Where is this other Jewish Calendar?

[JonC]

How we understand the crucifixion event is not agreed.on.

I understand the crucifixion as Jesus giving His life for us.

Insofar as the timing, you think Mark was talking about one historical event (the killing of the Passover in Jerusalem) and I think he was speaking of another historical event (the killing outside Jerusalem proper).


But it does not matter. We do not need to know an exact date at all. Why bother with such trivial things as a Julian date for the crucifixion?

 

[37818]

Insofar as the timing, you think Mark was talking about one historical event (the killing of the Passover in Jerusalem) and I think he was speaking of another historical event (the killing outside Jerusalem proper).

You suppose my understanding. Of course you know your own.

 

[JonC]

You suppose my understanding. Of course you know your own.

I do not suppose your understanding but instead work off your posts.

You rightly believe the crucifixion to be an historical event. This means it falls into a historical timeline.

Historical facts:

Twilight at start of 14 Nisan passover killed outside of Jerusalem

Twilight at end of 14 Nisan passover killed in Jerusalem.


Our positions:

You place Mark as speaking of the passover being killed in Jerusalem proper by your own account.

I place Mark as speaking of the passover being killed outside of Jerusalem (of Mark writing of what he was observing at that time).

We disagree about which historical event Mark was speaking.

History is objective.

You chose one historical practice being observed and I chose another historical practice being observed.

The reason for your choice is not my concern. It is not necessary for me to know why you chose the second event nstead of the first in order to place your view within a timeline.

 

[37818]

But it does not matter. We do not need to know an exact date at all. Why bother with such trivial things as a Julian date for the crucifixion?

Because it really is an actual corroborable historical event.

 

[37818]

It is not necessary for me to know why you chose the second event nstead of the first in order to place your view within a timeline.

This claim makes no sense to me.

 

[JonC]

Because it really is an actual corroborable historical event.

It is even without a date. There are secular and Biblical testimonies to the event.

William Yatesboro was a confederate soldier who died on the second day of the battle of Shiloh. He appeared as a ghost at his home in Murfreesboro on the next day.

We can say the exact date of the second day of the Battle of Shiloh was April 7, 1862.

By your logic that makes William Yatesboro's death on April 7, 1862 a historical event and his ghost seen on April 8, 1862 a historical event.

The logic is flawed.

The Crucifixion is already a historical event without an exact date.

 

[JonC]

This claim makes no sense to me.

Sorry, I'll try to be clearer.

Objective history tells us that those outside of Jerusalem killed the passover twilight starting Nisan 14 while in Jerusalem this was twilight at the end of Nisan 14.

You decided that Mark was speaking of one sect killing the Passover instead of another sect.

I do not need to know why you chose one historical event over another historical event in order to know how you date the Crucifixion.

 

[37818]

you think Mark was talking about one historical event (the killing of the Passover in Jerusalem)

Making stuff up.
Deuteronomy 16:5, Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee: . . .

 

[JonC]

Making stuff up.
Deuteronomy 16:5, Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee: . . .

No. Not making stuff up.

By your timeline Mark had to have been talking about the Passover being killed in Jerusalem, NOT the Passover being killed by the other Jewish sect.


On another topic (just to illustrate) do you know the sect that counted days from morning to morning?

This isn't a sect we are dealing with, but it illustrates divisions and differences among the sects.

 

[37818]

By your timeline Mark had to have been talking about the Passover being killed in Jerusalem,

You have no such proof.
We do not agree.
When does not determine where.

 

[JonC]

You have no such proof.
We do not agree.
When does not determine where.

I do not have proof of a date (we can only come up with a reasonable conclusion based on a calculated Calendar and historical evidence).

I was not talking about "where". I already know the "where" of the timeline.

I know, for example, that Mark would have observed Jews killing the Passover at twilight starting Nisan 14. I know this because the Disciples and Jesus were traveling to Jerusalem.

BUT I can't say from Mark 14 that he was definitely speaking of his observance instead of the upcoming killing of the Passover in Jerusalem.

LIKEWISE you cannot say with any integrity that Mark was not speaking of what he would have observed while traveling to Jerusalem.

I simply place both historical events into the equation and use the calculated Hebrew Calendar to come up with a year.

You completely discarded one historical event to try to make your choice the only possibility.

 

[JonC]

You have no such proof.
We do not agree.
When does not determine where.

Again, this whole dating - while interesting - is worthless. It is based on false logic in defending an already confirmed historical event.

Those who do not believe the Crucifixion occurred are the same as those who would dismiss the sect of Jews who killed the Passover at twilight beginning Nisan 14. They do not care about history but instead are content to believe what they want to believe.

Here is my example, again -


William Yatesboro was a confederate soldier who died on the second day of the battle of Shiloh. He appeared as a ghost at his home in Murfreesboro on the next day.

We can say the exact date of the second day of the Battle of Shiloh was April 7, 1862.

By your logic that makes William Yatesboro's death on April 7, 1862 a historical event and his ghost seen on April 8, 1862 a historical event.

The logic is flawed.

The Crucifixion is already a historical event without an exact date.

 

[37818]

. . . false logic . . . .

So you think.

 

[37818]

The Crucifixion is already a historical event without an exact date.

Your view.

 

[37818]

You place Mark as speaking of the passover being killed in Jerusalem proper by your own account.

Wrong. A false accusation again.

Deuteronomy 16:5, Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee: . . .

 

[37818]

Because it really is an actual corroborable historical event.

The three fold evidence of the resurrection of Christ

Hebrew Calendar

 

[JonC]

Wrong. A false accusation again.

Deuteronomy 16:5, Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee: . . .

If you are not choosing the killing of the Passover at twilight towards the end of Nisan 14 (a few hours before Nissan 15) then your timeline doesn't work even for your theory.

If mine was a false accusation then your date is impossible (Jesus woukd have been crucified around the time the Passover was killed in Jerusalem).


My "accusation" was correct per YOUR posts.

You chose the time the Passover would be killed in Jerusalem (twilight at the end of 14 Nisan) instead of the historical alternative.

NOW you are saying you chose a different time, but historical evidence (your own posts) proves you are falsely accusing me ("bearing a false witness).

I think most know that the slaughtering of the animal (the event at twilight ending Nisan 14) took place in the courtyard of the Temple.

 

[37818]

My "accusation" was correct per YOUR posts.

Where did I actually cite "Jerusalem" for Mark 14:12, And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover,?
Now you may have some kind of knowledge that allows you to think so. But I professed no such idea.

 

[JonC]

Your view.

No. The Chriatian view.

It is based on God's Word rather than trying to come up with an exact date that doesn't matter.

By your logic Moses was not a historical figure, David killing Goliath was not a historical event, Noah building the ark was not a historical event.

All you cling to is a date that proves absolutely nothing.


Here is my example, again -


William Yatesboro was a confederate soldier who died on the second day of the battle of Shiloh. He appeared as a ghost at his home in Murfreesboro on the next day.

We can say the exact date of the second day of the Battle of Shiloh was April 7, 1862.

By your logic that makes William Yatesboro's death on April 7, 1862 a historical event and his ghost seen on April 8, 1862 a historical event.

The logic is flawed.

 

[JonC]

Where did I actually cite "Jerusalem" for Mark 14:12, And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover,?
Now you may have some kind of knowledge that allows you to think so. But I professed no such idea.

I never said you cited "Jerusalem".

I am not sure if you said that the Jews in Jerusalem killed the animal in the Temple courtyard on twilight ending Nisan 14 or not.

But they did. In fact, in Jerusalem they killed the Passover around 3pm on Nisan 14.

Outside Jerusalem this occurred at twilight beginning Nisan 14. This was one reason for hostile attitudes between the Pharisees and Sadducees.