What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[angellous_evangellous]

]"Dynamic equivalence" has absolutely no bearing on Matthew's use of a 200-year-old translation of the Hebrew, which was an accepted translation in his day,
where the Hebrew almah was translated into the Greek parthenos (virgin) by Jewish translators who would, 200 years before the birth of Christ,
know the accepted meaning of almah in their time to be "virgin" (parthenos), and is why they used parthenos to translate it in the Septuagint.

"Dynamic equivalence" is another latter day invention to legitimize loose handling of the texts, for the obvious reason of some.
There is no need for "dynamic equivalence" when texts are plain and simple, as is Mt 1:23, and no "dynamic equivalence" is going on there.
That's a ruse foisted on the NT by those who seek to discredit it.

Now just think about that carefully.

Do you know what dynamic equivalence is yet?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But parthenos doesn't mean "virgin." It's a dynamic equivalent to almah, which doesn't mean virgin, either. Both mean "young girl" or "unmarried girl" but neither require her to be a virgin.

[for smokey's benefit, since he's too lazy to try and understand this]

I'm saying that parthenos and almah essentially mean the same thing, and THEREFORE that the LXX translation of the Hebrew IS ESSENTIALLY CORRECT.

 

[fallingblood]

So was Lazarus in the NT, but both were brought back by the miraculous assist of a prophet, to die again.

No prophet assisted Jesus, and he did not die again, he lives forever. . .and will return at the end of time.

That's moving the goal posts quite a bit.

 

[smokydot]

Neither do you, and we can't assume any were. Especially since John 18:28 shows why the Jews did not enter Pilate's household, so they could participate in Passover. As in they wanted to remain ritually clean. I see no reason to suggest that there were Jews in Pilate's household.

Seems you are guilty of the very thing of which you like to accuse me. . .not reading the post.

Didn't say anything about Jews in that post.

As for Luke, highly doubtful he was there. Tradition states that he learned his information from Paul. More so, if Luke was an eyewitness, why did he have to use sources? Certainly if he had to use sources, he wasn't recalling things from memory.

Nowhere does the NT report that all reports are from the writer's memory.

We are speaking about history, not a court of law. Two different things.

Seems you are again guilty of the very thing of which you like to accuse me. . .not understanding what you are saying.

We are talking about evidence. . .from Scripture.
The rule of evidence is: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. . .which absence of evidence in Scripture you maintain is evidence of absence in Scripture.

First, how would they know? Second, nope. First, many scholars agree that it was probably written by various authors. Eusebius disagrees with what you stated above as well. He states that Gospel was written by John the Apostle and the Book of Revelation by John the presbyter.

Eusebius is the one most discredited by those seeking to discredit the NT.

Also, some scholars argue that Irenaeus attributed authorship of the Gospel of John not to John the Apostle, but John, the disciple of the Lord, which he does differentiate between.

That's not what Irenaeus said.

Mine is based on scholarly research. Saying it's 2,000 years after the fact means absolutely nothing if the scholarship is good.

Ah, you hit the nail on the head. . .IF the scholarship is good. . .therein is your problem. . .it is all based in conjecture, 2,000 years after the fact, in an attempt to overturn the record written in the time frame of the fact.

You misunderstood what I was saying. His promises is void because we don't have the testimony of eye witnesses.

Who made that rule?

Absence of evidence that a particular event in Scripture was eye-witnessed is not evidence of absence in Scripture that a particular event was eye-witnessed.

First, I've only accused you of arrogance. And I agree, your arrogance is showing.

And you also don't remember what you've said--post #387 for starters.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Eusebius was not a church father.

:biglaugh: ..... jeez what boundless laziness....

From the wiki:

Eusebius of Caesarea, c. AD 263–339, called Eusebius Pamphili, became the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine about the year 314. Eusebius, historian, exegete and polemicist is one of the more renowned Church Fathers.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And I'll stand by my assessment of the facts:

Jesus was crucified on Tuesday, April 2, 38CE.

 

[fallingblood]

Seems you are guilty of the very thing of which you like to accuse me. . .not reading the post.

Didn't say anything about Jews in that statement.

You stated that we don't know how many believers of Jesus were in the house of Pilate. The followers of Jesus were Jews. Jesus only preached to Jews. He told his disciples only to preach to Jews. So yes, your statement implied Jews.

Nowhere does the NT report that all reports are from the writer's memory.

So then the promise of Jesus is void. If they are not recalling it, then the promise is void.

Seems you are again guilty of the very thing of which you like to accuse me. . .not understanding what you are saying.

We are talking about evidence. . .from Scripture.
The rule of evidence is: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. . .which absence of evidence in Scripture you maintain is evidence of absence in Scripture.

I have an associates in Criminal Justice. The evidence one needs in a court of law is much different from the evidence one needs in a historical research. There is a difference.

Eusebius was not a church father.

Ok?

That's not what Irenaeus said.

So you know better than the scholars who have actually studied him, and not simply just look up information on the internet? You didn't know Eusebius was a Church Father, so your statement here doesn't hold much weight.

Ah, you hit the nail on the head. . .IF the scholarship is good. . .therein is your problem. . .it is all based in conjecture, 2,000 years after the fact, in an attempt to overturn the record written in the time frame of the fact.

You haven't read the scholarship have you? That explains a lot.

Who made that rule?

Logic.

Absence of evidence that a particular event in Scripture was eye-witnessed is not evidence of absence in Scripture that a particular event was eye-witnessed.

Not talking about absence of evidence. There are many reasons to support the idea that they were not eyewitness accounts. Especially considering that they had to use other sources.

And you also don't remember what you've said--post #387 for starters.

Is that where I called you arrogant? I still stand by that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is that where I called you arrogant? I still stand by that.

Yep, just giving post numbers is irritating.

It takes a while to find them and when you get there, there's not a substantive post to serve as a reward.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm saying that parthenos and almah essentially mean the same thing, and THEREFORE that the LXX translation of the Hebrew IS ESSENTIALLY CORRECT.

Interesting and I agree. See, I don't think that Matthew can use Isaiah 7:14 as confirmation of prophecy. Isaiah, according to the NRSV, sets the tense as if the event has already happened, which is how Jews view that scripture. I don't think her virginity is substantiated by the word (parthenos) especially since that word, as you indicate, and almah mean the same thing. If we were going by what Luke wrote in his version then we could render the word (maiden) but it would not negate her virginity considering she said (she knew not a man)..

 

[smokydot]

And I'll stand by my assessment of the facts:

Jesus was crucified on Tuesday, April 2, 38CE.

What day did he rise from the dead?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yep, just giving post numbers is irritating.

It takes a while to find them and when you get there, there's not a substantive post to serve as a reward.

I've been guilty of that from time to time. I try to go to the post I want to reference and copy its web link and paste it. That way no searching is needed.

 

[fallingblood]

Yep, just giving post numbers is irritating.

It takes a while to find them and when you get there, there's not a substantive post to serve as a reward.

Especially when there are over 50 pages, and you have to go back 20 pages just to find the post.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I've been guilty of that from time to time. I try to go to the post I want to reference and copy its web link and paste it. That way no searching is needed.

Smoky does it on almost every post.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What day did he rise from the dead?

May 14, 1985.:beach:

 

[smokydot]

You stated that we don't know how many believers of Jesus were in the house of Pilate. The followers of Jesus were Jews. Jesus only preached to Jews. He told his disciples only to preach to Jews. So yes, your statement implied Jews.

Were there none living in Israel at the time who were not Jews?

So then the promise of Jesus is void. If they are not recalling it, then the promise is void.

Logically correct based on false premise.

That "they are not recalling it" is pure speculation. . .2,000 years after the fact.

I have an associates in Criminal Justice. The evidence one needs in a court of law is much different from the evidence one needs in a historical research. There is a difference.
Ok?

Which does not alter the rule of evidence as it applies to the Bible.
You are the "dynamic equivalent" of the defense attorney who, in the face of the overwhelming evidence against his client at the scene of the crime, argues,
"But there was no evidence in the home."
By some strange rule, he thinks absence of evidence in the home, is evidence of (his) absence at the crime.

So you know better than the scholars who have actually studied him, and not simply just look up information on the internet? You didn't know Eusebius was a Church Father, so your statement here doesn't hold much weight.

True, I was more focused on him as an historian, and on the fact that he is one of the favorites to be dismissed by those who seek to discredit the NT.
So he doesn't make a good witness for your ilk.

You haven't read the scholarship have you? That explains a lot.

The answer to that question would be the same as the answer to my question to you: you haven't read the NT have you? That explains a lot. (See post #386.)
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2273397-post386.html

Logic.

No rules outside the Scriptures have authority over them.
There is much in Scripture, particularly the OT, that is not "logical."
The threads in this Forum are filled with that charge against them.

Not talking about absence of evidence. There are many reasons to support the idea that they were not eyewitness accounts.

The writers say they were eye witnesses, which does not mean of every little thing.

This was addressed in your thread, Inspired Word of God, at post #94.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/107805-post94.html

Especially considering that they had to use other sources.
Is that where I called you arrogant? I still stand by that.

Nope. . .check it out (post #387).
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2273397-post387.html

 

[Harmonious]

The answer to that question would be the same as the answer to my question to you: you haven't read the NT have you? That explains a lot. (See post #386.)
No rules outside the Scriptures have authority over them.
There is much in Scripture, particularly the OT, that is not "logical."
The threads in this Forum are filled with that charge against them.
The writers say they were eye witnesses, which does not mean of every little thing.

This was addressed in your thread, Inspired Word of God, in the "Religious Debates" section (currently on p. 2), at post #94.
Nope. . .check it out (post #387) .

Smoky...

I don't know if you've been paying attention, but people have been complaining about your directing people to various posts.

It would help your argument if you either turned your listing of a post number into a link or cut and paste the pertinent information from said post.

It would help your argument because people could focus on the ideas you are trying to discuss rather than getting annoyed about hunting for whatever post.

Many of the posts you reference are at least 20 pages earlier than the current conversation, and you even discussed a post in a different thread. If YOU have chosen to use posts from all over the place, swell. But if you want to impress anyone with the research you've done, don't tell people where to go. Give us a link or paste in some relevant information.

If someone chooses to look back at the post after you linked it to view it in context, that's a beautiful thing.

But all you are doing is drawing the scorn and annoyance of people who have asked you repeatedly to do more than list a post number.

 

[fallingblood]

Were there none living in Israel at the time who were not Jews?

We have no evidence that the message of Jesus, during his life time, went further than the Jews. In fact, we know that followers of Jesus were required to convert to Judaism.

Logically correct based on false premise.

That "they are not recalling it" is pure speculation. . .2,000 years after the fact.

I love how you bring the 2,000 years into this all of the time. Especially when it doesn't regard what you're saying. By the logic you're using, everything in the Gospels really is pure speculations, as we can only view it 2,000 years after the fact. Not logical at all.

More so, it's not pure speculation. We know that Matthew and Luke relied on Mark for information. We know that they relied on the Q Gospel for information. The fact that they used sources shows that they were not recalling the information themselves, but were simply basing their views on other sources.

Which does not alter the rule of evidence as it applies to the Bible.
You are the "dynamic equivalent" of the defense attorney who, in the face of the overwhelming evidence against his client at the scene of the crime, argues,
"But there was no evidence in the home."
By some strange rule, he thinks absence of evidence in the home, is evidence of (his) absence at the crime.

Yeah, because that makes sense. Maybe you want to actually think before you post.

True, I was more focused on him as an historian, and on the fact that he is one of the favorites to be dismissed by those who seek to discredit the NT.
So he doesn't make a good witness for your ilk.

So moving the goal posts again. When in the face of information you simply can not debate again, all you can do is make a illogical attempt to dismiss the information. That says a lot.

The answer to that question would be the same as the answer to my question to you: you haven't read the NT have you? That explains a lot. (See post #386.)

So that's a no. It would have been as easy as that. Just say no. Plus, I can actually answer your question. It's a yes, I've read the NT quite a few times. That should be at least partially evident as I quote from the NT and refer to it.

No rules outside the Scriptures have authority over them.
There is much in Scripture, particularly the OT, that is not "logical."
The threads in this Forum are filled with that charge against them.

So then one should abandon logic in order to get to your understanding? We just have to blindly accept it because why?

The writers say they were eye witnesses, which does not mean of every little thing.

This was addressed in your thread, Inspired Word of God, in the "Religious Debates" section (currently on p. 2), at post #94.

Didn't A_E address this? I'm quite sure he did. Also, some of the writers flat out lied. Some of the letters accredited to Paul, as we now know, were never written by him.

More so, if they the Gospel writers were eye witnesses, why do they have to rely on other sources? Why does Matthew and Luke have to rely so much on the Gospel of Mark and the Q Gospel? They wouldn't if they were eye witnesses.

More so, the Gospels never tell us who even wrote them. Really, there is no reason to believe that were really eye witnesses.

Nope. . .check it out (post #387).

I'm not wasting my time, wading through 20-30 pages of information, just to find a wasteful post by you. If you really want me to know the information, you will repeat it here. If not, then it is of no real use.

 

[smokydot]

[for smokey's benefit, since he's too lazy to try and understand this]

I'm saying that parthenos and almah essentially mean the same thing, and THEREFORE that the LXX translation of the Hebrew IS ESSENTIALLY CORRECT.

Ah, but what the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away.
Because, without your "qualifiers," the Septuagint parthenos does not mean virgin in Mt 1:23, right?

 

[Harmonious]

The answer to that question would be the same as the answer to my question to you: you haven't read the NT have you? That explains a lot. (See post #386.)

Or Post #386

This was addressed in your thread, Inspired Word of God, in the "Religious Debates" section (currently on p. 2), at post #94.

Or Post #94

Nope. . .check it out (post #387).

Or Post #387

See? It isn't hard to do, and it will at least lessen frustration with your posts if you do something like that.

 

[smokydot]

The thing is, they are pointing out the obvious.

And if the obvious were pointed out about you, what do you think that would that be?

How do you expect people to think that you know what you are talking about when you pretend to know more than you do, flagrantly plagiarize, and then - most recently - respond to something that I wasn't even talking about because you couldn't understand me - and didn't even bother to try.