CaritateDei

.

.

The English TERM yes, is derived from the word East which is believed to be derived by Bede. I realize that Pesach means passover, but go to Greece today and this is the term for Easter. Read the rest of Catholic Encyclopedia article that you like to quote-mine from and it will tell you this.

Yes, you are missing the fact that Matthew assumed his audience would know the difference between the Sabbath that falls after the day of preparation, and the 7th day of the week Sabbath. He did not feel the need to elaborate. Matthew 27:62 tells us that that the next day was the 1st day of unleavened bread, which John 19 tells us was a High Sabbath, which did not fall on Saturday. Matthew 21:1 tells us that Jesus was resurrected after the seventh day of the week. This means that Jesus was in the grave during two separate Sabbaths. Anyone living at that time who was familiar with the calendar would have understood that straightaway.

No, there isn't any support for Friday. "Friday" was read into the text because of an obvious misreading of the Gospels, which created a wrong assumption that the "Sabbath" that immediately followed Jesus' crucifixion is a regular 7th day of the week Sabbath. Like I said, you still dance around, ignore, brush under the rug, and hope everyone will forget about Jesus' own words which defy the possibility of a "good Friday" crucifixion ("three days and three nights in the heart of hte earth"). That is what I meant when I said that Christians are just as bad about holding to traditions even if those traditions are wrong, simply because it is tradition. If wrong traditions, give you peace, have at it. I prefer having peace with the truth. There it is again...you call it wrong. Let me walk you through this step by step: Matthew 27:62 - The next day after the crucifixion is identified as the day after the day of preparation for the Sabbath (which would be the Sabbath.) Matthew 28:1 (FIVE VERSES LATER) The first day of the week is identified - the day that Jesus rose from the dead. The day AFTER the Sabbath. It spells to me...that the chronology is as follows: The day of preparation - Jesus dies. The Sabbath - Jesus is in the tomb. The day after the Sabbath, Jesus rises from the dead. Am I missing something? As for the making Jesus a liar point of view, that was already covered: "In the Bible, parts of time units were frequently counted as wholes. Thus a king might be said to have reigned for two years, even if he reigned for only fourteen months. In the same way, a day and a night does not mean a period of twenty-four hours. It can refer to any portion of a day coupled with any portion of a night. The expression "three days and three nights" could be used as simply a slightly hyperbolic way of referring to "three days." As Protestant Bible scholar R. T. France notes: "Three days and three nights was a Jewish idiom to a period covering only two nights" (Matthew, 213). Similarly, D. A. Carson, regarded as one of the deans of conservative Protestant Bible exegesis, explains: "In rabbinical thought a day and a night make an onah, and a part of an onah is as the whole. . . . Thus according to Jewish tradition,

I've been accused of refusing to drop the customs of my Church. Guilty as charged. The problem with dropping the customs of my Church is that I would be dropping what the Bible clearly says: Matthew 27:62 "Next day [after the Crucifixion], that is, after the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate" Mark 15:42-43: "And when evening had come, since it was the Day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea . . . took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus." Luke 23:54: "It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin" (NIV). John 19:14 "Now it was the Day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews,

Once again, though, we have a problem. Matthew clearly says the first day of the week, after the Sabbath. With all due respect, we are being guilty of revisionism to try to prove our own points. Matthew 28:1, an inerrant verse of scripture, coupled with the explanations given earlier, should put this whole thing to rest. This is not a matter of Tradition vs. Biblical prophecy. This is a matter of Tradition coinciding with the Bible.

I am going to have to agree with Smalcald on this one. If you follow the chronologies in Luke and in John, you get that Christ Died on a Friday. This is excerpted from an article by James Akin who has done all the homework on this one. I won't pass it off as my own, because, as Leonard said, we've done this before. Every year at Easter time there are sermons explaining that Jesus didn

Does the Bible, then, contradict itself and the inerrancy of scripture is called into question by all of this?

Same with drugs! I work with young people and tell them not to do drugs. Regardless of how much D.A.R.E. programs and drug-free messages are pushed down their throats by schools and priests, young people are going to do drugs! It's going to happen, whether you like it or not or admit it or not. As parents, educators, or just responsible adults it's our duty to teach children with ALL the facts, not just push our drug-free lifestyles on them. Telling them not to toke it up or not to snort is one thing, but you also need to equip them with the knowledge to USE DRUGS SAFELY when they decide THAT THEY ARE GOING to toke it up and snort. That means passing out nickel bags of SAFE marijuana and the finest, and cleanest Columbian snow, along with SAFE crack vials and bongs...not just lame DON'T SMOKE POT videos and a bored teacher saying, "don't do it." What a total wad of horse manure! So people are going to want to do things that are not in their best interest, of course they are, but thats no excuse for stepping back and saying since they are gonna do it any way let just let em, hey lets make it safe and easy. This mind set is part of the reason we are where we are today no sense of responsibility, no right or wrong. Well you can gloss and tap dance all you want, but I ain't buying what your peddling! I'm not buying it either! I was merely trying to illustrate how absolutely RIDICULOUS it would be to have the same attitude with drugs that some of these folks have with sex. People should look at that drug analogy and be apalled, and rightly so. I feel just as apalled when folks put NO faith in the younger generation, saying, "They need birth control because they have no self control." I also cannot believe that any Christian would advocate the birth control pill, a known abortifacient. Humanity never ceases to shock me. Well now my face is red................. I thought you were serious........and crazy! I was hoping that some would think me crazy after a wild statement like that! I would hope especially those "kids will do it anyway" advocates will seriously rethink their position. If you're going to take that position with sex, you should be completely consistent.

Once again, this was ONE PAGE in his blog. This was not an article he published. On top of that, watch the debates. When he says "atheists" he did not mean all atheists. He meant the four noisiest ones that are so arrogant as to call themselves, "brights," and have titled themselves collectively, "THE FOUR HORSEMEN" of atheism. Daniel Dennett Christopher Hitchens Richard Dawkins Sam Harris These four were VERY willing to debate some pretty ignorant pastors and Christians, and every time, the atheists made the pastors look like complete fools. Now that D'Souza has bested two of them (and I AM an objective person on this issue), the other two refuse to debate him. There is something to be said about that, and Dinesh, through this one page on his blog, decided to say it.

Same with drugs! I work with young people and tell them not to do drugs. Regardless of how much D.A.R.E. programs and drug-free messages are pushed down their throats by schools and priests, young people are going to do drugs! It's going to happen, whether you like it or not or admit it or not. As parents, educators, or just responsible adults it's our duty to teach children with ALL the facts, not just push our drug-free lifestyles on them. Telling them not to toke it up or not to snort is one thing, but you also need to equip them with the knowledge to USE DRUGS SAFELY when they decide THAT THEY ARE GOING to toke it up and snort. That means passing out nickel bags of SAFE marijuana and the finest, and cleanest Columbian snow, along with SAFE crack vials and bongs...not just lame DON'T SMOKE POT videos and a bored teacher saying, "don't do it." I'm presuming that this is an example of illustrating absurdity by being absurd? Spot-on! Well, at least my drug analogy is.