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

[james2ko]

I'm very Clear on what you are attemping to sell as a truth so I will help you sell it if it is in fact truth.

King came to power 17 Dec 465 BC

1st Year Reign: 17 Dec 465 BC - Oct 464 - 17 Dec 464 BC
2nd year Reign: 18 Dec 464 BC - Oct 463 - 17 Dec 463 BC
3rd year Reign: 18 Dec 463 BC - Oct 462 - 17 Dec 462 BC
4th year Reign: 18 Dec 462 BC - Oct 461 - 17 Dec 461 BC
5th year Reign: 18 Dec 461 BC - Oct 460 - 17 Dec 460 BC
6th year Reign: 18 Dec 460 BC - Oct 459 - 17 Dec 459 BC (This could not be the Fall Start year for Journey because it falls in the 6th year of the kings reign.)
7th Year Reign: 18 Dec 459BC - Oct 458 - 17 Dec 458 BC (you believe the journey from babylon to Jerusalem began on the OCT illustrated here if I am reading your purple circle correctly.
This cannot be the correct start time, because 5 months later when they arrive in Jerusalem, it will be in the 8th year of the kings reign)
8th Year Reign: 18 Dec 458BC - Oct 457 - 17 Dec 457 BC (This could not be the Fall start year for the jorney because the start time would be in the 8th year of the kings reign.

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.

The Chart illustration, when viewed in Full, will be helpful to you, I assure you. If it still leaves you confused in concert with your 31 AD theory, maybe this simple Highlighted verse below will help.

8 Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king. 9 He had begun his journey from Babylon on the first day of the first month, and he arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month, for the gracious hand of his God was on him.

The best reason to toss out the Oct/Fall departure "THEORY" and why the author of the slide goes with the TRUE Jewish new year as it is listed in Exodus, is due in part to the testimony found in EZRA 7 as you have just read and viewed in comparison to the chart.

Other factors to consider: The fact that the book of Ezra points out that Ezra was well versed in the LAWS OF MOSES and therefore likely kept the Jewish Calendar Given by God to Israel during the Exodus.

Please illustrate where the Blue Highlighted testimony falls on that time line chart in concert with your Fall new year theory. Your theory of a Fall start time has Ezra arriving the fifth month in the 8th year of the reign of the king. Are you calling Ezra a liar? Most TIshri Theorists simply ignore the blue highlighted verse when making a chart. Please make a purple mark on the time chart where this verse applies to your theories credibility. If your theory is truth, this verse will not be a hard task to display accurately on the time line chart you shared.

I'm pretty certain your Theory shared by other TISHRI Theorists who support the lie of 457 BC will have a hard time illustrating how the arrival of Ezra was in the seventh year of the kings reign If they started the Journey in Oct of 458 BC. I would love to see your placement of their Arrival 5 months later on that time line and it still be in the seventh year of the king's Reign. Unless you want to ignore the first year of the kings reign as the SDA's do!

The Journey according to Ezra began in the first month and ended on the fifth month. From start to finish, the journy was in the seventh year of the kings reign. Please mark on the chart where you believe Ezra finished his journey.

Please please pretty please and thank you!

Blessings.

I never said or implied he departed in the fall. See point 2 here where I quoted a reference regarding Ezra's travel months. Ezra reckoned his travel months using the sacred calendar which would equate to Mar/Apr -- Jul/Aug of our calendar. But the evidence indicates the Jews reckoned regnal time utilizing the civil calendar (Fall to Fall) with an accession year. This is what's causing the difference in our calculations. We are going to have to agree to disagree on the calculations, unless you plan on changing your view on how the Jews reckoned regnal years. I know I don't. Unless of course, some compelling, credible evidence to the contrary is revealed.

But, depending on how you answer the posts, which you seem to be eluding, none of your calculations will matter to me or anyone else viewing our discussion. So, for the fourth time, are you going to answer my posts? If you don't, then we have to assume you are deliberately dodging them because you dont have an answer. Your silence will void your Exo 12--- tenth to the fourteenth parallel. It will eliminate your "Christ had to be alive past the 14th" theory and also damage your reputation as an authority on the topic and totally debunk your OP (opening post).

Here they are again for your convenience:

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

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

 

[crazyrussian]

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.



I never said or implied he departed in the fall. See point 2 here where I quoted a reference regarding Ezra's travel months. Ezra reckoned his travel months using the sacred calendar which would equate to Mar/Apr -- Jul/Aug of our calendar. But the evidence indicates the Jews reckoned regnal time utilizing the civil calendar (Fall to Fall) with an accession year. This is what's causing the difference in our calculations. We are going to have to agree to disagree on the calculations, unless you plan on changing your view on how the Jews reckoned regnal years. I know I don't. Unless of course, some compelling, credible evidence to the contrary is revealed.

But, depending on how you answer the posts, which you seem to be eluding, none of your calculations will matter to me or anyone else viewing our discussion. So, for the fourth time, are you going to answer my posts? If you don't, then we have to assume you are deliberately dodging them because you dont have an answer. Your silence will void your Exo 12--- tenth to the fourteenth parallel. It will eliminate your "Christ had to be alive past the 14th" theory and also damage your reputation as an authority on the topic and totally debunk your OP (opening post).

Here they are again for your convenience:

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

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

Convienence would be to simply share the chart one more time annotating where you believe the start time AND end time of the journey falls on the time line in coparison with Gregorian time and the time the king came to power.

Since Gregorian time is already displayed as well as the kings annual. All you have to do is place marks where you believe the journy began and ended. will your markers fall in the seventh year of the kings reign?

This would be your simple explination to me and others as well as a way to prove there is any truth in your calculations. Based on the example you provided above, you ignore the first ten months of the kings rise to power. This is basically what the Sda's do. Stretching a theory to defend a lie.

Blessings

 

[crazyrussian]

james2K0

I prepared a clean chart for your viewing pleasure. There is no doubt about it. 458 BC is the seventh year the decree went forth. Feel free to make your personnal markers to illustrate the "SPECIAL" calender you claim EZRA used that brings him to 457 arivinig in Jerusalem to deliver the decree. Please illustrate the full chart with your marks added so that no information is ignored and your version of percpetion can be displayed against the truth of the matter.

http://thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/seventh%20year%20of%20the%20king


At a minimum, Place a mark on this chart for where you beleive EZRA began His journey, and a mark for where you believe He completed the journey.

This will be most helpful in presenting your case.

 

[james2ko]

This would be your simple explination to me and others as well as a way to prove there is any truth in your calculations. Based on the example you provided above, you ignore the first ten months of the kings rise to power. This is basically what the Sda's do. Stretching a theory to defend a lie.

There is plenty of historical evidence suggesting the Jews did not include a foreign king's first year as a regnal year if they gained power in the middle of the Jews civil year.

This statement of chronologists Siegfried Horn regarding Rosh Hashanah is more directly explained in the Gemara itself. Not only does this commentary indicate a fall-to-fall calendar for foreign kings as well as a spring-to-spring calendar for the kings of Israel, but it also shows accession year reckoning for both:

The rabbis taught: If a king die in Adar, and his successor ascend the throne in Adar, (documents may be dated either) the (last) year of the (dead) king or the (first) year of the new king. If a king die in Nissan, and his successor ascend the throne in Nissan, the same is the case. But if a king die in Adar, and his successor does not ascend the throne until Nisan, then the year ending with Adar should be referred to as the year of the dead king, and from Nissan [Tishri] it should be referred to as that of his successor. Is this not self-evident?

The case here mentioned refers to an instance where the new king was a son of the deceased, and, while ascending the throne in Nissan, had been elected in the month of Adar, and being the king's son, it might be assumed that he was king immediately after his election, and thus the following first of Nissan [Tishri] would inaugurate the second year of his reign....

R. Hisda says: The rule of the Mishna--that the year of the kings begins with Nissan--refers to the kings of Israel only, but for the kings of other nations it commences from Tishri.

The Jewish Vertual Library, Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashana, Chapter 1 Tractate Rosh Hashana Chapter 1: The ordinances about the New Year of the Jewish calendar -- the messengers that were sent out from Jerusalem -- and at which period of the year the world is divinely judged​

As a matter of fact, Edwin Thiele, leading scholar in Hebrew Regnal year reckoning, suggests the Persians also used a similar accession year system. In light of this evidence, the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) translators were inspired to translate Ezra 4:6 this way:

In the reign of Ahasuerus, in his accession year, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem​

The evidence of an accession system was compelling enough to inspire this translation. For you to accuse me of defending a lie is laughable.

Convienence would be to simply share the chart one more time annotating where you believe the start time AND end time of the journey falls on the time line in coparison with Gregorian time and the time the king came to power. Since Gregorian time is already displayed as well as the kings annual. All you have to do is place marks where you believe the journy began and ended. will your markers fall in the seventh year of the kings reign?

I've presented links to references supporting my position; explained my reasoning behind my calculations; annotated several of "your" charts illustrating how 457BC lines up with the 7th year; given you my timeline as well as Ezra's travel months and year in written form; and now you want me to place Ezra's travel time on the chart? Seems like your grasping for the wind and if my instincts serves me right, it also seems as though you are using the chart as a last resort, defense shield to salvage what's left of your battered position. I've provided plenty of historical and astronomical evidence. The burden of proof is now on you my friend. I don't believe in luck but in this case, it seems you're going to need it

Furthermore, after my third request asking you to answer my posts containing compelling testimony against your 10th to 14th Nisan-- Exo 12-- parallel, as well as your claim Christ could not have lived past the 14th, by now, it should be quite obvious to everyone you are dodging them. Get back to me when you find an answer.

 

[james2ko]

james2K0

I prepared a clean chart for your viewing pleasure. There is no doubt about it. 458 BC is the seventh year the decree went forth. Feel free to make your personnal markers to illustrate the "SPECIAL" calender you claim EZRA used that brings him to 457 arivinig in Jerusalem to deliver the decree. Please illustrate the full chart with your marks added so that no information is ignored and your version of percpetion can be displayed against the truth of the matter.

http://thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/seventh%20year%20of%20the%20king


At a minimum, Place a mark on this chart for where you beleive EZRA began His journey, and a mark for where you believe He completed the journey.

This will be most helpful in presenting your case.

Check my written timeline and evidence for Ezra's travel time. Your chart has been refuted. The burden of proof that I'm wrong is on you, amigo.

 

[crazyrussian]

Check my written timeline and evidence for Ezra's travel time. Your chart has been refuted. The burden of proof that I'm wrong is on you, amigo.

Please share your chart. to the best of my recollection based on your testimony; you are claiming the decree went forth in the 8th year of the kings reign, though you attempt to claim it is in the seventh year of the kings reign. You could make this simple by making two small marks on the illustrated link referenced time line where you believe the journey began and ended with out omitting any of the chart

 

[james2ko]

Please share your chart. to the best of my recollection based on your testimony;you are claiming the decree went forth in the 8th year of the kings reign, though you attempt to claim it is in the seventh year of the kings reign. You could make this simple by making two small marks on the illustrated link referenced time line where you believe the journey began and ended with out omitting any of the chart

Let me refresh your memory:

posted by james2ko:

"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."http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3093099-post41.html

"The seventh year of Artaxerxes I would have run from Tishri 458 to Tishri 457. Ezra would have left on 27 March 457 and arrived on 23 July 457" (Expositor's Bible Commentary, note on verses 7-9)

"Ezra thereby left Babylon in the first month of the seventh year (~ 457 BCE) of Artaxerxes' reign."Artaxerxes I of Persia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3091376-post37.html​

I've already marked your chart. Take a look at my previous posts. It's fruitless to continue this discussion. You continue to ask for evidence I have repeatedly presented, dodge my questions, and now you're experiencing a sudden bout of amnesia. I made my points and with God's help, made them well. Anyone interested in the truth of this topic can look back at the powerful evidence presented against your charts and theories and dismiss them thoroughly. Peace.

 

[crazyrussian]

Let me refresh your memory:

posted by james2ko:

"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."http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3093099-post41.html

"The seventh year of Artaxerxes I would have run from Tishri 458 to Tishri 457. Ezra would have left on 27 March 457 and arrived on 23 July 457" (Expositor's Bible Commentary, note on verses 7-9)

"Ezra thereby left Babylon in the first month of the seventh year (~ 457 BCE) of Artaxerxes' reign."Artaxerxes I of Persia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3091376-post37.html
​

I've already marked your chart. Take a look at my previous posts. It's fruitless to continue this discussion. You continue to ask for evidence I have repeatedly presented, dodge my questions, and now you're experiencing a sudden bout of amnesia. I made my points and with God's help, made them well. Anyone interested in the truth of this topic can look back at the powerful evidence presented against your charts and theories and dismiss them thoroughly. Peace.

I fully understand that you are claiming the seventh Tishri marker in regards to the red highlighted area of the above quote. Any event that occurred AFTER the Seventh Tishri marker, was an event that occurred in the 8th year of the kings reign minus the 3 approximate months from Oct to December prior to the 7th anniversary of when the king came to power.

Lets review where you marked my charts.


The Seventh year that you Highlighted from my chart is in 458 BC, Not 457 BC. The April - September time frame you reference from My chart and claim is 457 BC is actually 458 BC... Time progresses from left to right according to the chart displayed.

You first claimed My chart proved your theory, but when I pointed this out to you, you then claimed my charts are in Error missing a Calendar concept held by Ezra at the time period. I directed your attention to the chart on the next page of the link study. You then posted a partial picture from the next page See below.



In this chart you only circled the time marker for 457 BC, yet the April - September time markers which you Highlighted from the previous chart; which are still displayed on this chart marking when the travel event occurred in the seventh year of the kings reign, are located in 458 BC (Left to right). There are two gold time markers on this chart representing 457 BC April - Sept. Had you posted the full chart it would be clear that those gold markers to annotate the April - Sept for 457BC, are clearly in the 8th year of the kings reign. This chart when viewed in full was illustrating how TEN months of the kings reign has to be ignored for a person to consider the gold time markers to be in the seventh year of the kings reign. You will notice the Red time markers which annotate the anniversary of the king on this same picture illustrate that the gold markers are in fact in the 8th year of the kings reign.

I took the time to prepare a clean and clear chart illustrating the TISHRI time markers for you at this next link where you can post and share where you believe the start time and end time of the journey took place. I want desperately to understand your version of this, so please take the time to post this complete chart with two marks for where you believe the journey began and ended to see if your marks fall in the Reign of the seventh year of the king if the gold markers posted on this chart are not clearly where you would place your marks.

http://thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/seventh year of the king

I'm aware that you believe the journey began and ended after the seventh Tishri time marker which the gold lines represent, so I numbered the Tishri markers on this chart 1-7. I know that any event that occurred after the 7th Tishri marker occurred in the 8th year of the kings reign minus the 3 months from Oct To Dec. Please help me ease my confusion on this matter by illustrating where this chart is in Error to your understanding. You have not been clear on this and it has left me to speculate concerning your understanding.

I think our discord comes from you believing that an event which occurs after the seventh anniversary of the kings rein, is an event "in" the seventh year of the kings reign. If this concept was truth, then we today would be in the 20th century. We are in the 21st century, yet it is 2012 AD. We were in the 20th century from the year 1900AD all the way up to 1999AD. Any significant event that occurred between 1900-1999AD is said to have occurred in the 20th century.

17 Dec 465 BC - Fall 464 -Accession year not counted as regnal year according to Jews reckoning

In one of your posts you made this claim, but this is not a true statement. Accession year not counted as Regnal year according to Biased Christians trying to place A decree in 457 BC would be a more correct statment to make. Ezra would have recognized the king from the day he rose to power, till the day the king allowed him to leave babylon.

Any event that occurred from the time the king came to power until his first anniversary would have been an event that occurred in the first year of the kings reign. Any event that occurred from the six anniversary of the king to the seventh anniversary would be an event that occurred in the seventh year of the kings reign. Hopefully this explanation clears up any confusion on your end as to why my chart illustrates 458 BC to be the factually correct year. But I'm open to your understanding. just post the chart at the link, make your two marks if not already displayed and provide a clear explanation since your explanations in concert with my charts which you shared with me have left me totally confused in understanding what you believe to be truth.

Knowing that the babylonians and Jews at this time period had no concept of zero when counting or keeping track of time, The abacus is evidence of this fact, there would not have been a ten month zero year of the kings reign which is what you would need, to have 457 BC, be in the seventh year of the kings reign when the decree went forth.

There are several key words to hone in on when examining the bible testimony for this verse:

Ezra 7: 7-9 NKJV
7 Some of the children of Israel, the priests, the Levites, the singers, the gatekeepers, and the Nethinim came up to Jerusalem in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes. 8 And Ezra came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king. 9 On the first day of the first month he began his journey from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month he came to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him.

V/R
CR

 

[crazyrussian]

Let me refresh your memory:

posted by james2ko:

I've already marked your chart. Take a look at my previous posts. It's fruitless to continue this discussion. You continue to ask for evidence I have repeatedly presented, dodge my questions, and now you're experiencing a sudden bout of amnesia. I made my points and with God's help, made them well. Anyone interested in the truth of this topic can look back at the powerful evidence presented against your charts and theories and dismiss them thoroughly. Peace.
​

I guess the review of where you marked my charts was a tender spot so you deleted them?? Interesting! No matter how I attempt to display your theory accurately on my chart, You simply cannot get a decree in the seventh year of the king to fall in 457 BC with out ignoring at least ten months of the kings reign. This is just a fact.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What 'prophecy'?

 

[crazyrussian]

What 'prophecy'?

This thread, before it strayed onto a tangent about the decree of Artexerxes 1 is about whether or not the posiblity exists that Jesus was crucified on a 14 Nissan (Passover/preparation day) was placed in a tomb, and allegedly rose from the grave 3 days and 3 nights later, on the first day of the week.

If the Event actually occured, and the event was foretold. Then the fortelling of the event would have been prophecy.

What I find interesting is that most Christians misrepresent the posiblity of this event by claiming a Friday Crucifixion to first day of the week alleged resurrection since this is only half of the time specified by the MAN who made the claim (Potential prophecy) prior to the event.

Very Respectfully,

CR

 

[james2ko]

[/INDENT]
I guess the review of where you marked my charts was a tender spot so you deleted them?? Interesting!

I dont know what stunt youre trying to pull but I deleted nothing.. I don't have to... I made my case against your chart and theories. I'm just waiting for you to answer my posts which I requested, what , four times now and you continue to dodge for obvious reasons...

 

[crazyrussian]

I dont know what stunt youre trying to pull but I deleted nothing.. I don't have to... I made my case against your chart and theories. I'm just waiting for you to answer my posts which I requested, what , four times now and you continue to dodge for obvious reasons...

I first have to understand your mindset and education level to answer you correctly concerning the other issues you would like me to address. Have I displayed on this chart with the Gold time markers, the correct April - September months for 457 BC which you claim the event occurred?

 

[james2ko]

I first have to understand you to answer you correctly. Have I displayed on this chart with the Gold time markers, the correct April - September months for 457 BC which you claim the event occuered.

I'm not playing into your deceptive practices in order to accommodate a request that has been thoroughly refuted. Putting marks on some chart, which i have already done, has nothing to do with answering a question about the prophecy in exo 12 that i presented before you even bought up the timeline.. That right there is proof positive of your dogging technique.. Answer both posts and I may decide to continue this discussion.

 

[crazyrussian]

I'm not playing into your deceptive practices in order to accommodate a request that has been thoroughly refuted. Putting marks on some chart, which i have already done, has nothing to do with answering a question about the prophecy in exo 12 that i presented before you even bought up the timeline.. That right there is proof positive of your dogging technique.. Answer both posts and I may decide to continue this discussion.

Well Mr. James, The marks you placed on my charts before they mysteriously dissapeared supported 458 BC, Not 457 BC even though you attempted to portry this on my charts. I do believe the chart clearly and factually refutes the claim you are making, so it is a bit pointless for you to continue, but I do truely want to understand your perception to ensure I am looking at this issue from every possible angle based on Facts and not opinion. I would not be so persistant if I did not wish to truely understand your percpetion even if i do believe it to be incorrect.

All I am asking you to do with the chart supplied at this time is to confirm which of the time markers presented for 458 BC and 457 BC are the time markers you endorse for when you believe the journey began and completed. I ask this because you have not made this clear by presenting flip flopping information when you claimed my charts supported you and then claimed that you refuted the charts that supported your claim. I truely want to be clear on your understanding. You claim I am being deceptive, but this is not true. I'm being objective and open-minded. It's for this reason I am illustrating both years in question factually and accurately.

If deception is presented on this chart at any point. Please circle the information that is presenting deception, so that I and others may know where the deception lies.

Misguiding is not my intention here since I am trying to present solid facts with out bias in order to share truth.

Understanding the correct year of this event and the correct placement of the last week of the life of Christ has everything to do with Exodus 12. So before we move on to this issue, lets be clear on the issue currently being discussed.

Very Respectfully,

CR

 

[james2ko]

Well Mr. James, The marks you placed on my charts before they mysteriously dissapeared supported 458 BC, Not 457 BC even though you attempted to portry this on my charts. I do believe the chart clearly and factually refutes the claim you are making, so it is a bit pointless for you to continue, but I do truely want to understand your perception to ensure I am looking at this issue from every possible angle based on Facts and not opinion. I would not be so persistant if I did not wish to truely understand your percpetion even if i do believe it to be incorrect.

All I am asking you to do with the chart supplied at this time is to confirm which of the time markers presented for 458 BC and 457 BC are the time markers you endorse for when you believe the journey began and completed. I ask this because you have not made this clear by presenting flip flopping information when you claimed my charts supported you and then claimed that you refuted the charts that supported your claim. I truely want to be clear on your understanding. You claim I am being deceptive, but this is not true. I'm being objective and open-minded. It's for this reason I am illustrating both years in question factually and accurately.

If deception is presented on this chart at any point. Please circle the information that is presenting deception, so that I and others may know where the deception lies.

Misguiding is not my intention here since I am trying to present solid facts with out bias in order to share truth.

Understanding the correct year of this event and the correct placement of the last week of the life of Christ has everything to do with Exodus 12. So before we move on to this issue, lets be clear on the issue currently being discussed.

Very Respectfully,

CR

The deception I'm referring to is claiming I deleted charts in order to compel a response ..you continue to deflect attention away from the posts that totally undermines your theories and charts...I'd be focusing much more on that instead of some charts that I've repeatedly addressed... How about it? Will you answer the posts? Or will you let your theory go down in flames..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If the Event actually occured, and the event was foretold. Then the fortelling of the event would have been prophecy.

What prophecy? Chapter? Verse?

 

[crazyrussian]

The deception I'm referring to is claiming I deleted charts in order to compel a response ..you continue to deflect attention away from the posts that totally undermines your theories and charts...I'd be focusing much more on that instead of some charts that I've repeatedly addressed... How about it? Will you answer the posts? Or will you let your theory go down in flames..

I know that I did not delete your charts. I was all to happy to re-post them in my re-cap 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. Please explain since this chart supports contrary to your claim.

 

[crazyrussian]

What prophecy? Chapter? Verse?

I'm referring to Chrsitian Doctrine held to be scripture in what they claim to be New Testiment writings in concert with doctrine which the Jews still hold to be sacred (Old Testiment). This thread is devoted to determining if there is any truth to any Chrsitian doctrine produced from the time Christians were first called Christians in Antioch. As you can see by many of the posts just concerning the decree of Artexerxes 1. There is discord present in this thread concerning when the event took place. Based on truth found in the Proverbs (Jewish Doctrine), Discord is the end result of a lie. Discord of idea is certainly being presented when the testimony of this chart is compared to the testimony of James2KO who can't seem to decide if he would choose the purple time markers or gold time markers on the above chart. He originally chose the purple markers but claimed they fell in 457 BC so he has left me struggling to understand his logic.

With the extreem ammounts of manipulation that occued to the early Christian writings now presented in the Christian NT bible, this thread will attempt to establish if Jesus had any credibility to the claim of Messiah in accordence with what is referred to as the the Daniel 70 weeks prophecy, the Passover time specific laws and testimony alleged to have been spoken by Jesus the Man himself.

If you are curious about the topic, I would love your opinion of the information presented at this link.
http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the%20death%20and%20resurrection

Very Respectfully,

CR

 

[crazyrussian]

The deception I'm referring to is claiming I deleted charts in order to compel a response ..you continue to deflect attention away from the posts that totally undermines your theories and charts...I'd be focusing much more on that instead of some charts that I've repeatedly addressed... How about it? Will you answer the posts? Or will you let your theory go down in flames..

I see the charts you originally posted have Mysteriously re-appeared. Now we can compare in the same posting. Below is the Chart you originally marked which clearly represents 458 BC as the correct year, even though you claimed it suppored your theory of 457 BC. The April - Sept time markers you circled are clearly in 458 BC, you drew hash marks to the right as if to imply they were in 457 BC. When i pointed out your Error, you then claimed to have posted information which refutes the charts you originally claimed supported your claim.


The second chart you marked only has you making a circle around the time marker of 457 BC and does not clearly illustrate your case for 457 BC even though the time markers are present in Gold which I assume are the time markers you support for your claim. This partial chart when viewed in full was illustrating how TEN months of the kings reign must be completely ignored for a person to consider 457 BC to be in the Seventh year of the kings reign.





This next chart clearly illustrates the time markers for April - Sept of 458 BC (represented by purple lines) & 457 BC (represented by the gold lines). So that I am not incorrectly assuming your view as i did with the October start time confusion from a prior post. Please illustrate clearly which time markers you belive are in the seventh year of the kings reign by making your mark on this chart with out hash marks. Hash marks are not needed on this chart. You simply need to circle purple or green to make your case.

I just don't see how anything you have shared with me so far makes a clear cut case for 457 BC falling "in the seventh year of the king".