Proof for Impossibility of a non-Wednesday Crucifixion

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I qualified with “Some would have it that there is an inferred or latent hemera/day before the genitive singular sabbatou…”; however, is there a rule limiting the latent only to hemera/day?

>>Yes, there is a rule! Taking the rule into account, your statement should have read,

‘Normal Greek would have it that there is an inferred or latent ‘hemera-I’<<

You say tomato, I say tomahto… Are you saying that in Greek a feminine adjective can never be used conjunctively with a neuter noun?

>>reminder of the Article, ‘TEHI’ / ON THE day before the genitive singular sabbatou…’<<

Oy! I missed the article. Could you please point me to it in a Greek-English Interlinear? Are we together on the same text?

>>‘the rule’ being the Dative CASE you silenced, dead and either ignorantly or knowing, prayed nobody would think or see.<<

Are you saying that my not particularly noting a dative detracts from the phrase under discussion?—wasn’t it sufficiently self-explanatory? Don’t get hung-up on your dative.

>>Did you learn your Greek from Samie?<<

Sorry, didn’t learn Greek; however, what little I proffer is gathered from following you

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Jasd

I gather from the above that you agree with John317 in insisting that though there must exist a 1st (or earlier) century ms substantiating the fact that though the Greek used hebdomas for the same periodicity of seven those writing the Gospels (and NT) deliberately elected to forego hebdomas, instead wrote sabbatou. (IDIOM was chanced upon only in later centuries to shoehorn preferred dogma and bias there being no evidence to speak otherwise)

Now what I gather from what you are saying, is, first, that I don't know a thing about John317's insistence as pertains the above.

You're right. I never insisted on any such thing as JASD says. I never made such an argument.

[John317]

I gather from the above that you agree with John317 in insisting that though there must exist a 1st (or earlier) century ms substantiating the fact that though the Greek used hebdomas for the same periodicity of seven those writing the Gospels (and NT) deliberately elected to forego hebdomas, instead wrote sabbatou.

Never made such an argument or insisted on what you claim.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Are you saying that my not particularly noting a dative detracts from the phrase under discussion?—wasn’t it sufficiently self-explanatory? Don’t get hung-up on your dative.

>>Are you saying Case – “dative” – is not worth or important enough ‘particularly noting’ and that its omission or ignoring would not “detract” meaning “from the phrase under discussion?”

Well, the Dative is never “sufficiently self-explanatory” without Inflection ---in Greek.<<

Disabuse me should I err, but the only Dative I see in the phrase proi prote sabbatou resides with proi/early. I mean, early is early, yes?—contextually, where’s the confusion? Why the niggle?

>>You pretended as if it – Inflection or and Dative – does not exist in “the phrase under discussion” and now are confirming your pretention it does not exist.

WHY?

What 'meaning' do you uncover by down-playing the Case-factor so?<<

Help me out; instead of gnawing on biltong, spit it out: whatfor’s the hang-up with the dative?—mind you, I have difficulty with English, and my knowledge of Greek is non-existent - except whre I follow yours...

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Sorry, didn’t learn Greek; however, what little I proffer is gathered from following you

>>I cannot exactly say that I believe anything you say ---here, or elsewhere. My perception is you deliberately try to sound scaly -- play 'jakkals' of 'jakkals en wolf'.<<

I was just bustin’ your chops in the latter clause; like, like begetteth like…

>>... and again, I see this 'sign', ':)' quite often used. Can you tell me what it means exactly? 'Speaking in one's sleeve', 'be scaly'?<<

It’s a smiley, letting you know that I wasn’t being “scaly” – simply, humorous.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Per “option”: W&H, as well, gives 3 possibilities…, and other lexicons as well, yes? The biggest “chancer” of all is the substitutionary and unsupported ‘week’.

>>No sir, ‘week’ is not the chancer and is not “unsupported” or “substitutionary”.<<

Indeed, it is “chancer”.

>>‘Week’ is English – English and universal - IDIOM for Greek, ‘sabbatohn’ / ‘sabbatou’ IN PHRASEOLOGY, “on the First Day OF-THE-WEEK” for either ‘en tehi miai (hehmerai) sabbatohn’ or ‘prohtehi (hemerai) sabbatou’.<<

It is today vernacular, developed as ersatz. As I’ve noted: there does not exist any 1st century or earlier example – either in papyri or goatskin, secular or Holy – anything supporting the substitution later developed – sabbatou, sabbaton/week. Tchah!

>>Get that in your head first, seeing you ‘gathered from following’ me ‘what little you proffer’.<<

Provide the 1st century, or earlier, proof - legitimizing the use of a substitutinary week..

>>THEN you could go on and gather from the use of the phraseology ‘PROHÏ prohtehi (hemerai) sabbatou’ in Mark 16:9 the REMINDER of the Article, which must give you, “early on THE First Day of the week”.

Or else you will be burdened with the impossible task to explain “early the ““chief” – ‘first’, ‘principal’,” “_OF_ a = one sabbath” - 'sabbatou'.<<

It is as it is in simple Greek – until embroidered and flowered until we have the masses accepting what is rightfully an abortion of Writ.

>>It is only man that claims to be his own principal or chief or most important; not ‘days’ ---what only one “sabbath-day” be its own principal or chief or most important.<<

Corner stone begins the construction; hence, first in principle [loosely], chief, beginning, or whatever else terminology may apply in meaning…

>>Again, Jasd, you think too little of the Case-factor, in this case, of the Genitive.<<

Genetive requires only the direct or indirectly applied ‘of’.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

As to your proposition “First Day of the week” – I’ve made note of the fact that there exists no example of concurrence in Greek literature using sabbatou and ‘week’ interchangeably. So, one assumes that is rather more arbitrary – than not, yes?

>>Caught you this time!

If what little you proffer you gathered from me, Jasd, you would have known better.

But now you showed you did not have from me, “made note of” the misconception “that there exists no example of concurrence in Greek literature using sabbatou and ‘week’ interchangeably” … but from your thumb.<<

So, I left off the previously proffered qualifier ‘1st century or earlier’…; however, a fragment is allowable – given that there exists a context, which I’ve already provided.

>>In the first place, in Greek literature, ‘week’ does not exist and therefore never can be “us(ed) interchangeably” or in “concurrence” with “sabbatou”.<<

Its equivalent exists; that is, hebdomas – a periodicity of seven – and used – often, in Greek literature.

>>Yours is a Don Quixote windmill, a straw man PRE-CONSTRUED in order to demolish for grander show. The whole parody is totally, “arbitrary”.<<

No straw man in what I’ve proffered, only simple fact – and Don Quixote was an admirable chap, was he not?

>>In the second place, the actual Greek word FOR WHICH English has the EQUIVALENT word, ‘week’, is ‘hebdomos’, ‘seven’; not ‘sabbaton’.<<

What I’ve been sayin’.

>>In the third place there does exist incidence “in Greek literature using sabbatou …” in stead of 'hebdomos' FOR WHICH English uses the idiomatic word, ‘week’, interchangeable with non-idiomatic words which some proposed instead, like “set of days” or you proposed, like, "periodicity of seven".<<

Please provide the proof or example.

>>Never say never!<<

Good words to live by, unless it’ll get one killed.

>>Especially if what little you proffer has been gathered from the little I could offer.<<

I don’t offer absolute doctrine. I proffer hypothesis, which, the truth-seeker may search out…, for doctrine’s sake.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I gather from the above that you agree with John317 in insisting that though there must exist a 1st (or earlier) century ms substantiating the fact that though the Greek used hebdomas for the same periodicity of seven those writing the Gospels (and NT) deliberately elected to forego hebdomas, instead wrote sabbatou. (IDIOM was chanced upon only in later centuries to shoehorn preferred dogma and bias there being no evidence to speak otherwise)

Quote:Gerhard

Now what I gather from what you are saying, is, first, that I don't know a thing about John317's insistence as pertains the above.

Quote:

Quote:John317

You're right. I never insisted on any such thing as JASD says. I never made such an argument.

It was either Samie or todd_vetter (I think, Samie…) with whom you attempted to make the case that the Septuagint attested that the Greek hebdomas indeed did support an OT Sabbath/week convertibility.

[jasd]

>>Jasd, never in thine life spakedst thou greater dogma and bias of thine own self.<< [ed.jasd]

Hypothesis, good fellow, hypothesis.

>>Idiom is as old as to speak, this wise or otherwise. Idiom has it, you don’t know yourself what you’re talking yourself.<<

Sounds Boerish.

>>It was “preferred dogma and bias” that later, as in our day, have been chanced upon to discriminate against earlier centuries of evidence with regard to the meaning of ‘sabbatou’ / ‘sabbatohn’ for ‘week’, to shoehorn a Wednesday Crucifixion THEORY in absolute sense of ‘speculative theory’!<<

Oh yes, singular or plural, all’s same re week and any/all inflection(s) of Sabbath. C’mon, is pixie dust also real?

“Wednesday Crucifixion”?—as simple as counting 1, 2, 3. Forward or backward, doesn’t matter. No higher count needed. No inclusive reckoning, no astrological charts, no Greek, no elliptics, etc – just 1, 2, 3. Three nights and three days. Just Matthew 28:1. Et voilà! There it is.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Don’t take things so personally. You’ve contributed much that I considered worthy of caching in My Documents. However, where wrong is evident – it should be parsed and corrected. One simply cannot make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.

There is nothing so egregious as attempting to pass off sabbatou as an idiomatic ‘week’. There is absolutely nothing to substantiate it other than later centuries dogma and bias. It simply will not pass the smell test.

>>Excellent say-thing, "One simply cannot make a silk purse from a sow’s ear" ... and I must not "take things so personally." You are skilled in the art of insult, Jasd, all credit due!!!<<

Again, don’t take things so personally. Silk purse, sow’s ear was not an insult – it was an idiomatic proverb – Irish.

>>There is nothing so mean and meaningless as attempting to pass off 'chief of a sabbath' as 'one of the sabbaths". There is absolutely nothing to substantiate it other than RECENT DECADES of Wednesday-crucifixionist dogma and bias. It simply will not pass the smell or reality test of Christian Scriptures.<<

It’s called - attempting to steer as close to original content as feasibly possible… Week!—indeed!

[jasd]

Okay, enough. Give it a rest, Gerhard. I've responded to eight, read 8!--contiguous posts to me.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Disabuse me should I err, but the only Dative I see in the phrase proi prote sabbatou resides with proi/early. I mean, early is early, yes?—contextually, where’s the confusion? Why the niggle?

>>You did the ‘niggling’, Jasd; not me.<<

Okay, if you say…

>>The words are not “proi prote sabbatou”; they are,

‘prohï’ which is not inflected and cannot per se indicate a Dative. Its Dative is inherent like in the English, ‘in the Early’

… and ‘prohtehi’, Dative; not “prote” Nominative as you have it.

… and by Ellipse the word implied and

which must by Greek Idiom be taken into account, ‘hehmerai’—

also Dative because it is modified by ‘prohtehi’.

THEN only do you get what ‘belongs to’ the “week”,

‘sabbatou’ Genitive.<<

Okay, so why do W&H have it proi prote sabbatou – rather, than as you would have it prohi prohtehi sabbatou? Was it to fool poor jasd?

Sorry, you are much too clever for the likes of me; however, I think I’ll stay with W&H…

>>So you erred; but I meant not to abuse you; only to state what is correct ---which is not to “niggle”, because Greek is an exact language.<<

Indeed, you appear to have made it more exact than it actually is.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

It is today vernacular, developed as ersatz. As I’ve noted: there does not exist any 1st century or earlier example – either in papyri or goatskin, secular or Holy – anything supporting the substitution later developed – sabbatou, sabbaton/week. Tchah!

>>Jasd, please, no English translation was attempted in the “1st century or earlier”. Don’t act childish, tchah!<<

Context and equivalence, good fellow - kinda like sentence fragments - allowable and legitimate in context...

[Johnnboy]

Besides the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy evidence, just ask a Jewish Orthodox rabbi and he will tell you that the wave-sheaf was always waved on the second day of the feast of unleavened bread, and that this was the practice ever since the time of Moses.

The first century Jewish historian, Josephus, also makes it very clear that the first-fruits of the barley harvest were always waved before the Lord on the 16th day of the first month, which was always on the second day of the feast of unleavened bread.

The waving of the sheaf according to Leviticus 23 is always on the morrow after the Sabbath, the “Sabbath” mentioned being one of the “ceremonial” or “shadow” Sabbaths, not the Holy Seventh-day Sabbath, “the Sabbath of the Lord”, see Leviticus 23: 38, 39. Thus, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is always a “shadow” Sabbath, a prophecy in itself, of where the Holy Seventh-day Sabbath will occur in the year when the feasts, Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the Wave sheaf, were fulfilled.

[Johnnboy]

In the scheduling of the feast days, some are holding rigidly to the first sighting of the new moon as the beginning of the month, whereas, others are using the night of the actual conjunction of the moon.

By studying the Hebrew method of calculation used by 98 percent of the Jewish people in the Hebrew perpetual calendar, one finds both methods used at different times in determining the beginning of the months. In some cases, the first sighting of the new moon is used, but at other times the night of the actual conjunction, if by using one method or the other, the beginning of the month can be made to coincide with the Holy Seventh-day Sabbath (new moon).

We must always remember that,

“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” Romans 3:1, 2.

We cannot get correct information about the scheduling of the feast days from other sources, whether from the U.S. Naval Observatory or anyone else, although the U.S. Naval Observatory has very accurate information regarding the precise timing of the moon phases.

When considering all of the evidence, including the moon phases for the first month in 31 C.E., the evidence indicates a Friday Passover and a Sunday resurrection on the day of the Wave sheaf offering.

[Gustave]

When considering all of the evidence, including the moon phases for the first month in 31 C.E., the evidence indicates a Friday Passover and a Sunday resurrection on the day of the Wave sheaf offering.

Then you would know that a 31 A.D. Friday afternoon death of Christ on the cross which also coincided with the Passover...

...Is IMPOSSIBLE.

Therefore Christ did not die in 31 A.D. or if He did the Gregorian Saturday is NOT the same Sabbath as SDA's have been hyping.

[Samie]

In this forum, only Gerhard, I guess, does not know that Passover is a full moon feast.

But he has his own reason for not believing what God delineated as recorded in Scriptures that Passover must be celebrated on a full moon. The reason, I surmise, is that if he believes it, then his Thursday crucifixion theory crumbles in the dust.

But it's still not too late, brother. You can still believe that Passover is a full moon feast, as Scriptures so indicate.

The Holy Spirit is waiting for you, Gerhard.

[Lysimachus]

In the scheduling of the feast days, some are holding rigidly to the first sighting of the new moon as the beginning of the month, whereas, others are using the night of the actual conjunction of the moon.

By studying the Hebrew method of calculation used by 98 percent of the Jewish people in the Hebrew perpetual calendar, one finds both methods used at different times in determining the beginning of the months. In some cases, the first sighting of the new moon is used, but at other times the night of the actual conjunction, if by using one method or the other, the beginning of the month can be made to coincide with the Holy Seventh-day Sabbath (new moon).

We must always remember that,

“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” Romans 3:1, 2.

We cannot get correct information about the scheduling of the feast days from other sources, whether from the U.S. Naval Observatory or anyone else, although the U.S. Naval Observatory has very accurate information regarding the precise timing of the moon phases.

When considering all of the evidence, including the moon phases for the first month in 31 C.E., the evidence indicates a Friday Passover and a Sunday resurrection on the day of the Wave sheaf offering.

Well stated JohnBoy.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Samie, jasd, Gerhard have some hard lessons to learn.

The traditional Adventist calendar reckonings have been set in stone by God. Even if any modern data that comes up does not seem to corroborate with it, it is not the data, it is the interpretation of it. Keep searching, and eventually you will find data to support what God has set in stone.

Ellen White was very clear that the waymarks are not to be moved, and not one pin is to be removed. That they were set by God. Every single date given in the Great Controversy stands without impeachment.

To believe otherwise is, rebellion.

[Samie]

...

But what about 'The Scriptures' ... I almost forgot! What is it with me, today!

O yes, I recall them Scriptures, the only Scriptures given on this forum yet … which were they now again ...?

"Mark 14:12,17 and parallels" ...

and ...

“Mark 15:42 and paralells" ...

and ...

"Mark 16:1,2 and parallels".

Now I wonder who took the trouble to read those verses ... can they be of consequence?

Surely not while Gerhard is the poor brother who relies on them so heavily ....

Paradox example: A man saying he relies heavily on Scriptures yet is not aware that Scriptures delineate Passover is a full moon feast.

[Samie]

So you now believe that Passover is a full moon feast, brother Gerhard?

[Samie]

Gerhard,

Since you had long believed that Passover is a full moon feast, then, certainly, you also believe that our Lord will NEVER celebrate Passover on a non-full moon night.

A Thursday night full moon occurred on April 6, 30 AD and another one on April 22, 34 AD. This is based on the NASA computations, for which computation, precision is technically beyond question.

34 AD is quite late, and only April 6, 30 AD remains. But if Christ had his last Passover in April 6, 30 AD, then He would only have celebrated TWO passover feasts after His baptism, the first one in 29 AD. But this would not jibe with the THREE recorded Passover feasts the Lord celebrated after His baptism in 28 AD, the 15th year of Tiberius' reign.

Any insight on this issue, brother?

[Samie]

Gerhard,

While waiting for your reply to my last post, what reason do you have for not taking into consideration that the full moon night on which the Savior celebrated His last Passover on earth was on Tuesday, March 27, 31 AD?

That would precisely complete 3 passover feasts He had attended after His baptism in 28 AD.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Gerhard,

Since you had long believed that Passover is a full moon feast, then, certainly, you also believe that our Lord will NEVER celebrate Passover on a non-full moon night.

A Thursday night full moon occurred on April 6, 30 AD and another one on April 22, 34 AD. This is based on the NASA computations, for which computation, precision is technically beyond question.

34 AD is quite late, and only April 6, 30 AD remains. But if Christ had his last Passover in April 6, 30 AD, then He would only have celebrated TWO passover feasts after His baptism, the first one in 29 AD. But this would not jibe with the THREE recorded Passover feasts the Lord celebrated after His baptism in 28 AD, the 15th year of Tiberius' reign.

Any insight on this issue, brother?

Thanks, Samie, for this post.

I never obtained this information myself directly from any institution capable of providing it like NASA or HMNA. I have always had to depend on the information supplied by some theorists, as I have told you, which I was in no position to control ['scientifically'] ---like I am doing right now trusting _your_ information.

I am thankful for this information because it comes from an opposing viewpoint to mine, confirming Abib 15 in the year of our Lord's death was a full moon day and the Sixth Day of the week.

It relieves me of having to provide the 'evidence', myself.

Only condition of course presupposed, is what one means by "celebrate Passover".

You by now will know that my viewpoint is Jesus 'ate' passover through SUFFERING the Passover of Yahweh on FOURTEEN Abib exactly like the first ever passover was both killed and eaten on 14 Abib, for which reason Exodus 12:14 is the ONLY instance in the whole of Scripture that describes the fourteenth day a "FEAST".

But I don't want to repeat. You will know, I assume.

Unfortunately, you have still to harmonize your position that Christ was crucified 30AD with the Biblical fact He spent 3 Passover feasts after His baptism in 28 AD, the 15th year of Tiberius' reign. His first Passover was on 29 AD and if He died 30 AD, then He would have only spent 2 Passover Feasts.

Unless you thresh this out, the 30 AD crucifixion theory cannot seem to pass Biblical scrutiny.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Unfortunately, you have still to harmonize your position that Christ was crucified 30AD with the Biblical fact He spent 3 Passover feasts after His baptism in 28 AD, the 15th year of Tiberius' reign. His first Passover was on 29 AD and if He died 30 AD, then He would have only spent 2 Passover Feasts.

Unless you thresh this out, the 30 AD crucifixion theory cannot seem to pass Biblical scrutiny.

Samie, I'm sorry, I was so sure I gave you the following information before ...

http://www.biblestudents.co.za/books/Book%203,%201,%202,%203.Pentecost.pdf ..... pages from 182 to 190 ... or further before and after if you want to ...

Here you will see 'harmonised' through "Biblical scrutiny" literally, my position on Jesus' first, second, and third and last, passovers over the period of 3 and halve years of his ministry.

Please tell me, not whether you agree or not on the 'years', but whether you think it is 'Biblical scrutiny' or not.

It is biblical scrutiny but it does not touch the issue of when the 3 passover feasts in Christ's 3-1/2 year ministry started.

Again, Christ was baptized in 28 AD, the 15th year of Tiberius' reign. His first passover feast was in 29 AD and His last was in 31 AD. This proves He was not crucified in 30 AD.

His last passover was on Tuesday night, March 27, 31 AD - a full moon. He was crucified Wednesday and after 3 days and 3 nights, on early Saturday morning, He resurrected.

[Samie]

Fine Samie, if you say so, after you received opportunity to know and understand

...

but prefer to depend on your ONE own only ERRONEOUS assumption "Christ was baptized in 28 AD, the 15th year of Tiberius' reign."

... so be it then.

[Samie]

...

Yes, I believe "the Lord was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius' reign, as Scriptures tell us".

What the Scriptures do not tell us, is that the fifteenth or fourteenth year of Tiberius' reign is reckoned from the year 1 AD.

Since Scriptures do not tell us when, you know what to do to know when Tiberius started his reign, don't you?