Featured Where is this other Jewish Calendar?

Then defend your logic

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.

 

What was the exact date Moses was born?

You say the Crucifixion is not a historical event unless we know the exact date it occurred in the Julian Calendar.

So what is the exact date Moses was born?
What is the exact date Moses died?



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.

 

It is not a made up argument.

You said that we needed to know the exact date of the Crucifixion for it to be a historical event. You then said it was important because no Crucifixion, no Resurrection.

This means that we have to know the exact date of Moses' death for it to be a historical event.

You place too much on your theory.

I have proof of the Crucifixion. I have historical evidences (secular and biblical). I have God's Word. But most of all I have proof of the Resurrection which proves the Crucifixion.

We have more evidence of the crucifixion than we do that Moses lived.


So YOU tell us :

Without a date, how do you know that Moses was a historical figure?

 

This was in responce to my statement that we cannot know the exact date

By your logic, if there is no possible knowable actual historical event for Moses' existence, then the possibility he never existed would be real.


We have historical evidence of the Crucifixion just as we have historical evidence that the Jewish sects killed the Passover at different times.


Guessing at an exact date is a bit silly.

 

I agree. That is why we do not have to worry about calculating a date.

We know of many people and events through history without knowing exact dates. And Biblical events fall into this same history (the history of our world) because they are real events.

Studying history is very interesting. But what is gained by such study pales in comparison to redemptive history - the history of God saving a people.

 

To all readers:

I am not sure that Satan hates when believers are distracted from the actual gospel. But theories about a date doesn't have to be distractions, as long as we realize two things:

1. These are theories
2. Coming up with exact dates for Biblical events do not matter. Non-Christians can agree the date exists without accepting what occurred on the date.


That said, I believe the majority of New Testament scholars are correct in choosing 33 AD as the probable date.

The readon is 30 AD (a minority view) has several problems while 33 AD has no issues.

Here is why:

1. 33 AD gives time for Jesus to have been baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius' reign and still have had an earthly ministry.

2. 33 AD takes a literal approach to Scripture - Mark reported one historical event in Mark 14 and John told of another upcoming event.

3. 33 AD allows for Jesus to have been raised on the 3rd day.

4. 33 AD fits the Biblical nattative as presented in all gospels perfectly.

5. 33 AD accounts for known historical events.

The issue, however, is both 30 AD and 33 AD are based on the assumption that the Post-Talmudic Hebrew Calendar aligned with the Biblical Hebrew Calendar in those years. We cannot know this as a fact.


BUT we can know without doubt that the Crucifixion is a historical fact. We know this because of historical witnesses - both Biblical and secular. We know this because of God's Word. And best of all we know this because we have encountered the risen Savior ourselves.

 

Yes, it does.

The passages starts off (verse 13) "that very day". This would be the 1st day of the week. (Sunday).Jesus was crucified and arose on the 3rd day. That 3rd day would be the 3rd day since He was crucified.

Jews counted days from evening to evening.

This is why being in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights does not conflict with Jesus rising on the 3rd day.

It was 3 days since those things happened.

When Esther ended her fast it was "the third day since her fast began". But it was one evening, one morning to evening and one morning. Read the OT account yourself.


This is the reason most New Testament scholars believe 33 AD the probable date. There are no issues IF the Biblical Hebrew Calendar matched the calculated calendar.

 

I answered your "does it".

Yes, it does fit perfectly.

Friday to Sunday is "3 days and nights", Sunday is "the 3rd day" and 3 days since the crucifixion.

The only date per the calculated calendar that fits perfectly with the Biblical narrative is 33 AD.

We just don't know how the 1st century calendar corresponded to the calculated calendar.

 

No. We can calculate when the crescent moon would be visible in perfect conditions. We cannot calculate if it was actually visible.

BUT the best we can do is assume a calculated calendar because we cannot know visability from Jerusalem (we don't know if visability was obscured).

So you and I both use the Post-Talmudic Hebrew Calendar because that is all we have.

The dates remain the same - the only date that matches Scripture, historical events, and the modern Hebrew Calender is 33 AD.

 

??? I do know we can't calculate whether the crescent moon was observed (the "weather conditions"). That is my point.

The best we can do is calculate when the crescent moon would be visible if the conditions were right.

So we can only estimate based on what we have (calculations).