Is there a, ‘Bone-Day’ in the Holy Scriptures of Christiandom?
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Bone-Day of Our Passover Jesus Christ exposes the whole fraudulent system of Catholicism and deluded, obsessed, Protestantism.
But long before that, the Bone-Day of Our Passover Jesus Christ exposed “the God-given and therefore eschatological imperative whole and wholeness”[*] of the Passover of Yahweh, even of “Our Passover” the “Lamb of God”.
[*Lohmeyer's expression]
Is there a, ‘Bone-Day’ in the Holy Scriptures of Christiandom?
Verse. 36. For these things were done, &c.] The not breaking his bones and piercing his side, and that not by chance, and without design; but,
that the Scripture should be fulfilled, a bone of him shall not be broken; referring either to Ps 34:20 he keepeth all his bones, not one of them is broken; which if to be understood of the righteous in general, had a very particular and remarkable accomplishment in Christ; though a certain single person seems to be designed; nor is it true in fact of every righteous man, some of whom have had their bones broken; and such a sense would lead to despair in case of broken bones; for whereas such a calamity befalls them, as well as wicked men, under such an affliction, they might be greatly distressed, and from hence be ready to conclude, that they are not righteous persons, and are not under the care and protection of God, or otherwise this promise would be made good: nor have the words any respect to the resurrection of the dead, as if the sense of it was, that none of the bones of the righteous shall be finally broken; and though they may be broken by men, and in their sight, yet the Lord will raise them again, and restore them whole and perfect at the general resurrection; for this will be true of the wicked, as well as of the righteous: and much less is the meaning of the words, one of his bones shall not be broken, namely, the bone "luz", the Jews speak of; which, they say {i}, remains uncorrupted in the grave, and is so hard that it cannot be softened by water, nor burnt in the fire, nor ground in the mill, nor broke with an hammer; by and from which God will raise the whole body at the last day: but the words are to be understood of Christ, he is the poor man that is particularly pointed at in Ps 34:6 who, was poor in his state of humiliation, and who cried unto the Lord, and he heard him, and saved him; and he is the righteous one, whose afflictions were many, and out of which the Lord delivered him, Ps 34:19 whose providential care of him was very particular and remarkable; he kept his bones from being broken, when others were; and by this incident this passage had its literal fulfilment in him: or else it may refer to the passover lamb, a type of Christ, 1Co 5:7 a bone of which was not to be broken, Ex 12:46, Nu 9:12. The former of these passages is a command, in the second person, to the Israelites, concerning the paschal lamb, "neither shall ye break a bone thereof"; and the latter is delivered in the third person, "nor shall they break any bone of it"; which may be rendered impersonally, "a bone of it, or of him, shall not be broken; or a bone shall not be broken in him"; and so the Syriac and Persic versions read the words here; and in some copies it is, "a bone shall not be broken from him"; and so read the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions; and he that violated this precept, according to the traditions of the Jews, was to be beaten. Maimonides {k} says,
``he that breaks a bone in a pure passover, lo, he is to be
beaten, as it is said, "and a bone ye shall not break in
it": and so it is said of the second passover, "and a bone
ye shall not break in it"; but a passover which comes with
uncleanness, if a man breaks a bone in it, he is not to be
beaten: from the literal sense it may be learned, that a
bone is not to be broken, whether in a pure or defiled
passover: one that breaks a bone on the night of the
fifteenth, or that breaks a bone in it within the day, or
that breaks one after many days, lo, he is to be beaten;
wherefore they burn the bones of the passover in general,
with what is left of its flesh, that they may not come to
damage: none are guilty but for the breaking of a bone on
which there is flesh of the quantity of an olive, or in
which there is marrow; but a bone in which there is no
marrow, and on which there is no flesh of the quantity of
an olive, a man is not guilty for breaking it; and if
there is flesh upon it of such a quantity, and he breaks
the bone in the place where there is no flesh, he is
guilty, although the place which he breaks is quite bare
of its flesh: he that breaks after (another) has broken,
is to be beaten.''
And with these rules agree the following canons {l},
``the bones and sinews, and what is left, they burn on the
sixteenth day, but if that falls on the sabbath, they burn
them on the seventeenth, because these do not drive away
the sabbath or a feast day.''
And so it fell out this year in which Christ suffered, for the sixteenth was the sabbath day: again,
``he that breaks a bone in a pure passover, lo, he is to be
beaten with forty stripes; but he that leaves anything in
a pure one, and breaks in an impure one, is not to be
beaten with forty stripes;''
yea, they say {m}, though
``it was a little kid and tender, and whose bones are
tender, they may not eat them; for this is breaking of the
bone, and if he eats he is to be beaten, for it is the
same thing whether a hard or a tender bone be broken.''
Now in this as in many other respects the paschal lamb was a type of Christ, whose bones were none of them to be broken, to show that his life was not taken away by men, but was laid down freely by himself; and also the unbroken strength of Christ under the weight of sin, the curse of the law, and wrath of God, and conflict with Satan, when he obtained eternal redemption for us: and also this was on account of his resurrection from the dead, which was to be in a few days; though had his bones been broken he could easily have restored them, but it was the will of God it should be otherwise. Moreover, as none of the bones of his natural body were to be broken, so none that are members of him in a spiritual sense, who are bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, shall ever be lost.
You are obsessed with knowing your ignorance. I have the answer; you do not have one. I have peace in this knowledge; you are plagued with unrest in your lack of this knowledge --- my dear man. You do not know what you are missing. That's a pity.
Gill...
From Misn. Pesachim, c. 7. sect. 10, 11,
: from the literal sense it may be learned, that a bone is not to be broken, whether in a pure or defiled passover: one that breaks a bone on the night of the fifteenth, or that breaks a bone in it within the day, or that breaks one after...
Why not post all that Gill wrote. It certainly makes more sense than the excerpt:
I just did a Google search for "Bone-Day" and "Bone-Day Christianity" and the only hits I got were from Gerhard posting on this forum and on another forum in June of 2014. Neither place posits any real scripture detailing this "bone-day" nor what it means for us.
VER this Jordan… Then Joshua commanded… PREPARE, for WITHIN THREE DAYS ye shall pass over this Jordan to GO IN to POSSESS the land… On THAT DAY, the LORD magnified Joshua… the Selfsame BONE-DAY (#16) (they) did eat unleavened cakes”. Joshua 5:11,12.No offense intended, but that statement seems to carry some sort of mysticism, almost like a Bible Code type intention. I'm pretty sure people have been going back to the Hebrew for a long time. This isn't the first time in history anyone has looked at the Hebrew text.Gerhard Ebersoehn said:It's back to basics - back to the Hebrew for the first time in history. That will put you on the way to the future, because the translation of the Gospel will NEVER BE THE SAME AGAIN FOR YOU after you have grasped the meaning of Jesus' Bone Day YOURSELF.
You keep saying that this phrase is there, yet you haven't really explained what it is supposed to mean and how it is supposed to be relevant to us today.
On the other web forum where you posted this, you made a fairly grand statement that rediscovering the Hebrew text will open up new understanding of the scripture:
No offense intended, but that statement seems to carry some sort of mysticism, almost like a Bible Code type intention. I'm pretty sure people have been going back to the Hebrew for a long time. This isn't the first time in history anyone has looked at the Hebrew text.
And you say the translation of the gospel will never be the same once you understand the meaning of Jesus's Bone Day. Yet you haven't explained it. You've merely shown it's occurrences in the Old Testament.
... and Jesus Christ never had anything to do with any of all this; and all this never had anything to do with Jesus Christ ... if we must believe those who say there is no such thing as Jesus' Bone-Day.