antiaging Posted September 8, 2007 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 87 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/05/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted September 8, 2007 (edited) Something you may not know about the crucifixion: It happened on a Wednesday and not a Friday. He was taken off the cross before the sabbath began, but the sabbath that is refered to is the Sabbath of the passover feast, which was on a Thursday. [it says that Sabbath was an high day. It was not the usual sabbath of the end of the week.] Jewish days began at 6:00 pm. The Sabbath of the passover feast began at 6:00 pm on Wednesday of that week. He died on the cross around 3:00pm on Wednesday and was taken off the cross by around 6:00pm on Wednesday. He was in the grave by Wednesday night sometime. Three days in the grave would have ended around Saturday night or early Sunday morning. (The first day of the week began Saturday at 6:00 pm.) Three days in the grave as the scriptures say; Wednesday night to Saturday night. The catholic church misunderstood the scriptures and thought that the sabbath mentioned was the normal sabbath of the end of the week. That is why they think Jesus was crucified on a Friday. They are incorrect. No matter how you count it, there cannot be three days from Friday to Sunday. The scriptures plainly state he would be in the the grave three days. The passover feast had a day of rest. In Jewish feast days, any day of rest is called a sabbath, just like the sabbath of rest at the end of the week. The passover high day sabbath spoken of in the scriptures that is associated with the death of Jesus happened on a Thursday. There is no good friday. It should be good wednesday. Edited September 8, 2007 by antiaging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Greg Davies Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 (edited) Oh my ....!....whatever. Just joking. I suppose you could be correct, but, regardless, according to Mark, Luke, and John Jesus rose the morning of the "first day", Sunday. Greg. Edited September 8, 2007 by Greg Davies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antiaging Posted September 8, 2007 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 87 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/05/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted September 8, 2007 (edited) post deleted Edited September 8, 2007 by antiaging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Greg Davies Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 (edited) Post Deleted... sorry! Edited September 8, 2007 by Greg Davies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Greg Davies Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 (edited) Post deleted again! Yikes. Edited September 8, 2007 by Greg Davies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antiaging Posted September 8, 2007 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 87 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/05/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted September 8, 2007 (edited) post deleted Edited September 9, 2007 by antiaging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkieDannsa' Air An Drochaid Posted September 8, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 59 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,390 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 9 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/24/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted September 8, 2007 I'm not going to argue on this. It would take a bit of refreshed calender researching for any valid comments on here. I have read some research on this before. I haven't done that lately and too tired to instant recall everything this morning. However, it should be said that Catholic did not misunderstand the Scriptures, they were the ones who decided on which Scriptures would become cannon (ie. The Bible as we know it) and also used those which were already in use at that time. It is important to remember that after the apostle's of Jesus Christ , there were the apostle's disciples and those disciple's students; all of which knew what they were talking about . (Greg, you can edit your previous post even if a reply is on it, you can delete it. As you probably already know using Gods Name in vain will offend many if not most here. Being polite goes a long way in boards and chat.) elkie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antiaging Posted September 9, 2007 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 87 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/05/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) I'm not going to argue on this. It would take a bit of refreshed calender researching for any valid comments on here. I have read some research on this before. I haven't done that lately and too tired to instant recall everything this morning. However, it should be said that Catholic did not misunderstand the Scriptures, they were the ones who decided on which Scriptures would become cannon (ie. The Bible as we know it) and also used those which were already in use at that time. It is important to remember that after the apostle's of Jesus Christ , there were the apostle's disciples and those disciple's students; all of which knew what they were talking about . (Greg, you can edit your previous post even if a reply is on it, you can delete it. As you probably already know using Gods Name in vain will offend many if not most here. Being polite goes a long way in boards and chat.) elkie The catholic church also consider the apochrypha as scripture. They accepted into their canon Jewish fables called the apochrypha which contain obvious fiction stories and contradictions. They are still in the catholic bibles and some of catholic doctrine is based on them. [The pseudepigraphs written during the time of the maccabees, are called the apocrypha, and they are not included in the Jewish canon of scripture. The apocryphal books are considered by both Jews and protestants to be false, and not inspired Scripture.] The Apocrypha is a collection of uninspired, spurious books written by various individuals. The Catholic religion considers these books as scripture just like a Bible-believer believes that our 66 books are the word of God, i.e., Genesis to Revelation. We are going to examine some verses from the Apocrypha later in our discussion. At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic religion pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic church. The Roman Catholic Apocrypha Tobit Judith Wisdom Ecclesiasticus Baruch First and Second Maccabees Additions to Esther and Daniel Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion: First and Second Esdras Prayer of Manasses Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible. 1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin. 2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration. 3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. 4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church. 5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places. 6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954: Basis for the doctrine of purgatory: 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin. Salvation by works: Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin. Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin. Magic: Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore. Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception): Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled. 7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation. 8. No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times. 9. Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East. They should not be considered as inspired scripture. Edited September 10, 2007 by antiaging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antiaging Posted September 9, 2007 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 87 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/05/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) post deleted Edited September 10, 2007 by antiaging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Greg Davies Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 (edited) Concerning the Apocrypha, not to defend it as scripture, but didn't Jude quote an Apocrypha book when he refered to Enoch in verses 14 and 15? I wouldn't know which book, being perfectly content with the 66 books in my Bible, but I remember hearing that somewhere along the line and I just thought it was an interesting point. Greg. Edited September 12, 2007 by Greg Davies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts