A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
But you specifically say that they are lies and it's with the agenda to stamp out nonChristianity. Fact or opinion?
Common Figure of Speech/Colloquial Language?
- Thread starter rstrats
- Start date
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
I don't believe it is a matter of fact or opinion. Thomas gave a list of facts that he believes prove there was no chicanery intended. I offered up a site that has a different statement of facts in opposition to his. It is more of a matter of true or false.
Christian dates align with prominent Pagan festivals. That I believe I can say is a fact. The reason for that may be coincidence or by design. That fact seems to depend on whose evidence one is looking at.
Christian dates align with prominent Pagan festivals. That I believe I can say is a fact. The reason for that may be coincidence or by design. That fact seems to depend on whose evidence one is looking at.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
I would say that 'That opinion seems to depend on whose evidence(facts) one is looking at'.
Hi Gordian Knot —
There is a confusiuon here I can clear up:
My point is, by the late 100s, Christians had for the most part given up the Jewish calendar. I doubt they'd have the data to work out, from Luke 1:5 "... of the course of Abia... " a whole nativity schemata.
I'm not saying He was born on Dec 25th, I'm saying no-one knows when He was born. But Dec 25 was arrived at without recourse to picking a pagan date to fix it to.
To argue the contrary is to argue an anachronism.
However, let's look again at 'the facts' of the site you reference.
1: "... of the course of Abia ..." Luke 1:8
This is the crux of the argument. As I understand it, Zacharia would serve once in the first half of the year, once in the second half, and at all festivals – so five times a year – I don't see how, out of five possible dates, one in particular is arrived at?
2: "John gives us an indication that Jesus was in fact conceived during this Festival of Lights (Chanukah) when he speaks of him at the beginning of his Gospel: "In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." John 1:4-5.
Hmm ... that's not a fact, is it, that's an interpretation ...
3: Elizabeth's and Mary's Conception
This argument relies on 'soon after this date' for the time of actual conception. How soon? Why soon? Again, the author assumes as 'fact' this month and that, but only because it has to be a fact, because the thesis falls apart if its not ... so very dubious ....
4: John's birth
The text says "It's highly symbolic that John the Baptist was born at the time of Passover."
OK. But ... it's not a fact ... it's not even suggested in the text ...
5: Astrological data
Well there are so many versions of what this was supposed to be, supernovae, comets ... so too many facts there, to be of any use.
6: The Feast of Tabernacles.
All of that is assumption. If it was, why not say so, why bring the Romans into it?
We all know there was no census, don't we? Or do we? We know a lot of things about Luke that were assumed wrong, and have since been proven right. Note also the phrase 'first took place' which implies a second census followed. The second is the one we all know about, and we assume that this census was the one Luke was referring to, but got his dates all wrong ... but that might not be the case ...
7: Assumption
The text says "Since John was born on Passover, the 15th day of Nisan (the 1st Jewish month), Jesus would have been born... "
Whoa! When did the author's mystical speculation become a fact?
I actually quite like the September idea, but really, there's too many assumptions and not enough factual evidence to support it as definitive.
There is a confusiuon here I can clear up:
I highlighted the evidence that puts the dating of Christmas as Dec 25 in an era when Christians actively disassociated themselves with pagan feasts and festivals.
If you check my posts above, you'll see that I, too, offer this evidence that points to a September birth.
My point is, by the late 100s, Christians had for the most part given up the Jewish calendar. I doubt they'd have the data to work out, from Luke 1:5 "... of the course of Abia... " a whole nativity schemata.
I'm not saying He was born on Dec 25th, I'm saying no-one knows when He was born. But Dec 25 was arrived at without recourse to picking a pagan date to fix it to.
To argue the contrary is to argue an anachronism.
However, let's look again at 'the facts' of the site you reference.
1: "... of the course of Abia ..." Luke 1:8
This is the crux of the argument. As I understand it, Zacharia would serve once in the first half of the year, once in the second half, and at all festivals – so five times a year – I don't see how, out of five possible dates, one in particular is arrived at?
2: "John gives us an indication that Jesus was in fact conceived during this Festival of Lights (Chanukah) when he speaks of him at the beginning of his Gospel: "In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." John 1:4-5.
Hmm ... that's not a fact, is it, that's an interpretation ...
3: Elizabeth's and Mary's Conception
This argument relies on 'soon after this date' for the time of actual conception. How soon? Why soon? Again, the author assumes as 'fact' this month and that, but only because it has to be a fact, because the thesis falls apart if its not ... so very dubious ....
4: John's birth
The text says "It's highly symbolic that John the Baptist was born at the time of Passover."
OK. But ... it's not a fact ... it's not even suggested in the text ...
5: Astrological data
Well there are so many versions of what this was supposed to be, supernovae, comets ... so too many facts there, to be of any use.
6: The Feast of Tabernacles.
All of that is assumption. If it was, why not say so, why bring the Romans into it?
We all know there was no census, don't we? Or do we? We know a lot of things about Luke that were assumed wrong, and have since been proven right. Note also the phrase 'first took place' which implies a second census followed. The second is the one we all know about, and we assume that this census was the one Luke was referring to, but got his dates all wrong ... but that might not be the case ...
7: Assumption
The text says "Since John was born on Passover, the 15th day of Nisan (the 1st Jewish month), Jesus would have been born... "
Whoa! When did the author's mystical speculation become a fact?
I actually quite like the September idea, but really, there's too many assumptions and not enough factual evidence to support it as definitive.
It is a fact, but it is a practice that began in the late fourth century. To assert this as fact prior, is to make an anachronistic error.
Dear rstrats,
What I can do is quote you writings from the 1st century which states that the Sabbath in question was not the 7th day Sabbath, but the high holy Sabbath of Passover, which happens on the 14th day of the 1st month. I can also start a new thread which explains Preparation Day for then and how it affects us today.
John 19:14 NAS Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover ; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, "Behold, your King !"
John 19:31 NAS [Care of the Body of Jesus] Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day ), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away
S
Shibolet
Guest
The Hoax of the Three Days and Three Nights
On the third day or in three days, simply means after a short period of time. (Hosea 6:2)
Night or day for three days, as we have in the request of Esther to fast for her, means three days or three nights whether one follows the tradition to fast by day or by night. Those terms were used here because it was in the Diaspora where most Persians followed the tradition to fast by night. So, Esther's maids who were not Jewish, would share Esther's pain by showing their solidarity with their night fast. (Esther 4:16)
The case of Jonah dispenses all explanation because it happened during a vision. Therefore metaphorical language. That could be the entire three days and three nights, since everything is possible in a vision or dream. (Jonah 2:1)
Now, for the three days and three nights we are talking about, for Jesus to spend in the tomb, according to Matthew 12:40, the writer must have had a very poor insight about parables or metaphorical language to draw his prophecy in the terms of Jonah's allegory. If he had used the language of Esther or Hosea, he could have saved his prophecy from being a hoax, but now he must account for the whole three days and three nights or parts thereof.
We don't even need another gospel writer to contradict the one of Matthew. This contradicts himself as he declares that the next day, the one following the Day of Preparation, the chief Priests asked Pilate for a guard of soldiers to watch the tomb area for three days. (Mat. 27:62-64) The Jewish Preparation Day is always Friday, and the following day is the Sabbath.
Then, after that Sabbath, as the first day was dawning, the women went to see the sepulcher, there was an earthquake, an "angel" came down from Heaven, removed the stone, and the tomb was empty. Someone had cheated the angel by raising Jesus from there long before the "angel" could at least be an eyewitness to the resurrection.
Based on the Jewish method that a whole day or night can be accounted for any part of the day or night, we can consider the first day for those minutes that took Joseph of Arimathea to get Jesus into the tomb before sunset. The first night from sunset to sundawn of Saturday, the second day from sundawn Saturday to sunset that Saturday, and the second night from sunset that Saturday to the sundawn of the first day. It was still dark when the women arrived at the tomb to find it empty. Therefore we are missing a whole day and a whole night to save Matthew 12:40 from becoming a prophetical hoax and a classical contradiction in the NT.
Any volunteers to solve this puzzle?
On the third day or in three days, simply means after a short period of time. (Hosea 6:2)
Night or day for three days, as we have in the request of Esther to fast for her, means three days or three nights whether one follows the tradition to fast by day or by night. Those terms were used here because it was in the Diaspora where most Persians followed the tradition to fast by night. So, Esther's maids who were not Jewish, would share Esther's pain by showing their solidarity with their night fast. (Esther 4:16)
The case of Jonah dispenses all explanation because it happened during a vision. Therefore metaphorical language. That could be the entire three days and three nights, since everything is possible in a vision or dream. (Jonah 2:1)
Now, for the three days and three nights we are talking about, for Jesus to spend in the tomb, according to Matthew 12:40, the writer must have had a very poor insight about parables or metaphorical language to draw his prophecy in the terms of Jonah's allegory. If he had used the language of Esther or Hosea, he could have saved his prophecy from being a hoax, but now he must account for the whole three days and three nights or parts thereof.
We don't even need another gospel writer to contradict the one of Matthew. This contradicts himself as he declares that the next day, the one following the Day of Preparation, the chief Priests asked Pilate for a guard of soldiers to watch the tomb area for three days. (Mat. 27:62-64) The Jewish Preparation Day is always Friday, and the following day is the Sabbath.
Then, after that Sabbath, as the first day was dawning, the women went to see the sepulcher, there was an earthquake, an "angel" came down from Heaven, removed the stone, and the tomb was empty. Someone had cheated the angel by raising Jesus from there long before the "angel" could at least be an eyewitness to the resurrection.
Based on the Jewish method that a whole day or night can be accounted for any part of the day or night, we can consider the first day for those minutes that took Joseph of Arimathea to get Jesus into the tomb before sunset. The first night from sunset to sundawn of Saturday, the second day from sundawn Saturday to sunset that Saturday, and the second night from sunset that Saturday to the sundawn of the first day. It was still dark when the women arrived at the tomb to find it empty. Therefore we are missing a whole day and a whole night to save Matthew 12:40 from becoming a prophetical hoax and a classical contradiction in the NT.
Any volunteers to solve this puzzle?
It simply refers to resurrection. The name Jonah means dove and that is what is needed for resurrection. Note the same three days is noted in the story of jesus as a process to his resurrection
S
Shibolet
Guest
Do you know some thing? The doctrine of resurrection is tempting. Some times I wish I could try it but, instead of choosing someone else, for instance a Greek, the NT had to choose a Jew and, every thing of course became a myth as Judaism does not adopt bodily resurrection. It sounds like a treat given to a dog to perform funny.
Take a look for instance at I Cor. 15:32; Paul said that if there is no resurrection let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. If you read the context, he was complaining that, after all that he had gone through, if there was no resurrection, what a miserable life he had lived! Better could have been to enjoy his life as the Hellenist that he was than to suffer all the sacrifices he had gone through.
Jesus is the perfect example of resurrection. I for one know there is a resurrection but I also believe you do not have to suffer in life to attain it. Jesus already did that for us.
S
Shibolet
Guest
Doubly wrong. First, Jesus was a Jew whose Faith was Judaism which does not adopt the Christian doctrine of bodily resurrection. And second, Jesus could not have done any thing for us because no one can die for the sins of another. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)
Christian forum Shibolet.... as a jew you don't believe in Jesus, hence don't believe in the teachings of the new testament....
You are arguing against Christian beliefs that we know Jews don't believe... wrong garden for your arguments.
You are arguing against Christian beliefs that we know Jews don't believe... wrong garden for your arguments.
Wow. How wrong you could be. Jesus was a jew and advanced jewish teaching they do teach about bodily resurrection. Do you think jews are some people who believe in god but think they are all going into non existence.................I think not. Heavenly beings condense and descend into the human egg and are sealed for the purpose of resurrection of the human body. The question is who is Jesus that was here approx. 2000 years ago.................is he Michael or is he god?
Can I get scriptural support for this....or scientific method?
Either one, first I've heard of this.
Picture boiling water. Prior to that is is just water but the molecules spread out. Its the same with the spirit. Heavely beings molecules are spread out like boiling water. When a heavenly being comes to earth they condense like water cools from boiling and descend into the egg and are sealed. That is what jesus did.