Crucifixion Dating of Jesus Christ

[Deafsilence]

I think the following verse really means something different than most realize:

Joh 12:1 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.

In that verse, I don't believe it means the 6th day before Passover. It doesn't use word day in the singular but in the plural. My count of the sequence of events has Jesus arriving in Bethany on the 6th day of the Month. So the fact that it is using PLURAL here to me indicates that Jesus came on the six days before the Passover meaning the 6th day of the month. My current breakdown:

17th March is 6th day of Lunar Month and 5th day of week - (6 days before Passover?)
18th March is 7th day of Lunar Month and 6th day of week - Triumphal entry?
19th March is 8th day of Lunar Month and 7th day of week (Sabbath) - Temple cleansed?
20th March is 9th day of Lunar Month and 1st day of week - After two days?
21st March is 10th day of Lunar Month and 2nd day of week - Preists and Elders choose to have Jesus killed.
22nd March is 11th day of Lunar Month and 3rd day of the week - unclear
23rd March is 12th day of Lunar Month and 4th day of the week (Sun is now growing in light as having passed into the 4th portal - Last Supper - TRUE Spiritual Passover)
24th March is 13th day of Lunar Month and 5th day of the week (Jesus taken back to Caiaphas Palace for evening of the 14th)
25th March is 14th day of Lunar Month and 6th day of the week (Preparation day) Jesus taken to be held in quarters of Pilate for the evening of the 15th)
26th March is 15th day of Lunar Month and 7th day fo the week (High Sabbath - Feast of Unleavened Bread).

 

[Lulav]

Anything outside the walls of Jerusalem is considered the wilderness.

Really? by whom?

They didn't have the power to crucify under Roman rule. It was taken from them.

Nothing was taken from them, Jews didn't crucify anyone the method used at that time was stoning, remember Paul standing by while they did it to Stephen?

 

[Lulav]

Mary Magdalene was there near sunrise (Mk 16:2).

Better yet, If sundown on 'saturday' was around 6 pm and sunrise would have been about 12 hours later , that's 12 hours no one could say if he arose after sundown or before since no one was there.

 

[Lulav]

Relevance to office of High Priest?

???

Clare73 said:​

Being subject to the Father didn't keep Aaron from being the High Priest.

What do you think being High Priest means?​

This makes no sense in many ways.

Aaron cannot be compared to Jesus.

Aaron lived 1400+ YEARS BEFORE JESUS

 

[Deafsilence]

Really? by whom?

Nothing was taken from them, Jews didn't crucify anyone the method used at that time was stoning, remember Paul standing by while they did it to Stephen?

You probably need to learn more about the history of that time. The Romans ruled Judea. Pilate was the Roman Governor. The Jews had their ability to kill under their laws removed by the Roman Government. See the following in your Bible which shows that it was ILLEGAL for the Jews to kill Jesus:

Joh 18:31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:

Remember Jesus was brought before the council of the Jews and they didn't have that power to directly put Jesus to death.

 

[Clare73]

Better yet, If sundown on 'saturday' was around 6 pm and sunrise would have been about 12 hours later , that's 12 hours no one could say if he arose after sundown or before since no one was there.

No one was there?. . .have we done our homework and read the accounts?

Jesus said he would rise after three days ("three days" is not as we speak of it--72 hours, but as they spoke: three different days being involved).
Guards were placed at the tomb.
An angel of the Lord came down from heaven and rolled back the entrance stone.
The guards shook in fear and were like dead men.
The angle spoke to the women telling them to go quickly and tell the disciples.
While the women were on their way some of the guards went and reported to the chief priests what had happened.

 

[Clare73]

???

Clare73 said:​

Being subject to the Father didn't keep Aaron from being the High Priest.​

What do you think being High Priest means?​

This makes no sense in many ways.

Aaron cannot be compared to Jesus.

Aaron lived 1400+ YEARS BEFORE JESUS

Trace it back to the question, and answer the question.

 

[Lulav]

You probably need to learn more about the history of that time.

I think I have a working knowledge of the time period. I'm Jewish and my father was a History Professor.

The Romans ruled Judea.

Yes, it is well known.

Pilate was the Roman Governor.

Yes, have you read the book 'Pontius Pilate' by Paul L. Maier? I have that book as well as '24 hours that changed the world' by Adam Hamilton

The Jews had their ability to kill under their laws removed by the Roman Government.

Scholars have not determined when this happened but as I said there is the example of the stoning of Stephen which was a Jewish form of execution. Others were burning and decapitation and strangulation. However in this instance it was prophetic for it to be done by crucifixion.

See the following in your Bible which shows that it was ILLEGAL for the Jews to kill Jesus:

I'd rather we both see the context for better understanding.

Joh 18:31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:

Remember Jesus was brought before the council of the Jews and they didn't have that power to directly put Jesus to death.

The whole thing

31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.
The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

The Jews did not crucify, that was a Roman way of execution and intimidation as well as Persians, Seleucids and Carthaginians,. It needed to be done according to prophecy that he would hang on a tree. It goes all the way back to the wilderness, the true wilderness when Israel wandered and they were being killed by the snakes in the wilderness. Moses made a pole with a brazen serpent upon it and instructed the people to look upon it (remember look upon he whom thou pierced?) and they would be healed.
That is why their charges of Blasphemy were not what he was hanged on, instead they played to the politics of the day. Remember they sent him to Herod, as he was the Roman's 'King of Judea'. The charge that was hung above him on the cross was that he was 'King of the Jews' .

1Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. 2And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, 3And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands. 4Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. John 19

Continuing... They played the political card

12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

13When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. 14And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.
Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King?
The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Anything outside the walls of Jerusalem is considered the wilderness.

  Lulav: Really? by whom?
  

  They didn't have the power to crucify under Roman rule. It was taken from them.

  Lulav: Nothing was taken from them, Jews didn't crucify anyone the method used at that time was stoning, remember Paul standing by while they did it to Stephen?
  =--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• 
  
• I see you didn't answer the first question from my post.
  
  

 

[Lulav]

No one was there?. .

No one was inside the tomb to see when exactly the resurrection occurred. Only on the end of Shabbat did the angel open the tomb to show he wasn't there. He resurrected and then left the unopened tomb, no one but God himself and possibly the angels could witness that.

.have we done our homework and read the accounts?

I have, many times, I can't speak for you however.

Jesus said he would rise after three days ("three days" is not as we speak of it--72 hours, but as they spoke: three different days being involved).

He said it would be the sign of Jonah, and Jonah was not in the whales belly for three days, but specifically three days and three nights.

Guards were placed at the tomb.
An angel of the Lord came down from heaven and rolled back the entrance stone.
The guards shook in fear and were like dead men.
The angle spoke to the women telling them to go quickly and tell the disciples.
While the women were on their way some of the guards went and reported to the chief priests what had happened.

1. Yes, guards who would be subject to the death penalty if things went South.
2. The angel, So when did this happen?

​

1 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. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. 6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said.​

​

Now when did the angel say that he was risen?

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,

He was already gone then. So it's obvious that he arose on the Sabbath. For he is Lord of the Sabbath.

 

[Deafsilence]

I think I have a working knowledge of the time period. I'm Jewish and my father was a History Professor.

Yes, it is well known.

Yes, have you read the book 'Pontius Pilate' by Paul L. Maier? I have that book as well as '24 hours that changed the world' by Adam Hamilton

Scholars have not determined when this happened but as I said there is the example of the stoning of Stephen which was a Jewish form of execution. Others were burning and decapitation and strangulation. However in this instance it was prophetic for it to be done by crucifixion.

I'd rather we both see the context for better understanding.

The whole thing

31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.
The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

The Jews did not crucify, that was a Roman way of execution and intimidation as well as Persians, Seleucids and Carthaginians,. It needed to be done according to prophecy that he would hang on a tree. It goes all the way back to the wilderness, the true wilderness when Israel wandered and they were being killed by the snakes in the wilderness. Moses made a pole with a brazen serpent upon it and instructed the people to look upon it (remember look upon he whom thou pierced?) and they would be healed.
That is why their charges of Blasphemy were not what he was hanged on, instead they played to the politics of the day. Remember they sent him to Herod, as he was the Roman's 'King of Judea'. The charge that was hung above him on the cross was that he was 'King of the Jews' .

1Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. 2And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, 3And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands. 4Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. John 19

Continuing... They played the political card

12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

13When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. 14And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.
Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King?
The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• 
  Lulav: Really? by whom?
  
  Lulav: Nothing was taken from them, Jews didn't crucify anyone the method used at that time was stoning, remember Paul standing by while they did it to Stephen?
  =--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• 
  
• I see you didn't answer the first question from my post.

Your presenting some fallacies in your response. You said have a I read the book 'Pontius Pilate' but give no reasons why this makes any difference to this situation. Then you make another fallacy in appealing to the term "scholars" without presenting evidence of from any named scholars and why such evidence should carry any weight in this matter. Nothing about the term 'scholar' makes anyone 'correct' on a subject.

BTW, I didn't answer your first post because it didn't carry over when I hit reply so I replied to what showed up when I hit the button. I'll reply to that now. As I said before the scapegoat was sacrificed outside the walls of Jerusalem. It couldn't done inside the walls because Jerusalem is the Holy City. By the time of Christ, the camp of Jews was all of the area known as Judea. However, the wilderness just had to be outside the walls of Jerusalem wherever that wilderness existed and didn't have to be outside of Judea. The Jewish writings in the Mishnah make it to have been out to be around 3 miles. See John Gill commentary on this:
----------------------
The Targum of Jonathan calls it the wilderness of Zuck; which, according to the Misnah (z), was three miles from Jerusalem, at the entrance of the wilderness; and whereas in another Misnah (a), instead of Bethchadudo, Bethhoron is mentioned, which is said also to be three miles from Jerusalem: it is not an improbable conjecture of Dr. Lightfoot (b), that the goat was sent in the way to Bethhoron, which was the same distance from Jerusalem as the other place was, in the northern coast of Judea, and had very rough hills about it, and a narrow passage to it.

------------------

So you can see that the dividing point we have is that it should have been outside of the walls of Jerusalem at that time and no requirement that it be outside of Judea or outside the camp (which would then be outside of Judea).

 

[Clare73]

No one was inside the tomb to see when exactly the resurrection occurred. Only on the end of Shabbat did the angel open the tomb to show he wasn't there.

Check the accounts. . .

Once more: Jesus said he would rise from the dead on the third day (Lk 24:46). . .that makes it after midnight Saturday.
They came to the tomb on Sunday morning.

Why do you challenge the NT accounts?

He resurrected and then left the unopened tomb, no one but God himself and possibly the angels could witness that.
I have, many times, I can't speak for you however.
He said it would be the sign of Jonah, and Jonah was not in the whales belly for three days, but specifically three days and three nights.
1. Yes, guards who would be subject to the death penalty if things went South.
2. The angel, So when did this happen?

1 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. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. 6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said.​

​

Now when did the angel say that he was risen?
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.

The Greek is "and passing the Sabbath," which is "when the Sabbath was past;" i.e., Sunday.

And the first day (which is 24 hours) of the week is Sunday.

He was already gone then. So it's obvious that he arose on the Sabbath. For he is Lord of the Sabbath.

And the Sabbath is not about rising from the dead, the Sabbath is about God's rest, so as the Lord of the Sabbath, he rested in the grave on the Sabbath.

And Jesus is the Lord of the NT Sabbath rest of God, rest from our own work to save ourselves, and in his work which saves to the uttermost (Heb 3:7-4:11).

 

[Lulav]

Your presenting some fallacies in your response. You said have a I read the book 'Pontius Pilate' but give no reasons why this makes any difference to this situation.

That was because you were assuming I didn't know anything about the 1st century time period

"You probably need to learn more about the history of that time.
The Romans ruled Judea.
Pilate was the Roman Governor. "

Then you make another fallacy in appealing to the term "scholars" without presenting evidence of from any named scholars and why such evidence should carry any weight in this matter. Nothing about the term 'scholar' makes anyone 'correct' on a subject.

No fallacy, I was speaking of Bible Scholars that have studied this subject of first century occupied Judah and corporal punishment.

BTW, I didn't answer your first post because it didn't carry over when I hit reply so I replied to what showed up when I hit the button. I'll reply to that now. As I said before the scapegoat was sacrificed outside the walls of Jerusalem. It couldn't done inside the walls because Jerusalem is the Holy City. By the time of Christ, the camp of Jews was all of the area known as Judea. However, the wilderness just had to be outside the walls of Jerusalem wherever that wilderness existed and didn't have to be outside of Judea. The Jewish writings in the Mishnah make it to have been out to be around 3 miles. See John Gill commentary on this:
----------------------
The Targum of Jonathan calls it the wilderness of Zuck; which, according to the Misnah (z), was three miles from Jerusalem, at the entrance of the wilderness; and whereas in another Misnah (a), instead of Bethchadudo, Bethhoron is mentioned, which is said also to be three miles from Jerusalem: it is not an improbable conjecture of Dr. Lightfoot (b), that the goat was sent in the way to Bethhoron, which was the same distance from Jerusalem as the other place was, in the northern coast of Judea, and had very rough hills about it, and a narrow passage to it.------------------

So you can see that the dividing point we have is that it should have been outside of the walls of Jerusalem at that time and no requirement that it be outside of Judea or outside the camp (which would then be outside of Judea).

Thank you for giving evidence for what you said.

 

[Deafsilence]

That was because you were assuming I didn't know anything about the 1st century time period

"You probably need to learn more about the history of that time.
The Romans ruled Judea.
Pilate was the Roman Governor. "


No fallacy, I was speaking of Bible Scholars that have studied this subject of first century occupied Judah and corporal punishment.

Thank you for giving evidence for what you said.

I wouldn't call it an assumption but a logical conclusion. Based on your comments, I could only conclude that you were unaware that the Jews didn't have the right to put someone to death or why would you have countered with the argument that Stephen was stoned. Now you said that scholars had not concluded when the Romans had taken the right to kill a man away but that argument means nothing here. We KNOW that it was unlawful for them to kill a man because it clearly says it in the Bible. Doesn't matter if it was the day before, or years before, it has no bearing on the fact that Jesus had to be sentenced to death by Pilate after being brought before the Jewish council and be found guilty.

You said the Jews had 'nothing taken from them' in this regard. But the text shows they did which you later acknowledge.

What perplexes me is why did you raise what appears to be an objection in the first place if you're now claiming you knew this the whole time?

 

[FredVB]

I know there are varied understandings about when Jesus died and when he arose, I can't prove any of them wrong, but I suspect, reasonably, believing the account that he was buried three days and three nights in the tomb and then arose, the tradition is not itself the right understanding, that he died on a Friday afternoon and rose again early, before sunrise for Sunday morning. I do not claim to know enough facts for concluding anything for it, but preparation for Sabbath could also be for the Passover observed as a Sabbath holy day. The essential thing really is having faith in him because he rose as he said he would, believing him and that he lives, that we don't live the same way still.

 

[cfposter]

I know there are varied understandings about when Jesus died and when he arose, I can't prove any of them wrong, but I suspect, reasonably, believing the account that he was buried three days and three nights in the tomb and then arose, the tradition is not itself the right understanding, that he died on a Friday afternoon and rose again early, before sunrise for Sunday morning. I do not claim to know enough facts for concluding anything for it, but preparation for Sabbath could also be for the Passover observed as a Sabbath holy day. The essential thing really is having faith in him because he rose as he said he would, believing him and that he lives, that we don't live the same way still.

The misunderstanding that many have is to believe that He was to be in the Tomb for 3 days and 3 nights. It never says this in the text. It says in the "heart of the earth". Many are claiming that to be a reference to the Tomb or the grave. But I disagree with this. I believe the meaning here implicated with the earthly. I believe that happened when He bore our sins as our scape goat. Now it says Days and Nights but Day and Night were created before the Sun, the moon and the stars. Therefore, the Darkness that fell during what was typically the Day hours would account for a night reason of this understanding. Therefore, before He was even placed into the tomb a period of a Day a Night and a Second Day would have occurred. Then He would be in the Tomb for a second night and then the following Day and following Night and be risen on that Third day from when the events began. The Passover event was actually about Light and Darkness and Life and Death.

 

[AFrazier]

Three of the gospels make it plain as day that the afternoon preceding the last supper was the afternoon of the 14th day of the month. Mark and Luke both specifically tell us it was the day when the passover must be sacrificed. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell us it was the first day of unleavened bread, which is the 14th when all leaven had to be burned before the sacrifices could commence. Matthew, Mark, and Luke also all tell us that two disciples, Peter and John, were sent to procure a prepared room, to ready the passover, and to tell the good master of the house that Jesus would keep the passover at his house. The two disciples did as instructed and prepared the passover.

These are gospel facts.

If the last supper occurred on the evening of the 14th, then the crucifixion occurred on the 15th. If the crucifixion occurred on the 15th, then the only sabbath that can satisfy the requirement is the seventh-day sabbath. Ergo, the crucifixion occurred on a Friday.

Furthermore, the discussion of Pilate, etc. . . . The Jews couldn't put Jesus to death themselves because it was the holiday sabbath of the 15th. They needed the gentiles to do it. In case anyone missed it, Pilate gave them permission. The Jews cried out for Jesus to be crucified, and Pilate told them that he found no fault in him. If they wanted him crucified, do it themselves. But it wasn't "lawful" for them to put someone to death. This isn't because they were forbidden by the Romans. We have plenty of evidence of the Jews putting people to death both before and after the trial of Jesus. It was unlawful for them because it was a holiday sabbath.

Also, given that the documentable days of Passion week can be concisely chronicled, you will find that if you shift the crucifixion to a Wednesday, you end up with merchants buying and selling in the temple complex. That had been forbidden since the time of Nehemiah. If you shift the crucifixion to a Thursday, Jesus would have ridden a donkey into Jerusalem on the Sabbath, in direct violation of the Ten Commandments themselves, which prohibits burdening an ass.

Jesus died on a Friday. Anyone who wants to dispute that . . . answer to the first paragraph above before wasting any time arguing. And when I say answer to it, I do not mean contradict it with something else while leaving it unanswered and pretending it doesn't exist. They ate the passover at the last supper. The entire Wednesday crucifixion hypothesis goes down the drain if he died on the 15th of the month.

 

[cfposter]

Three of the gospels make it plain as day that the afternoon preceding the last supper was the afternoon of the 14th day of the month. Mark and Luke both specifically tell us it was the day when the passover must be sacrificed. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell us it was the first day of unleavened bread, which is the 14th when all leaven had to be burned before the sacrifices could commence. Matthew, Mark, and Luke also all tell us that two disciples, Peter and John, were sent to procure a prepared room, to ready the passover, and to tell the good master of the house that Jesus would keep the passover at his house. The two disciples did as instructed and prepared the passover.

These are gospel facts.

If the last supper occurred on the evening of the 14th, then the crucifixion occurred on the 15th. If the crucifixion occurred on the 15th, then the only sabbath that can satisfy the requirement is the seventh-day sabbath. Ergo, the crucifixion occurred on a Friday.

Furthermore, the discussion of Pilate, etc. . . . The Jews couldn't put Jesus to death themselves because it was the holiday sabbath of the 15th. They needed the gentiles to do it. In case anyone missed it, Pilate gave them permission. The Jews cried out for Jesus to be crucified, and Pilate told them that he found no fault in him. If they wanted him crucified, do it themselves. But it wasn't "lawful" for them to put someone to death. This isn't because they were forbidden by the Romans. We have plenty of evidence of the Jews putting people to death both before and after the trial of Jesus. It was unlawful for them because it was a holiday sabbath.

Also, given that the documentable days of Passion week can be concisely chronicled, you will find that if you shift the crucifixion to a Wednesday, you end up with merchants buying and selling in the temple complex. That had been forbidden since the time of Nehemiah. If you shift the crucifixion to a Thursday, Jesus would have ridden a donkey into Jerusalem on the Sabbath, in direct violation of the Ten Commandments themselves, which prohibits burdening an ass.

Jesus died on a Friday. Anyone who wants to dispute that . . . answer to the first paragraph above before wasting any time arguing. And when I say answer to it, I do not mean contradict it with something else while leaving it unanswered and pretending it doesn't exist. They ate the passover at the last supper. The entire Wednesday crucifixion hypothesis goes down the drain if he died on the 15th of the month.

Jesus did not Die on a Friday or a Wednesday or a Thursday. Jesus was crucified on the 14th of the lunar month. The 6th day of the lunar week which in 31 AD on March 25th (julian) was a Sunday.

 

[AFrazier]

Jesus did not Die on a Friday or a Wednesday or a Thursday. Jesus was crucified on the 14th of the lunar month. The 6th day of the lunar week which in 31 AD on March 25th (julian) was a Sunday.

That's so historically and Biblically incorrect, I don't even know where to begin refuting it. I suppose we can start with the fact that he rose from the dead on the first day of the week, the day you say he was crucified, which all the gospels unanimously agree was the third day since he was crucified. If you can provide a competent answer to that particular inconsistency, maybe we'll discuss this further.

Also, I was pretty specific in stating that, "Jesus died on a Friday. Anyone who wants to dispute that . . . answer to the first paragraph above before wasting any time arguing." That first paragraph was this:

Three of the gospels make it plain as day that the afternoon preceding the last supper was the afternoon of the 14th day of the month. Mark and Luke both specifically tell us it was the day when the passover must be sacrificed. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell us it was the first day of unleavened bread, which is the 14th when all leaven had to be burned before the sacrifices could commence. Matthew, Mark, and Luke also all tell us that two disciples, Peter and John, were sent to procure a prepared room, to ready the passover, and to tell the good master of the house that Jesus would keep the passover at his house. The two disciples did as instructed and prepared the passover.

Unless you have an answer to this, the crucifixion didn't occur on the 14th. The gospels are clear on that point, and I won't argue it.

 

[prodromos]

That's so historically and Biblically incorrect, I don't even know where to begin refuting it. I suppose we can start with the fact that he rose from the dead on the first day of the week, the day you say he was crucified, which all the gospels unanimously agree was the third day since he was crucified. If you can provide a competent answer to that particular inconsistency, maybe we'll discuss this further.

Also, I was pretty specific in stating that, "Jesus died on a Friday. Anyone who wants to dispute that . . . answer to the first paragraph above before wasting any time arguing." That first paragraph was this:


Unless you have an answer to this, the crucifixion didn't occur on the 14th. The gospels are clear on that point, and I won't argue it.

His post was so wrong that I didn't want to dignify it with a response.

 

[cfposter]

That's so historically and Biblically incorrect, I don't even know where to begin refuting it. I suppose we can start with the fact that he rose from the dead on the first day of the week, the day you say he was crucified, which all the gospels unanimously agree was the third day since he was crucified. If you can provide a competent answer to that particular inconsistency, maybe we'll discuss this further.

Also, I was pretty specific in stating that, "Jesus died on a Friday. Anyone who wants to dispute that . . . answer to the first paragraph above before wasting any time arguing." That first paragraph was this:


Unless you have an answer to this, the crucifixion didn't occur on the 14th. The gospels are clear on that point, and I won't argue it.

You're not understanding because you believe that the Jews followed a solar based calendar. They actually followed a Lunar based calendar. The month was based on the lunar cycle. Therefore, the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th were the weekly sabbath days.

From the above, you can see that the 15th is a Sabbath day. Therefore, this means the Feast of Unleavened Bread which occurs on the 15th of the first month is ALWAYS a High Sabbath Day. The preparation day is the day before (14th).

Next you have to understand that the Feast of Unleavened bread and the Passover are TYPES meant to teach us and not a replacement for the actual things they represent. Therefore, while the Jews would have observed those days strictly to the dates, the Christians did not. They observed them according to a Spiritual lens of those feast days. They don't need to sacrifice a Lamb today for example.

The moon was a type of this for the Jewish Feast. For the feast was to be observed when the light was not overtaken by darkness for seven days. (Refer to the The Paschal Canon; fragments by Anatolius of Alexandria).

Now since the year and its equinox (springing forth) had come, Jesus and His disciples need not wait to observe it. For they had the TRUE Light with them in Christ.

So with the above it should be understood that in 31 AD this happened. This means that the Spring Equinox occurred right at the 4th day of the Lunar week which was the 12th of the month (possibly the 3rd). Therefore, the 5th day of the week was the 13th, the 6th day was the 14th.

This also aligns with 31 AD as being the first year of 40 years in the destruction of the Temple which was finally completed by the Romans in 70 AD. So from 31 AD to 70 AD are 40 years inclusive. We know of the Veil being rent at the Crucifixion. But Jewish sages recorded much more to show that the Temple was no longer the place of service to Him for those 40 years.