Featured Exodus 12:18

They are not different.

Jesus arose on the 3rd day, and this was early on the 1st day of the week (after sundown Saturday).

What is the third day if Jesus died Thursday?

Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday

 

Actually it could have been our Saturday night.

The crucifixion had to have occurred on Friday given the time provided (the ninth hour) for Jesus to have arisen on the 3rd day and that day be Saturday night or early Sunday morning.

If it were not for Mark 16 your timeline would work (Jesus could have arisen on the Sabbath (Saturday before sundown) and this only discovered on Sunday "while it was still dark".

But a Thursday crucifixion would mean Jesus arose on the 4th day.


That is what I mean by having to work from Sunday backwards. We don't know enough (there are too many possibilities) to work forward.

 

We actually do not know.

The issue is how the Jewish calendar was observed in the 1st century. They did use leap years, but this was based on agriculture (and was ad hoc).

You are again defaulting to a method that did not exist at the time in which we are referencing.

It was observed the ad hoc method was problematic, but this was centuries later.


The Sabbath of which John spoke could have been an annual Sabbath. But then we run into the issue that Jesus woukd not have arisen on the third day.

If Jesus arose on the 1st day of the week AND this was the 3rd day then what day was Jesus Crucified?

IMHO all of this basing the crucifixion on modern calendars is nothing but an attempt to to discredit Scripture (not your reason, but where it originated).

Simply put, if Jesus was not crucified on Friday then Scripture is wrong to say He arose on the 3rd day.

 

It is easily explained with history.

The 1st century Hebrew Calendar was ad hoc. You are imposing a system that did not exist in the 1st century.

You are using a system that was developed centuries later to fix the problems with the 1st century calendar.

That is why you are wrong.


Now we are arguing in circles. You keep insisting that thec1st century Jews used a post-Talmudic calendar rather than the Biblical calendar.

You base your "proof" on methods not used at the time.


I'm out. This entire conversation is nothing but foolishness as you attempt to prove what cannot be proven by ignoring what was practiced in the 1st century in favor of how it is done today.

 

It is easily explained with history.

The 1st century Hebrew Calendar was ad hoc. You are imposing a system that did not exist in the 1st century.

You are using a system that was developed centuries later to fix the problems with the 1st century calendar.

That is why you are wrong.


Now we are arguing in circles. You keep insisting that the 1st century Jews used a post-Talmudic calendar rather than the Biblical calendar.

You base your "proof" on methods not used at the time.


I'm out. This entire conversation is nothing but foolishness as you attempt to prove what cannot be proven by ignoring what was practiced in the 1st century in favor of how it is done today.

 

The problem with presenting a Julian date is tgat it is impossible to know. Months were added for years, but this defended on observation (crop) to make sure that Nisan occurred in the spring. But the start of the month was also by visual observation.

We already know of several times that 1 Nisan began late due to a lack of visual observation.

The problem is we do not know if it occurred late at the month of Jesus' death.

Talmudic and post-Talmudic Calendars cannot account for visual observation.

The Jews, at that time, literally relied on visual observation and this testimony verified (by inquiry) and agreed upon by the Sanhedrin.


Can you calculate that two messengers witnessed seeing the new moon and the Sanhedrin approved this account as accurate on a specific Julian date?

No, of course not.

The best you can do is say that if there was good weather and good visibility, and tge Sanhedrin accepted the report, then the date would be as calculated.

But those are very big "if's".



September 5, 59 BC was a lunar eclipse.

This is calculated.

BUT if we were to say the people in the area saw this eclipse then we make assumptions. We simply do not know if they saw it.

We fairly recently had a lunar eclipse. I did not see it because it was very overcast at the time.

 

Actually, we can and do know what I have argued.

The reason is simply the fact that you have used the post-Talmudic Hebrew calendar and more recently the Talmudic Hebrew Calendar to determine a Julian date.

We know that in the 1st century the Jews used the Biblical Hebrew Calendar.

The calendars you use were created to fix the Hebrew Calendar and to prevent missing dates due to the visual observation system as well as to provide a standardization across the Disporia.

We know, as a historical fact, that we cannot know the exact Julian dates that the first century Jews observed 1 Nisan, or Passover because the Sanhedrin used an ad hoc calendar based on visual observation of lunar cycles and seasons.


This does not mean that the date you provide is wrong. But it does mean the date you provide is not factual (it could be right, but it could be wrong).

 

They are fixed.

The problem is that the Jewish Calendar at that time was not.

They literally obeyed God's comments about the "signs in the heavens".

They required witnesses.


If your argument is the date the new moon would have been, then you are correct.

BUT your argument is that we know the messengers saw the new moon and started the month. That is incorrect.

 

Until the moon becomes visible.

That was the issue with the Samaritan fires. Witnesses had to testify to the Sanhedrin that the sliver of moon was visible.

If the sliver was there but obscured then the messengers could not testify as to having seen it because they couldn't.

This was corrected a couple of centuries later and the messengers became ceremonial.

But we are talking about the 1st century Hebrew Calendar. And you cannot tell me when they first saw the moon because you do not know the conditions at that time.