Featured Exodus 12:18

@37818 ,

I think you may be missing the issue.

We all agree that the lunar calculations (the post-Talmudic Hebrew Calendar) will provide accurate data based on lunar cycles.

We all agree that 1 Nisan was to correspond with the new moon.

What you have failed to prove, however, is that the new moon was actually visible on the date the post-Talmudic Calendar marks 1 Nisan.

The reason this is important to your conclusion is that the 1st century Jews used the Biblical calendar, NOT calculations (the post-Talmudic calendar)

IF the new moon was obscured (not able to be visibly observed) then 1 Nisan would begin on the evening it was observed.

This is because the Jews literally observed God's command in Genesis and Deuteronomy. They watched the "signs" (the "lights in the heavens" that God gave as signs).


You have given NO evidence that two messengers reported to the Sanhedrin that they witnessed the new moon and that their testimony was accepted and the new month declared.

All you keep on doing is telling us that calculations tell us a new moon was at that time. We all know that. You have to show that the new moon was OBSERVED. (It could have been obscured, like when the Samaritans prevented observation and delayed the start of Nisan).

 

Now you are being dishonest. The New Testament does not tell us if the moon was observed on your calculated date.

Saying God's word states something it doesn't is very close to, if not exactly, taking God's word in vain.

We know that Passover was 14 Nisan. What we do not know is tge exact Julian date (or post-Talmudic date) of 1 Nisan in the 1st century.


Again, to explain:

If the calculated date for 1 Nisan is X, and the moon was obscured on X, but observed on X+1, then 1 Nisan would be X+1 and you would be a day off which would make your theory fall apart.

God did not tell us if the Jews saw the new moon in the year you theorize.

 

The ancient Jewish practices regarding determining 1 Nisan is actually interesting.

Two witnesses would report to the Sanhedrin.

The Sanhedrin would question each one separately, asking questions like which way the points of the crescent pointed, where exactly in the sky, etc.

Then the Sanhedrin would discuss whether tge report was true. If it was they would light a torch signaling the start of Nisan.

Watchers would see the torch and light theirs to communicate the new month outside of the city.

Enemies woukd sometimes light torches to get a response, misleading Jews outside tge city as well.

If the moon was obscured on the new moon on 1st century then Nisan would start late.

 

Yes, Scripture does tell us about His death and resurrection.

But Scrioture does not provide the information to factually arrive at an exact Julian Calendar date.

 

Maybe the best way to look at it is to consider how the Apostles viewed it.

Here is what Paul states that Scripture teaches:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (1 Cor 15:3-5).


Jesus died for our sins, was buried and raised on the 3rd day.

So Jesus could, as you suggest, have died on Thursday evening and was raised on Saturday, the tomb not being discovered until Sunday (the 3rd day).

But the problem with that view is Mark 16:9 would be wrong.

Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week . . . (Mk 16:9)


IF Jesus died and was raised on the 3rd day, and that day was Sunday, then Jesus had to have died on Friday prior to sundown.

 

Your claim that either the Gospels are wrong or 1 Corinthians is wrong does not fly.

The reason is your problem reconciling Mark 14 with Mark 16 and 1 Corinthians is exactly that - YOUR problem.

Most Christians understand that Jesus arose on the 3rd day (1 Cor) and this was Sunday (Mark 16).

The reason for your issue us that you reject Jl1st century Jewish accounts because, while descriptive if Jewish life, they do not fit your understanding of Mark 14.

In the end you should simply a certain all of Scripture even if you don't get the days.

 

Do you believe that Jesus was raised on the 3rd day or that He arose early on the 1st day of the week?

You can't have it both ways with your theory.

 

Yes, "it is the third day since those things happened".

I do know that Jesus arose on the third day because Scripture tells us that Jesus arose on the third day.

I do not believe Paul's words in 1 Corinthians contradicts Luke 24:21 (Luke says it is the third day since those things happened....not it is four days.....not three days have already passed....but it is three days since".

If I were going to choose between your interpretation "according to Scripture" or Paul's interpretation "according to Scripture".....well....I choose Paul.

Part of the reason is he was of that time.

But the main reason is we have Scrioture interpreting Scripture with 1 Corinthians and Mark 16.

Jesus died and arose on the 3rd day, which was early the first day of the week. Period.