Crucifixion on Wednesday?

[Robbinson]

---

.

Now, regarding your being Jewish, you are not sir. Having left Judaism, you have left Jewishness. It’s no longer only what makes a Jew, to be born of a Jewish mother. One of the sons of Isaac with Rebeca was born a Gentile. But you still can reconsider your decision and return to the faith of Jesus, which was Judaism.

Ben:

Actually - according to scripture - it is being a descendant (through paternal blood line) of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that makes one a Jew. But I also meet the rabbinic (non-scriptural) definition of having a Jewish mother and I was bar mitzvahed and confirmed as well.

You can make up any rules or traditions that you like, but I remain a Jew. Not that its ultimately relevant, but many Orthodox rabbis would in fact agree (they might say one in rebellion or disobedient, but not that I cease to be Jewish). Sadly, there are some who share your views. Its odd though and ironic that a Jewish person’s belief in the Messiah (the one we have been waiting for, as Jews, through our history) could in the eyes of some Jews, make another cease to be “Jewish”. Let me ask you - do you believe that the Lubbavich Jews who believe their rebbe is the Messiah are no longer Jewish even though some continue to hold this belief and now cite Isaiah 53 as messianic and speaking of his coming resurrection? Or how about those Jews who are announced “athiests” - are they no longer Jews in your eyes as well?

Ultimately, with respect and love, “your eyes” are not really relevant - I’ll look to scripture and my relationship with God.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[moondweller]

---

I do not deny that the Apostles were Jews. They were all Jews. But the writers of the NT were not. To believe so, you will be only raising contradictions in the NT.

What an extremely ignorant statement!!! Paul, a Jew, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and the human author of most of the N.T. Epistles gives a short history of himself in Phil. 1-8. Within it he differentiates between the “pentome” (Greek: false circumcision) and the “peritome” (Gr. true circumcision). The true circumcision are Jewish believers in Jesus the Messiah, who are circumcised according to the heart, not merely the flesh.

The first one ever to preach about Jesus as Christ was Paul, when he founded Christianity in the City of Antioch. (Acts 11:26).

Now you’re really displaying your ignorance. Peter preached to a Jewish crowd in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost:Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ (Messiah)–this Jesus whom you crucified."This was the message concerning Jesus from the day of Pentecost onward. It began in Jerusalem and spread outward into all the world - to this very day.

Now, regarding your being Jewish, you are not sir. Having left Judaism, you have left Jewishness.

To the contrary, having believed in Jesus the Messiah, a Jew completes his Jewishness. He is of the true circumcision, that of the heart and not merely the flesh. If you do not believe in Jesus the Messiah, then it’s you who have left true Judaism, because the Law anticipated and pointed to His (Jesus’) coming. The Apostle Paul writes:Gal 3:23-26:"But before faith came, we (Jews) were kept in custody under law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our (Jews) tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ (Messiah) Jesus."Judaism has no significance apart from Jesus. Even Israel is back as a nation to eventually fulfill the Biblical prophecies concerning that nation and the second advent of her King to this earth, when He, the Son of David, rightful heir to the Davidic throne, will set up His earthly, Millennial Kingdom and reign over Israel, and the entire earth, for a thousand years from Jerusalem (Lk. 1:32-33).

 

[Ben_Masada]

What an extremely ignorant statement!!! Paul, a Jew, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and the human author of most of the N.T. Epistles gives a short history of himself in Phil. 1-8. Within it he differentiates between the “pentome” (Greek: false circumcision) and the “peritome” (Gr. true circumcision).

Ben: Sorry, but this doesn’t say anything about the man being Jewish. He left Judaism when he decided to found Christianity. What would you say if a Christian fellow of yours decided to become a Buddhist, would you call him a Christian-Buddhist? I don’t think so. Now, you understand me. Any Jew who becomes a Christian, he has quit being a Jew. That’s as simple as that.

The true circumcision are Jewish believers in Jesus the Messiah, who are circumcised according to the heart, not merely the flesh.Now you’re really displaying your ignorance.

Ben: In a word, this is Replacement Theology.

Peter preached to a Jewish crowd in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost:Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ (Messiah)–this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Ben: First reason why Peter never delivered that sermon: His introduction of himself to the crowds. “You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem.” If Luke himself did not deliver that speech, another Gentile did. Second, Peter was a Jewish Nazarene and not an anti-Semite. He would never charge the Jews with having crucified Jesus. He knew very well who had crucified the Jews. And that Jesus had not been the only one to be crucified. The Romans had crucified thousands of Jews in the same manner. Third, if Peter believed what’s written in Acts 2 about Jesus he wouldn’t be able to have coexisted with mainstream Judaism in Jerusalem for about 30 years until Paul appeared preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected and nearly got killed for preaching heresy.

This was the message concerning Jesus from the day of Pentecost onward. It began in Jerusalem and spread outward into all the world - to this very day.To the contrary, having believed in Jesus the Messiah, a Jew completes his Jewishness.

Ben: You are entitled to whatever you think, but
reality in Judaism is completely the opposite.

He is of the true circumcision, that of the heart and not merely the flesh. If you do not believe in Jesus the Messiah, then it’s you who have left true Judaism, because the Law anticipated and pointed to His (Jesus’) coming.

Ben: Prove it!

The Apostle Paul writes:Gal 3:23-26:

"But before faith came, we (Jews) were kept in custody under law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our (Jews) tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

Ben: Justification comes only from repentance and obedience to the Law. If you don’t believe what I am saying try to commit a crime and go to Court, and tell the Judge that you
live by faith. Then, wait to see if he will let you go. You will have to satisfy the requirements of the Law in order to be justified. That’s as simple as that.

Even Israel is back as a nation to eventually fulfill the Biblical prophecies concerning that nation and the second advent of her King to this earth, when He, the Son of David, rightful heir to the Davidic throne, will set up His earthly, Millennial Kingdom and reign over Israel, and the entire earth, for a thousand years from Jerusalem (Lk. 1:32-33).

Ben: That’s a utopia that has served only as consolation for people to die with something to hope for.

Ben:
​

​

 

[Old_Scholar]

moondweller;4713453:

What an extremely ignorant statement!!! Paul, a Jew, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and the human author of most of the N.T. Epistles gives a short history of himself in Phil. 1-8. Within it he differentiates between the "pentome

" (Greek: false circumcision) and the “peritome” (Gr. true circumcision).

Ben: Sorry, but this doesn’t say anything about the man being Jewish. He left Judaism when he decided to found Christianity. What would you say if a Christian fellow of yours decided to become a Buddhist, would you call him a Christian-Buddhist? I don’t think so. Now, you understand me. Any Jew who becomes a Christian, he has quit being a Jew. That’s as simple as that.

The true circumcision are Jewish believers in Jesus the Messiah, who are circumcised according to the heart, not merely the flesh.Now you’re really displaying your ignorance.

Ben: In a word, this is Replacement Theology.

Peter preached to a Jewish crowd in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost:Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ (Messiah)–this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Ben: First reason why Peter never delivered that sermon: His introduction of himself to the crowds. “You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem.” If Luke himself did not deliver that speech, another Gentile did. Second, Peter was a Jewish Nazarene and not an anti-Semite. He would never charge the Jews with having crucified Jesus. He knew very well who had crucified the Jews. And that Jesus had not been the only one to be crucified. The Romans had crucified thousands of Jews in the same manner. Third, if Peter believed what’s written in Acts 2 about Jesus he wouldn’t be able to have coexisted with mainstream Judaism in Jerusalem for about 30 years until Paul appeared preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected and nearly got killed for preaching heresy.

This was the message concerning Jesus from the day of Pentecost onward. It began in Jerusalem and spread outward into all the world - to this very day.To the contrary, having believed in Jesus the Messiah, a Jew completes his Jewishness.

Ben: You are entitled to whatever you think, but
reality in Judaism is completely the opposite.

He is of the true circumcision, that of the heart and not merely the flesh. If you do not believe in Jesus the Messiah, then it’s you who have left true Judaism, because the Law anticipated and pointed to His (Jesus’) coming.

Ben: Prove it!

The Apostle Paul writes:Gal 3:23-26:

"But before faith came, we (Jews) were kept in custody under law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our (Jews) tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

Ben: Justification comes only from repentance and obedience to the Law. If you don’t believe what I am saying try to commit a crime and go to Court, and tell the Judge that you
live by faith. Then, wait to see if he will let you go. You will have to satisfy the requirements of the Law in order to be justified. That’s as simple as that.

Even Israel is back as a nation to eventually fulfill the Biblical prophecies concerning that nation and the second advent of her King to this earth, when He, the Son of David, rightful heir to the Davidic throne, will set up His earthly, Millennial Kingdom and reign over Israel, and the entire earth, for a thousand years from Jerusalem (Lk. 1:32-33).

Ben: That’s a utopia that has served only as consolation for people to die with something to hope for.

Ben:

Do you have anything to hope for when you die?
​

​

 

[moondweller]

Sorry, but this doesn’t say anything about the man being Jewish. He left Judaism when he decided to found Christianity. What would you say if a Christian fellow of yours decided to become a Buddhist, would you call him a Christian-Buddhist?

Jesus the Messiah is the fulfillment of Judaism, not Buddhism. It is far more natural for a Jew to believe in Jesus than a Gentile. Everything about the faith is Jewish, and as Jesus said “for salvation is from the Jews” (Jn. 4:22).

Any Jew who becomes a Christian, he has quit being a Jew. That’s as simple as that.

Only to the simple minded.

In a word, this is Replacement Theology.

No, my friend. “Replacement Theology” is the false teaching that the church Messiah is presenting building, calling it out from both Jews and Gentiles through faith in Him, replaces national Israel and it (the church) now fulfills the covenants and prophetic promises God has made, unconditionally, to that nation. Also the false nation that Gentile believers are now spiritual Jews.

First reason why Peter never delivered that sermon: His introduction of himself to the crowds. “You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem.” If Luke himself did not deliver that speech, another Gentile did.

First of all it’s recorded that Peter delivered that sermon. You have no proof that Luke was a liar. Second, there’s no proof that Luke was a Gentile. It’s far more likely he was Jewish.

Second, Peter was a Jewish Nazarene and not an anti-Semite.

True! He was a Galilean Jew and he was not an anti-Semite.

He would never charge the Jews with having crucified Jesus. He knew very well who had crucified the Jews. And that Jesus had not been the only one to be crucified. The Romans had crucified thousands of Jews in the same manner.

But it was the Jewish leaders in that day who delivered Him over to be crucified by the Romans. Scripture records who was there:Acts 4:27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel…I guess that includes everyone.

It’s not who delivered Him over to be crucified, but why. Ultimately, it was the plan of God that He be delivered over. So that as the Lamb of God He would sacrificially die as our Substitute, that through belief in Him forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed (Acts 10:43; 13:38). That which the Law of Moses could not do. Objectively, we all killed Jesus since all sinned.

Third, if Peter believed what’s written in Acts 2 about Jesus he wouldn’t be able to have coexisted with mainstream Judaism in Jerusalem for about 30 years until Paul appeared preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected and nearly got killed for preaching heresy.

Paul came on the scene a LOT sooner than 30 years later. Also the Apostle James was stoned for his testimony regarding Jesus. And Peter was jailed.

Prove it!

It’s written for you to believe it, Ben. Jesus said:John 8:24 “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”

Justification comes only from repentance and obedience to the Law. If you don’t believe what I am saying try to commit a crime and go to Court, and tell the Judge that you live by faith.

We’re talking about justification before God, not man. Divine court, not human court.

You will have to satisfy the requirements of the Law in order to be justified. That’s as simple as that.

Have you not read about our father Abraham?Gen 15:6 "Then he (Abraham) believed in the LORD; and He (the Lord) reckoned it (his faith) to him as righteousness.

That’s a utopia that has served only as consolation for people to die with something to hope for.

It’s not “hope” if it’s not true. But it is true and it’s a living hope. Apart from Christ you’ll die in your sins. And according to your own words, "That’s as simple as that."

 

[JonathonofOhio]

The day he died was on a Friday.
He rose on the third day, which was Sunday.
Now I will demonstrate why this is the Truth:

A day in those times was from sun down to sun down the next day. There was so specific length of a day as we have now. You cannot think in modern times and then try to apply that way of thinking to the bible, which was not based on our modern calendars and times, and the way we view a full day.

Jesus died at the 9th hour. This was NOON (12pm) NOT 3pm as many posts I’ve read claim. The word “noon” is derived from Latin nona hora, the ninth hour of the day.

Many bible versus clearly state that Jesus was supposed to rise on the third day (Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, 27:64, Luke 9:22, 18:33, 24:7, 24:46, Acts 10:40, Mark 9:31, John 2:19), which obviously means that Jesus didn’t mean for us to take him literally (otherwise it’s all contradictory). When he said three days and three nights he did not mean complete days and nights; but part of three days, and three nights taken according to the way that the Hebrews counted their days and nights: from evening to evening.

If he died on Friday and was buried that would be counted as one day. Everyone overlooks that there was darkness up until noon that day, which no doubt was an ominous sign to the people in those days (an eclipse?), and probably played a roll in how they counted it as a day. So you have ONE day (Friday). He was taken down and buried on that day.

Now Saturday would have been the Sabbath day, so that would be one more full day making it TWO days.

He rose from the dead on Sunday which would be the third day, making it THREE days total, and making it true that he ‘rose on the third day’.

The problem with a Wednesday Crucifixion is that if you consider he died on the cross at noon or even at three in the afternoon then that would be one day that he was dead, then Thursday two days, Friday three days, Saturday four days and Sunday rising that would be five days. Even if you don’t count Wednesday and Sunday in that scenario then he rose on the fourth day instead of the third day as promised. So Wednesday doesn’t work at all.

Thursday doesn’t work either because it goes against scripture.

All the Evangelists state that Jesus died on the day of the Parasceve (Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31), and there can be no doubt from Luke 23:54-56 and John 19:31, that this was Friday. But on what day of the month of Nisan did that particular Friday fall? St. John distinctly points to Nisan 14, while the Synoptists, by implying that the Last Supper was the Paschal meal, convey the impression that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 15. But this is hardly reconcilable with the following facts: when Judas left the table, the disciples imagined he was going to buy the things which were needed for the feast (John 13:29)—a purchase which was impossible if the feast had begun; after the Supper, Our Lord and his disciples left the city, as also did the men detailed to arrest Him—this, on Nisan 15, would have been contrary to Exodus 12:22; the next morning the Jews had not yet eaten the Passover; moreover, during that day the Council convened; Simon was apparently coming from work (Luke 23:26); Jesus and the two robbers were executed and were taken down from the crosses; Joseph of Arimathea bought fine linen (Mark 15:46), and Nicodemus brought “a mixture of myrrh and aloes about an hundred pound weight” (John 19:39) for the burial; lastly the women prepared spices for the embalming of the Saviour’s body (Luke 23:55)—all things which would have been a desecration on Nisan 15. Most commentators, whether they think the Last Supper to have been the Paschal meal or an anticipation thereof, hold that Christ, as St. John states, was crucified on the Parasceve of the Pasch, Friday, Nisan 14 (Taken from: newadvent.org/cathen/11476a.htm)).

 

[benedictus2]

Jesus died at the 9th hour. This was NOON (12pm) NOT 3pm as many posts I’ve read claim. The word “noon” is derived from Latin nona hora, the ninth hour of the day.

I don’t think this is quite correct. We cannot impute a Latin reading of the 9th hour into this because the reconning of the hours is based on the Gospel writer’s hour.

I think in Biblical times, the 1st hour is 6am so the 9th hour is actually 3pm.

If you say that the 9th hour is 12noon then the reconning would have started from 3am.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I don’t think this is quite correct. We cannot impute a Latin reading of the 9th hour into this because the reconning of the hours is based on the Gospel writer’s hour.

I think in Biblical times, the 1st hour is 6am so the 9th hour is actually 3pm.

If you say that the 9th hour is 12noon then the reconning would have started from 3am.

I investigated this further and I stand corrected (partially):

The Latin text reads ‘sexta autem hora’ and is when the darkness covered the land. The hora sexta of the Romans corresponded closely with our noon. So he was crucified at about noon on Friday (early in the text you read that it was morning when he was brought before Pilate). The 9th hour (horam nonam) refers to the time period falling between 12 and 3pm (which is about the time he died). It does not mean, however, that he died right at 3pm because the Hebrews divided a day into 4 parts equaling 3 hours (they didn’t have watches and clocks like we do). He ate the Lord’s Supper with his disciples the day before (Thursday), which corresponds to the Church’s celebration of Holy Thursday. Everything else I said is inline with tradition and scripture.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

DELETE
duplicate post, sorry

 

[patrick457]

Jesus died at the 9th hour. This was NOON (12pm) NOT 3pm as many posts I’ve read claim. The word “noon” is derived from Latin nona hora, the ninth hour of the day.

Yep, you are correct that the word noon is a Germanic borrowing from the Latin nona. However, the Roman and Western European medieval monastic day began at 6:00 AM by modern timekeeping, so the word ‘noon’ back then referred to the time period around 2-3 PM. It was only around the 12th century that the meaning of the word shifted to ‘midday’ in English.

That’s the only qualm I have: otherwise, good job.