davidylan:

On at least 3-4 separate facts now we've caught you in bogus lies that clearly demonstrate the fact that you havent bothered at all to "reconcile" the gospel accounts. You're simply parroting lines you read from someone else . . . you didnt even know that Mark and Luke also recorded the 3 hr darkness period Matthew spoke about . . . how would you be able to reconcile their accounts then?

If not that i detest letting you crooks get away with ur lies i'd have said responding to you is like wallowing in mud.

And I agree that I did not read the other gospel accounts.

davidylan:

There was no "diatribe", all these is simply a ruse to wriggle away . . . i would long have ignored you and the thread but i was determined this time to hold your feet to the coals.


what a shallow coward. Finally realised you didnt know as much as you were earlier bellowing about? Ran out of pages to google?


The problem is you are too desperate to find something, anything wrong with the accounts of the crucifiction to the detriment of going over all the details with a fine toothed comb. It is no longer enough to read up someone's rambling on the web and then come here to dress them up as your own.


Note the typical style of these fools (they that say there is no God) . . . they first bluster and bleat that their position is right, expose them to be nothing but noisy blowhards and they quickly shift to another argument.


No contradiction there at all if you bothered to study further instead of running around like a headless chicken . . . the clear difference is that while Mark wrote in Jewish time, John wrote in Roman time. Now according to the Jews . . . the 3rd hour was a 3 hr time frame between 6-9am (our time) . . . however Romans counted time like we did so when John says "about the 6th hour) he literarily means . . . the 6th hour from 12 am . . . i.e about 6 am. About the exact same time period Mark also says Christ was crucified.

To make things clearer . . . look at something brother John writes here - John 4:52 Then enquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. But there is NO 7th hour in Jewish time! There IS a 7th hour in Roman time! A clear indication John was counting his own time quite different from Mark's.


1. Actually it is also recorded in Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

and Luke 23:44 It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 while the sun’s light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.

Lying or shoddy claims are not a good attribute.

2. Why did you expect the claims to be recorded everywhere else on earth? Do we have claims of eclipses recorded in China also reported by ancient Ghanaians? What a silly question.

Why don't you check out your John's use of ROman timeframes againts the following analysis, taken from http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Crucifixion_Hour.htm:

---

John's account of the time of Jesus' crucifixion apparently contradicts Mark's account.  John thinks that Jesus wasn't crucified until after about 12:00 PM noon, while Mark thinks that Jesus was already crucified three hours earlier, at about 9:00 AM. Here is the evidence:

About the sixth hour (hektos hora)…they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!" (John 19:14-15 NIV)

And it was the third hour when they crucified Him. (Mark 15:25)

The translators of at least seven different Bible version all agree that John's hektos hora above means six hours past sunrise, or about noontime.  Here is how they translate hektos hora:

         1.  The hour was noon. (The Message)

         2.  About twelve o'clock noon.  (Amplified Bible)

         3.  It was now about noon of the day (New Living Translation)

         4.  It was about noon (Contemporary English Version)

         5.  It was about the middle of the day (Worldwide English)
         6.  It was about noon.  (New English Translation)



I won't display the translations from eleven other versions on Bible Gateway (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible) which translate hektos hora literally as "the sixth hour."

None of these translations dispute the "noon" translation offered by the seven translators above.1



The Sixth Hour Following Midnight?

Some apologists argue that the seven translators above who said that John's hektos hora meant "noon" are all mistaken.  They claim that John actually counted hours relative to midnight, which means that John's Jesus was sentenced at about 6:00 AM, or sunrise, which would have allowed Jesus to be on the cross at the 9:00 AM crucifixion time claimed by Mark.

But, does there exist any evidence that John reckoned time relative to midnight? I believe the answer to that question is no, and there is significant textual evidence that John measured time relative to sunrise according to the Jewish and Roman practice, just as the other gospel writers did.  There is evidence in at least two other passages that John counted hours relative to sunrise.

Jacob's Well

The evidence that John measured time relative to sunrise according to the Jewish system is found in the story in John 4:5-7 of a travel-weary Jesus arriving at "the sixth hour" at Jacob's well:

So he came to…Jacob's well, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well.  It was about the sixth hour (hektos hora).  (John 4:5-7 NIV)

What did John mean by "the sixth hour (hektos hora)"?  Did he mean the sixth hour after midnight, or 6:00 AM,  as some apologists believe, or did he mean the sixth hour following sunrise, or "noon"?  Well, if Jesus had arrived tired at the well following a long journey, he would have had to have been traveling at night. But, does not common sense point instead to a daylight journey ending at the well at noon? It would seem so, because the translators of at least six Bible versions report that John's hektos hora means "noon":

1.  It was then about the sixth hour (about noon). (Amplified Bible)
2.  Jesus, tired from the long walk, sat wearily beside the well about noontime. (New Living Testament)
3.  It was noon (Contemporary English Version)
4.  It was about midday.  (Worldwide English New Testament)
5.  It was about noon.  (New English Translation)
6.  It was about noon.  (New American Bible)

Not one translator of any of twelve other Bible versions translates hektos hora as "sunrise" in the Jacob's well passage.

The Jacob's well passage is not the only one which shows that John counted hours from sunrise.



        The Lamb of God


In the following passage, the disciples meet Jesus, and because it is already late in the afternoon they spent the rest of their day with him.



The next day, John was there again, and two of his followers were with him. When he saw Jesus walking by, he said, "Here is the Lamb of God!" John's two followers heard him, and they went with Jesus. When Jesus turned and saw them, he asked, "What do you want?"
They answered, "Rabbi, where do you live?" The Hebrew word "Rabbi" means "Teacher."
Jesus replied, "Come and see!" It was already about four o'clock in the afternoon when they went with him and saw where he lived. So they stayed on for the rest of the day.  
(John 1:35-39 Contemporary English Version)



Six other translators of six different Bible versions listed below support the view of the translator above, and translate dekatos hora as "four o'clock in the afternoon."  



1.  It was late afternoon when this happened. (The Message)
2.  It was then about the tenth hour (about four o'clock in the afternoon).  (Amplified Bible)
3.  It was about four o'clock in the afternoon (New Living Translation)
4.  It was four o'clock in the afternoon  (New American Bible)
5.  The time was about four o'clock in the afternoon.   (Worldwide English)
6.  Now it was about four o’clock in the afternoon.  (New English Translation)





None of the other eleven Bible versions available on the web contradict this translation.

Some apologists argue that "the tenth hour" in the Lamb of God passage is really 10:00 AM.  However, if the hour in the Lamb of God passage really were 10:00 AM, why would John bother to tell us that?  What is the value of this information?

On the other hand, if the tenth hour was 4:00 PM, and the hour is late, the reader can understand why the remainder of the disciples' day would be spent with Jesus:  It was too late to do anything else before darkness. Thus, mentioning the time makes no sense if it's 10:00 AM, but a great deal of sense if it's 4:00 PM.  The translators of seven different Bible versions agree that the tenth hour was 4:00 PM, and not one of eleven other translations dispute this.

Thus, we see substantial support from seven translators and common sense that John used the sunrise reference system of reckoning time in not only the Jacob's well passage, but also the Lamb of God passage.

Scholarly Support for A Noon Sentencing

Additional support2 for a noon sentencing comes also from New Testament Abstracts, 34 [1990] 88:

All the data from ancient Greek and Latin texts substantiate a single unified system of counting the hours of the day from sunrise to sunset.

And even more support from the conservative Christian scholar, F.F. Bruce, who wrote

As for the time of day, it was getting on toward noon.  Despite Westcott’s arguments, no evidence is forthcoming that at this time, whether among Romans, Greeks, or Jews, hours were ever reckoned otherwise than from sunrise” (p.364)…Romans divided the period of daylight (from sunrise to sunset) into twelve hours, and the period of darkness (from sunset to sunrise) into four watches (The Gospel of John, p.66)


Conclusive proof that the sunrise reference system was used not only by the Jews, but by Greeks and Romans alike is found in dozens of examples of time-reckoning found in the ancient writings.  Interested readers will find these examples in the article, Time Reckoning in Ancient Rome.

Conclusion

If John used the Jewish system of reckoning in these two other passages of his gospel, should we not agree with all those translators that John also used that system in the sentencing passage?  If the answer is yes, then we see that John said that Jesus had not even been sentenced until about noon, while Mark said that Jesus had already been crucified at nine in the morning.  At the very least, one of the two authors was off by about three hours in the time of the crucifixion, and this means the Bible is in error.3

Some Christians claim that the ancient Romans counted hours relative to midnight, but nothing could be further from the truth. There exists in the historical records of ancient Romans an abundance of evidence that they counted daylight hours relative to sunrise and nighttime hours relative to sunset, but there is no document from that time which shows that the Roman's hour was referenced to midnight.

Few things about ancient Roman history are clearer than that the Romans reckoned daylight hours relative to sunrise and nighttime hours relative to sunset.

A search of the internet will confirm this. One may find hundreds of references to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh hour of the day, or of the night, but nowhere is to be found a single reference to an hour beyond thirteen, and that's because at sunset (the twelfth hour) the counting started over for the nighttime hours.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Not in this case. Events of historical importance surely took place after 12:00 noon, so if counting hours relative to midnight actually was ever a Roman practice, as some Christians claim, then surely one would find, for example, a 1:00 PM event--"the thirteenth hour" in the literature, or a 5:00 PM event—"the seventeenth hour." But, no, there are no such hours, and that is clearly because the method of counting hours relative to midnight was never practiced. The total absence of the hours thirteen through twenty-four, and the huge number of examples in ancient writings of hours one through thirteen is almost conclusive proof that the Romans reckoned daylight hours relative to sunrise, and nighttime hours relative to sunset, and never reckoned any hours relative to midnight.

In the remainder of this article I will first provide an overview of the method of reckoning time in ancient Rome, and then provide several unequivocal examples of reckoning daylight time relative to sunrise, and nighttime hours relative to sunset.

Measuring Daylight Hours in Ancient Rome

The ancient Romans measured time relative to sunrise and sunset because these were unambiguous events and quite easily marked. Thus, if sunrise occurred at 6:00 AM, then the "first hour" of the day would be from 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM, and the twelfth hour of the day would be from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM, assuming that at this time of the year there were exactly twelve hours of daylight.2 Here is how Richard Welland, PhD, Latin editor of the Transparent Language series language translation computer software, explains it:

Beginning in the 3rd century B.C., Roman days were divided into two parts, the daytime and the nighttime, each with twelve hours. But since those two parts were defined by sunrise and sunset, which vary according to the season of the year, the individual hours of daylight were shorter than the hours of darkness in the winter, and longer in the summer. The hours were counted from sunrise: e.g., the "second hour" referred to the period between one and two hours after sunrise. http://www.transparent.com/newsletter/latin/2000/jul_00.htm



Confirmation that daylight hours were measured relative to sunrise is found on a number of different web pages. Here is what the Latin literature instructors on the KET distant learning site have to say about the Roman method of counting daylight hours:


The sundial enabled the Romans to divide the day into 12 equal parts, or hours. The hours became a way to mark time and meetings. Courts opened at about the third hour, for example, and lunch was at midday, the sixth hour. People would go home to eat a leisurely lunch and take a siesta, returning to work in a few hours. People in Rome today still leave work at 1:00 and return to work from 4:00 to 7:00. http://www.dl.ket.org/latin3/mores/techno/time/tellingtime.htm


Measuring Nighttime Hours

Hours of the night were measured relative to sunset, so if the sun set at 5:00 PM our time, then the Roman "first hour of the night" would begin at 5:00 PM. In summer, the sun might not set until 8:00 PM our time, so the first hour of that night in Roman time would have begun at 8:00 PM. The following Commentary on the Pro Roscio Amerino 15-38 confirms this:

Day and night each had 12 hours, which were longer or shorter according to the season. "After the first hour of the night" would correspond, in our terms, to after 9:00 PM or later in June, after 5:00 PM or earlier in December. http://www.uvm.edu/~bsaylor/latin/roscius15-38.html


Source: http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Ancient_Rome.htm

toneyb:

You wish, No diatribe eh?  

I dont have time to trade diatribes with you. I simply state my case as i see it.

toneyb:

You wish, I just didn't want to be moving in circles.

You dug your own hole . . . apparently if you thot i was wrong you'd have returned to continue bleating and waffling.

toneyb:

Where did Jesus first appear to 11 of his disciples was it in Jerusalem or in Galilee? The writers of the Gospel do not seem to know that one I want you to tell me. What really happened at the tomb? the writers again do not seem to know what happened there, did the women see an opened tomb or did the see the angel opening it? Where exactly did Jesus ascend into heaven? The gospel writers do not seem to know that too. How really happened when Judas betrayed Jesus?

One issue at a time . . . a problem with many of you airheads is that you juggle up to three or four "questions" at a time so that when it seems you're losing ground on one you can quickly flash the other to throw a smokescreen over your own incoherence.

toneyb:

What new arguments?

An example is the one i just replied to above.

toneyb:

Mark did not write in Jewish time because Mark according to scholars was written by a Roman because scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark contains mistakes concerning Galilean geography and customs, the writer wasn't a Jew(but a Roman) because he wouldn't have missed and made mistakes about basic georgraphy and customs in his narrative if he were truly a Jew. Mark also explains Jewish terminology which show that he's writing to a non-Jewish audience.  Mark is a Hellenistic gospel, written primarily for an audience of Greek-speaking residents of the Roman Empire. Jewish traditions are explained, clearly for the benefit of non-Jews (e.g., Mark 7:1–4; 14:12; 15:42). Mark will not write in Jewish time when his gospel clearly shows that he was writing primarily to a non Jewish audience. I noticed that you are quick to answer this one because you have gotten some apologetics up your sleeves. What really happened at the tomb of Jesus?

1. Enough of going to wikipedia to dredge up stuff and dressing them as your own . . . i can read thru that quite clearly that this is NOT your own opinion.

Your "statement" can be found here VERBATIM - http://www.answers.com/topic/gospel-of-mark
and here - http://www.experiencefestival.com/gospel_of_mark_-_audience
and here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

[size=15pt]Either acknowledge your sources or write your own stuff![/size]

2. "Scholars" are only certain about one non-jewish writer of the gospels and that is Luke who was Greek. All the hubris about Mark being Roman is hogwash culled from "scholars" who are determined to find fault and cast aspersions on the veracity of the gospels.

3. Irenaeus (AD 130-200), an early church disciple CLEARLY identifies Mark, a disciple of Simon Peter . . . as the writer of the gospel of Mark.

4. Mark may not necessarily have been Roman . . . we know that Paul for example was a Jew (by birth and parentage) BUT was also a Roman citizen who was fluent in both the jewish tongue and Roman language . . . the same could have been true of Mark. It doesnt make Mark or Paul exclusively Roman.

5. I notice too that you have simply copied from websites and dressed the stuff as your own. Stop stealing dude.
By the way why are you upset that i answered fast? You people dont seem to be interested in facts but tripping christians up . . . sorry  we have brains too.

6. Dont talk about the tomb just yet . . . we have not clarified so many issues surrounding the TIME Christ was crucified and you've raised the issue of the tomb and where Christ appeared to the 11? Why are you blowhards so unsteady?

toneyb:

OK I admit I didn't read the other gospel accounts when I wrote that.

Sorry, when you COPIED from others you mean? If indeed you formed that opinion on your own you would have gone through all the gospels to be sure before hyperventilating about missing stories that were already there.

toneyb:

Mid day darkness for 3 hours all over the land would have been written by some one else out side the bible, No?

That's stupid . . . did our ancient yoruba elders also record the European bubonic plague?

as usual huxley goes ferreting for apologetic websites . . . no opinion of his own . . . what a shame. I'm not interested in reading your links . . . i'm interested in hard cold facts presented in simple detail. I dont have time to read through a meaningless epistle you yourself have not even read.

davidylan:

as usual huxley goes ferreting for apologetic websites . . . no opinion of his own . . . what a shame. I'm not interested in reading your links . . . i'm interested in hard cold facts presented in simple detail. I dont have time to read through a meaningless epistle you yourself have not even read.

Ok, that was the preamble to help refute your claim that John used the Roman systems of counting time. You made that claim without providing any evidence whatsoever, that the Roman system was based on counting from 12am. This is what you said;

No contradiction there at all if you bothered to study further instead of running around like a headless chicken . . . the clear difference is that while Mark wrote in Jewish time, John wrote in Roman time. Now according to the Jews . . . the 3rd hour was a 3 hr time frame between 6-9am (our time) . . . however Romans counted time like we did so when John says "about the 6th hour) he literarily means . . . the 6th hour from 12 am . . . i.e about 6 am. About the exact same time period Mark also says Christ was crucified.

Where is the evidence for this system of counting time by the Romans. Further, analysis of some of John's other narrative indicates that daylight hours were counted from sunrise 6AM and nighttime from sunset 6PM. There are strong scholarly support for arguing that the Jews, Romans, Greek had the same system of time-reckoning:

Additional support for a noon sentencing comes also from New Testament Abstracts, 34 [1990] 88:

All the data from ancient Greek and Latin texts substantiate a single unified system of counting the hours of the day from sunrise to sunset.

And even more support from the conservative Christian scholar, F.F. Bruce, who wrote

As for the time of day, it was getting on toward noon. Despite Westcott’s arguments, no evidence is forthcoming that at this time, whether among Romans, Greeks, or Jews, hours were ever reckoned otherwise than from sunrise” (p.364)…Romans divided the period of daylight (from sunrise to sunset) into twelve hours, and the period of darkness (from sunset to sunrise) into four watches (The Gospel of John, p.66)


Now, deal with that by provide evidence, data, references, etc, supporting your assertion that the Romans reckoned time like we did.

huxley:

Ok, that was the preamble to help refute your claim that John used the Roman systems of counting time. You made that claim without providing any evidence whatsoever, that the Roman system was based on counting from 12am. This is what you said;

I actually did if you bothered to read my post. John is the only gospel writer to use the term "seventh hour" which does not exist in Jewish time (John 4:52) . . . but of course i dont expect such tiny details to get in the way of your desperate attempt to rubbish the bible.

huxley:

Where is the evidence for this system of counting time by the Romans. Further, analysis of some of John's other narrative indicates that daylight hours were counted from sunrise 6AM and nighttime from sunset 6PM. There are strong scholarly support for arguing that the Jews, Romans, Greek had the same system of time-reckoning:

Additional support for a noon sentencing comes also from New Testament Abstracts, 34 [1990] 88:

All the data from ancient Greek and Latin texts substantiate a single unified system of counting the hours of the day from sunrise to sunset.

And even more support from the conservative Christian scholar, F.F. Bruce, who wrote

As for the time of day, it was getting on toward noon. Despite Westcott’s arguments, no evidence is forthcoming that at this time, whether among Romans, Greeks, or Jews, hours were ever reckoned otherwise than from sunrise” (p.364)…Romans divided the period of daylight (from sunrise to sunset) into twelve hours, and the period of darkness (from sunset to sunrise) into four watches (The Gospel of John, p.66)

Plenty of bogus nonsense that comes with plagiarising other people's work without bothering to take the pains to read the gospels urself. All other 3 gospel writers place Christ's crucifiction at between 9-12 noon (his sentencing coming around 6-9am) which would be about the same time Pilate presented Christ to the people according to John's account.

If indeed as you and your "scholars" claim that John's 6th hr meant 12 noon and Christ died at 4pm . . . that would mean that the time between Pilate presenting Christ to the people and his crucifiction + getting a crown of thorns + the slow march to golgotha + the insscription on his fore head ALL TOOK about 1 hr or less since everyone else records a 3hr period of darkness before his death.

The difference is - while i discuss the issue from the standpoint of the bible, you prefer to ferret on apologetic websites . . .

huxley:

Now, deal with that by provide evidence, data, references, etc, supporting your assertion that the Romans reckoned time like we did.

where has this fool ever provided evidence, data and references to support his assertions? Does "evidence, data and references" involve copying websites wholesale without having a single opinion?

davidylan:

I dont have time to trade diatribes with you. I simply state my case as i see it.

You dug your own hole . . . apparently if you thot i was wrong you'd have returned to continue bleating and waffling.

You wish.

One issue at a time . . . a problem with many of you airheads is that you juggle up to three or four "questions" at a time so that when it seems you're losing ground on one you can quickly flash the other to throw a smokescreen over your own incoherence.

Is this the lame excuse?

1. Enough of going to wikipedia to dredge up stuff and dressing them as your own . . . i can read thru that quite clearly that this is NOT your own opinion.

2. "Scholars" are only certain about one non-jewish writer of the gospels and that is Luke who was Greek. All the hubris about Mark being Roman is hogwash culled from "scholars" who are determined to find fault and cast aspersions on the veracity of the gospels.

Why did Mark clearly explain Jewish traditions If he was Jewish and was writing to a Jewish audience?

3. Irenaeus (AD 130-200), an early church disciple CLEARLY identifies Mark, a disciple of Simon Peter . . . as the writer of the gospel of Mark.

Here is what Irenaeus wrote when he gave an account of the origin of each of the four Gospels that later became canon.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
- Irenaeus; Against Heresies, 175 CE

Here we have Irenaeus saying that the gospel of Matthew was written in the Hebrew dialect (Aramaic) but the problem is that the Gospel of Matthew like all the other gospels was originally written in no other language but Greek. Matthew Chapter 28 verse 15. "So they took the money and did as they were taught. And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." NO Jew could have written this: "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.". So why should we believe Irenaeus when he says that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, all scholars agree that the gospels we originally written in Greek all the earliest manuscripts were written in Greek. By the way did Irenaues tell you the nationality of the author of Mark? The Gospel also does not seem to have been written by a Jew, as it frequently referrers to "the Jews" as another group of people and in a demeaning way. Irenaeus does not seem to know what he was saying when he declared that Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic. Matthew was originally written in Greek all scholars agree with that.

4. Mark may not necessarily have been Roman . . . we know that Paul for example was a Jew (by birth and parentage) BUT was also a Roman citizen who was fluent in both the jewish tongue and Roman language . . . the same could have been true of Mark. It doesnt make Mark or Paul exclusively Roman.

No body knows the identity of Mark all we now about him we know from Papias, (from about 130 CE) and Irenaeus  from (about 175 CE). They were the ones that said he was a disciple of Peter.They did not say where he came from.

5. I notice too that you have simply copied from websites and dressed the stuff as your own. Stop stealing dude.
[b]By the way why are you upset that i answered fast? [/b]You people dont seem to be interested in facts but tripping christians up . . . sorry  we have brains too.

I don't even know what to make of this senseless statement? upset because you answer so fast?   it seems you apologetics are really getting into your head .

6. Dont talk about the tomb just yet . . . we have not clarified so many issues surrounding the TIME Christ was crucified and you've raised the issue of the tomb and where Christ appeared to the 11? Why are you blowhards so unsteady?

You are yet to tell me the identity of Mark your conjectures make absolute no sense to me,

Sorry, when you COPIED from others you mean? If indeed you formed that opinion on your own you would have gone through all the gospels to be sure before hyperventilating about missing stories that were already there.

I have given you a bone to chew hard on eh? careful not to bite your tongue.

That's stupid . . . did our ancient yoruba elders also record the European bubonic plague?

At least one Jewish writer would have written about it out side the bible no?

davidylan:

I actually did if you bothered to read my post. John is the only gospel writer to use the term "seventh hour" which does not exist in Jewish time (John 4:52) . . . but of course i dont expect such tiny details to get in the way of your desperate attempt to rubbish the bible.

Plenty of bogus nonsense that comes with plagiarising other people's work without bothering to take the pains to read the gospels urself. All other 3 gospel writers place Christ's crucifiction at between 9-12 noon (his sentencing coming around 6-9am) which would be about the same time Pilate presented Christ to the people according to John's account.

If indeed as you and your "scholars" claim that John's 6th hr meant 12 noon and Christ died at 4pm . . . that would mean that the time between Pilate presenting Christ to the people and his crucifiction + getting a crown of thorns + the slow march to golgotha + the insscription on his fore head ALL TOOK about 1 hr or less since everyone else records a 3hr period of darkness before his death.

The difference is - while i discuss the issue from the standpoint of the bible, you prefer to ferret on apologetic websites . . .

where has this fool ever provided evidence, data and references to support his assertions? Does "evidence, data and references" involve copying websites wholesale without having a single opinion?

All the insults apart, where is the evidence that Romans reckoned time as we do, which is you principal claim? Unlike you who is at liberty to make it up as you go along, I rely on evidence and data, however the evidence come, book, journal, website, etc, etc. It is the data/evidence and its relevance and integrity that matters, not the media.

Incidentally, I have a textbook by a Christian theologian (I think it is N T Wright or Ed Sanders) that discusses this, but I am unable to locate it now. That is why I used the web source for expediency.

It is not our business to make the gospel narrative consistent and plausible. That is for you guys to do. Whether certain events took 1 hour, 30 minutes, 30 hours, etc, is really not my business. So if harmonising the accounts leave little time for the rest of the events, that is for you to work out why it was thus written. Afterall, this is not the first time that the bible redactor have got their knickers is a srcibal twist, is it?

toneyb:

Is this the lame excuse?

An excuse? why? to avoid answering the drivel toneyb constantly serves us only to disappear when he is exposed for being an empty barrel? Nope, simply a plea for order . . . one question at a time.

toneyb:

Why did Mark clearly explain Jewish traditions If he was Jewish and was writing to a Jewish audience?

In the book of Romans, Paul writes vividly about Jewish traditions too . . . even though he was also addressing Jews . . . and Paul was also a jew.

toneyb:

Here is what Irenaeus wrote when he gave an account of the origin of each of the four Gospels that later became canon.

Here we have Irenaeus saying that the gospel of Matthew was written in the Hebrew dialect (Aramaic) but the problem is that the Gospel of Matthew like all the other gospels was originally written in no other language but Greek. Matthew Chapter 28 verse 15. "So they took the money and did as they were taught. And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." NO Jew could have written this: "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.". So why should we believe Irenaeus when he says that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew,

We dont have any reason to believe you either when you state the following that i highlighted in red. How do we know that NO JEW could have made such a statement? So if i said something like this . . . "419 is very common among Nigerians" . . . does it mean i am not a nigerian?   You dont seem to be able to think.

toneyb:

all scholars agree that the gospels we originally written in Greek.

They can only make educated guesses . . . how do we know that the original documents were not copied in Greek and other languages to be distributed to other churches that were definitely not jewish? Dont assume that because "scholars" have put something for you to copy in wikipedia it is true.

toneyb:

By the way did Irenaues tell you the nationality of the author of Mark?

no he didnt. We can only make informed assumptions.

toneyb:

The Gospel also does not seem to have been written by a Jew, as it frequently referrers to "the Jews" as another group of people and in a demeaning way.

What a load of hogwash . . . where are the passages in Mark that portray the jews in a demeaning way?

toneyb:

No body knows the identity of Mark all we now about him were know from Papias, (from about 130 CE) and Irenaeus  from (about 175 CE)

But you told us he couldnt have been jewish earlier on . . . where you sleeping then?

toneyb:

You are yet to tell me the identity of Mark your conjectures make absolute no sense to me,

I dont know neither do you.

toneyb:

I have given you a bone to chew hard on eh? careful not to bite your tongue.

Which "bone"? the type you posited on the other thread and then abandoned when you ran out of steam?

toneyb:

At least one Jewish writer would have written about it out side the bible no?

Even if they did you wouldnt believe it.

huxley:


All the insults apart, where is the evidence that Romans reckoned time as we do, which is you principal claim?  Unlike you who is at liberty to make it up as you go along,  I rely on evidence and data, however the evidence come, book, journal, website, etc, etc.  It is the data/evidence  and its relevance and integrity that matters, not the media.

Incidentally, I have a textbook by a Christian theologian (I think it is N T Wright or Ed Sanders) that discusses this, but I am unable to locate it now.  That is why I used the web source for expediency.

It is not our business to make the gospel narrative consistent and plausible. That is for you guys to do.  Whether certain events took 1 hour, 30 minutes, 30 hours, etc, is really not my business.  So if harmonising the accounts leave little time for the rest of the events, that is for you to work out why it was thus written.  Afterall, this is not the first time that the bible redactor have got their knickers is a srcibal twist, is it?

You simply copy from anti-bible websites . . . i have enough experience with you to know that you dont rely on evidence and data at all . . . only when it suits you. If you did you'd notice that there is VERY LITTLE evidence or raw data to support evolution. Even fellow atheists like Mazaje and toneyb do not believe in evolution . . . BECAUSE there is no evidence.

no it is not up to me to make the gospel narrative plausible . . . you have the liberty to ignore it if it doesnt make sense to you. Each time we asked you fraudulent hypocrite to provide evidence and data or make the evolution story plausible for us what did you do? Other than go plagiarise talkorigins again.

Dude . . . your sanctimonious . . . science wannabe attitude wont wash here ever again.

davidylan:

An excuse? why? to avoid answering the drivel toneyb constantly serves us only to disappear when he is exposed for being an empty barrel? Nope, simply a plea for order . . . one question at a time.

In the book of Romans, Paul writes vividly about Jewish traditions too . . . even though he was also addressing Jews . . . and Paul was also a jew.

You can answer them they are there for you. As for Paul explaining Jewish traditions the church that was formed at Rome composed of both Jews and Gentiles hence the explanations of Jewish traditions for the Gentile Christians that were part of the Church. Why would mark explain Jewish traditions when writing a story about a person?

We dont have any reason to believe you either when you state the following that i highlighted in red. How do we know that NO JEW could have made such a statement? So if i said something like this . . . "419 is very common among Nigerians" . . . does it mean i am not a nigerian?  You dont seem to be able to think.

You comparison makes no sense at all 419 is very common among Nigerians is a direct statement. When writing a story about Nigeria to Nigerian I don't think any author will make such a statement when reporting about an event that happened in Nigeria to Nigerians like "And this saying is commonly reported among the Nigerians until this day." An author writing about an event that happened in Nigeria to Nigerians  will write" And this saying commonly reported across the nation till this day". Irenaeus said that Matthew was written in Hebrew, but Matthew will not write to his fellow Jews using such a phrase as this "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." He will say something like "this saying is commonly reported amongst the people" or "this saying is commonly reported across the land till this day", He wont use the phrase "this saying was commonly reported amongst the Jews".

They can only make educated guesses . . . how do we know that the original documents were not copied in Greek and other languages to be distributed to other churches that were definitely not jewish? Dont assume that because "scholars" have put something for you to copy in wikipedia it is true.

Many of the scholars are Christians, We don't have the gospels written in any other language but Greek. Can you provide any evidence to show that the gospels were originally written in any other language? All the earliest Manuscripts were written in Greek even the lost gospels. The gnostic gospels that were found in 1947 which were dated to the time of the gospels were all written in Greek. Apart from wild guesses what evidence do you have to show that any of the gospels were copied from Aramaic to Greek? Do all the other Churches speak only Greek? Why don't we have any of the earliest manuscript of the gospel written in the roman language(Latin) or any other language if they truly were distributed to other churches? Is Greek the Only language that all the other early churches speak? The bottom line is that all scholars christains and non christian agree that the gospels were originally written in Greek.

no he didnt. We can only make informed assumptions.

Wild assumptions. I noticed that you alone seem to make informed assumption while every body's assumptions are to be discarded. You are only making wild assumptions.

What a load of hogwash . . . where are the passages in Mark that portray the jews in a demeaning way?

The gospels refer to "the Jews" in demeaning ways.

But you told us he couldnt have been jewish earlier on . . . where you sleeping then?

I also gave you reasons why he couldn't be Jewish

I dont know neither do you.

You said he is Jewish how do you know? No body has ever said that about him.

Even if they did you wouldnt believe it.

The never did and that is important to me, some one outside the bible would have written about all those extra ordinary events no?

@ Mazaje

Grin Grin Grin Grin you wish, i just find it ridiculous why people believe in a story that completely does not add up. . .

can u meaningfully list the parts of the "story" that do not add up. Please dont go to a website and then paste all the nonesense u find there.
read through it and come up with meaningful questions.

even the writers of the gospel do not seem to know exactly what happened to the jesus the wrote about their stories completely cancel each other out, pls tell me where jesus first appeared to the 11 of his disciples after he was allegedly raised from the dead because the writers of the gospel do not know where that really happened. . .keep believing their lies. . .

  u make me laugh with ur uninformed and illiterate postulations.

Anyway this was what someone had to say to an apologetic like u, for this baseless insinuation: I have no reason to add to it.

    Matthew, Mark, and John have Jesus saying the disciples are to rendezvous with him in Galilee, northern Israel, about three days journey away. In contradiction to this, Luke’s two books—The Gospel of Luke and The Book of Acts, have Jesus planning to rendezvous in Jerusalem….

    In the real world, people cannot be in two places at the same time, and to claim otherwise is to be caught up in a contradiction…. The Bible, like the cheating husband, has been caught in a contradiction, exposed as a liar, and therefore can’t be trusted to tell the truth (Smith, 1995).

Is the skeptic right? Is the Bible at fault in this instance? Does it place the same people in two different places “at the same time”? Where exactly did Jesus intend to meet with His disciples—in Galilee or Jerusalem?

The truth is, Jesus met with His disciples in both places, but He did so at different times. One of the reasons so many people allege that two or more Bible passages are contradictory is because they fail to recognize that mere differences do not necessitate a contradiction. For there to be a bona fide contradiction, not only must one be referring to the same person, place, or thing in the same sense, but the same time period must be under consideration. If a person looks at a single door in the back of a building and says, “That door is shut,” but also says, “That door is open,” has he contradicted himself? Not necessarily. The door may have been shut at one moment, but then opened the next by a strong gust of wind. Time and chronology are important factors to consider when dealing with alleged errors in the Bible.

Consider another illustration that more closely resembles the alleged problem posed by the skeptic. At the end of every year, the professional and managerial staff members at Apologetics Press travel to Birmingham, Alabama, for a two-day, end-of-the-year meeting. Suppose the Executive Director reminds us of this event three days beforehand, saying, “Don’t forget about our meeting in Birmingham beginning Thursday,” and then calls our homes on the morning of the meeting as another reminder, saying, “Don’t forget about our meeting today in Birmingham.” Would someone be justified in concluding that our Executive Director had lied about the meeting if, on that Thursday morning, all of the staff members at Apologetics Press (including the Executive Director) showed up at work in Montgomery, and carried out some of the same tasks performed on any other workday? Not at all. Actually, on the day the staff at Apologetics Press leaves for the end-of-the-year meeting, it is common for everyone to work until about 10:30 a.m., and then depart for the meeting in Birmingham. If someone asked whether we went into work in Montgomery on Thursday, one honestly could say, “Yes.” If someone else asked if we traveled to Birmingham on Thursday for a 2-day meeting, again, one could truthfully say, “Yes.” Both statements would be true. We met at both places on the same day, only at different times.

Similarly, Jesus met with His disciples both in Jerusalem and in Galilee, but at different times. On the day of His resurrection, He met with all of the apostles (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as both Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25). Since Jesus was on the Earth for only forty days following His resurrection (cf. Acts 1:3), sometime between this meeting with His apostles in Jerusalem and His ascension more than five weeks later, Jesus met with seven of His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (John 21:1-14), and later with all eleven of the apostles on a mountain in Galilee that Jesus earlier had appointed for them (Matthew 28:16). Sometime following these meetings in Galilee, Jesus and His disciples traveled back to Judea, where He ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives near Bethany (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12).

None of the accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances contradicts another. Rather, each writer supplemented what a different writer left out. Jesus may have appeared to the disciples a number of times during the forty days on Earth after His resurrection (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-7), while the New Testament writers mentioned only the more prominent instances in order to substantiate the fact of His resurrection.

Still, one may ask, “Why did Jesus command His apostles to ‘tarry in the city of Jerusalem’ on the day of His resurrection until they were ‘endued with power from on high’ (Luke 24:49), if He really wanted them to meet Him in Galilee?” Actually, it is an assumption to assert that Jesus made the above statement on the same day that He arose from the grave. One thing we must keep in mind as we study the Bible is that it normally is not as concerned about chronology as modern-day writings. Frequently (especially in the gospel accounts), writers went from one subject to the next without giving the actual time or the exact order in which something was done or taught (cf. Luke 4:1-3; Matthew 4:1-11). In Luke 24, the writer omitted the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Galilee (mentioned by both Matthew and John). However, notice that he never stated that Jesus remained only in Jerusalem from the day He rose from the grave until the day He ascended up into heaven.

According to Luke 24 verses 1,13,21,29, and 33, the events recorded in the first forty-three verses of that chapter all took place on the very day of Jesus’ resurrection (cf. 24:1,13,21,29,33). The last four verses of Luke 24 (vss. 50-53), however, took place (according to Luke) more than five weeks later (cf. Acts 1:1-12). But what about verses 44-49? When were these statements made? The truth is, no one can know for sure. Luke gives no indication (as he did in the preceding verses) that this particular section took place “on the first day of the week” (24:1), or on “the third day” since Jesus’ crucifixion (24:21). All we know is that verses 44-49 took place sometime before He ascended into heaven (vss. 50-51). Simply because Luke used the Greek conjunctive particle de [translated “and” (ASV), “then” (NKJV), and “now” (NASV)] to begin verse 44, does not necessarily denote a close connection between the two verses, but only a general continuation of the account and a brief statement of what Jesus said. Even though many twenty-first-century readers assume that the events recorded in Luke 24:44-49 occurred on the very day Jesus rose from the grave, the text actually is silent on the matter.

The burden of proof is on the Bible critic to verify his allegation. Although the skeptic quoted earlier compared the Bible to a “cheating husband” who “has been caught in a contradiction,” one must remember how equally deplorable it is to draw up charges of marital unfaithfulness when there is no proof of such. In reality, the Bible should be likened to a faithful husband who has been wrongfully accused of infidelity by prejudiced, overbearing skeptics whose case is based upon unproven assumptions. cuddled from: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/532

what is eternity? that only exist in your imagination. can't you see that even your fellow christians that claim to have been to the christian heaven and have written books about their "experiences" and what they "saw" clearly do not seem to agree on the nature of heaven and what each of them saw? their testimonies completely cancel each other out. . . .it only show that they have very good imaginations and fantasies. . . .

Can u provide just 2 contradicting accounts of heaven.

jesus is a fictional character. . . keep believing the imaginations and fairy tales of ancient jews, greeks and romans. . . . . .   

why are u not discussing harry porter, since he is obviously fictional.
but since ur conscience keeps indicting u, u cant live with the reality of facing judgement.
so what if u die n find out Jesus is Lord?  it will be 3 late 

toneyb:

You can answer them they are there for you. As for Paul explaining Jewish traditions the church that was formed at Rome composed of both Jews and Gentiles hence the explanations of Jewish traditions for the Gentile Christians that were part of the Church. Why would mark explain Jewish traditions when writing a story about a person?

your reasoning is absurd . . . why do you think Mark SHOULD NOT have explained jewish tradition if he was writing about a person for an audience that he was sure would also include non-jews? Why would it be absurd for him to also write about jewish tradition to jews especially if he it would be beneficial to accurately convey a meaning?

toneyb:

You comparison makes no sense at all 419 is very common among Nigerians is a direct statement. When writing a story about Nigeria to Nigerian I don't think any author will make such a statement when reporting about an event that happened in Nigeria to Nigerians like "And this saying is commonly reported among the Nigerians until this day." An author writing about an event that happened in Nigeria to Nigerians  will write" And this saying commonly reported across the nation till this day". Irenaeus said that Matthew was written in Hebrew, but Matthew will not write to his fellow Jews using such a phrase as this "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." He will say something like "this saying is commonly reported amongst the people" or "this saying is commonly reported across the land till this day", He wont use the phrase "this saying was commonly reported amongst the Jews".

Again this is absurd reasoning that defies rational belief. Look at the portion in bold . . . would the term "nation" automatically be present in EVERY language? What if we substituted "nation" for "Nigeria" . . . wont that be almost similar to what Matthew wrote?
Do you think it would be impossible for me to write something like - "and that is the reason we have so many policemen in Nigeria today?"

toneyb:

Many of the scholars are Christians, We don't have the gospels written in any other language but Greek. Can you provide any evidence to show that the gospels were originally written in any other language?

You didnt provide any evidence they were written in only greek besides just bleating "the scholars said"? Why do you trolls NEVER provide evidence to back up your brittle claims and YET scream for evidence from us?

Greek, like Roman was a popular language in those days . . . infact speakers of such languages were considered "learned". Such was the pedigree of the Roman and Greek culture . . . it would thus make sense that many of the gospel writers . . . some whom perhaps didnt speak just aramaic, would choose to write their gospels in greek.

It is also possible that their gospels were copied into the greek language to distribute to the greek church of that time and we only have the greek manuscripts to rely up on.

toneyb:

All the earliest Manuscripts were written in Greek even the lost gospels. The gnostic gospels that were found in 1947 which were dated to the time of the gospels were all written in Greek. Apart from wild guesses what evidence do you have to show that any of the gospels were copied from Aramaic to Greek? Do all the other Churches speak only Greek? Why don't we have any gospel written in the roman language if they truly were distributed to other churches?

hogwash . . . and its not surprising that you have struggled desperately to head off the debate from the time Christ was crucified into a debate on the language of the gospels. typical of these deluded goons when they lose their footing.

toneyb:

Wild assumptions. I noticed that you alone seem to make informed assumption while every body's assumptions are to be discarded. You are only making wild assumptions.

you cant blame me. You raised a question on the 3 hr period of darkness . . . made claims that NO OTHER gospel talked about it when Luke and Mark were very clear in recording it . . . you copy VERBATIM from wikipedia (a sign you really dont know what you're talking about) and you expect me to take your assumptions seriously? Dude pls.

toneyb:

The gospels refer to "the Jews" in demeaning ways.

You said Mark did (as evidence he wasnt a jew) . . . now i asked you to show me JUST ONE PLACE where he did so and now we get this handwaving?

toneyb:

I also gave you reasons why he couldn't be Jewish

they made no sense.

toneyb:

You said he is Jewish how do you know? No body has ever said that about him.

I never said he was jewish, i was only willing to make an assumption based on what Irenaeus said.

toneyb:

The never did and that is important to me, some one outside the bible would have written about all those extra ordinary events no?

It is only "important" to you because it is another wishy washy excuse to bash the bible. If 3 out of 4 independent gospel writers recorded the EXACT SAME EVENT DOWN TO THE TIME . . . then i wonder why you need outside proof except of course because you are hell-bent on not believing a word in the bible.

Josephus for example wrote about Christ's death . . . each time that is brought up as an external non-biblical proof that he was indeed crucified and existed . . . you goons rush to tell us that must have been a forgery.

When you raised the talmud talking about the period of Christ's crucifiction . . . i pointed out how it dove-tailed almost perfectly to the gospel descriptions, you again disbelieved it vehemently.

What is the evidence that if i showed you ANOTHER outside proof that those events indeed took place u'd believe? You wont!

Besides . . . i repeat again . . . do you take the bubonic plague as a falsehood simply because the Igbos did not record the event?

davidylan:

your reasoning is absurd . . . why do you think Mark SHOULD NOT have explained jewish tradition if he was writing about a person for an audience that he was sure would also include non-jews? Why would it be absurd for him to also write about jewish tradition to jews especially if he it would be beneficial to accurately convey a meaning?

I said Mark was writing to non Jews hence the explanations about Jewish tradition, he wouldn't explain Jewish traditions if he were writing to Jews.

Again this is absurd reasoning that defies rational belief. Look at the portion in bold . . . would the term "nation" automatically be present in EVERY language? What if we substituted "nation" for "Nigeria" . . . wont that be almost similar to what Matthew wrote?
Do you think it would be impossible for me to write something like - "and that is the reason we have so many policemen in Nigeria today?"

You are just going in circles if we substituted nation for Nigeria the statement will not make any sense. Again a Nigerian writing a story for Nigerians will not use the phrase " and this saying was common amongst the Nigerians till this day" .

You didnt provide any evidence they were written in only greek besides just bleating "the scholars said"? Why do you trolls NEVER provide evidence to back up your brittle claims and YET scream for evidence from us?

From wikipedia

The New Testament (Greek: Καινὴ Διαθήκη, Kainē Diathēkē) is the name given to the second major division of the Christian Bible, the first such division being the much longer Old Testament. The New Testament is sometimes called the Greek New Testament or Greek Scriptures, or the New Covenant.
According to Greek primacy, [b]the original texts were written in Koine Greek [/b]by various authors after c. AD 45. Though Jesus speaks Aramaic in it, the New Testament (including the Gospels) was written in Greek because that was the lingua franca of the eastern half of the Roman Empire.

Greek, like Roman was a popular language in those days . . . infact speakers of such languages were considered "learned". Such was the pedigree of the Roman and Greek culture . . . it would thus make sense that many of the gospel writers . . . some whom perhaps didnt speak just aramaic, would choose to write their gospels in greek.

Here is an answer from a Christian bible scholar.

The New Testament was originally written in Greek.  I am a Bible scholar who took courses of Classical and Ancient Greek during my undergraduate days at a university and then studied Koine Greek for three years at an accredited seminary.  I read most of the New Testament, in Koine Greek, at the seminary and continue to use the Greek New Testament for preaching, teaching and answering questions via the WWW.

The best source of the origninal language NT is the "Novum Testamentum Graece" by the Nestle family.  It was first published in 1989 and is still being periodicaly revised as more pieces of ancient Greek manuscripts are discovered.
This book contains the complete NT in Greek with notations at the bottom each page about any variation of all
Greek manuscripts already found.

By the way, these variations are usually just differences in spelling, grammer or missing/added words from one or more manuscripts.  They DO NOT change any doctrine found in the NT.

Greek WAS THE DOMINANT, UNIVERSAL language around the Mediterranean at the time of Jesus birth.  Most people who were in business or involved in teaching/learning spoke the common, Koine Greek.

There was a Latin translation FROM THE GREEK used for centuries by the Roman Catholic Church.  This was called the "Vulgate".  Perhaps this is what your friend is thinking of.

Today all literal translations of the NT are from the original Greek as even the old King James notes in its introductory pages. 

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Christianity-Church-History-2348/original-language-new-testament.htm

It is also possible that their gospels were copied into the greek language to distribute to the greek church of that time and we only have the greek manuscripts to rely up on.

It is possible eh? again wild assumptions all I want is for you to provided any source from any where that says that any part of the new testamet was written in Aramaic.

hogwash . . . and its not surprising that you have struggled desperately to head off the debate from the time Christ was crucified into a debate on the language of the gospels. typical of these deluded goons when they lose their footing.

You only provided meaningless apologetics, Mark did not say he wrote in Jewish time you did, John did not say he wrote in Roman time you copied that from other apologist.

you cant blame me. You raised a question on the 3 hr period of darkness . . . made claims that NO OTHER gospel talked about it when Luke and Mark were very clear in recording it . . . you copy VERBATIM from wikipedia (a sign you really dont know what you're talking about) and you expect me to take your assumptions seriously? Dude pls.

Same can be said about you you once said that according to Mark Jesus was crucified in the Night when he said no such thing(which show you clearly do not know what you were talking about) and you want me to take your assumptions seriously? Dude pls.

You said Mark did (as evidence he wasnt a jew) . . . now i asked you to show me JUST ONE PLACE where he did so and now we get this handwaving?

I was referring to Matthew.

they made no sense.

How will they make sense to you

I never said he was jewish, i was only willing to make an assumption based on what Irenaeus said.

Your assumptions have no basis, because there is no evidence to support them, Irenaues only talked about him being the disciple of Peter and nothing more.

It is only "important" to you because it is another wishy washy excuse to bash the bible. If 3 out of 4 independent gospel writers recorded the EXACT SAME EVENT DOWN TO THE TIME . . . then i wonder why you need outside proof except of course because you are hell-bent on not believing a word in the bible.

Josephus for example wrote about Christ's death . . . each time that is brought up as an external non-biblical proof that he was indeed crucified and existed . . . you goons rush to tell us that must have been a forgery.

When you raised the talmud talking about the period of Christ's crucifiction . . . i pointed out how it dove-tailed almost perfectly to the gospel descriptions, you again disbelieved it vehemently.

What is the evidence that if i showed you ANOTHER outside proof that those events indeed took place u'd believe? You wont!

Besides . . . i repeat again . . . do you take the bubonic plague as a falsehood simply because the Igbos did not record the event?

Can you show me the Testimonium flavianum in full? Go read the Talmud and let me know what you read. its clar you have never read it. Writers out side the bible would have written about the Jewish saints that resurrected and walked the streets no? who told you that the writers of the gospels were independent of each other? what about in places where the 3 of them wrote very different things of which there are many?

wow  long debate indeed. davidylan you senseless and shameless plagiarist.

Daviylan wrote: No contradiction there at all if you bothered to study further instead of running around like a headless chicken . . . the clear difference is that while Mark wrote in Jewish time, John wrote in Roman time. Now according to the Jews . . . the 3rd hour was a 3 hr time frame between 6-9am (our time) . . . however Romans counted time like we did so when John says "about the 6th hour) he literarily means . . . the 6th hour from 12 am . . . i.e about 6 am. About the exact same time period Mark also says Christ was crucified.

To make things clearer . . . look at something brother John writes here - John 4:52 Then enquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. But there is NO 7th hour in Jewish time! There IS a 7th hour in Roman time! A clear indication John was counting his own time quite different from Mark's.

The problem is that you plagiarised all the things you wrote too, all what you wrote you copied VERBATIM from this website

http://www.workmenforchrist.org/Bible/BC_Jesus_Nets.html

but you have the guts to tell toneyb that he copies from other places?  you are a complete goon. . . . . . you copy apologies from other christian apologist websites and ridicule others when the copy from other websites too?  Idiot

@ toneyb

why did you allow them to push you to a corner? thats not how you debate he said that mark wrote in jewish time while john wrote his account using the in roman time, the question is who told him? how did he know? he brought the excuse of john refering to 7th hour but how does he know that mark was not writing according to roman times too? the thrid hour exist in the roman times too. leave all these deluded goons i will be back to shut them up

noetic:

@ Mazaje
can u meaningfully list the parts of the "story" that do not add up. Please dont go to a website and then paste all the nonesense u find there.
read through it and come up with meaningful questions.

i already did.

u make me laugh with ur uninformed and illiterate postulations.

Anyway this was what someone had to say to an apologetic like u, for this baseless insinuation: I have no reason to add to it.

you copied and pasted the work of a drunkard that will rather tell a lie for jesus than accept what the writers of the gospel are saying eh? . The problem is that the guys shot himself in the leg so many time. . . . the apologist you copied and pasted from says jesus was on earth for 40 days butr luke 24:1-51 and mark 16:9-19 CLEARLY state that jesus ascended into heaven on the day of resurrection. while acts 1;2-3, 9 say forty days after resurrection. the apologist you cited says so many things that are not even in the bible. you did not even bother to read what he said. here is what your apologist wrote.

The last four verses of Luke 24 (vss. 50-53), however, took place (according to Luke) more than five weeks later

the problem is that there is no such thing written in the gospel of luke, no where did luke say that the events he was talking about from luke 24 vs 1:53 took place more thann five weeks later, it is very clear that everything took place on a single day. . . .

Luk 24: 49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem [fn] until you are endued with power from on high."

Luk 24:50 And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them.

Luk 24:51 Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that He was parted from them and carried up into heaven.

Luk 24:52 And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,

Luk 24:53 and were continually in the temple praising and [fn] blessing God. Amen

where does it say that the events took place after 5 weeks in luke verse 50-53 according to your writers? no where is anything written from verse 1:53 that it took place after 5 weeks where did you lying apologist get that from?

here is what he wrote again.

Similarly, Jesus met with His disciples both in Jerusalem and in Galilee, but at different times. On the day of His resurrection, He met with all of the apostles (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as both Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25).

now let us see what luke has to say. . . .

Luk 24:33 So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together,
Luk 24:34 saying, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"
Luk 24:35 And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread.
Luk 24:36 Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, "Peace to you."
Luk 24:37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit.
Luk 24:38 And He said to them, "Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts?
Luk 24:39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."
Luk 24:40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. [fn]
Luk 24:41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, "Have you any food here?"
Luk 24:42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. [fn]
Luk 24:43 And He took [it] and ate in their presence.

where in the passage does luke say that he appeared to his disciples without thomas as your apologist wrote? luke says he appeared to the 11. your writer seems to be more confused than you. . . . you did not even bother to read what he wrote before posting it. . . .

Can u provide just 2 contradicting accounts of heaven.

read joyce mayers book about how she visited heaven and what she saw and bishop lance powel, or the other nigerian woman, the one that is responsible for the child witch saga in calabar and see how their account of events cancel each other out. they all do not seem to agree with the basic nature of heaven, compare what they have written about heaven to what is written in relevations and you will be laughing you head off. . . . . . .

why are u not discussing harry porter, since he is obviously fictional.
but since ur conscience keeps indicting u, u cant live with the reality of facing judgement.
so what if u die n find out Jesus is Lord? it will be 3 late

eternal judgement exist only in you deluded imaginations. . . . i have never seen you discussing snow white but i have seen you discuss islam, you conscience keeps indicting you because you know that islam is the true religion eh?

[b]davidylan says:[/b]I just read thru Mazaje's lengthy piece of crap . . . mazaje do me a favour . . . you have 3 questions . . . break them down one by one (one post for each question) and i will respond to them ASAP.

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' " Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
– Mark 16:1-8

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you. So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

– Matthew 28:1-10

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.' " Then they remembered his words.

– Luke 24:1-8

[b]Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!" So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?" "They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him." At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.[/b]– John 20:1

what really happened at the tomb? why is john's account so way off the mark from that of the others?

bla bla bla bla . . . what else do you expect from blowhards?

davidylan:

bla bla bla bla . . . what else do you expect from blowhards?

i thought you promised to answer some of my questions? do you now have your tail between your legs because i exposed your own plagiarism? you copied some one else's apologetics word for word and claimed it to be your own stupid hypocrite. . . . .

davidylan:


No contradiction there at all if you bothered to study further instead of running around like a headless chicken . . . the clear difference is that while Mark wrote in Jewish time, John wrote in Roman time. Now according to the Jews . . . the 3rd hour was a 3 hr time frame between 6-9am (our time) . . . however Romans counted time like we did so when John says "about the 6th hour) he literarily means . . . the 6th hour from 12 am . . . i.e about 6 am. About the exact same time period Mark also says Christ was crucified.

the problem is that you and the apologist whose work you shamelessly plagiarized and tried to take credit for are liars.


From the Daily Life in Ancient Rome by Jerome Carcopino pp.167-8.

We see that the the Romans divided each day into 24 hours, and they assigned 12 to the daytime and 12 to the night. [b]These did not run from midnight to midnight as our modern method of timekeeping does, but from sunrise to sunrise. [/b]This effectively means that the length of the Roman hour varied according to the season, so that during the summer solstice around June 21st when the period of daylight is considerably longer than the night, the twelve hours assigned to the daytime would each have to be 1 hour and 16 minutes long, while conversely, during the short days of the winter solstice around December 21st, each daylight hour would be only 44 minutes long.

There were only two days during the entire year when the Roman day contained hours of exactly 60 minutes. These dates occurred during the equinoxes, when the length of the day is exactly equal to that of the night; the vernal equinox occurred every year around March 21st, and the autumnal equinox about September 21st.

This fluid method of timekeeping was perfectly natural to your average Roman, who was not governed by the same rigid schedules prevalent in our modern technological society and did not carry either a wristwatch or a FiloFax.

Table of Daylight Hours at the Solstices
Winter Solstice
Hora from to
I. prima 7:33 8:17 a.m.
II. secunda 8:17 9:02 a.m.
III. tertia 9:02 9:46 a.m.
IV. quarta 9:46 10:31 a.m.
V. quinta 10:31 11:15 a.m.
VI. sexta 11:15 12:00 noon (6th hour of the day)
VII. septima 12:00 12:44 p.m.
VIII. octava 12:44 1:29 p.m.
IX. nona 1:29 2:13 p.m.
X. decima 2:13 2:58 p.m.
XI. undecima 2:58 3:42 p.m.
XII. duodecima 3:42 4:27 p.m.

Summer Solstice
Hora from to
I. prima 4:27 5:42 a.m.
II. secunda 5:42 6:58 a.m.
III. tertia 6:58 8:13 a.m.
IV. quarta 8:13 9:29 a.m.
V. quinta 9:29 10:44 a.m.
VI. sexta 10:44 12:00 noon (6th hour of the day)
VII. septima 12:00 1:15 p.m.
VIII. octava 1:15 2:31 p.m.
IX. nona 2:31 3:46 p.m.
X. decima 3:46 5:02 p.m.
XI. undecima 5:02 6:17 p.m.
XII. duodecima 6:17 7:33 p.m.

Table adapted from Daily Life in Ancient Rome by Jerome Carcopino pp.167-8.

http://www.roman-britain.org/calendar.htm

so where did you get this lie that you just wrote.

quote from daviylan: Now according to the Jews . . . the 3rd hour was a 3 hr time frame between 6-9am (our time) . . . however Romans counted time like we did so when John says "about the 6th hour) he literarily means . . . the 6th hour from 12 am . . . i.e about 6 am. About the exact same time period Mark also says Christ was crucified.

where did you get that lie from? idiot, keep on lying for jesus. . . . . .the 3rd hour from the jewish time runs from 6-9am while the 6th hour from the roman time depending on wether it is summer or winter runs from about 11am-12noon. john says jesus was crucified after the 6th hour. so where did you get your own lies from? idiot. . . . . .

To make things clearer . . . look at something brother John writes here - John 4:52 Then enquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. But there is NO 7th hour in Jewish time! There IS a 7th hour in Roman time! A clear indication John was counting his own time quite different from Mark's.

to keep you in your delusion how do you know that mark was not talking about the roman time too? is there no 3rd hour in the roman time too? stupid goon. . . . .by the way what really happened at the tomb because the gospel writers seem to be more confused than you are? seems you have lost your steam and have ur tail between your legs. . . . .

mazaje:

i already did.

blah blah blah blah 

you copied and pasted the work of a drunkard that will rather tell a lie for jesus than accept what the writers of the gospel are saying eh?  . The problem is that the guys shot himself in the leg so many time. . . . the apologist you copied and pasted from says jesus was on earth for 40 days butr luke 24:1-51 and  mark 16:9-19  CLEARLY state that jesus ascended into heaven on the day of resurrection. while acts 1;2-3, 9 say forty days after resurrection. the apologist you cited says so many things that are not even in the bible. you did not even bother to read what he said. here is what your apologist wrote.


the problem is that there is no such thing written in the gospel of luke, no where did luke say that the events he was talking about from luke 24 vs 1:53 took place more thann five weeks later, it is very clear that everything took place on a single day. . . .

No where did he also state otherwise. ur problem is that u  read the bible with a closed mind. why bother with its contents at all?
deluded goon 

read joyce mayers book about how she visited heaven and what she saw and bishop lance powel, or the other nigerian woman, the one that is responsible for the child witch saga in calabar and see how their account of events cancel each other out. they all do not seem to agree with the basic nature of heaven, compare what they have written about heaven to what is written in relevations and you will be laughing you head off. . . . . . . 

what are the contradictions in their stories?

Why have u been reading about heaven?   start reading about hell fire too 

eternal judgement exist only in you deluded imaginations. . . .

that explains why u have been reading about heaven. deluded ignoramus.

what a stupid blowhard . . .

1. i didnt copy or plagiarize from anywhere so i wonder where you got the idea from.

2. Here is what i said (emphasis mine) - however Romans counted time like we did so when John says "about the 6th hour) he literarily means . . . the 6th hour from 12 am . . . i.e about 6 am.

Here is what you copied (as usual, since you have no mind of your own and cant analyse your own alleged "argument" - We see that the the Romans divided each day into 24 hours, and they assigned 12 to the daytime  and 12 to the night. These did not run from midnight to midnight as our modern method of timekeeping does, but from sunrise to sunrise.

Essentially the same way we also divide each day into 24 hrs . . . essentially the way we also assign roughly 12hrs to daylight and 12 hrs to the night . . .

So where was the error? Besides i pointed out why the Roman 6th hour could not have been at 12 noon if ALL GOSPELS agree that Christ died around 3-5pm that day. If Pilate was just presenting Christ at 12 noon . . . they would have had barely over 1 hr to take him to golgotha, prep him for crucifiction and perform the crucifiction proper, break their bones, prepare a crown of thorns, write an inscription on his cross . . . if we factor in the 3 hr period of darkness recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Besides if we use Jewish time used by Matthew, Luke and others . . . Christ was hanging on the cross for almost 6hrs before he died.

When you start actually debating this based on your own intellect then we can really thrash the issue . . . at this moment you're simply copying and pasting the arguments of others . . . it makes you really sound thick and contrived.

mazaje:

where did you get that lie from? idiot, keep on lying for jesus. . . . . .the 3rd hour from the jewish time runs from 6-9am while the 6th hour from the roman time depending on wether it is summer or winter runs from about 11am-12noon. john says jesus was crucified after the 6th hour. so where did you get your own lies from? idiot. . . . . .

I already said that 1000 times before . . . you've not been reading posts before ejaculating like a fool. You dont know anything about Roman time, you've simply copied the unverified work of another and built an argument/sorry copied an argument on it.

mazaje:

to keep you in your delusion how do you know that mark was not talking about the roman time too? is there no 3rd hour in the roman time too? stupid goon. . . . .by the way what really happened at the tomb because the gospel writers seem to be more confused than you are? seems you have lost your steam and have ur tail between your legs. . . . .

I asked you and your co-traveller (toneyb) why John makes mention of a 7th hour which doesnt exist in Jewish time keeping . . . none of you bothered to come up with a response. Perhaps those you copy from havent addressed that issue yet.

davidylan:

what a stupid blowhard . . .

1. i didnt copy or plagiarize from anywhere so i wonder where you got the idea from.

stupid liar any body that goes through this website will see that you copied the apologist work word for word. . . .

http://www.workmenforchrist.org/Bible/BC_Jesus_Nets.html

2. Here is what i said (emphasis mine) - however Romans counted time like we did so when John says "about the 6th hour) he literarily means . . . the 6th hour from 12 am . . . i.e about 6 am.

Here is what you copied (as usual, since you have no mind of your own and cant analyse your own alleged "argument" - We see that the the Romans divided each day into 24 hours, and they assigned 12 to the daytime and 12 to the night. These did not run from midnight to midnight as our modern method of timekeeping does, but from sunrise to sunrise.

and i also showed you how the romans broke down their time according to each hour and that the 6th hour runs from around 11am - 12 noon based on the roman time be it winter or summer(by the way that is not even a religious website its a website that talk about ancient roman history). . . . .i notice that you sometimes copy from wikipedia no? are the works you copy and paste from wikipedia yours? idiot. . . . .

Essentially the same way we also divide each day into 24 hrs . . . essentially the way we also assign roughly 12hrs to daylight and 12 hrs to the night . . .

So where was the error? Besides i pointed out why the Roman 6th hour could not have been at 12 noon if ALL GOSPELS agree that Christ died around 3-5pm that day. If Pilate was just presenting Christ at 12 noon . . . they would have had barely over 1 hr to take him to golgotha, prep him for crucifiction and perform the crucifiction proper, break their bones, prepare a crown of thorns, write an inscription on his cross . . . if we factor in the 3 hr period of darkness recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke.

and i showed you from the table that the roman 6th hour was around 11am-12noon. the problem is that the gospel writers do not even know how to write a coherent story. . . .they seem all to confused and they clearly are not writing based on a coherent narrative but mixed imaginations. . . .

Besides if we use Jewish time used by Matthew, Luke and others . . . Christ was hanging on the cross for almost 6hrs before he died.

When you start actually debating this based on your own intellect then we can really thrash the issue . . . at this moment you're simply copying and pasting the arguments of others . . . it makes you really sound thick and contrived.

look who is talking after copying and pasting the work of another person you want to turn around and accuse me? . . . . .i am still waiting for you to tell me what really happened at the tomb. . . .

davidylan:

I already said that 1000 times before . . . you've not been reading posts before ejaculating like a fool. You dont know anything about Roman time, you've simply copied the unverified work of another and built an argument/sorry copied an argument on it.

must you always show that you are a cretin? what do you know about roman time apart from the work that you shamelessly plagiarized?  is the work that you plagiarized verified? idoit. . . .

I asked you and your co-traveller (toneyb) why John makes mention of a 7th hour which doesnt exist in Jewish time keeping . . . none of you bothered to come up with a response. Perhaps those you copy from havent addressed that issue yet.

and what makes you think mark wasn't using the roman time too? is there no 3rd hour in the roman time?