3 Days and 3 nights? Did Jesus fulfill this prophecy?

crazyrussian said:

I know I did not delete your charts. I was all to happy to re-posted them in my recap of our conversation, because they clearly illustrated your lack of knowledge concerning this subject. If you believe what you illustrated on the charts that are now missing was truth, please feel free to re-illustrate your version of truth on the shared chart. Present marks in this chart exactly as you did in the charts which are now missing so we can re-cap correctly, But please identify with clarity which of the time markers you endorse as the start time and end time of the journey since you marked 458 BC originally on my charts, yet claimed it to be 457BC. You have two separate markers you can choose from. Purple or gold are the two choices. I simply need to know for sure what you were saying in all these posts since you started out by displaying confusion which left me speculating in an attempt to understand you.

All of your posts which you have shared with me thus far, i have compared with the information listed on this chart. I have found what you claim is refuted by this chart. I'm simply asking you to explain which of the two years in question you clearly support since you originally marked 458 BC (purple time markers), but claimed 457 BC. I would also like to know, what on this page is telling a lie, since this page clearly illustrates 458 BC to be the correct year and you are convinced it is 457 BC.

Truth is fact, not theory! Truth/fact will always expose the lie so please share any shred of truth that will expose any lie presented on this chart. Discord is the end result of a lie, so one of us is lying which is evident by our difference in perception and claims being shared with this thread. You could clear the air of confusion by clearly making a case that does not flip flop on a whim. Please circle any data presented that is not telling a truth. You orignally stated this chart supported your claim.

Click to expand...

1. If that were the case, truth should not have to duck and dodge tough questions against it. Here's your chance to uphold your alledged "fact":

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3075586-post20.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3089002-post29.html

But let me guess....you're going to ignore the posts for the sixth time, Ask me to annotate your chart and simply claim you're theory is true and mine false, right? lol

crazyrussian said:

Please explain since this chart supports contrary to your claim.

Click to expand...

2. I've already marked your charts and gave you a timeline in written form. Check the last few pages. No need to mark them again. It's 457BC. You're merely using the chart as a diversion from answering the very compelling refutations against your theory. Once again, the burden of proof is on you. You can start restoring your credibility by answering the posts in point 1.

james2ko said:

Not really. Before I spend time addressing your other points, I need to understand your logic of Exodus 12. Your explanation will determine whether we are in the same ballpark or different galaxy. You claim Christ must fulfill all things in the law, prophets, and writings. Then you claim a parallel between Christ and the lamb of Ex 12 suggesting Christ, just as the lamb, should have been chosen 4 days before His death, but was not, thus undermining the truth of the bible. Yet the lamb in Ex 12 was burned after it was sacrificed--Jesus was not. This creates a huge hole in your logic. How do you reconcile this?

Click to expand...

This is reconciled by the information shared at this link. You'll have to take the time to review it but it's pretty clear.

http://thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the death and resurrection.pdf

james2ko said:

Found another discrepancy on pg 11, Mark 14:12, on the right side implies Christ was alive past the 14th day. Hidden in the Greek of Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:1, 12; and Luke 22:7 is a reference to Passover as "the first of the unfermenteds." This is because unleavened bread is indeed used on the 14th as part of the Passover service. A comparison with the Old Testament, however, discloses this to be only the popular usage of some during New Testament times. In the Old Testament, something akin to this is found in Deuteronomy 16:1, where the two days--Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread-- are also referred to as the "Passover." Throughout scripture, we see Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread used interchangeably. This evidence undermines your conclusion Christ was alive past the 14th.

That is two discrepancies in a relatively quick glance at the document. BTW...Im still waiting for an answer for this post:http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3075586-post20.html

Click to expand...

Just because the testimony of man as it is recorded in the bible uses the phrases interchagably does not make their testimony Scripture. Scripture are words that proceeded from the mouth of God or from Prophets by the inspiration of the spirit of God.

The law Jesus himself claimed to fulfill when he said he fulfilled all things in the law of Moses, Prophets and Psalms concerning him (He being the lamb) according to Christianity, is very clear concering the timing of the Passover as well as the feast of unleavened bread. This two is detailed at the below link.

http://thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the death and resurrection.pdf

Now that I have addressed your concerns. Please address mine and clearly display on the chart which time markers clearly represent your argument. purple or gold?

crazyrussian said:

This is reconciled by the information shared at this link. You'll have to take the time to review it but it's pretty clear.

http://thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the death and resurrection.pdf

Click to expand...

I'm done...lol...

james2ko said:

1. If that were the case, truth should not have to duck and dodge tough questions against it. Here's your chance to uphold your alledged "fact":

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3075586-post20.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3089002-post29.html

But let me guess....you're going to ignore the posts for the sixth time, Ask me to annotate your chart and simply claim you're theory is true and mine false, right? lol



2. I've already marked your charts and gave you a timeline in written form. Check the last few pages. No need to mark them again. It's 457BC. You're merely using the chart as a diversion from answering the very compelling refutations against your theory. Once again, the burden of proof is on you. You can start restoring your credibility by answering the posts in point 1.

Click to expand...

many of your questions are already addressed in the information at the link but i took the time to reply to each issue.
http://thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the%20death%20and%20resurrection.pdf

I have re-capped the charts which you shared with me and they still illustrate confusion in comparison to what you attmpted to sell me with out the charts. So I ask again now that I have addressed your questions, to please provide clarity on the chart that lists both facits of this debate with all the possible calenders a person could consider as an influence to the decree.

I have taken the liberty to repeat the mark you made in your original chart which you shared with me. The image of your mark does not support your theory of 457 BC being the correct year since the purple circle is clearly around the purple time markers which are clearly in 458 BC.




I'm pretty sure 458 BC is the correct year. So glad we could put this issue to rest. Thanks for your help!

crazyrussian said:

Just because the testimony of man as it is recorded in the bible uses the phrases interchagably does not make their testimony Scripture. Scripture are words that proceeded from the mouth of God or from Prophets by the inspiration of the spirit of God.

The law Jesus himself claimed to fulfill when he said he fulfilled all things in the law of Moses, Prophets and Psalms concerning him (He being the lamb) according to Christianity, is very clear concering the timing of the Passover as well as the feast of unleavened bread. This two is detailed at the below link.

http://thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the death and resurrection.pdf

Now that I have addressed your concerns. Please address mine and clearly display on the chart which time markers clearly represent your argument. purple or gold?

Click to expand...

That does not address the points in the two posts:



Your response clearly does not address these issues. Nice try though.

crazyrussian said:

many of your questions are already addressed in the information at the link but i took the time to reply to each issue.
http://thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the%20death%20and%20resurrection.pdf

I have re-capped the charts which you shared with me and they still illustrate confusion in comparison to what you attmpted to sell me with out the charts. So I ask again now that I have addressed your questions, to please provide clarity on the chart that lists both facits of this debate.

I have taken the liberty to repeat the mark you made in your original chart which you share with me. The image of your mark does not support your theory of 457 BC being the correct year since the purple circle is clearly around the purple time markers which are clearly in 458 BC.

Click to expand...

According to your interpretation of what my mark represents. My written timeline is clear. 457BC is the year...

The Jews reckoning from a fall-to-fall basis counted the time from December/ January to the fall of that year (464 B.C.) as Artaxerxes’ I accession year. Therefore, Artaxerxes’ regnal years according to Jewish reckoning began in the fall of 464 B.C. Thus placing the kings accession year from around late December, 465 B.C. to the fall of 464 B.C. Year one of Artaxerxes I extended from the fall of 464 to the fall of 463 B.C. This is what it should look like:

17 Dec 465 BC - Fall 464 -Accession year not counted as regnal year according to Jews reckoning:
1st Year Reign: Fall 464 to Fall 463 =Jews viewed this time period as year 463BC
2nd year Reign: Fall 463 to Fall 462= Jews viewed this time period as year 462BC
3rd year Reign: Fall 462 to Fall 461= Jews viewed this time period as year 461BC
4th year Reign: Fall 461 to Fall 460= Jews viewed this time period as year 460BC
5th year Reign: Fall 460 to Fall 459= Jews viewed this time period as year 459BC
6th year Reign: Fall 459 to fall 458= Jews viewed this time period as year 458BC
7th Year Reign: Fall 458 to fall 457= Jews viewed this time period as year 457BC. This is when Ezra made his trip. He traveled from Mar/Apr and arrived in Jul/Aug of 457BC.

james2ko said:

That does not address the points in the two posts:

Not really. Before I spend time addressing your other points, I need to understand your logic of Exodus 12. Your explanation will determine whether we are in the same ballpark or different galaxy. You claim Christ must fulfill all things in the law, prophets, and writings. Then you claim a parallel between Christ and the lamb of Ex 12 suggesting Christ, just as the lamb, should have been chosen 4 days before His death, but was not, thus undermining the truth of the bible. Yet the lamb in Ex 12 was burned after it was sacrificed--Jesus was not. This creates a huge hole in your logic. How do you reconcile this?
​

Found another discrepancy on pg 11, Mark 14:12, on the right side implies Christ was alive past the 14th day. Hidden in the Greek of Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:1, 12; and Luke 22:7 is a reference to Passover as "the first of the unfermenteds." This is because unleavened bread is indeed used on the 14th as part of the Passover service. A comparison with the Old Testament, however, discloses this to be only the popular usage of some during New Testament times. In the Old Testament, something akin to this is found in Deuteronomy 16:1, where the two days--Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread-- are also referred to as the "Passover." Throughout scripture, we see Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread used interchangeably. This evidence undermines your conclusion Christ was alive past the 14th.
​

Your response clearly does not address these issues. Nice try though.

Click to expand...

You simply need to read up on the Laws concerning the passover and the feast of unleavened bread to understand my perception and the clarity of these issues. These writings are found at the link i shared so they do address your questions. I'm fine with addressing your issue for you, as you can see in my prior post which illustrates that you claim 458 BC by fact yet 457 BC by theory.

crazyrussian said:

You simply need to read up on the Laws concerning the passover and the feast of unleavened bread to understand my perception and the clarity of these issues. These writings are found at the link i shared so they do address your questions. I'm fine with addressing your issue for you, as you can see in my prior post which illustrates that you claim 458 BC by fact yet 457 BC by theory.

Click to expand...

Your study does not address why Christ was not burned or cremated. If you are claiming "all things must be fulfilled", and Christ represented the lamb in Exo 12, then Christ should have been burned, as was the lamb. Your lack of an answer to this dichotomy undermines your whole argument.

crazyrussian said:

You simply need to read up on the Laws concerning the passover and the feast of unleavened bread to understand my perception and the clarity of these issues. These writings are found at the link i shared so they do address your questions. I'm fine with addressing your issue for you, as you can see in my prior post which illustrates that you claim 458 BC by fact yet 457 BC by theory.

Click to expand...

Do you keep the Days of Unleavened Bread as prescribed in scripture?

james2ko said:

According to your interpretation of what my mark represents. My written timeline is clear. 457BC is the year...

The Jews reckoning from a fall-to-fall basis counted the time from December/ January to the fall of that year (464 B.C.) as Artaxerxes’ I accession year. Therefore, Artaxerxes’ regnal years according to Jewish reckoning began in the fall of 464 B.C. Thus placing the kings accession year from around late December, 465 B.C. to the fall of 464 B.C. Year one of Artaxerxes I extended from the fall of 464 to the fall of 463 B.C. This is what it should look like:

17 Dec 465 BC - Fall 464 -Accession year not counted as regnal year according to Jews reckoning:
1st Year Reign: Fall 464 to Fall 463 =Jews viewed this time period as year 463BC
2nd year Reign: Fall 463 to Fall 462= Jews viewed this time period as year 462BC
3rd year Reign: Fall 462 to Fall 461= Jews viewed this time period as year 461BC
4th year Reign: Fall 461 to Fall 460= Jews viewed this time period as year 460BC
5th year Reign: Fall 460 to Fall 459= Jews viewed this time period as year 459BC
6th year Reign: Fall 459 to fall 458= Jews viewed this time period as year 458BC
7th Year Reign: Fall 458 to fall 457= Jews viewed this time period as year 457BC. This is when Ezra made his trip. He traveled from Mar/Apr and arrived in Jul/Aug of 457BC.

Click to expand...

So if I am reading this correctly, Even though you made the purple circle marker over the purple time markers for 458 BC, You meant to make the circle around the gold time markers illustrated in 457 BC? You are interjecting a theory and claiming that ten months of the first year of the kings reign must be ignored for this to be a posiblity according to Christian reconning? I have only met Christians who make such a claim. I have yet to meet a Jew who would ignore their King for Ten months.

crazyrussian said:

So if I am reading this correctly, Even though you made the purple circle marker over the purple time markers for 458 BC, You meant to make the circle around the gold time markers illustrated in 457 BC? You are interjecting a theory and claiming that ten months of the first year of the kings reign must be ignored for this to be a posiblity according to Christian reconning? I have only met Christians who make such a claim. I have yet to meet a Jew who would ignore their King for Ten months.

Click to expand...

Youre assigning the wrong year to your charts. This chart reflects the proper left to right reckoning of years. Notice the correlation---457 BC is the seventh year--not 458!!! Now we can put the issue to rest.

Youre you are assigning the wrong year to your charts. This chart reflects the proper left to right reckoning of years. Notice the correlation---457 BC is the seventh year--not 458!!! Now we can put the issue to rest.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain, the king came to power on 17 Dec 465 BC. This is an undisputed fact. In gregorian time progressing from left to right on this chart the next year you come to is 464 BC on January 1st. I'm pretty sure my time markers are correctly in place. I agree that the time markers go left to right which is clearly what my chart is illustrating. Based on what you are illustrating above. An event that occured in 1 BC occured in 2 BC. When in Fact an event that occured in 1 BC occured between 1 BC and 1 AD.

I see you used a partial chart. here is a full chart with left to right hash marks.

465 BC King came to power ----First year\ Dec 464 BC -------second year\dec 463 BC------ third year\dec462 BC---- fourth year\dec461 BC----fifth year\dec460 BC ----sixth year\dec459 BC ---- seventh year\dec458 BC ----Eighth year\dec 457BC

In respect of being objective.

If I was 6 years old and I died 1 June 3 AD on my birthday, on what date was I born? 1 June 4 BC! Based on the concept you are presenting, you would claim i was born in 3 BC. Are you starting to see my point yet?

5 BC -------4 BC--Born-3 BC---------2 BC ---------1 BC --------1 AD--------2 AD--------3 AD --died----4 AD ------5 AD
--------------------Born--------1--------------2--------------3-----------4-------------5-------------6

In this example I am assigning a birthday of 1 June 4 BC not 3 BC. Based on your explination, you would have to assign a date of 1 June 3 BC and the math does not add up.

Turns out the birthday was 3 BC and I was incorrect! Correction has been made to my chart in later post!

Click to expand...

james2ko said:

Youre assigning the wrong year to your charts. This chart reflects the proper left to right reckoning of years. Notice the correlation---457 BC is the seventh year--not 458!!! Now we can put the issue to rest.

Click to expand...

WOW! You would be so proud of me James... I discovered we were both wrong! Check this out!

In the below chart I was using the top (First) model. You are correct in that I was misplacing the year markers. The correct Model from BC to AD time conversion is illustrated just below the top model. The model bottom left is again the model I was originally using and it is in fact incorrect! The model to the Bottom right is the model I should have been using. What this means is I have to move my start time one hash mark to the left to illustrate a start time in 17 Dec 465 BC. I was actually illustrating a start time in 464 BC but calling it 465. By making the correction of my Error to the chart, it still lands the decree in 458 BC according to the bottom Right diagram, not 457 BC. See the final chart for illustration!



This below chart has the correct date conversion concept applied!

I think I now understand your concept. Based on the correction to the year progression of this chart, you would now favor the Gold time markers listed in the 8th year of the kings reign illustrated in 457 BC, but would call this the 7th year of the kings reign due to a theory presented by 31 AD theorists who look for a reason to not count the first ten months of the kings rise to power? Is this a correct assumption?




Very Respectfully,

Cr

I'd just like to point out a serious error in the little paragraph above the charts... the 14th/15th Tuesday/Wednesday scenario is impossible. Can't happen. The 15th of Nisan could never be a Monday, Wednesday, or Friday.

Poisonshady313 said:

I'd just like to point out a serious error in the little paragraph above the charts... the 14th/15th Tuesday/Wednesday scenario is impossible. Can't happen. The 15th of Nisan could never be a Monday, Wednesday, or Friday.

Click to expand...

Are you assuming a Jewish reckoning for those days? For instance, the 15th cannot begin on Sunday evening, Tuesday evening, Thursday evening?

james2ko said:

Are you assuming a Jewish reckoning for those days? For instance, the 15th cannot begin on Sunday evening, Tuesday evening, Thursday evening?

Click to expand...

indeed.

Poisonshady313 said:

indeed.

Click to expand...

Then a Wednesday crucifixion would be possible. The 14th began Tuesday evening. The 15th --Wednesday evening.

james2ko said:

Then a Wednesday crucifixion would be possible. The 14th began Tuesday evening. The 15th --Wednesday evening.

Click to expand...

The paragraph makes it seem like the 15th started on a Tuesday night. This is impossible.

Poisonshady313 said:

The paragraph makes it seem like the 15th started on a Tuesday night. This is impossible.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure which paragraph you are referring to. Mind posting it?