2:06 AM
Welcome Guest
My site
Main Registration Login
Nastavak III »
Site menu

Our poll
Rate my site
Total of answers: 33


Total online: 1
Guests: 1
Users: 0

Login form

My reply to that article:



First of the Sabbaths vs. First Day of the Week

Daniel Gregg vs. Eric Lyons, Master Ministry

       All the resurrection accounts show that Yeshua was raised from the dead on the first Sabbath after Passover (μια των σαββατων; Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; cf. vs. 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; cf. Acts 20:7; cf. 1Cor. 16:2).   In 1 Cor. 16:2 Paul tells the faithful to save up a contribution "down from the first of Sabbaths" (κατα μιαν σαββατων) to send to Jerusalem for Pentecost (1 Cor. 16:8).  The anniversary of the resurrection always falls right after Passover.   It is marked on the "first of the sabbaths" in Acts 20:7 (Εν δε τη μια των σαββατων), when the disciples met to "break bread", which is a near eastern expression for a common meal.  The next day, a common Sunday morning, Paul departed on his journey.  The expression showing the time of the resurrection appears eight times in the Apostolic Writings.  It designates a special Sabbath (cf. Lev. 23:15) along with the regular Sabbaths.  Even John received his vision on the Sabbath (cf. Rev. 1:10).

       Before the Gentiles fell into the Baalistic apostasy that became the proto-Catholic Church and the various Gnostic movements, faithful Messianic Israelites met and worshiped on the Sabbath day, and observed the Jewish feast days (cf. Col. 2:16; 1Cor 5:8; 1Cor 16:8).  The apostates developed a web of deceit to lay as a foundation for their new religion taken from old Babylonia, and then proceeded to persecute the original faith into near extinction with the zeal of Jezebel.  In this article we will look at the lies, half truths, and admitted truths that can be confirmed in an article published by Eric Lyons for Apologetics Press.  Quotations will be from that article which are sourced at the link under Mr. Lyons name.  He writes:

Admittedly, a form of the Greek word for sabbath (sabbaton or sabbatou) does appear in each of the eight passages translated “first day of the week.” For example, in Acts 20:7 this phrase is translated from the Greek mia ton sabbaton. However, sabbaton (or sabbatou) is never translated as “the Sabbath day” in these passages. Why? Because the word is used in these contexts (as Greek scholars overwhelmingly agree) to denote a “week” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 364), “a period of seven days” (Danker, et al., 2000, p. 910; cf. Thayer, 1962, p. 566). Jesus once used the term “Sabbath” in this sense while teaching about the sinfulness of self-righteousness (Luke 18:9).

     Lyons can barely tell the truth before starting in on the religious propaganda and lies.   We have to eliminate those Greek scholars from the field that learned to translate μια των σαββατων from others who told them that σαββατον meant "week" based on Church tradition.  That's nearly all of them.  Then we have to bring in those scholars of secular Greek and the few honest believing Greek scholars left that have set aside Church tradition to objectively study the matter from its linguistic basis that have correctly concluded that the phrase simply means "one day of the sabbaths".   Notice that Lyons whole argument here is based on appeal to majority and appeal to tradition.  That's not linguistic science in the least.  It's the one argument repeated by the opposition a thousand ways.  It's the one argument guaranteed to lead one into the apostasy of the majority is the slightest credence is placed on it.

      Even so Lyons sources have holes in them.  The first thing that Christians need to learn is that dictionaries and Lexicons are propaganda pieces.  The famed Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) was edited by Gerhard Kittel (1888-1948), "a German liberal Christian theologian who revealed himself to be a virulent anti-Semite who wrote Nazi-influenced nonsense about Christianity" (conservapedia.com/Gerhard_Kittel).  Kittel wrote the preface to TDNT in July 1933.  In August 1933, Herbert Lowewe, a Cambridge professor wrote:


       "It gives me great pain to find that so great an authority and leader of thought should give expression to such views. I have read your previous books with pleasure and profit, and I have learned much from them. ... your present pronouncement is quite incompatible with your previous teaching, and it is as unjust to Christianity as it is to Judaism. ... It is a grievous disillusionment to find that one's idol has feet of clay" (ibid, conservapedia)


      One must always keep in mind that human sources may be tainted with primary error or circular reasoning fallacies.  When men come before the throne of God to answer for their sins, the "I was just following orders" defense is not going to work any more than it worked at Nuremburg.  No God will hold them responsible to have done due diligence and have examined primary evidence with taking care to preserve their objectivity in prayerful entreaty to God to show them the truth.

       Perschbacher above is merely a fallacy of the circular reasoning type, his views learned by rumor from the original liar.  However, if we look at a source like Danker (now BDAG, 3rd edition, 2000) we will see that famed Jesuit Scholar Robert North disagrees that Sabbath meant "week", and this linguistic expert attributes it to a mistake by the Church Fathers (BDAG, pg. 910, σαββατον, "The Derivation of 'Sabbath', Biblica 36, '55, 182-201; cf. The New Catholic Encyclopedia, "Sabbath", © 2003, pg. 458; R. North).  Anyone who goes over the same linguistic evidence as North, S.J., will find the smoking gun behind the lie.

         An examination of Thayer's Lexicon will reveal uncertainty in the linguistic basis for the meaning "week":



        How does a speculation like Prof. Sophocles get into Thayer's Lexicon where the word "Sabbath" is given the meaning of "Sabbath"?  The reason is that the entire linguistic basis for sabbath meaning "week" is derived from exactly nine NT texts where everyone has been "told" it means week.   These are exactly nine texts that fail to prove the case from any linguistic view point, and professors like Sophocles knew it.   Nowhere else in all of Greek literature of NT provenance can anyone produce an example of Sabbath meaning week that is not traceable back to these texts.  And on an objective basis, to assert so in these nine texts is simply the most unparsimonious view one can take since the resultant chronology is contradictory.  If any other justification existed, it would be at the bottom of the column in Thayer.  In Luke 18:12, the Greek just means "I fast twice the Sabbath", which is sooner explained as an Hebraism than having the unattested meaning of "week": אני צם פעמים בשבת or לשבת,


which means "I fast twice in respect to Sabbath". In light of the chronology of Passion week and the Pious usage in the Mishnah and the Talmud, this is evidently the case.

        Lyons says "Obviously Jesus was not saying that the Pharisee boasted of fasting twice on the Sabbath day, but twice (dis) a week (tou sabbatou)."  What is obvious?  Only that Lyons is redacting his opinion that Sabbath means week back into the first century.  It is not obvious what this hapax (occurring only once) text means.  There could be some obscure Jewish sect of Pharisee that we don't know much about that made a pious point of skipping two meals on Sabbath, probably Friday evening and breakfast, eating only one meal toward the end of Sabbath after the end of their ascetic exercises for the day.  Lyons argument is therefore purely an argument from silence and the main Jewish tradition.

         Every linguist senses, if they do not know it already, that a secondary meaning to a word must be proven by regular and common examples in the language, and that the additional use flows naturally out of the base semantic range of the root word.  With only one supposed enigmatic example, we do not have sufficient basis to be going into the resurrection passages to put a hapax conjecture into texts where the meaning "Sabbath" already makes plain sense.  If one looks at is objectively, one must conclude that the evidence for circular reasoning tomfoolery is overwhelming.

According to R.C.H. Lenski, since “[t]he Jews had no names for the weekdays,” they “designated them with reference to their Sabbath” (1943, p. 1148). Thus, mia ton sabbaton means “the first (day) with reference to the Sabbath,” i.e., the first (day) following the Sabbath (Lenski, p. 1148), or, as we would say in 21st century English, “the first day of the week.” (Lyons).

       The first sentence is a bald faced lie.  The Jews did have a standard way to refer to the week days, and it did not use the word Sabbath.  Only the ignorant can believe it.  The ancient Jews sooner said, "first day," "second day", etc. than ever referring to the Sabbath except when it was Friday, which is "erev Shabbat" (eve of Sabbath) or "Sabbath" itself, and never then does the word mean "week".   William Mead Jones "A Chart of the Week" (annotated) shows the Hebrew Bible counting the days just as above.   [1] The alleged usage only occurs in the Mishnah and Talmud, and even there, it is mixed with the following usage, which is more common.  [2] And sooner than use such forms, the Jewish community said, "one in the seven", "two in the seven", using the Hebrew or Aramaic word for "seven".  This is how the Targums count and even the ancient Syriac after we take Robert North's, S.J. findings into account.

       Now if μια των σαββατων means "first day with reference to the Sabbath" then why don't the translators translate it as such?  Because with such a meaning, μια των σαββατων is not what we expect.  We expect the dative case: μια εν τη σαββατω or accusative μιαν εις το σαββατον.  Another reason they don't do it is that it calls too much attention to the Sabbath.  A pious usage showing recognition of the Sabbath is not something they want to draw attention to on the resurrection day!  No, the phrase μια των σαββατων simply means "one [day] of the sabbaths" in Koine Greek.

After spending years examining Jewish writings in the Babylonian Talmud, Hebraist John Lightfoot wrote A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, in which he expounded upon the Hebrew method of counting the days of the week. He noted: “The Jews reckon the days of the week thus; One day (or the first day) of the sabbath: two (or the second day) of the sabbath;” etc. (1859, 2:375, emp. in orig.). Lightfoot then quoted from two different Talmud tractates. Maccoth alludes to those who testify on “the first of the sabbath” about an individual who stole an ox. Judgment was then passed the following day—“on the second day of the sabbath” (Lightfoot, 2:375, emp. in orig.; Maccoth, Chapter 1). Bava Kama describes ten enactments ordained by a man named Ezra, including the public reading of the law “on the second and fifth days of the sabbath,” and the washing of clothes “on the fifth day of the sabbath” (Lightfoot, 2:375; Bava Kama, Chapter 7). In Michael Rodkinson’s 1918 translation of Maccoth and Bava Kama, he accurately translated “the second day of the sabbath” as Monday, “the fifth day of the sabbath” as Thursday, and “the first of the sabbath” as Sunday. (Lyons)

       First we should find out who Bishop John Lightfoot was (1602-1675).  He was a clergyman in the Church of England with Presbyterian sympathies (i.e. the Calvinist heresy), son of the vicar of Uttoxeter; he was not Jewish and his native language was not Hebrew or any Semitic language.  He learned his Hebraica from Sir Rowland Cotton.   He rejected the thousand year kingdom reign of Yeshua on earth, and sought for "the repression of current 'blasphemies'" (wiki).  He was allegedly the first Christian to call attention to the Talmud, so it may be assumed that he had no peer review on what he found there.  He also did not know his Hebrew very well or chose to suppress it, because what we find in the Talmud is not "One day (or the first day) of the sabbath".  What Lightfoot tried to translate with the word "of" in English does not correspond to the Hebrew ב found in the Talmud.  Further, one merely needs to remove Lightfoot's parenthesis such that we see "One day of the Sabbath" corresponds to the Greek idiom for the Sabbath, "day of the Sabbath(s)" with the word "first" before it.   Lightfoot is also concealing that the Greek is plural, i.e. "Sabbaths".  To see how deceptive this is consider the variant meanings of "first of the month" and "first of the months".   We see that the mere inclusion of the plural "s" at the end of the word changes from enumerating days of the month to the enumeration of whole months.

       This "Hebrew method" reflected only Talmudic and Mishnaic writings and never the popular spoken usage of Jews either in Aramaic or Hebrew.  Further, all of these examples are derived from the post Christian period, and indeed after the first century.  Finally, the pious usage "one in connection with Sabbath" (אחד בשבת) or (חד בשבתא) is clearly confused with the popular usage "one in the seven" (חד בשבא, in which א and ע are transmuted and the ת omitted). 



A major problem with citing the Talmud and Mishnah is that it was composed during the time of Jewish and Christian polemics.   It would be self serving of both proto-Catholic heretics and the anti-Messianic Jews to help each other.  The Rabbis would provide the alleged idiom for "first day of the week" to purify Judaism of the Sabbath resurrection and the Church would teach their people that the resurrection was on Sunday to purify Christianity of Judaism.  The Church could then dispense with its Jewish problem, and the Jews with their Gentile problem.  They did not have to consciously implement this.  Help from the otherworld would be sufficient.   However, they did not sow the lie up perfectly neatly.  The Rabbinic usage refused to be introduced into spoken speech, and it still shows traces of the original idiom, "one in the seven," "two in the seven" etc.  The final smoking gun so to speak is the missing ת in the Aramaic idiom for days one to five.  If the word really meant week, then why would they refuse to say שבתא for days one to five?  



Doubtless, by being forced into the scholarly literature, the usage has crept into some modern usages.  The only way to solve the issue is to seek out the usage of Nazrene Jews contemporary with the Apostolic Writings using objective linguistic tools and judging the matter semantically and chronologically based on the pure probabilities of the matter without the burden of self serving errant post-second Temple traditions.   And even if it were finally shown that some first century Jews counted days of the week after a pious fashion, it would not prove that μια των σαββατων did not mean "one day of the Sabbaths" or "first Sabbth".  It would only prove the possibility, a possibility which is soundly refuted by the fact that the only sound chronology can be built with the resurrection on the first sabbath after Passover, and the fact that only this agrees with the biblical instruction to count seven sabbaths after Passover according to Lev. 23:15.


Finally, consider the difficulty that would arise with Jesus’ resurrection story if sabbaton was translated Sabbath. “Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first Sabbath (sabbaton), they came to the tomb when the sun had risen” (emp. added). Such a rending of sabbaton in Mark 16:2 would be nonsensical. The Sabbath was over, and the mia ton sabbaton (“first day of the week”) had begun. The passage is understood properly only when one recognizes the Jewish method of reckoning weekdays. (Lyons).

       This is exactly where the probability function of the alternatives to "one day of the Sabbaths" collapses.   This is an argument that has no due diligence behind it.  What is due diligence?   It is the duty of the scholar to make reasonable efforts to determine if his or her arguments cannot be easily circumvented by further facts before presenting them as proof of their position.  When due diligence is not performed, we may suspect a would be scholar to either be trying to deceive us or simply being an ignoramus.   Anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with the Wednesday crucifixion and Sabbath resurrection knows that Thursday that year was the annual Sabbath  (cf. Lev. 23:11, 15).  This is what Mark 16:1 is referring to.  Matthew 28:1 confirms this because it alludes to the annual Sabbath reading: οψε δε σαββατων = Later of [the] Sabbaths.   So also John 19:31, which calls the annual Sabbath "great" on account if its being the greatest annual sabbath feast day of the biblical calendar.


Just as second century apologists Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 150) spoke of Jesus as rising from the dead “on the first day after the Sabbath” (Dialogue..., 41), and equated this day with “Sunday” (“First Apology,” 67), so should 21st century Christians. That Jesus rose from the dead “on the first day of the week” (Mark 16:9), and that Christians gathered to worship on this day (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; cf. Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” 67), is an established fact. Sunday is the first day after the Jewish Sabbath—the “first day of the week.” (Lyons).

        Justin was steeped in Greek philosophy and anti-Semitism.  Modern scholars who used his arguments and who painted the Jews the way he did would be better off joining the Nazi party.  No one can read his writings and compare them with the Torah and Prophets without discerning his massively cultic Scripture twisting and his virulent hatred for things Jewish.  Justin is just another heretic created in the crucible of Hadrian's decrees against Judaism in Rome.

This sounds like a rehash of the reasons given by the Wescott and Hort group to promote the RSV.

It still doesn't change the unalterable fact the Greek does not say "First day of the week".

Revelation 22:13] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. /protos (pro'-tos)

Revelation 21:25] And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. /hemera (hay-mer'-ah)

Since the word "week" appears no where in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, I'll quote from the Septuagint for my authority.

[Daniel 9:27] And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. /kai dunamwsei diaqhkhn pollois ebdomas mia kai en tw hmisei ths ebdomados arqhsetai mou qusia kai spondh kai epi to ieron bdelugma twn erhmwsewn kai ews sunteleias kairou sunteleia doqhsetai epi thn erhmwsin

The Greek words you are defining as "First day of the week" are "MIA TWN SABBATWN". Can you see that they are not the same....or do you still wish to go with the learned?
The Majority was always wrong since Adam sinned. Isn't the majority always wrong in the Scripture too? Truth is not determined by majority vote. I'll stick with the sabbath resurrection:
I apologize for the late response. I have enjoyed researching your point, although my schedule has now warped me out of having much free time to continue these discussions until the end of summer. Any future replies will be equally delayed – if not longer.

Now I figure you are looking for the magic bullet to exclude AD 34. I feel your angst at the lack of an easy out. But your "citations" aren't going to work. I did cite my sources already because that is just what Parker and Duberstein represent. I fully realize that successful apologists for the Friday-Sunday tradition have to bluff their way to victory with wool but now days you've got Daniel 12:4 foiling such attempts. I hope that's not your methodology. Otherwise, this discussion won't be the challenge I hope for.

Bluff my way? Nah, I’ll let you do all that. Angst???

Magic bullets? There are plenty. For starters, your date is too late in light of the date of Paul’s conversion to Christianity in AD 32/33. Gallio Inscription verifies that the Apostle Paul was in Achaia, Greece about AD 51 to 52. Calculating backwards, from his writings, he was converted approximately AD 32/33 – a whole year before that would theoretically be possible under your dating. Yes, this is an argument against AD 33 as well, but is deadly to AD 34.

You claim the women purchased burial spices on the day after Passover, this being essentially Friday and then came back on another day to anoint the body.
The gospel narrative clearly states two thing – the women followed Joseph and Niccodemus to the tomb, then returned and prepare spices prior to celebrating the weekly Sabbath.
Luke 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
Luke 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. – Note, no mention of an extended period of time between the two events
Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

I’ve seen it argued that this purchase HAD to have occurred on the intervening Friday – why? I find you logic on this humorous and circular and totally devoid of common sense of the era. First, Luke makes it clear that they had time to prepare the spices prior to the Sabbath but is silent on whether they purchased them on the way back from the tomb. Because decomposition of the body is rapid in that area, this would have been done as quickly as possible under normal conditions. The materials necessary would be readily available if not in some circumstances pre-made and ready for purchase. The fact that Nicodemus was able to obtain 75 pounds of ‘spices’ between the time of death and burial clearly shows pre-made materials to be available. Thus Wednesday cruxification folks have to speculate and make up an event that is not justified by the context of the narrative.

But the second point is that the preparation of the spices by the women was completed before the Sabbath. IF there was an intervening non-sabbath day they would have gone then to finish anointing the body. The gospel account is completely silent about this alleged event – any attempt to force this interpretation is simply speculation necessary to support a Wednesday crucifixion. To wait another day would become very repugnant for anyone to do – for by then he ‘stinketh’. Jewish burial customs were geared to get them buried as quickly and efficiently as possible – meaning same day – meaning spices were readily available for purchase or quickly made in less than a day. Infact, there is evidence that there were exemptions to the Sabbath rest in order to accomplish burial. Circular logic for a Wednesday – Saturday timeframe.

Were spices and necessary ingredients available on short notice? Of course, death was common and the requirement to quickly bury the individual would logically lead to sellers maintaining the necessary materials available on short notice. Niccodemus had no difficulty procuring 75 pounds on short notice.

Fourth, you claim the women came to the tomb on Saturday (Sabbath) morning and that resurrection was on the Sabbath after Passover, i.e. the "first of the sabbaths". I find your insistence to be rather humorous. I have yet to see conclusive evidence from sabbatarians that contradict the multitudes of Greek and Hebrew scholarship to the contrary. You have referenced to the htmlbible and strongs in other posts to support your cause. Even Strongs #4521 from that same website states “sabbaton- of Hebrew origin (shabbath 7676); the Sabbath (i.e. Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension, a se'nnight, i.e. the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications:--sabbath (day), week.” Now, I may not have a similar mastery of Hebrew as you seem to, others have a better founded interpretation.

“The Jews reckon the days of the week thus; One day (or the first day) of the sabbath: two (or the second day) of the sabbath;” etc. (John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 1859, 2:375). Examples cited by Lightfoot include Maccoth which alludes to those who testify on “the first of the sabbath” about an individual who stole an ox. Judgment was then passed the following day—“on the second day of the sabbath”(Lightfoot, Maccoth, Chapter 1)
R.C.H. Lenski, observed “the Jews had no names for the weekdays,” they “designated them with reference to their Sabbath” (The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 1943, p. 1148)
"Other nations count the days of the week in such a manner that each is independent of the other. Thus they call each day by a separate name [Sunday, Monday, etc.], but Israel counts all days with reference to Shabbos: the first day after Shabbos, the second day after Shabbos, etc." (Ramban, Commentary to Exodus 20:8)
In fact, this identification method is specified in Lev. 23:15 –. . you shall count your days from the Sabbath.
What sabbath is being spoken of here – the weekly sabbath. Therefor your assertion - Sabbath after Passover, i.e. μια των σαββατων, the "first of the sabbaths" is falsified by scripture, because the days are numbered from the weekly sabbath, not the passover or other feast. You way violates Lev 23:15. You have already shown to be aware of this-.

However, the word "Sabbath" does not mean "week". The proper translation is "one in connection with Sabbath". It was a pious usage for Jews of the Mishnaic period to refer to the Sabbath when they designated days of the week.

You may try to make the argument that the days of the week were identified in connection with the sabbath in the Mishnaic period (70-200 AD), Lev 23:15 makes it clear that it was the method since Moses. Trying to tie the use with a later date only works if you can clearly eliminate the same usage during the time of Christ. This is glaringly absent. (While I may not be fluent in Hebrew, it is a fact that the Jewish people referenced the days of the week by reference to the sabbath (and that being the weekly sabbath, not an annual one). Fact - the Jews of that time through today used only cardinal numbers to designate the days with the exception of Sabbath and later paraskeu for Friday. For example, if I have it correct, in Hebrew, the first day of the week could be called Yom Rishon B'Shabbos - the First Day of Shabbos. This method identifies exactly what I have been stating – a Hebraism – that was carried over into the greek. "The first day of the month or week is designated in the NT as in the LXX, not by prote, but by mia...The model was Hebraic where all the days of the month are designated by cardinals." (Blass/Debrunner/Funk, topic 247, 'syntax of numerals").
In Greek would be μια των σαββατων (the one of the sabbaths). Now much of what I see coming from your argument is that Sabbath does not or cannot also equal ‘week’. That is a weak argument considering that the context of the usage (σαββατων) as identifying the day of the week is defined in respect to the Sabbath is being done here. While semantics game can be fun, you have confirmed the use of this Hebrew idiom that was carried over to the Greek - μια των σαββατων relates to the first day of the week (Sunday) as counted from the Sabbath (even Ramban agrees with that). As such, it also confirms that the women arrived at the tomb on Sunday morning. You may desire to further define by trying to apply a pious usage, however, I haven’t found that from the Jewish sources I have looked at as well as from scripture itself. If only pious usage is acceptable – certainly the writers of the gospels were pious in reciting the events of the resurrection.

Thus when Mt 28:1 states In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. - the translation of first day of the week is confirmed by usage yourself as well as other sources – can only be Sunday.

Another count against a Saturday/Sabbath resurrection is the account of the two disciple’s trip to Emmaus. Jewish sabbathical travel restrictions limited one to approximately 1 mile, 2 if there was an emergency IIRC. Even Jesus followed these restrictions. However, Emmaus was 7 miles away. The gospel account shows the men traveling there on the same day the women went to the tomb. There is no justifiable reason to claim that they were being rebellious to the pharisaical law – had they wanted to travel this distance with undue problems as such, they could have made the journey during the alleged intervening non-sabbath day the women spent preparing all the spices. Gospel account shows the day to be a non-work restricted day. Second – they are referring to the crucifixion events as being ‘three days ago’. Since it would have been a sabbath violation to travel that far, the only day other than Friday would be Sunday – and as such would have referred to the events as being 4 or 5 days ago – depending on the degree of inclusive reckoning they would have applied.

You can't make logic go away so simply. The 15th of Nisan annual Sabbath was made greater by all accounts than the weekly Sabbath due to Israel's Exodus on that day. The weekly Sabbath was never called great by itself (except by religious revisionists), so it is ludicrous to apply great to the annual Sabbath only when it lands on the weekly Sabbath. Since the Gentiles in Asia Minor were still observing Passover by the Jewish Calendar, and not by the Roman Easter innovation, they would know the importance of this annual Sabbath. But I suppose one has to actually observe it to understand why it is great.

Try as you may, you cannot make the logic go a way, cute :) As I said earlier, who were the people John was writing to at the time – primarily gentiles. Did they have the same understanding of Passover as the Jews – no. Were they commanded to observe Passover – no. Were they familiar with the term ‘sabbath’ – probably.
In the gospels, it is clear that the writers wrote clarifying comments to explain various aspects of jewish life and customs – that is fact. John 19:31 states The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,). . . he was making clear to his predominantly gentile readers that it was a Sabbath day, but not just an ordinary weekly sabbath but a high (or great) Sabbath as well. Made ‘great’ because Passover fell on the same day. Romans would have kept (and did) the bodies up in the event it was a weekly Sabbath. John was not saying the reason it was a ‘great’ Sabbath was because they occurred the same day, he was clarifying that the regular Sabbath also occurred in conjunction with the great Sabbath. Out of curiosity, where outside of the law, is Passover referred to as a Sabbath?

Mark makes this same clarification in 15:42 to gentile Christians - And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation (paraskeuē), that is, the day before the sabbath,( prosabbaton). (I can almost see your curled lip with this – so what). Gentiles were used to using the deity named days of the week, and were therefore not familiar with these terms. Yes, I accept the interpretation that paraskeuē is a term used and accepted for Friday. Paraskeue was the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic of "arubta-eve," or Friday. Yes, the Didache uses the term for “Friday”, and while I agree that 70 may be too early, 90-100 AD is the more commonly held date. In conjunction with John (80-90 AD) and Mark (60-70AD), the identification of the day Jesus was crucified is set well to Friday. Torrey states there is no evidence that paraskeue was used for anything other than the weekly Sabbath. Your buddy Bacchiocchi wrote -- The term "prosabbaton-Sabbath-eve" was used by Hellenistic Jews to designate explicitly and exclusively "the day before the Sabbath, i.e. Friday" (Judith 8:6; 2 Macc. 8:26). I prefer Torrey, Moulton, Milligan and even Bacchiocchi and their scholarship to your say-so.

Since the only chronology that explains the facts adequately puts the annual Sabbath on Thursday, Nisan 15, it deductively follows that your argument from silence and against common sense for the meaning of "great" is error. It also deductively follows from the Wednesday-Sabbath chronology that explains all the facts, that Nisan 15 was called "great" regardless of the day of the week it fell upon.

You clearly didn’t understand my point earlier, hopefully you see it better now. I can understand your potential confusion regarding John’s terminology (‘great”) since you are programmed to read it otherwise. deductively follows great chuckle. It explains the ‘facts’ only by subjective speculation (for example, women spending all day Friday buying and mixing spices, etc).

So far you've lost every point we've contended over. It doesn't take a leap to see that your side seriously violates Okcham's Razor.

Occam’s razor – so far your theory has worse standing than ever with new material it must account for, plus it necessitates the fabrication of additional events that are neither necessary nor supported by the text. In AD 34 the preparation of the Passover was on Nisan 14, a Wednesday. That is all that is required.

No, you have to fit the rest of the gospel and New Testament narrative to boot. Sorry, AD 34 is the least likely of years and theories. First Strike is Paul’s conversion.

It cited Mark 8:31 and 9:31, so your last sentence above is misrepresentation of what I said. Mark 8:31 says "after three days" he would rise, a fact that fits Wednesday to Sabbath, but cannot fit Friday to Sunday. I already posted a chart showing as much.

A chart, a chart, wow argument ended. If this is the same chart you’ve posted in #121 this thread, your case is even weaker than I thought. Even your chart fails to depict a true 72 hour period. So we should believe you just because you say so? I’ve seen plenty of “charts” that would show otherwise. Sorry FRiend, Mark 9:31 says “on the third day” so the scripture needs to be reconciled to a common denominator – and that denominator is that these were figures of speech and not a literal 72 hour period, but is inclusive reckoning as becomes apparent below:

on the third day
Mt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64; Mk 9:31; 10:34; Lk 9:22; 18:33; 24:7,21,46; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor 15:4
in three days
Mt 26:61; 27:40; Mk 15:29; John 2:19-20
after three days
Mt 27:63; Mk 8:31
three days and three nights
Mt 12:40

So as one can see, the overwhelming citations indicate a period of less than 72 hours. Inclusive reckoning is also documented from the period by Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (J.Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and b.Talmud, Pesahim 4a) teaching about the “Onah”. This is further confirmed through Jewish practices even to day - In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day; e.g., the day of the funeral, even when the latter takes place late in the afternoon, is counted as the first of the seven days of mourning; a short time in the morning of the seventh day is counted as the seventh day; circumcision takes place on the eighth day, even though of the first day only a few minutes remained after the birth of the child, these being counted as one day.

You probably don't know much Hebrew. Otherwise you would not have made the gaff you did in the above paragraph.

I will admit my Hebrew is limited. So you scored a gotcha.

What you need to realize is that all your arguments are a form of circular reasoning. You use a document from an apostate Church to prove your point. You use the mistranslation "first day of the week" executed by apostate Christianity to prove your point. All circular reasoning that disagrees with the whole chronology of Passion week and the literal meaning of the words, and totally disagrees with Daniel 9.

Wow, I have been totally overwhelmed. Should have know the epithets would be flying sooner than later (aPOState, aPOSate). Lessee -
1. Your 34 AD scenario has Paul being saved before the crucifixion / resurrection.
2. Your 34 AD scenario has to fabricates a story that the women spent Wed evening and all the day light hours Friday making spices that were readily available for purchase, forcing them to return after the next Sabbath, ignoring Jewish burial requirements and customs.
3. The gospel narrative overwhelmingly indicates that a literal 72 hour period in the tomb was not the be the case, but that inclusive reckoning was being used.
4. To get your scenario to work, you must ignore the Passover type represented by the wave offering of First fruits (16 Nisan) as the type of the Resurrection. Paul describes Jesus’ Resurrection as the first fruits of the new creation in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23. With a Wednesday crucifixion, First fruits (16 Nisan) for your scenario would fall on Friday, meaning the resurrection should also be on Friday. Lev. 23:11 makes it clear that a Saturday/Sabbath ‘First fruits’ is not possible for AD 34. So we see an AD 34 Wednesday-Saturday scenario running into another dead end.
5. Finally, you claim that I (as well as other far more qualified scholars) mistranslate first day of the week to mean Sunday, even though you (and Lev 23:15) show that the days of the week are counted towards Sabbath from the last Sabbath, in essence tying the week to the Sabbath as its reference point. Literal meanings of words indeed.
6. One other little point, should one apply the 72 hour hyperliteral interpretation, Jesus would have been resurrected at 3 PM Saturday afternoon (literal 72 hours) The gospel accounts are clear that it was dawn when the women arrived to the tomb. This could not have been Saturday morning – Jesus would not have been risen. The only alternative under your scenario is Sunday morning. So what was Jesus doing between Sat 3 PM and Sunday 6 AM – playing dominos with the angels?

********************************************************************* Regarding the Daniel 9 passage, another hit below your AD 34 water line.

I can confirm for you that Nisan 14 in AD 32 was on Monday, but the only value of this is that it destroys Anderson's theory. The data you give for AD 34 is a false statement—the truth be that it squarely and fairly puts Nisan 14 on Wednesday. Now the Addaru II you correctly discovered before the correct Nisan in 444 destroys the 444-33 AD Daniel 9 explanation.

Not really, makes the math a little more challenging. And how ‘firm’ is this date? It was my understanding that the current method of calculating the jewish calendar was reformed/finalized in 135 AD AD? Apparently we agree that the decree was given in 444 BC some time during the month of Nisan.

Parker and Dubberstein's tables show Nisanu going from 4/3-5/1 in 444 BC. (However, I do believe they admit that their dates could be off by as much as 30% - page 23 of their paper) It appears Nehemiah tracked Artaxerxes' regnal years from the Babylonian month of Nisanu using the ‘Persian method’, hence the 444 BC interpretation. Since Nehemiah mentioned the Jewish month of Nisan (by name, not by number) and the regnal year did not change, it is probable that Nehemiah's Nisan fell one month earlier that year than the Babylonian month of Nisanu, when the Persian regnal year would have changed (otherwise it would have been the 21st year of his reign). Unless there was a scribal error, this would cause the Jewish Nisan to have fallen between 3/4 and 4/2, 444 BC. A similar separation between months is evident in Parker and Dubberstein’s table for 33 AD. It is evident that Nehemiah was using a fall-fall calendar year, thus basing the start of the Jewish year with Tishri, not Nisan. You dismissed this earlier, but this is why it is important. Since the start of Tishri is not very well established, the Jewish calendar of the era could migrate from the Persian. Interestingly, using a Gregorian to Hebrew calendar conversion program I found, using March 8, 444 BC and it calculated the corresponding hebrew date of Nisan 1. Converting March 10, 444 BC into a Julian date, adding 173880 days comes out to March 10, AD 33, Nisan 10 – the day Jesus entered Jerusalem.

You may probably argue that Addaru II was present – my question to you is from what do you base this on Addaru was a Persian month, Hebrews had their own. – elephantine materials or current jewish calendar methods?

As for the date of Neh. 2:1 being in 444 BC there is no doubt. VAT 5047 in the 11th year (454) of Artaxerxes I takes care of that. And I should remedy an oversight from your last post. You suggested that the sabbatical year be 31/32 AD, and that 33 AD be the terminal year. However that would imply that 446/445 BC would be the sabbath year. Since the walls were rebuilt in 444, that reduces the count to 68 instead of the required 69 (7 + 62 = 69). So plainly AD 33 does not work with ANY proposed Sabbatical year. But like I said the correct Sabbatical year is 32/33. BC 445/444 was the first and AD 32/33 the 69th.

This is where you shoot your own theory of AD34 in the foot. I may have fumbled the earlier calculations, but not this time. For starters, it is illegitimate to deduct the first sabbatical ‘year’ with the completion of the walls in 444 BC, same year as the decree was issued. That is absolutely the lamest of all your justifications. But is is clear why you have to do that – otherwise the numbers don’t work out for you. Had you followed the method specified in Daniel 9 (which does not credit the completion of the wall with 7 years of time), the end of your 69th sabbath ‘year’ would be AD 40 – far too late to support AD34, so you fudge the numbers by dropping this first ‘year’, leaving you with only 68 to count for – arriving in AD 33. You cannot just drop those years so nonchanlantly and remain honest to the context and conditions found within the prophecy. AD 34 is dead in the water even using sabbathical years.

Enjoy your week, I’m headed out of town for most of the next month. If you reply I’ll try to get to it as I can.

«  January 2017  »

Site friends
  • Create your own site

  • Copyright MyCorp © 2017
    Free website builderuCoz