Timeline question.

[Sparko]

Why are you picking on CP? And I never said it was a matter of salvation here, or there, did I?

Tuesday was the day you first got your IV.
Now Saturday comes after Tuesday? OK, you can call Wednesday Saturday if you want to.
There was the second day of your IV.
And Thursday was the third day of your IV.
OK. Now what is this legalistic issue here?

The key issue regardless how you choose to count the three days, I believe is Mark 14:12 being the 14th of Nisan. Now do you agree with that or not? If not, please explain why. Thanks.

saturday was a typo. meant wednesday.

the first day was the first day - ther is no "since". the second day (wed) was the second day since I had the IV. get it?

[Sparko]

Why are you picking on CP?.

i wasnt picking on CP. I said CP was right about you being a bit legalistic. as in arguing about figures of speech as if they are precision time references, especially at a time when they didnt even have clocks.

[Faber]

Not sure where you get "two hours" from? It presumably took all night -- anywhere from 6-12 hours, if not more?

It was held at night (the scriptures make this clear)

What happened during the night as recorded in John 18:19-23 was not a trial, despite what many claim. Jesus was taken and held prisoner within the palace of the high priest until after sunrise. He was interrogated, contrary to Jewish law. He was interrogated by Annas, who was no longer the official high priest. He was removed 15 years earlier, and held the title in name only.

What makes you think the trial was legal or that they cared about following legal procedures?

The Babylonian Talmud, specifically Tractate Sanhedrin. The fact that he was taken to council chambers after sunrise, in accordance with law. The fact that witnesses had to be interrogated, in accordance with law. The fact that he was permitted to speak out in his own defense after two witnesses were found who were in agreement.

One possible violation against procedures may possibly have been when they, or somebody, blindfolded Him, hit him and mocked Him. My uncertainty lies in the chronology. Matthew and Mark place this incident at the end of the trial by the Sanhedrin (Mt. 26:57-68; Mark 14: 53-65); Luke places this incident in the high priest's court (Luke 22:63-65) before the Sanhedrin was assembled for the trial (Luke 22:66-70). Even the timing of Peter's three denials presents some chronological issues. So whether or not the beating and mocking, which was definitely not permitted in a trial, actually took place at the end of the trial or before the trial even got started is unclear to me.

I've always been under the impression that everything about it wasn't legal, which underscored the treachery of his accusers.

Inconsistencies appear if you hold to a Thursday night arrest. I don't. Various chronologies which have been suggested all have one thing in common: a missing day in which nothing appeared to have happened. Usually that's Wednesday. I'm suggesting that by setting the last supper and the arrest at Gethsemane on either Tuesday or Wednesday night, you have time for a two-day trial as required by the laws of the Sanhedrin, as well as all those other events which supposedly took place in a narrow two-hour period.

Scripture makes it clear that they were conspiring this throughout his ministry. That was their agenda from the start, thus their whole objective during the trial.

There were clearly confrontations with the Pharisees. At one occasion a mob scene developed when they attempted to pick up stones and stone Him. The Sanhedrin, however, didn't raise opposition until a couple of months before His crucifixion, when Lazarus was raised from the dead and Caiaphas, the high priest, was concerned that the incident may lead to the Romans coming and and taking away their nation, at which point they planned to have Him killed.(John 11:47-53)

The Talmud suggests that they spent only forty days looking for witnesses.

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' (Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein, trans., Tractate Sanhedrin; folio 43a.)

There were false witnesses presented.

As far as Matthew 26:59, which states that the chief priests, elders and the council were seeking false witnesses, Barnes' Notes on the Old and New Testament explains,

That is, they sought for witnesses who would accuse him of crime of violation of the laws of the land or of God. We are not to suppose that "they wished" them to be "false" witnesses. They were indifferent, probably, whether they were true or false, if they could succeed in condemning him.

Witnesses had to go through a thorough examination, a series of questions on what year, month, day, time of day, and the exact location when the accused made a blasphemous statement. They had to be "filled with awe," or warned if they lied under oath, that they would suffer the same punishment that the accused would have suffered. Each witness was questioned separately so that there would be no collusion. They were considered false witnesses if no other witness could confirm their accusation. And they were also asked if they had warned the accused not to commit the act for which he is accused before he did the act. The rules were very stringent. And apparently after questioning many witnesses, all they could find is two who remembered the exact moment and location when Jesus implied that he would tear down the temple: It was a few days before Passover, possibly two years earlier, at the bazaar that was set up along the Royal Portico at the south end of the temple court. But even that was not valid because they didn't confront Jesus prior to making that statement.

[seanD]

I think the problem is the fact you're using the Talmud as a be-all, end-all premise why which to judge how the trial went down. The Talmud is a good way to get a general idea of how things may have operated during this period, but it isn't a de facto criteria by which to determine how things happened for certain in this period, and there have been scholars that point this out. Secondly, we know this trial was unorthodox based on the circumstances that I pointed out in my last few posts. Therefore I just can't put much stock in your argument for those reasons. Now if you primarily used scripture to support your Friday argument, it would definitely be different for me. But I believe the reason you don't primarily use scripture and use the Talmud instead is because much of the situations described in the bible contradict your argument. Yes, Luke says the official trial occurred at daybreak, but there were clearly proceedings (probably illegal) that took place before that time. Not only do we know the whole thing was shady from the beginning, but it sounds like they all had concurred that Jesus should die before they even took him to Caiaphas, who was also in agreement that he should die (John 18:14). My guess is that they took him to Pilate and demanded his crucifixion possibly because they not only wanted a speedy execution but understood the entire situation from the beginning was illegal and against normal procedure. So, there's nothing about the situation that tells me it was at all normal, even if we assume the Talmud's descriptions accurately reflect the type of trials that took place during this period.

[Faber]

They took Jesus to Pilate because, according to Roman law, as of 40 years before the destruction of the temple, they were no long permitted to execute anybody. See John 18:31, or Trac... oh, never mind. Just take the Sanhedrin's word for it. Although they did manage to pull it off on occasions.

Just the historical facts.

[seanD]

They took Jesus to Pilate because, according to Roman law, as of 40 years before the destruction of the temple, they were no long permitted to execute anybody. See John 18:31, or Trac... oh, never mind. Just take the Sanhedrin's word for it. Although they did manage to pull it off on occasions.

Just the historical facts.

I understand that, but they wouldn't have crucified him. That was strictly a Roman execution, thus evidence their intent was to put the execution onus on Rome, and is why they switched from the blasphemy charge during the Sanhedrin trial to sedition. This shows me that the whole trial was a farce, they knew it was a farce, and so they had to pass it over the hands of Pilate.

[Cow Poke]

I understand that, but they wouldn't have crucified him. That was strictly a Roman execution, thus evidence their intent was to put the execution onus on Rome, and is why they switched from the blasphemy charge during the Sanhedrin trial to sedition. This shows me that the whole trial was a farce, they knew it was a farce, and so they had to pass it over the hands of Pilate.

Yeah, and they kinda backed Pilate into a corner with that "you're no friend of Caesar if you let this guy go" charge. Pretty clever, those bad guys.

[seanD]

Yeah, and they kinda backed Pilate into a corner with that "you're no friend of Caesar if you let this guy go" charge. Pretty clever, those bad guys.

And this historically aligns with what Philo (independent of the gospels) wrote about Pilate. Skeptics always scoff at the idea that Pilate, who was described as ruthless in other works, would be reluctant to crucify Christ. But the situation becomes clear when we realize that Pilate was in a catch-22. Prior to this, Philo illustrates how Tiberius chewed into Pilate about his wanton ruthlessness and ill treatment of the Jews. We also know that Pilate greatly honored Tiberius, so the fact he was troubled by the "you're no friend of Caesar" charge and why he washed his hands of the incident makes perfect sense from a historical perspective.

[bling]

no. first day was friday, second was Saturday, third was Sunday. Just like I said about my hospital procedure. It is the normal way of talking. He was in the ground 3 days: Friday, Saturday and Sunday. I had an IV put in me for three days: Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Although if you add up the actual hours, it was only 48 hours from the time I got my first IV to the third. Three days though.

They are talking about three days Prior and not just any three days. You cannot include Sunday in their count.

[Sparko]

They are talking about three days Prior and not just any three days. You cannot include Sunday in their count.

No. The day they were talking about was the THIRD day since it happened.

If they said "it happened three days prior to this day" then you might have a case. But saying it was the third day since it happened means exactly what it says. Friday was the first day, Saturday was the second day and Sunday (today) is the third day since "all this took place" (Jesus being crucified)

"And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place."

[bling]

No. The day they were talking about was the THIRD day since it happened.

If they said "it happened three days prior to this day" then you might have a case. But saying it was the third day since it happened means exactly what it says. Friday was the first day, Saturday was the second day and Sunday (today) is the third day since "all this took place" (Jesus being crucified)

"And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place."

[seanD]

Bing, I think you're confusing Jewish calendar days with modern calendar days. The Friday traditionalists can't think in terms of Jewish days, because essentially it was just one day and barely one night in Jewish days if it occurred Friday sundown.

[Sparko]

No on Friday "it IS the day it took place" on Saturday "it is the second day since it took place" and on Sunday "it is the third day since it took place"

[Joel]

In learning Latin, I learned that the Romans were inclusive of the starting day. They would say that Saturday is the "second day after" Friday, and Sunday is the "third day after" Friday. Wednesday would be said to be "three days before" Friday.

[bling]

No on Friday "it IS the day it took place" on Saturday "it is the second day since it took place" and on Sunday "it is the third day since it took place"

Again it is Sunday, so Sunday cannot be one of the days prior it is the day they are walking down the road.