|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Dec 27, 2005 22:23:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Dec 27, 2005 22:24:07 GMT -5
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Why does that explain why you think Passover is a moveable celebration when Rocky has repeatedly explained why it only appears to move?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Dec 27, 2005 22:34:10 GMT -5
I clicked on the link, and here is the complete relevant listing under "Deaths" -- 33 - Jesus (b. 1), Christian icon, believed to have conquered death on 5 April 33 (Easter Sunday) Here is the complete relevant listing under "Events" -- 33 - Crucifixion of Jesus (traditional date) Notice that neither offers any sort of proof for this date, beyond the reference to tradition. In other words, Wikipedia simply says "People have longed believed that Jesus was crucified on this date." That's it. Doesn't do anything to support any of your previous assertions. |
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Dec 27, 2005 22:37:31 GMT -5
You don't know the correlation between the passover and the crucifixion Ken?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Dec 27, 2005 22:45:35 GMT -5
Actually I don't agree with that year in wikipedia. Ken I put up the link to the appendix in my Companion Bible that clearly states when Jesus was born, did you even look at it? It was September 29, 4 B.C.. Therefore, the crucifixion was probably in 30 A.D. or 31 not 33. Again approximately.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Dec 27, 2005 22:50:03 GMT -5
Of course I know the correlation between the two.
However, this conventional date is one that no serious Bible scholar has argued for in (quite literally) decades. It is widely known that the monk who came up with our modern Gregorian calendar, well, miscalculated the date for the birth of Christ. If we've got his birth wrong, then we've got his death wrong as well, because we're looking at the Jewish calendars FROM THE WRONG YEAR!
Does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Dec 27, 2005 22:52:07 GMT -5
DOH! My bad ... Since we've been talking circles around the whole Hebrew calendar, dating Passover, when was Jesus born, etc. for, oh, ALL DAY! let's see if I can summarize. On the one hand, we have the board majority view, which consists of Mantis, Rocky, Phil and myself arguing the following. 1. We don't know exactly when Jesus was born. 2. Early Christians adopted the existing pagan winter celebrations, including their traditional trappings, as the holiday to commemorate the birth of Jesus. 3. Passover falls on the same day OF THE HEBREW LUNAR CALENDAR every single year, which means that it falls on different days of the modern Gregorian Calendar each year. On the other hand, we have TDD arguing the following: 1. Jesus was born on September 29. She hasn't said what year this was in. She also states that Jesus would have been conceived on or around December 25. The rest of us have no idea why or how this is relevant. 2. Christmas ... well, bloody hell, I've got no clue what Dee's position on Christmas as a pagan holiday co-opted by Christians at this point. 3. Passover ... um, okay, once again I'm stumped here. It looks like she is now agreeing that the Hebrew calendar is lunar, and thereby can have the same date for Passover each year, which would then place it on a different date each year on our calendar. Also, she seems to be arguing that there is uncertainty as to what calendar the mainstream Hebrews used in the Second Temple period, simply b/c the Essenes (the sect believed to have authored the Dead Sea Scrolls) apparently used a different calendar. She makes this argument in spite of the fact that the Essenes were a fringe Jewish sect, and that the specifics of how their calendar worked are a mystery, according to one of the web pages she cited earlier. She also makes this argument in spite of the fact that one of her cites also describes the Hebrew calendar as having been in effect since the sixth century B.C.E., which would ergo mean that it was the calendar in use by mainstream Jews during the time of Jesus. Did I misstate anyone's position? If so, please concisely describe my error. If not, I'm done here. I had posted this earlier, but because most of it was done in an edit, I think it's been pretty much over looked. I'm gonna repost it now. Peace. |
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Dec 27, 2005 22:59:31 GMT -5
I have some really good resources for the theory of the celebration of the passover being fixed to agricultural "seasons" at one time and falling on the same day every year. What I stated earlier 14 days after the spring equinox of March 21st. There are actually some Native American tribes that believe this as well. Some of the information is in the Companion Bible. Other sources are from Jewish sources.
I can see that it really isn't worth my time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Dec 27, 2005 23:03:49 GMT -5
I have some really good resources that Jimmy Carter owned a balloon farm on Mars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Dec 27, 2005 23:07:02 GMT -5
On the other hand, we have TDD arguing the following:
1. Jesus was born on September 29. She hasn't said what year this was in. She also states that Jesus would have been conceived on or around December 25. The rest of us have no idea why or how this is relevant.
I just answered this part ken. Post #199. I know you could probably not give a shit about what Bullinger said or what the Companion Bible says so whats the point?
The original point concerning Christmas was what you said in your original post about early Christians believed Christ was born in the Spring, according to the history channel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Dec 27, 2005 23:07:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Dec 27, 2005 23:27:25 GMT -5
I went back and found the link in your earlier post, and took a hard look at it. I'm not at all swayed. The pages don't have any references to sources aside from a few dealing with peripheral issues, the site hasn't been updated since 2002, and the author makes lots of assertions without any support.
Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This stuff doesn't rise to that level. Again, I (and others here) might be more receptive to you if you were only championing a single minority perspective. But you seem to have picked up on virtually every minority opinion out there (except for those in The Da Vinci Code). This just completely saps your credibility, meaning that you're going to have to give us incredibly solid arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Dec 27, 2005 23:44:20 GMT -5
I went back and found the link in your earlier post, and took a hard look at it. I'm not at all swayed. The pages don't have any references to sources aside from a few dealing with peripheral issues, the site hasn't been updated since 2002, and the author makes lots of assertions without any support. Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This stuff doesn't rise to that level. Again, I (and others here) might be more receptive to you if you were only championing a single minority perspective. But you seem to have picked up on virtually every minority opinion out there (except for those in The Da Vinci Code). This just completely saps your credibility, meaning that you're going to have to give us incredibly solid arguments.  Ken, the author of the website is not the author of the material. lmao!!! That is a duplicate of the appendix from the Companion Bible. It was written by the Author of the Companion Bible, which is a KJV, E.W. Bullinger. |
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Dec 27, 2005 23:45:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 28, 2005 0:08:57 GMT -5
Does that make sense?
LoLoLoL ! Nothing ... And I mean ...
Nothing Tudeda posts makes sense !!
|
|
