very next instruction is that the day after the Sabbath is the day of First Fruits. The context of the passage is clear, the Sabbath that Leviticus 23:11 is referring to is the Sabbath Day of Unleavened Bread, not the regular Saturday Sabbath.

Your source is intentionally misleading the reader by misquoting the Bible in order to suit the Christian need to have a Firstfruits resurrection. Nowhere does Leviticus say that Firstfruits must fall on the first day of the week as it does not, contrary to the article you quoted, say that it falls the day after the regular weekly Sabbath. It is clear from Leviticus and Joshua that the three days fall one after the other: Passover on the 14th, Unleavened Bread & Sabbath on the 15th, Firstfruits on the 16th.

Any more examples of ignoramia with in the Roman Legions?

I don't need any more. Josephus has shown that at least one Roman soldier acted entirely inappropriately and idiotically, that is all I needed to set a precedent.

Where does it say that the women moved the stone?

It doesn't say they moved the stone as it was already opened but it does say they were going alone, what do you expect their plan was? Arrive at the tomb and wait for it to open itself? They obviously were confident of being able to open the tomb themselves, Jewish tombs were not covered over by massive boulders as Christians imagine, they were enclosed by entirely manageable, moderately sized stones.

Why don't you just admit that you just don't want to believe the story instead of compiling reams of bad rhetoric dressed up as honest analytical scrutiny of the facts in evidence to try and disprove it?

You are right, I don't want to take the word of people I have never met and know nothing about. If they want me to believe their incredible claims then I will need convincing big time, a few accounts of poorly written material full of hear say, often contradicting one another, written decades after the events which they claim happened, claims not supported by ONE unbiased observer, written by authors whose identity we are not certain off does not, in my mind at least, make for a convincing case. I guess I just have higher standards than most when it comes to evidence.

Soul Winner

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I see you have the guards set at the tomb on the 14th. Where did you get this from? Matthew is the only person to mention the guard and he says that the chief priests didn't visit Pilate until the following day.

Well spotted. That was a mistake on my part. Should have been the next day for sure.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

No it doesn't, it falls two days after the Passover, on the 16th, in keeping with the chronology of the original Passover instructions of the OT:

Passover on the 14th:
Josh 5:10 And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal, and kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at even in the plains of Jericho.

Feast of Unleaved Bread the next day, the 15th:
Josh 5:11 And they did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the selfsame day.

Day of First Fruits the day after Unleavened Bread, the 16th:
Josh 5:12 And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any more; but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.

I would refer you back to PDN's point earlier on, the Sabbath was not neccesarily Saturday. The Feast of Unleavened Bread (the 15th) was a Sabbath also. The article you quote says Leviticus specifies the "regular weekly Sabbath", in truth Leviticus does nothing of the sort. Levitus 23:11 states: "He is to wave the sheaf before the LORD so it will be accepted on your behalf; the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath." Christians are so fond of telling critics to understand the context of Bible passages so I would suggest you do the same. Leviticus 23:11 shows firsfruits is on the day after the Sabbath but just prior to this it says that the 15th is a Sabbath and then the very next instruction is that the day after the Sabbath is the day of First Fruits. The context of the passage is clear, the Sabbath that Leviticus 23:11 is referring to is the Sabbath Day of Unleavened Bread, not the regular Saturday Sabbath.

The Feast of Unleavened Bread was a week long feast which started the day after Passover. First Fruits always came on the next first day of the week after Unleavened Bread started. There was no date for First Fruits. In the year that Jesus was crucified the 14th of Nissan was a Wednesday. Jewish days start at sundown so 6pm Wednesday to 6pm Thursday was the 14th Nissan i.e. Passover. The lamb was always slain at the end of the 14th of Nissan which was sundown on Thursday in that year. After 6pm on this Thursday began the week long feast of Unleavened Bread. 6pm Thursday to 6pm Friday is 24 hours, 6pm Friday to 6pm Saturday (Sabbath) is 48 hours and 6pm Saturday to 6pm Sunday 72 hours. 6pm Sunday night began the feast of First Fruits in that particular week which was exactly three days and three nights after Unleavened Bread started. Read this to see what the Karaite Jews says about these feasts.

More interesting dates:

Passover dates 26-34 A.D.

The following astronomical data in the first three columns below was obtained from the U.S. Naval Observatory Astronomical Applications Department. The pertinent file may be accessed here.

Note. The times of day given in the second and third columns have been adjusted +2 hours from U.S. Naval Observatory figures to account for the difference between Jerusalem Israel and Greenwich England (universal) time.
It should also be noted that the first evening of a visible crescent moon (column 4) always occurs only minutes after sundown, which is at the very beginning of a new day on the Hebrew calendar. This Hebrew day correlates to the following day on our Gregorian calendar as noted in the chart below (column 5). Column 6 is Passover dates for the given years.



* Midnight at the end of the given day.

** Conjunction occurs too late in the day for crescent to be seen the next evening.

*** Conjunction occurred on date of Equinox actually preceding it by 4 hours. But as noted above, it is the visible crescent that established the 1st of Nisan which occurred on the 2nd evening after Equinox.
________________________________________
Note

A Passover on Wednesday is the only day of the week that works with all Biblical accounts of the crucifixion. Yahshua was in the grave "three days and three nights" Matthew 12:40. From Wednesday just before sunset to Saturday just before sunset is three days and three nights. The fact that the day following Yahshua's crucifixion was a Sabbath (Mark 15:42, Luke 23:52-54, & John 19:31) does not prove He was crucified on a Friday. According to the Law of Moses, the day following Passover (which is also the first day of the feast of unleavened bread) is also, always a Sabbath day of rest to be observed like the 7th day weekly Sabbath no matter what day of the week it falls on. (See Leviticus 23:4-8, Numbers 28:16-18, and take special notice of John 19:31 again. The Sabbath immediately following Yahshua's crucifixion was no ordinary Sabbath.)

Understanding that it was a Wednesday Passover and crucifixion also solves apparent conflicts in the Gospel records. In Luke 23:55,56 it says that the women (Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James) went and prepared anointing spices and oils BEFORE the Sabbath. In Mark 16:1 it says that they bought them AFTER the Sabbath! The answer lies is in the fact that there are two different Sabbaths being referred to here. The women both bought and prepared the spices on the same day. The day of the week was Friday. When Mark says they bought the spices AFTER the Sabbath, the Sabbath he is referring to was the special Thursday Sabbath ...the first day of unleavened bread that followed the day of Passover. When Luke says they prepared the spices and then rested the Sabbath, the Sabbath he is referring to is Saturday ...the weekly Sabbath.

There is also proof found in Matthew 28:1 that there were two Sabbaths. Most Bible translations render this word "Sabbath" in the singular because translators, believing the traditional Friday crucifixion scenario, couldn't make any sense of the fact that the Greek manuscripts all render this word in the plural. This fact can be verified by anyone with a Greek interlinear translation or Greek lexicon (I've added a hyperlinked screen shot of this below for your convenience). Matthew 28:1 therefore should read, "Now after the SABBATHS as the first day of the week began to dawn...".



Therefore, for all the records to add up it must be concluded that Yahshua was crucified on a Wednesday.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It doesn't say they moved the stone as it was already opened but it does say they were going alone, what do you expect their plan was? Arrive at the tomb and wait for it to open itself? They obviously were confident of being able to open the tomb themselves, Jewish tombs were not covered over by massive boulders as Christians imagine, they were enclosed by entirely manageable, moderately sized stones.

Now that is an excellent point. I never thought of that before. Very good DM, I’m impressed. Anyway the record says that it was an Angel that moved the stone not the soldiers or the women. Still though, that's a very good point and one I will check out further.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

You are right, I don't want to take the word of people I have never met and know nothing about. If they want me to believe their incredible claims then I will need convincing big time, a few accounts of poorly written material full of hear say, often contradicting one another, written decades after the events which they claim happened, claims not supported by ONE unbiased observer, written by authors whose identity we are not certain off does not, in my mind at least, make for a convincing case. I guess I just have higher standards than most when it comes to evidence.

I guess you do and you are right to scrutinize every source especially ones that make ridiculous claims such as these. I on the other hand need only read the record and the many books I’ve already mentioned to come to the conclusion that the reporters where not lying about what they were reporting. So if I’m convinced they are not lying then I’m also convinced that He rose. That is what being a Christian is. Actually believing this happened as a fact of history. If you don’t really believe this actually happened then you are not a Christian.

Pompey Magnus

Well whatever day Jesus died on I find it amusing that there can be two camps in Christianity who, on reading the exact same evidence, can come up with two entirely different durations of death and both sides believe the Gospels support their arguments. This is the beauty of the Bible which has been revealed time and again through history, if you want to find something to support your argument in it you can even if someone else sees the exact opposite.

Do you want to believe Jesus was born during the reign of Herod? The Bible will support you.
Do you want to believe he was actually born during the census of Quirinius 10 years later? The Bible will support you.

Want to believe Jesus died on a Friday? The Bible will support you.
Want to believe he died on a Wednesday? The Bible will support you.

Want to believe God treats abortion as murder? The Bible will support you.
Want to believe God does not treat abortion as murder? The Bible will support you..

Want to believe a trinity is compatible with the OT God? The Bible will support you.
Want to believe such an idea is blasphemous against Yahweh? The Bible will support you.

etc

This whole discussion about what day Jesus died on just goes to show yet again how worthless the Bible really is. It leaves massive ambiguities at every turn and it provides only a rough snapshot of the teachings of Jesus. For Christians to think they can build a moral framework around the teachings of Jesus by using the Gospels is like someone reading the back cover of a novel and then thinking they know what the book is all about.

If Jesus was really God then the best you can say about him is that he was incompetent when deciding on the best way to pass his message on to future generations, in fact if he could not be bother to devise a better system of spreading the faith then he has blood on his hands and is just as guilty as the Inquisitors, genocidal Popes and religious bigots who used his poorly written Gospels to spread murder, torture and suffering around the world for 2000 years.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well whatever day Jesus died on I find it amusing that there can be two camps in Christianity who, on reading the exact same evidence, can come up with two entirely different durations of death and both sides believe the Gospels support their arguments. This is the beauty of the Bible which has been revealed time and again through history, if you want to find something to support your argument in it you can even if someone else sees the exact opposite.

Do you want to believe Jesus was born during the reign of Herod? The Bible will support you.
Do you want to believe he was actually born during the census of Quirinius 10 years later? The Bible will support you.

Want to believe Jesus died on a Friday? The Bible will support you.
Want to believe he died on a Wednesday? The Bible will support you.

Want to believe God treats abortion as murder? The Bible will support you.
Want to believe God does not treat abortion as murder? The Bible will support you..

Want to believe a trinity is compatible with the OT God? The Bible will support you.
Want to believe such an idea is blasphemous against Yahweh? The Bible will support you.

etc

This whole discussion about what day Jesus died on just goes to show yet again how worthless the Bible really is. It leaves massive ambiguities at every turn and it provides only a rough snapshot of the teachings of Jesus. For Christians to think they can build a moral framework around the teachings of Jesus by using the Gospels is like someone reading the back cover of a novel and then thinking they know what the book is all about.

If Jesus was really God then the best you can say about him is that he was incompetent when deciding on the best way to pass his message on to future generations, in fact if he could not be bother to devise a better system of spreading the faith then he has blood on his hands and is just as guilty as the Inquisitors, genocidal Popes and religious bigots who used his poorly written Gospels to spread murder, torture and suffering around the world for 2000 years.

Nice little rant.

That would be an understandable view if you thought the purpose of the Bible was in order to give us a timetable of the exact day on the week on which Jesus died. However, that was not the purpose of the Bible.

While I find it interesting to debate with other believers whether Jesus died on a Wednesday, Thursday or Friday - it matters not a jot when it comes to the important stuff like salvation and loving your fellow man.

Soul Winner

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well whatever day Jesus died on I find it amusing that there can be two camps in Christianity who, on reading the exact same evidence, can come up with two entirely different durations of death and both sides believe the Gospels support their arguments. This is the beauty of the Bible which has been revealed time and again through history, if you want to find something to support your argument in it you can even if someone else sees the exact opposite.

Do you want to believe Jesus was born during the reign of Herod? The Bible will support you.
Do you want to believe he was actually born during the census of Quirinius 10 years later? The Bible will support you.

Want to believe Jesus died on a Friday? The Bible will support you.
Want to believe he died on a Wednesday? The Bible will support you.

Want to believe God treats abortion as murder? The Bible will support you.
Want to believe God does not treat abortion as murder? The Bible will support you..

Want to believe a trinity is compatible with the OT God? The Bible will support you.
Want to believe such an idea is blasphemous against Yahweh? The Bible will support you.

etc

This whole discussion about what day Jesus died on just goes to show yet again how worthless the Bible really is. It leaves massive ambiguities at every turn and it provides only a rough snapshot of the teachings of Jesus. For Christians to think they can build a moral framework around the teachings of Jesus by using the Gospels is like someone reading the back cover of a novel and then thinking they know what the book is all about.

If Jesus was really God then the best you can say about him is that he was incompetent when deciding on the best way to pass his message on to future generations, in fact if he could not be bother to devise a better system of spreading the faith then he has blood on his hands and is just as guilty as the Inquisitors, genocidal Popes and religious bigots who used his poorly written Gospels to spread murder, torture and suffering around the world for 2000 years.

So why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of drawing out a long winded argument about First Fruits not being celebrated on the next first day of the week after Unleavened Bread started which was on the day after Passover, which said Passover feast was always on the 14th day of Nissan no matter what day of the week that was?

It just so happened to be on a Wednesday in the year Jesus was crucified. It had to be in a year where Passover fell on a Wednesday otherwise He could not have fulfilled the other feasts subsequently. The scripture says that in the fullness of time God sent forth His son. Jesus told His disciples in John 7:8 that He could not go up to Jerusalem to the Feast because His time was not yet. God is a God of set times. That is what the word feast means in the OT.

From Restoration Foundation: "All seven feasts are called the "Feasts of the LORD" and should not be called "Jewish Holidays." The reason this is important is found in Leviticus 23:2 where God told Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them" ‘These are my appointed feasts, the appointed feasts of the LORD, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies.’" The key word "appointed" is used twice in this verse. It is the Hebrew word "moedim" which is understood to mean "set times." The LORD’s Feasts are His "set times" and are not therefore to be confused with "holidays." God does His redemptive works on His "set times."

For Jesus to come in a year where Passover was on any other day other than Wednesday would be to throw the whole alignment off. It’s like the way our planets lined up in our solar system for the probe NASA sent to observe Saturn and Jupiter etc years ago. It was called Voyager or something. Without that planetary line up at that time, that mission would not have been possible to do in the relatively short time it took the probe to get to those outer planets due to the use of each planet’s gravitational pull. It had to be launched at a specific time in order to utilize that rare planetary line up. Same with God fulfilling these feasts. It was like a very fast moving target from God’s point of view. One that He had to hit right on the nose. If He wasn’t crucified on a Wednesday Passover then it is all out of line simply because of the way God set up these feast in the OT. The Last Supper is called ‘Last’ because it was the last time that the Passover feast was to be observed. Being fulfilled in Christ. Same with Sabbath - Unleavened Bread – First Fruits – Pentecost – and yet to come are Trumpets – Atonement and Tabernacles. God is amazing!!!

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

So why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of drawing out a long winded argument about First Fruits not being celebrated on the next first day of the week after Unleavened Bread started which was on the day after Passover, which said Passover feast was always on the 14th day of Nissan no matter what day of the week that was?

Actually the argument about a Friday burial was not mine, it is the belief of close to two billion Christians and has been the apostolic tradition of Orthodox Christianity for close to 2000 years and just happens to be one of the few things I feel Orthodox Christianity has gotten right, normally I quite enjoy pointing out errors, flaws and contradictions in Christian teachings but here I have to say I would agree with the traditional interpretation of the Gospels. the evidence from the Bible supports a Friday Passover and the claims for a resurrection on the Sunday. Your belief for a Wednesday burial has never drawn considerable support from early Church fathers or Biblical scholars. One reason being that if Jesus was buried on Wednesday then it would not be until the forth day that we raised from the dead when he himself predicted the third day.

Virtually every Christian, living and dead, has believed that Jesus was dead for less than 48 hours, your argument is reliant on conjecture and self fulfilling prophecy as inadequate reporting in the Gospels mean you do not know what year Jesus died on so you think it must be 31 AD because this would have been a year with a Wednesday Passover. This is not a good enough argument to overturn millenia of Christian teachings.

Soul Winner

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Actually the argument about a Friday burial was not mine, it is the belief of close to two billion Christians and has been the apostolic tradition of Orthodox Christianity for close to 2000 years and just happens to be one of the few things I feel Orthodox Christianity has gotten right

Well you’re wrong about that. Some interesting facts about Good Friday taken from the 1 way only website:

Origins of Good Friday. Did you ever wonder why Good Friday is recognized as the day Jesus died and Sunday as the day he arose but yet had trouble explaining how he could thus be buried for three days and three nights? (Matthew 12:40; Matthew 27:63; Mark 8:31; Mark 9:31; Mark 10:34) The answer is simple: He didn't actually die on "Good Friday." The Chaldeans offered cakes to Ishtar on the equivalent of the day we know as Good Friday. When the established church wanted to appease the paganistic people in order to "convert" them to Christianity, they moved the dates accordingly. Jesus actually died on the day of Preparation of Passover Week, which that year occurred on Wednesday (John 19:14, 31-42). Thursday was the Sabbath of the Passover. Friday, Christ was still in the tomb. Saturday was the "regular" Sabbath. Jesus arose after the Saturday Sabbath was concluded, which was the first day of the week, the day we know as Sunday (Mark 16:9; John 20:1). For further clarification of the days concerning Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, see Matthew 27:50-28:7; Mark 15:25-16:6; Luke 23:44-24:8; John 19:14-20:17."

Read more about Easter here

Easter in the early Church from the Easter article in Wikipedia

The observance of any non-Jewish special holiday throughout the Christian year is believed by some to be an innovation postdating the Early Church. The ecclesiastical historian Socrates Scholasticus (b. 380) attributes the observance of Easter by the church to the perpetuation of local custom, "just as many other customs have been established," stating that neither Jesus nor his Apostles enjoined the keeping of this or any other festival. However, when read in context, this is not a rejection or denigration of the celebration—which, given its currency in Scholasticus' time would be surprising—but is merely part of a defense of the diverse methods for computing its date. Indeed, although he describes the details of the Easter celebration as deriving from local custom, he insists the feast itself is universally observed.[8]

Perhaps the earliest extant primary source referencing Easter is a 2nd century Paschal homily by Melito of Sardis, which characterizes the celebration as a well-established one.[9]

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

normally I quite enjoy pointing out errors, flaws and contradictions in Christian teachings but here I have to say I would agree with the traditional interpretation of the Gospels. the evidence from the Bible supports a Friday Passover and the claims for a resurrection on the Sunday.

Well I’ve shown you quite clearly that is not the case. You just refuse to accept it.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Your belief for a Wednesday burial has never drawn considerable support from early Church fathers or Biblical scholars.

I beg to differ. There are many biblical scholars who do believe in a Wednesday crucifixion. From AD2004 website: “There have been many noted believers in a Wednesday crucifixion, from the time of the early church until now. These include Epiphanus, Victorinus of Petau in 307 AD, Lactantius, Wescott, Cassiodorus, and Gregory of Tours. Later, Finis Dake and R.A. Torrey also believed in a Wednesday crucifixion. We now know that the Bible teaches a Wednesday crucifixion, so the reader now must face the facts of the Bible as compared to the traditions of men. At the same time, I say that this does not determine salvation, for I know that there will be millions who have believed the Friday crucifixion hoax and I will see them in heaven one day. Also, a superficial reading of the gospels does tend to lead one to the conclusion of a Friday crucifixion, when read separately, so one cannot blame the majority of believers for this false belief.” Read the full article by Roy A. Reinhold here

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

One reason being that if Jesus was buried on Wednesday then it would not be until the forth day that we raised from the dead when he himself predicted the third day.

I shall attempt to show you this one more time: Christ was crucified and placed in the tomb before 6pm Wednesday which was Passover the 14th Nissan. From 6pm Wednesday to 6pm Thursday = 24 hours (first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread which was an annual Sabbath day) 6pm Wednesday to 6pm Friday = 48 hours and 6pm Wednesday to 6pm Saturday = 72 hours which would bring us to the end of that week's weekly Sabbath. After which the first day of the week began 6pm Saturday to 6pm Sunday which was First Fruits.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Virtually every Christian, living and dead, has believed that Jesus was dead for less than 48 hours

As I’ve already shown you above this is clearly not the case. There were many early church fathers and there are many modern scholars who do not hold to this view. The reason we have Christ dying on Good Friday and less than 48 hours later we have Him risen on a Sunday morning was to fit in with the well established Pagan festivals that were universally customary at the time. The Church in later centuries could not put a stop to the party so they put halos on all these pagan feasts and Christianised them. They were never part of God’s plan. And look how that conformity by the Church to pagan ritual has distorted the truth of God’s Word. Satan won a great victory when he managed to force this compromise. Some Christians will say that Christ won over the heathen Gods by supplanting them within their own rituals but the fact is that its the other way around. Satan won these particular battles. Hence the reason most Christians cannot give you a straight answer to the question of how can Christ be three days and three nights in the earth when He was crucified at 3pm on Good Friday and risen on the following Sunday morning? That’s a mere 39 hours. No where near the scriptural three days and three nights that Jesus Himself said would be the length of time He would be in the tomb.

If you are going to go along with the masses then most people including most Christians also believe that Christ was born on the 25th of December does that mean that they are correct? If you’ve ever been to Israel in December you find out very fast that you do not tend sheep in the fields at night time at that time of the year. It is far to cold. It can be proven from scripture that John the Baptist was born in Spring time due the duties of his father the priest who was visited by the angel and given the news fo his birth. The scripture says that Jesus was born six months after John the Baptist which would bring you to Autumn not the middle of Winter. Christ was born on the Feast of Trumpets in September fulfilling one of the silver trumpets that were to be blown all day long on that day. Silver is always the symbol for redemption in God’s Word. Christ is our redeemer. Satan also won this battle by having Jesus born on 25th of December instead of God’s prophetic feast day thus taken away from God’s glory.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

your argument is reliant on conjecture and self fulfilling prophecy as inadequate reporting in the Gospels mean you do not know what year Jesus died on so you think it must be 31 AD because this would have been a year with a Wednesday Passover. This is not a good enough argument to overturn millenia of Christian teachings.

It had to be AD 31 because that is the only year that Passover fell on a Wednesday. No other day would do for Christ to become our Passover lamb. It had to be in a year where Passover was on Wednesday. Paul says of the feasts or set times of the LORD in the Old Testament that they were shadows of things to come but the substance that cast the shadows is Christ. They all lead to Him and He must fulfil everyone of them. Without a Wednesday Passover He could not have done this.