7:24 AM
Welcome Guest
My site
Main Registration Login
Nastavak IV »
Site menu

Our poll
Rate my site
Total of answers: 59


Total online: 1
Guests: 1
Users: 0

Login form

O.K. lets settle your fraudulent objection that Paul won't fit with AD 34. All you have to do is count the 3 years in Galatians and the 14 years from the same point, from his conversion, in which case AD 36 will do quite nicely for Paul to get knocked off his horse. Still fits with Aretas (2Cor. 11:32) and is in fact suggested in Finegan's handbook of biblical chronology. Now it is up to you to supply facts demonstrating a contradiction to what I just explained.

– 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.

    The words you underlined are missing from the Western Text (represented by Codex Bezae).   But even if we are compelled to take them (and that is not too probable for text critical reasons), Lev. 23:7 supplies the commandment to rest on the Passover Sabbath, which was Thursday that year.  So your ignorance of the Torah, and MSS,  has led you to a lack of due diligence in bullet proofing your own argument.  You should not have used it.  That's all.

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

Yes, Mark mentions the time between.  See below.  So your argument is simply a false tradition.


"Luke 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. 



       Now they rested the one Sabbath, [[according to the ordinance,]] 24:1 But upon the first of the Sabbaths, at deep dawn, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them" (DLT:


the one Sabbath: το μεν σαββατον. This was the annual Sabbath on the 15th of Nisan, Thursday that year.  The ordinance to rest on this Sabbath is specified in Leviticus 23:7, however Codex Bezae omits the words in brackets.   The annual Sabbath is called, "the Sabbath" in Lev. 23:11, 15, השבת.  It was the annual shapattu that came on the 15th of the first month.   Luke 23:56b actually goes with Luke 24:1.  The words "the one" here translates the Greek article το which sometimes has a demonstrative meaning.  In fact, BDAG 3rd edition, "1. this one, that one, the art. funct. as a demonstrative pronoun...b. ο μεν... ο δε the one...the other" (pg. 686).

comment: Chapter 23 is supposed to end at the "." after the word "ointments".  The effect of properly ending chapter 23 after the word 'ointments' is that it ends the chronology of that chapter.  Chapter 24 then beings a fresh chronological description of events jumping backward in time to reference their resting on the annual sabbath, and then progressing to the weekly sabbath after it.   Luke 23:54 introduces the annual Sabbath in vs. 54, "But it was the day before a Sabbath", ην δε η ημερα προ σαββατου, (Codex Bezae), and 23:56a ends the chapter saying "And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments" which of course, was after the annual Sabbath.   However, Codex Bezae (D) omits the words "according to the commandment".   The western text D is the best here.  Perhaps the Byzantine Scribes edited the text to make it look like the weekly Sabbath, counting on people being ignorant of the ordinance to rest on the annual Sabbath?  At all events, 23:56b goes with the next chapter, and introduces the two sabbaths, between which, the spices were bought and prepared, but which are not mentioned again since the reader will assume that they waited till after the annual Sabbath to do this. 

comment: "23:56b-24:1. το μεν σαββατον ... τη δε μια των σαββατων—The μεν ... δε construction links these two days together and prompts consideration of a literary and theological link. (In Nestle-Aland25 23:56b begins a new paragraph that continues with 24:1-11; 23:56b is separated from 24:1 only by a comma.  In Nestle-Aland26 and Nestle-Aland27 23:56b has been separated from Luke 24 and ends with a period.) The close relationship between 23:56b and 24:1 forms the transition from Luke 23 to Luke 24.  The double use of σαββατον and the way Luke has phrased the sentence suggest theological implications as the narrative moves from one day to the next.  This is why 23:56b is best considered part of Luke 24 and the resurrection narrative" (Concordia Commentary, Luke 9:51-24:53, Arthur A. Just Jr., 1997).

first...Sabbath: μια των σαββατων. The first of the seven Sabbaths after the annual Passover Sabbath which were counting during the 50 days till Shavuot (Pentecost), cf. Lev. 23:15.  The Greek word σαββατων in this text means "Sabbaths", the same as everywhere else it occurs.  Μια των σαββατων means "one of the sabbaths" in literal Greek.   However, in Jewish Greek, which is influenced by the Hebrew idiom, the word μια may stand for "first" like the Hebrew word אחת.  Further the word σαββατων besides being plural in Greek is a Hebrew loan word derived from שבתון, which means "sabbatism" or from the Hebrew word שבתות, which means "Sabbaths" in the plural sense.  Evidently the later is meant:

 אחת השבתות=one/first of the Sabbaths, and refers to Lev. 23:15, the annual seven sabbath counting between the Passover Sabbath and the Shavuot Sabbath.

comment: J.P. Green's The Interlinear Bible, vol. iv correctly begins the last chapter of Luke with verse 23:56b, "και το μεν σαββατον ησυχασαν [κατα την εντολην,] τη δε μια των σαββατων, ορθρου βαθεος ηλθον επι το μνημα...." (Luke 23:56b-24:1a).   This is a typical μεν...δε construction, properly translated as, "And on the one hand, that Sabbath they rested [according to the commandment], but on the other hand, on the first of the Sabbaths they came upon the tomb...."  It is a compare and contrast construction where "μεν ... δε" = "on the one hand...but on the other hand" (cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar, pg. 672) and J.P. Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Luke 23:56-24:1.   Luke's purpose is to contrast the two Sabbaths, the annual Sabbath on which the women rested (cf. Lev. 23:7) from the following weekly Sabbath, which was the first of the Sabbaths (cf. Lev. 23:15) in the annual seventh Sabbath counting.  Evidently, Green was too hasty, because he forgot to insert the traditional "first day of the week" into the English side translation, which reads, "But on the indeed sabbath, while still very early, they came upon the tomb..." (a freudian slip?, hmm).

comment: The words "at deep dawn".  "ορθρου βαθεως—The genitive signifies the period of time (the one known as "deep dawn") during which the action takes place. (BDF, §186 [2], calls this an unclassical usage for the point of time at which.)  Perhaps the most illuminating comment on this phrase is the remark of B.B. Rogers in his commentary on Aristophanes, where he describes ορθρος βαθεως as "the dim twilight that precedes the dawn ... the thick dullness of night [that] has not yet yielded to the clear transparency of day" (The Wasps of Aristophanes, 32, n. 216)." (pg. 964, Concordia Commentary, Luke 24:1, Arthur A. Just Jr., 1997).  This phrase is the exact equivalent of the Hebrew שחר, shakhar, in Hosea 6:3, which says that YHWH (Yeshua) goes forth at שחר in reference to the resurrection of Yeshua on the third day (cf. Hosea 6:1-2).  The word means the hint of reddish light that precedes the dawn.  It is derived from the same Hebrew word as the word for "black".   It refers to the end of the third night hinting in the east while it is still the darkness of night everywhere else except the hint of the coming dawn in the east.  This accords well with his crucifixion on Wednesday afternoon and resurrection on the Sabbath at the deep dawn, making exactly three days and three nights (cf. Matthew 12:40). 


the spices: The question is often asked if the women were permitted to so this on the Sabbath according to the Law.  According to Jewish interpretation, 'They make make ready [on the Sabbath] all that is needful for the dead, and anoint it and wash it, provided that they do not move any member of it.  They may draw the mattress away from beneath it and let it lie on sand that it may be the longer preserved; they may bind up the chin, no in order to raise it but that it may not sink lower.  So, too, if a rafter is broken they may support it with a bench or with the side-pieces of a bed that the break may grow no greater, but not in order to prop it up.  They may not close a corpse's eyes on the Sabbath; nor may they do so on a weekday at the moment when the soul is departing; and he that closes the eyes [of the dying man] at the moment when the soul is departing, such a one is a shedder of blood.' (The Mishnah, Herbert Danby, 23.5) "  Further, it is generally considered disrespectful to the dead to neglect anything involved in a proper burial, mourning, or last respects.   How much work did they do?  Yeshua was buried in a rich man's garden tomb on the Mount of Olives, and the women lived in Bethany, which was 1.5 miles from the garden. (DLC:

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.

    But again, we are talking about the annual Sabbath, which you are willfully ignoring just so you can repeat points that have already been answered.  That's not honest.

The Annual Sabbath and the First of the Sabbaths


"Mark 16:1 And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. 2 And very early in the morning the first of the Sabbaths, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun" (DLT:


the Sabbath:  This was the annual Passover Sabbath on the 15th of Nisan, on Thursday that year (cf. John 19:31).   Lev. 23:11 was regarded by the Jews to refer to the annual Passover Sabbath.   The Babylonians also called the 15th day of the month Shabbatu or Shapattu so the concept of calling the 15th of Nisan "The Sabbath" was not foreign in the ancient near east.  Also called Yom Tov and translated Rest Day by Rashi.


first...Sabbath: The weekly Sabbath was also called the "first of the Sabbaths" on account of Leviticus 23:15, where instructions are given to count seven Sabbaths after the annual Passover Sabbath." (DLC:


comment: The KJV errors by translating, "had bought".  The Greek ηγορασαν is not pluperfect.  It is aorist.  This means they bought the spices after the Sabbath.   This is the main verb in the sentence and the participle "was past", διαγενομενου, is temporally dependent on the main verb.  It would be grammatically incorrect to say that they "had" bought the spices before the Sabbath. (DLC:

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.

    Mark 16:1 SAYS it was after the annual Sabbath.   So it must have been on Friday.   Please notice that it is "bought spices" not "had bought" as the KJV errors with the pluperfect.   You ignorance of Greek will totally kill your position here.  See the last comment above.

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.

What you call a fact is not a fact.  The embalming on Friday was correctly defended by Graham Scroggie.  See below.  However, adopting your view on this point would not be fatal to the Sabbath resurrection, a fact you seem to overlook.

Linen Sheet vs. Linen Strips


"John 19:39-40 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen strips with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury" (DLT:


linen strips: οθονιοις.  This Greek word is plural and means that they wrapped him in strips of cloth with the spices.   On Wednesday, before the annual Sabbath, they had only wrapped him in a single linen cloth, a σινδόνα.   On Friday Joseph and Nicodemus returned to complete the task of embalming him.   They would have taken off the single sheet and wrapped him in the strips.  John 19:38 takes us up to the time on Wednesday when He was put in the grave with the single cloth.   Verses 39-40 cover the events on Friday, and verses 41-42 cover an anecdotal piece of information about the tomb and why that tomb had been used.   Joseph and Nicodemus, being members of the council and known to Pilate would have had no trouble coming to the tomb for an official embalmment on Friday.  This explanation is the only way to account for a single piece of cloth in Matthew 27:59; Mark 15:46 (2x); Luke 23:53; cf. Mark 14:51-52, and then the linen bandages in John 19:40 and also at the resurrection in John 20:5,6 7; and Luke 24:12.   This is because the single cloth (σινδονα) was removed on Friday and replaced with the linen strips (οθονιοις). See A Guide To The Gospels, page 576, by W. Graham Scroggie, D.D.


comment: The aromatic spices that the women brought later, (αρωματα) Luke 24:1, were not the main embalming. (DLC:

But the second point is that the preparation of the spices by the women was completed before the Sabbath.

Again Greek grammar refutes your argument:


comment: The KJV errors by translating, "had bought".  The Greek ηγορασαν is not pluperfect.  It is aorist.  This means they bought the spices after the Sabbath.   This is the main verb in the sentence and the participle "was past", διαγενομενου, is temporally dependent on the main verb.  It would be grammatically incorrect to say that they "had" bought the spices before the Sabbath. (DLC:


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.


Argument by majority vote is purely a tactic of the majority to enforce the status quo.  Anyway, I never referenced Strong's Concordance for positive support.  So you are confusing me with someone else, or you are illegitimately trying to make me look bad.   I think you fail to see that this argument has a moral dimension as well in the way you conduct the argument.


“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).[Which was never generally true.]  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,”   [Which is a lie, or irrelevant half truth] 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. [Which is a half-lie, since many ancient nations counted the days of the week just like the Jews] 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)


I posted this before refuting all of this.   But I should add this.  Never use the sectarian creed of an erring religion as your final appeal for authority.   That's exactly what the Talmud is.   It was composed, engineered, and written with opposition to the Nazarenes always in mind.   So appealing to it is like appealing to commentaries in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the foundation of truth.  Since the Talmud is proven to be faulty and the Catholic Church, it is best to seek one's proof in the written Scripture only.


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 Sabbath".  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.


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-.


This statement of yours is a total fraud. This is what it really says:


"Leviticus 23:15 And ye shall count unto you in the day after the Sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; Seven Sabbaths shall be complete" (DLT:


It totally destroys your credibility, because it is this one statement in the whole of Scripture that validates the Sabbath resurrection.   I see that you realized that you had to get rid of it.  Smart thinking.  But slandering the text by mistranslating it won't save you from disgrace.  Redacting a Talmudic method back into Leviticus as a commandment of God will not earn you any points with the Almighty.   Nor will putting a non-Rabbinic  Karaite interpretation on the annual Sabbath agree with the Talmud because the Karaites rejected the Talmud!


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.


Dream on.  You are only displaying shameful ignorance, or willful obfuscation.  Which is the case?  Who knows.  I don't care.


"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").


Yes, but it does not help you.   Take "first of the month"  and add an "s" and now we are counting months,  i.e. "first of the months".  And since when did I say "prote" was used?  You are refuting the wind here.  Guess what?  I have BDF and they very words you quoted are highlighted in yellow.   All you are proving is that is is the "first of the sabbaths" and not just "one Sabbath" since Lev. 23:16 refers to the seventh sabbath with an ordinal number.


What an 11th century Jewish sage thought is irrelevant.  But in fact the Rabbis have every interest in preventing a resurgence of the Nazarenes, and they will help the Babylonian Church any way they can to that end, even if it means inventing a new layer of Hebrew to let the ignorant redact into a time period where it has no proveance.



Matthew 28:1?  It destroys the Sunday theory.  The comments form BDF below are totally fatal to the "After the Sabbath" view of Mt. 28:1.  It is the later of the sabbaths.


The Later Sabbath After the Passover Sabbath


"Matthew 28:1 And the later of the Sabbaths, as it began to dawn on the first of the Sabbaths, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher" (DLT:


later...Sabbath: There were two Sabbaths in Passover week.  The annual Passover Sabbath was on Thursday, Nisan 15, and this was followed by the weekly Sabbath on Nisan 17.  The "later of the Sabbaths' refers to the weekly Sabbath.  "Later" is used in the sense of "former" and "later".  The former Sabbath was the annual Sabbath.  The later Sabbath was the weekly Sabbath.


first...Sabbath: The weekly Sabbath was also called the "first of the Sabbaths" on account of Leviticus 23:15, where instructions are given to count seven Sabbaths after the annual Passover Sabbath".


later: Οψε.  The proper definition of this word when used with the genitive case is later.  "The genitive with Οψε and μετ ολιγον  have become associated in meaning with  υστερον τουτων [later of these], προτερον τουτων [former of these]" (BLASS, 164.4, pg. 91, A Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature).  Thayer's Lexicon observes concerning the errant rendering "after": "but an examination of the instances just cited (and others) will show that they fail to sustain the rendering after." (DLC:



Emmaus?  Surely you know that Jews broke the law for legitimate reasons?


Departing to Emmaus


"Luke 24:13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs" (KJV).


Lest it be objected that the disciples would not do this on a Sabbath, we need only point out that these two were responding to the report of the missing body brought by the women by leaving Jerusalem.   The action could be justified because they did not want to be implicated for stealing the body.   It was time to get out of Dodge.   Yeshua justified such measures in his teaching concerning David and the bread of the presence in the Temple when David was fleeing from King Saul.

The Third Day Since


"Luke 24:45-46: Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:" (DLT:

1. the third day: τη τριτῃ ημερα.  The days for a sacrificial offering in the Temple were calculated from morning to morning according to Lev. 7:15, especially in the case of a "peace offering".   Messiah was our "peace offering" making peace between the repentant sinner and God.   A peace offering brought in the afternoon had to be eaten on the "same day" by the next "morning".   Other offerings were allowed to be eaten for two days, up to the morning of the third day.  The rabbis put a fence around the Torah and made midnight the cut off point lest someone cross the line of dawn that started the next day, after which it was forbidden to eat an offering.   Also in the case of the wave sheaf and associated offerings, the eating of the offerings was scheduled on a morning to morning definition of a day.   The morning to morning definition of a day was the default definition of a 24 hour day in ancient Israel except in the case of the Sabbaths.  Misunderstanding this has led to some serious misunderstandings of the Passover.  For the Passover, the 14th day of Nisan and the night following it "that night" are the same day, and the next day, the 15th of Nisan, starts in the morning.   The annual Sabbath, of course, is counted from sunset.  Israel was quite familiar with the dawn to dawn day as it was the 24 hour day used in Egypt.


2. the third day: Yeshua died on Wednesday afternoon.  The first of the three days spans from Wednesday dawn to Thursday dawn.   The second day spans from Thursday dawn to Friday dawn, and the third day spans from Friday dawn to Sabbath dawn.   The resurrection was just before the dawn on the "first" "Sabbath" after Passover (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1).  The third day works out exactly using the schedule of a day as used in the Temple for sacrifices. (DLC:

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.

John's audience was a mixed audience of Torah observant Gentiles vs. Gnostic Heretics who were rejecting the Torah (your spiritual ancestors by the way).  Johns emphasis on Jewish connections was to emphasize the that the biblical faith was Jewish over and against the Gnostics who hated the Jews.   John is not special in mentioning the Annual Sabbath.    All the Gospels mention or allude to it.  But John is putting it in your face.

The only people who think "preparation" is technical term for "Friday" are people who don't keep Sabbath and prepare for annual Sabbaths as well.

What means the Preparation Day?


"42 And now having become later, because it was a preparation, which is before a Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathaea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Yeshua." (DLT:, Mark 15:42, parts of vs. 43 from ESV)  

Comment: Codex Bezae reads πριν σαββατον and other important MSS read προς σαββατον, and the 27th edition of Aland reads προςαββατον.   Jewish Scholar Solomon Zeitlin pointed in Studies in the Early History of Judaism, (New York: KTAV, 1973, vol. 1, pg. 210) that "Some MSS omit the words ο εστιν προσαββατον.    There are no papyri covering this section of Mark.  The word σαββατον is to be explained as a transliteration of the Hebrew שבתון, which means "sabbatism" and was used for feast days as well as the weekly sabbath.  However, in Leviticus 23:11, 15, the annual Passover feast day is also called "the Sabbath", השבת.  Zeitlin also says, "The word παρασκευη is not a Jewish technical term at all (pg. 268).  Rather, the word παρασκευη, which has in Greek the meaning of preparation, became a pagan  technical term for the Eve of Sabbath, as well as for the Eve of other holidays (pg. 269), (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 51-52, 1932-33, pp. 263-271, my underlines)" (The Sabbath Resurrection, 1993, Dan Gregg).  "Torrey's theory (JBL 50 [1931], 227-41) that Passover should be understood as the festival period of seven days and that John is speaking of Friday within Passover week has been refuted by S. Zeitlin, JBL (1932), 263-71 (Brown, Raymod E. The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to John. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1970, John 19:14, pg. 882)." Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich go on to expand on the traditional definition, but they do note "Against Torrey, SZeitlin, JBL 51, '32, 263-71."           Zeitlin replies in another place:

        The words in verse Mark 15.42, "And when even was now come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath" do not prove at all that the word parasque was used to designate Friday only, but not the eve of holidays.  We clearly see from John 19.14, "and it was the parasque of the Passover" that the word parasque may refer also to the eve of the holidays. (The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. XLII, 1952.)

F.F. Bruce states:
        The first clear occurrence of Gk. παρασκευη in the sense of "Friday" is in the Martyrdom of Polycarp 7.1 A.D. 156 (pg. 381, note 12, The Gospel of John).

"Dalman has, we believe correctly, pointed out: Neither could the author (of Jn. 19:14) have meant ... by the expression the, 'Eve of the Passover' anything other than the day which the Jews call in Hebrew, 'ereb pesah', and in Aramaic 'arubat pisha', i.e. the day which preceeded the Festival; never the Friday in the festive week, as Zahn suggests." (Jesus-Jeshua, pg. 88.) (Journal of Biblical Literature, pg. 270, Zeitlin, "The Date of the Crucifixion", 1932-33).

1. Your 34 AD scenario has Paul being saved before the crucifixion / resurrection.  [disproved]
2. Your 34 AD scenario has to fabricates [A lie-false attribution to me] 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, [disproved] ignoring Jewish burial requirements and customs. [A lie since ignored customs were never substantiated]
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. [When did I say 72 hours?]
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.  [A lie

"But every man in his own order: Messiah the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. " (1Cor. 15:23).


first fruits: Yeshua rose from the dead at dawn on the Sabbath.   The wave sheaf offering in the temple was on the 16th of Nisan, which was Friday morning that year.  The Temple day reckoned the first fruits day from sunrise on Friday until sunrise on the Sabbath, so the resurrection comes right at the end of the first fruits day.  This is illustrated in this chart: (;


] 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.

[A lie 

"But every man in his own order: Messiah the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. " (1Cor. 15:23).


first fruits: Yeshua rose from the dead at dawn on the Sabbath.   The wave sheaf offering in the temple was on the 16th of Nisan, which was Friday morning that year.  The Temple day reckoned the first fruits day from sunrise on Friday until sunrise on the Sabbath, so the resurrection comes right at the end of the first fruits day.  This is illustrated in this chart: (;



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 [A most obvious lie] ) 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.
[An implied lie, false attribution to Me of position I do not take.] This could not have been Saturday morning – Jesus would not have been risen. The only alternative under your scenario is Sunday morning.  [A lie, since you did not disprove the translation "first of the Sabbaths" -- you only tried to support "first day of the week". ] So what was Jesus doing between Sat 3 PM and Sunday 6 AM – playing dominos with the angels? [A lie ]

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?

I'm going to pass on educating you on the above.

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)

Only in respect to the exact day of the new moon, and what is in the charts is the parsimonious day for the new moon.  As to the intercalation, it was regularly done after the equinox by the Babylonians and Persians.   And  the 360 day year theory does not work.  Besides a year is not 360 days.  So Hoehner's theory is caput.


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.


Pure propaganda on your part.   Have you ever heard of inclusive counting?  That's right you need it to make your Friday to Sunday idolatry work.  Why don't you allow it to be applied to counting 69 sabbatical periods?   Answer: because then it would work right without the problems of your 360 year theory, and it would confirm the Sabbath resurrection.  But since you hate the Sabbath and hate the Torah you will not believe it.   No Sabbath year was deducted at all.   Since we are counting whole sabbatical periods unit wise, it is nonsense to say I am dropping off years.  That's like me telling you that you are dropping off hours of the day because you count only one hour in the grave as the first day.
The Koine Greek word ‘μιᾷ’ transliterated as ‘mia’ and translated as ‘one’(cardinal) is found in the Greek Septuagint O.T. references such as; Deuteronomy 12:14 (one of the tribes), 15:7 ; 19:5,11 (one of the cities), Joshua 10:2 (one of the chief cities), Ruth 2:13 (one of thy servants), 1 Kings 2:36 (one of the priests), and 2 Kings 15:2 (one of the tribes).

Outside the resurrection verses the Koine Greek word ‘μιᾷ’ is found in other N.T. references such as; Matthew 5:19 (one of the commandments), 26:69 (one servant girl); Mark 14:66 (one of the maids), and Luke 5:12 (one of the cities), 5:17 (one of the days), 13:10 (one of the synagogues), 17:22, 20:1. (one of the days) and Acts 21:7 (one day). Outside the resurrection verses the Koine Greek word ‘σαββάτων’ transliterated as ‘sabbatwn’ and translated as ‘sabbaths’ can be found in Luke 4:16 and Acts 13:14, 16:13 (day of the sabbaths). Each example exhibits a partitive genitive case function where one of something is displayed as a fractional margin of association within a larger group of the same thing.

As well we have numerous Koine Greek Septuagint O.T. verses where the words ‘μιᾷ’ as ‘one’, ‘ημέρα’ as ‘day’, or ‘πρώτn’ as ‘first’ appears in various combined segments. These may be observed at; Genesis 27:45, 33:13, Leviticus 22:28, 23:35,39,40., Numbers 11:19, Deuteronomy 16:4, Judges 20:23, 1 Kings 2:34, 27:1, 3 Kings 4:22, Ezra 3:6, 10:13,16,17., Ester 3:13, 8:12, Nehemiah 8:2,18, Isaiah 9:14, 66:8, Daniel 10:12, and Zacharius 14:7.

In the N.T. we have a few examples shown in Mark 14:12, Acts 20:17, and Phillipians 1:5.There the various examples combine two words togeather where ‘μιᾷ ημέρα’ is commonly translated as ‘one day’ and ‘ημέρα μιᾷ’ as ‘day one’ being interpreted tangibly as the ‘first day’ along with ‘πρώτn ημέρα’ as more precise. The segment ‘μιᾷ ημέρα’ as ‘one day’ may be regarded in a fractional sense as a position of tense within time.

Again for the ‘resurrection verses’, there ‘μιαν σαββατων’ is rationalized as ‘one of sabbaths’ where ‘μιαν’ is cardinal and not ordinal in meaning. If the resurrection verses were to be understood in an ordinal sense the word; ‘πρώτn’ as ‘first’ could have easily been used but does not ocurr in any of the original scripts with such a regard or manner. The translators have commonly failed us with their interpretations surrounded by forethoughts based on illusory preconceived notions. There in the original Greek resurrection verses ‘μιαν σαββατων’ depicts a much broader picture at stake for those who are willing to properly understand it.
* The phrase ‘the first (ordinal) day of the week’ could have appeared as; ‘της πρώτο ημέρα του εβδομάδα’ in the original Koine Greek verses of; Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, St. John 20:1,19; Acts 20:7, and 1 Corinthians 16:2 in the New Testament but does not appear anywhere in any way, shape or form.

The word ‘εβδομάδας’ in the Koine Greek for ‘week’ does appear respectively in certain contexts of the Septuagint LXX Old Testament (~ 270 B.C.) in; EX 34:22; LEV 23:15, 16, 25; NUM 28:26; DEUT 16:9, 10, 16; II CHRON 8:13, and DAN 9:24,25, 26, 27; 10:2, 3.

The phrase ‘the first (ordinal) of the sabbaths’ could have appeared as ‘της πρῶτον τῶν σαββάτων’ in the original Koine Greek for the resurrection verses but does not for the most part. However, ‘πρωτη ημερα των αζυμων’ = ‘first (ordinal) day of unleavened (bread)’ is translated accurately for Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, and Luke 22:7.

Only the verse of Mark 16:9 in the original Greek is shown as ‘πρώτη σάββατου’ transliterated as ‘protos sabbatou’ which is translated literally to mean ‘first (ordinal) sabbath (singular)’. Here in the long ending of Mark 16:9–20 regarded as an extension from a later time that does not exist in the earlier and older manuscripts. The Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus, Sinaitic Syriac, Armenian and oldest Georgian manuscripts show no support for the long ending of St. Mark16:9-20.

** Here we have A.E. Knoch’s Concordant Literal New Testament (1927) of the Gospel resurrection & meeting day verses;

MTH 28:1

“Now it is the evening of the sabbaths. At the lighting up into one of the sabbaths came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to behold the sepulcher.”

MRK 16:2

“And, very early in the morning on one of the sabbaths, they are coming to the tomb at the rising of the sun.”

LUK 24:1

“Now in the early depths of one of the sabbaths, they, and certain others together with them, came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they make ready.”

JHN 20:1

“Now, on one of the sabbaths, Miriam Magdalene is coming to the tomb in the morning, there being still darkness, and is observing the stone taken away from the door of the tomb.”

JHN 20:18

“It being, then, the evening of that day, one of the sabbaths, and the doors having been locked where the disciples were gathered together, because of fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst and is saying to them, “Peace to you!”

Acts 20:7

“Now on one of the sabbaths, at our having gathered to break bread, Paul argued with them, being about to be off on the morrow. Besides, he prolonged the word unto midnight.”

1 COR 16:2

“On one of the sabbaths let each of you lay aside by himself in store that in which he should be prospered, that no collections may be occurring then, whenever I may come.”

* Here are some quotes from A.E. Knoch’s ‘Concordant Commentary’ (1968);

MTH 28:1

“One of the sabbaths” is the only correct translation of the phrase usually rendered “the first day of the week”. The word first is not there. It is simply one, and is applied to the eleventh hour (Mt.20:12), which, in that case, was last, not first. The word day is not in the text at all. The word “week” is in the plural, and is precisely the same as the form in the preceding sentence. If it is rendered “sabbaths” there it must also be “sabbaths” here. So there is no recourse but to translate “one of the sabbaths.”

“The key to this expression lies in the law of the Firstfruits (Lev.23:9-14). Ending with the day before Pentecost there were seven sabbaths (Lev.23:15) from the day with the waving of the “sheaf”. These are referred to in the phrase “one of the sabbaths”. Every mention of this phrase places it between the Passover and Pentecost, (1Co.16:2 and Acts 20:1 and 6). And the other occurrences refer to our Lord’s resurrection (Mk.16:2; Lu.24:1; Jn.20:1-19). He was raised on a sabbath, not the first day of the week, which would be our Sunday.”

”His resurrection on the Sabbath is a token that His work was complete. Redemption is now a matter of entering into His stopping, not the beginning of a new week of toil and labor.” [Quotes End]

Here is a link to the New Testament site;

«  February 2024  »

Site friends
  • Create your own site

  • Copyright MyCorp © 2024
    Free website builderuCoz