Jesus did not die on a Friday. He died on Wednesday: three days and 3 nights!! There's no way to get 3 full days and 3 full Jewish sabbatical nights if he died on Friday. That would only give you one day and a half. He rose before dawn Sunday morning while it was still dark.
Been told always around fall which is why Halloween shoulda been co opted than Easter/Ishter fertlilty pagan festival. Instead use good friday & all souls day the celebrating supposedly dying & rising. Sorry to blow people's mind but there's no proof burial of Jesus(real person wise) but region people have known all the fantasy talk of him risen and becoming a spirit was due to his followers not understanding high priests & people of money & women close took him from the cross ALIVE but looking dead after feeding him drugs and the 3days in a tombs he was being wrapped & nursed, looked like hell why no one recognized him and he was taken east into Jewish trade area in Kashmir. Google JESUS DIED IN KASHMIR, locals have a tomb and records of a guy coming from Israel running from the Romans had been crucfied but his name was changed. The holy grail myth comes from connected story rumors Mary Magdalene was pregnant with his child went to west Jewish settlements to hide away from anyone trying to track Jesus escaping .
@@laique8797 Actually, I am not ethnically Jewish. I converted to Judaism. And I have nothing against Jesus or Christians. I simply have a different viewpoint, which I share.
@@laique8797 What are u talking about he literally said in one of his videos that Moses probably wasn't a historical figure and the Exodus was a myth, pretty foundational Jewish beliefs.
Matt, when you posted your "When was Jesus born?" video last Christmas, I left a comment wishing for a "When did Jesus die?" sequel. And now you give me this on my birthday! Thanks a lot! Dare I make another wish, this time for next year’s Easter? I would love to see you tackle the complicated topic of Julian and Gregorian computus (calculation of Easter date). It’s the kind of dry mathematical subject which could gain a lot from visual explanations, and I’m sure you could be up to the task. Take your time, you have one whole year to put it together...
I once had the good fortune to witness an elderly group gather to collect their memories of the first founders of the American Youth Foundation. The original founders had all died decades ago, and I found the written history building process fascinating and the results very much like what we see in the Old and New Testaments: including common threads as well as minor inconsistencies in detail and timelines.
Very cool :) That's actually a "proof" used by scholars and historians to assert the authentic historical accuracy of the gospels - namely, that if Jesus never lived, died, etc. and the Christian story was bogus, the authors would have banned together to "get their facts straight" to sell a story with all the same details. The fact that they, in fact, differ in some minor details speaks to the authenticity of the historical individuality of each author's account. Meaning, that a giant conspiracy to sell a false narrative isn't likely at all. Much like your story above :)
Matt, a quick note about your observation that releasing Barabbas after the seder would not make sense from the Jewish perspective - Pontius Pilate as a governor had a reputation for offending the religious and cultural sensitivities of Jews numerous times throughout his tenure. If the Romans were to engage in a custom of releasing a prisoner during the Passover, it could plausibly be a half-hearted political concession that would not necessarily align with the actual needs of a Jewish person or make sense from a Jewish perspective, which the Romans often overlooked or misunderstood.
my view is that the story was "made up"(not to be offensive or anything) or inspired by the jewish festival of yom kippur, and is instead a story that reflects christian theology rather than an actual event in history
It really could go either way. Pilot was weird and did some weird stuff, and the detail is included in every Gospel. But at the same time it is a bit of a perfect narrative piece. In the end you really can choose whatever way you want to see it, as neither answer is all that egregious
There were 2 sabbaths that week the Passover feast day (all feast days are referred to as sabbaths) and so 2 preparation days. The only way that you can fit 3 days and 3 nights between His death and resurrection is if He died on Wednesday and rose on Saturday evening. Remember that when the women came to the tomb on the first day of the week (while it was still dark) He had already gone.
Wednesday arguably gives you four days (Wed + Thurs + Fri + Sat) and four nights, but the possibility of two sabbaths in one week is a real one. I lean more towards a Thursday crucifixion myself.
You are counting the days correctly. Jesus died Wednesday say 5pm. Thursday @ 5 pm is 1 day. Friday @ 5pm is 2 days. Saturday @ 5pm is the third day. Thursday was the Unleavened bread sabbath on the 15th. The women's purchase spices on Friday and rested on the Commandment sabbath and Jesus rose that day @ 5pm.
I confess, when you got to the section of "assuming John's timeline is accurate, these would be the possible dates," I hoped you would continue with "assuming the timeline of the synoptics is accurate instead, then..." Even if the conclusion was "no time between 30-33 CE fits."
@@hgv85 Basicaly, the timeline of the synoptics seems impossible from the jewish/high priest point of you : arrest a man, judge him, have him condemned, all during passover seems impossible. On the other hand, John timing of arrestation one day before Seder accounts for things being rushed : they want it all finished before Seder
@@lecrocodile1105 except it was the Roman's doing the execution, so if they didn't really care about pesach they might have been willing to do it at that time, which also accounts for why they are doing it in the first place because it's doubly politically convenient for the Sanhedrin to not be the executioners then.
@@lecrocodile1105 right, by calling it weird I just meant that it’s one of those peculiar places where John is seen to be more historically accurate than the Synoptics. For my part, I disagree with the common reading of John’s timeline.
@@michaelanderson7715 Jesus Christ was always hated, no surprise there. But the Faith He established will still be here long, long after your deserved passing away.
@@kafon6368 "Jesus Christ was always hated, no surprise there. But the Faith He established will still be here long, long after your deserved passing away." - ah yes, the retreat to snark in absence of substance
If we consider the year 14CE as the 1st year of reign of Emperor Tiberius that would place the year 28CE as its 15th. If Jesus started his preaching somewhere during the year 28CE we have also to rember that according to the Gospel of John are mentioned three separate Pesach, being obviously the 3rd the one where his death took place. So the date of 30CE for his death it seems the more plausible. Thank you for your great and unbiased work!
In those times some people counted years "inclusively", meaning you'd count both the start AND end year. That could be the reason behind the discrepancy in the video
Also, the Bible foretells that “The Son of Man” or Jesus will spend 3 days in the tomb just as Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of the fish. If that were to be taken into account along with the Jewish sabbath, it means that Jesus has to observe the sabbath and “rest” on the Saturday, making his ressureccion on a Saturday evening (or Sunday) since the days are measured from evening to evening; thus, making his death on a Thursday evening not Friday evening.
You may also consider for calculations, the verses that mentions Yeshua's age, the period of his ministry, etc to try to get closer. For this, it will be necessary to use the chart of his birth too. Great video and well explained. Thanks.
Likewise, if there is a “ceiling” to how old Jesus could have been at the time he died, that could help us narrow the range of possible years for his birth.
There is no evidence that is actually indicative of how long his ministry lasted. The video made it a point to mention this, so I am not sure why commenters are ignoring this. Scholars also agree that we cannot know Jesus' age, as this would require knowing his exact birthdate, which we do not.
Christ's ministry began in 27AD at 30 years of age. Prophetic terminology states a "day" often symbolizes a year in fulfillment. Daniel's prophecy states there are 69 weeks leading up to Messiah (Daniel 9:25), each consisting of 7 days, in turn = 483 prophetic years. The decree of Artaxerxes is the starting point, of which scholars agree with and historians place it at 457BC and 483 years later leads us to 27AD (no year zero). Subtracting 30 years from 27AD leads us to 4BC of Christ's Birth in the Fall; you can see this in the Tomorrow's World booklet "Is Christmas Christian?" with more details. Jesus died in the middle of the week (Dan.9:27) and that is Wednesday. Sequence of Bible events in order according to the Bible. Now if one knew when Passover started, it starts in the evening (Lev.23:5), and days begin in the evening and end at evening according to Lev.23:32, Gen.1:5,8, etc. According to Lev.23, Passover and Unleavened Bread are 2 separate feasts; see Mark 14:1. 👉Now we know that the 1st evening of Wednesday (which is our Tuesday evening) was Passover according to Matt.26:17-30, Mark 14:12-26, Luke 22:7-21; notice the word "evening" in Matt.26:20. Let's go further in this evening of where the Bible says "night" in Mark 14:27,30,32-50. Now in the morning of Passover Wednesday (Matt.27:1,11,15,31,Mark 15:1,6,20, Luke 23:1,17,24,32, John 18:39,19:14-20), the chief priests and elders bound Jesus for crucifixion. Now at 3PM, Jesus was crucified (Matt.27:46 =9th hour from 6am is 3PM)(Mark 15:25 = 3rd hour from 12pm is 3pm.) Then it is noted in John 19:31 that the bodies should NOT remain on the cross because the next day was a "high Sabbath day" known as Feast of Unleavened Bread in Lev.23:6. So in the evening on Passover (Matt.27:57-61, Mark 15:42-47, Luke 23:50-55, John 19:38-42),Joseph of Arimathea wrapped Christ's body and laid it in the tomb. 👉 Jesus was put in grave in the evening before the next day began as noted from Luke 23:54. Thursday 15 (Unleavened Bread) 👉1st evening = Jesus in grave. 👉1st day = Jesus in grave. Sabbath was beginning in Luke 23:54-55. Matt.27:62-66 Friday 16 👉2nd evening = Jesus in grave 👉2nd day = Jesus in grave. Mark 16:1 = bought spices after the sabbath and prepared them before the weekly Sabbath according to Luke 23:56. Saturday 17 (weekly Sabbath) 👉3rd night = Jesus in grave 👉3rd day = Jesus in grave. Jesus rose on Saturday before the Sabbath ended, for Jesus couldn't stay another night, He had to precisely raise same time as He was put in the grave on Wednesday evening. Yes Jesus proclaimed His day because Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath in Mark 2:28. Explanation: Jesus would "rise on the 3rd day"(Luke 24:7, Mark 9:31), Jesus would "rise in 3 days" and NOT after (John 2:19), and Jesus would "rise after 3 days" and NOT before (Matt.27:63, Mark 8:31), making Matthew 12:40 correct: Jesus in the grave for 3 full nights (12 hrs in night X 3 nights = 36hrs) and 3 full days (12 hrs in day X 3 days = 36 hrs) = 72hrs. Matthew 12:40 (Easy to Read Version - ERV) = "...In the same way, the Son of Man will be in the grave three days and three nights." Yes people can try to get around this, to play the card that Jesus rose sometime on Sunday, but the Bible is frank about this that certain people would say the resurrection is past already to destroy the faith of some (2Tim.2:18).
Hi Matt, Good video, Matt! This is a subject which has fascinated me for quite some time. We both use similar methodologies, but I have come to a different conclusion. Here are some points I used in my estimation: Nissan 10 was the day when the Pesach lamb was chosen and brought into the house. Theologically, this corresponds to Palm Sunday . The lamb had to be kept in the house with the family until Nissan 14 when it was to be killed. If Jesus was "the Lamb of God", then he had to be killed on Pesach, Nissan 14. The Passover meal was held after sundown on what we would call the 13th, but it was actually Nissan 14 by Jewish reckoning. After the Seder, Jesus was arrested, interrogated, and abused throughout the night. At dawn, the chief priests, elders, and lawyers tried him (illegally), and then sent him to Pilate. Jesus was subsequently executed later that day. Thus, Jesus was killed on Nissan 14, just as all passover lambs had been killed, before him. The Feast of Unleavened Bread actually started on Passover (Nissan 14) (Exodus 12:18), but was officially observed the next day (on Nissan 15) , which was a special sabbath (Leviticus 23:6). Therefore, Jesus' execution on the first day of Unleavened Bread (Nissan 14), was not a problem for the Jewish officials, but because the 2nd day of Unleavened Bread (Nissan 15) was a special sabbath, they were anxious to have Jesus' body taken down and entombed before sundown (which started Nissan 15). Thus Jesus was executed and buried on Passover day (Nissan 14), before sundown. In Matthew 12:40, Jesus prophesied about himself, saying that "...as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the son of man (Jesus) will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Many try to find ways around that inconvenient statement, but if it is taken literally, at face value, then three days and three nights are hard numbers. I, therefore, count it this way: Nissan 14 (day 1), Nissan 15 (night 1 and day 2), Nissan 16 (night 2 and day 3), and Nissan 17 (night 3). When the women got to the tomb "very early" on the morning of Nissan 17, they found that Jesus had already risen, after having spent the prophesied 3 days and three nights in the tomb. Luke 24:1 tells us that the women arrived at the tomb very early on "the first day of the week" (some Bible versions say "Sunday morning"), so to determine what day of the week Jesus was killed, one only needs to count backwards from Sunday. Assuming that Nissan 17 was a Sunday, and that Jesus had spent three day and three nights in the grave, the day of his execution (Nissan 14) would have had to be a Thursday. In any case, IF the women found the tomb empty on Sunday morning, Jesus could NOT have been cruxified on the previous Friday. First, because three literal days and nights had not been fulfilled, and Secondly, (and maybe more importantly), because Friday would have been the special sabbath for Unleavened Bread and the Jews would not have permitted it. Luke 23:54 is often used as proof for a Friday cruxifiction, because is says it was "the day before the sabbath". That could mean Friday, but it could just as easily mean Thursday (Nissan 14) which was the day of preparation for the special sabbath (on Nissan 15) to celebrate Unleavened Bread. Lastly, I will concede that Jesus being a literal "three days and three nights in the earth" is slightly problematic. The "nights" are no problem. If Jesus was cruxified on Thursday, as I assert, he was clearly in the grave for three entire nights. That's easy to see. But the "days" are a little less clear. A Thursday cruxifiction would mean burial for only a short portion of the day on Thursday, Nissan 14, followed by two full days on Nissan 15 and 16, and a possible portion of Sunday, Nissan 17. I have heard it said that the ancient Jews reckoned any portion of a day to be a full day. Using that explanation, I interpret the short portion of Nissan 14 as day 1, Nissan 15 as day two, and Nissan 16 as day 3, totaling three full days. I do not count Nissan 17 (Sunday) as a day in the tomb at all. The fact that the women found the tomb empty early on Sunday morning (Nissan 17), does not mean that Jesus spent any portion of that day in the tomb. In fact, it is likely that Jesus rose from the dead just before dawn on that day, thus making Sunday non-applicable as "a day" in the tomb. This is my interpretation. I'm sure that there are many other arguments or approaches to determine the day of Jesus' death, (and resurrection), but the facts above make the best sense to me.
Also it seems to me, though my math may be wrong, that you've found a contradiction between exodus and leviticus. In exodus the festival ends on the evening of the 21st. That's the beginning of the day. But in leviticus you are to celebrate seven days starting from the 15th. That means the 21st is included and the festival ends on the evening of the 22nd. Or did I math wrong? I can't imagine the jews would overlook this contradiction if it is one.
I agree with everything except the days of the week reasoning. At that time...the Sabbath was not fixed like our modern day calendar...it was done by the moon. The full moon being Nissan 15. This fixed calendar stuff didn't exist until 321AD.
There is great new schlorship these days and the day Jesus was actually crucified has now been established. I certainly hope Christians will cease trying to use every inconceivable analogy to foce 3 days and nights within a Friday crucification. It jusy isn"t going to work no matter what silly Math you use!
Another thing to consider is rather or not there was the use of a leap year (when there was an additional month added before Nisan, every 4 years- today we would call it "Adar ב /Adar B/Adar 2", which is added after the month Hadar): If it was actually a custom at that time and if that specific year was a leap year. If so, all calculations would move one month forward.
Intercalary month that decided using complex calculation are actually newer invention, it was made a few centuries after the arrival of Christianity. Before that, such intercalary month was added based upon physical observation I believe it was based upon observation if certain type of plant have sprouted or not.
Well, if there’s one thing this comment section (and the comment section on “When was Jesus Born?”) demonstrates, it’s that Christians, Atheists, Muslims, and presumably everyone else all have those among them that will stubbornly insist their exact view is correct, no matter what the mainstream historical consensus may be. With that said, I hope you all have a good Passover/Good Friday, for those who celebrate them, and for those who don’t…well, it’s Friday, so enjoy your weekend.
Well, one form of atheism is 'not believing a god exists', so your silly 'will stubbornly insist their exact view is correct' is nonsensical in regard to this meaning.
Hey Matt. Thanks for the video. Which bible/translation or documents did you use for the basis of this research? I am particularly interested in the wording of the scriptures used to establish the timelines. Thanks as always for your work.
I find translations of anything to be challenging. Modern or ancient. The only one who knows what they mean by the words they use is the speaker or writer and that is foundationally limited in scope to the speakers knowledge of the language they choose to speak in, adding a 2nd or 3rd person to it only further complicates or makes it impossible to perfectly translate or otherwise communicate the meaning of what was originally said. Yet I am always interested in doing the best I can with what I have to work with... I am half Greek and I love debate and deep thinking.
Since you are familiar with my religious history Matt, I can perhaps communicate more clearly the challenges I face when trying to develop a foundation to understand where other folks are in their thinking. For instance the Hebrew and Jewish system is unclear to me growing up as I did. I actually have a better understanding of the Greek perspective from growing up in a Greek community very immersed in the culture and some history.
I find the disagreement between gospels so much more interesting and rich than a perfect match between them. It gives a great touch of humanity to the works that endears them to me even if it does somewhat undermine the academic credibility of the exact writing.
It’s not that they “disagree” but that they offer different perspectives. For example, while one may say there were 2 “angels” and another might only report one “angel” (which doesn’t necessarily mean thee weren’t two angels there, but that only one was important to that telling), so some effort to reconcile is required. Unless they actually contradict each other, they may be reconciled.
@@scottintexas The fact that there are claims of angles makes you wonder if they were discussing Euclidean geometry, as nobody in their right mind could think of anything else.
Matt, love your content. I think most of the time, how much time do you put into research to make your videos. However much time you do put into them is shows in the depth of your work. Nice job.
There is one more reference. 1 Corinthians 11 [in a context of describing Jesus as the Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7)] the apostle Paul points out in verse 11:22 that "on the night he was betrayed", Jesus was resignifying the Seder foods. And then guides to commemorate the Seder not only with reference to the freedom of Egypt, but also in memory of Jesus.
According to the Hebrew Masoretic text of genesis 17:1 onkelos or Targum Jonathan says that Prophet Abraham was a ( shelim ) שְׁלִים means a Muslim וַהֲוָה אַבְרָם בַּר תִּשְׁעִין וּתְשַׁע שְׁנִין וְאִתְגְלֵי יְיָ לְאַבְרָם וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ אֲנָא אֵל שַׁדַי פְּלַח קֳדָמַי וֶהֱוֵי שְׁלִים בְּבִשְרָךְ And Abram was the son of ninety and nine years, and the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him, I am El Shadai; serve before Me and be perfect (shelim) in thy flesh. שְׁלִים Check out the Hebrew English chaldan lexicon book You will find the Hebrew word שְׁלִים means a Muslim / Islam / devote to God Lookout for these words in safaria .org / perfect / complete / blameless Page 1064 The other similar books like that it says Muslim too On archive .org Or Google Hebrew strong 7999 In Targum Jonathan or onkelos and Aramaic Targum in safaria . Org There is many verses have the word shelim / שְׁלִים / Muslim in around 25 verses In the holy twelve gospel the word perfect law / Islamic law is used too by Jesus see your good works, and glorify your Parent who is in heaven. 8. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law or the prophets till all be fulfilled. But behold One greater than Moses is here. and he will give you the higher law, even the perfect Law, and this Law shall ye obey. 18. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Parent Who is in heaven is perfect. My TikTok username is lordofpeace25e I do Dawah to none Muslims
There is a way to know whether or not it was cloudy in Jerusalem. The gospel writers reference that a Blood moon rose on the day Jesus died. In fact, a blood moon rose over Jerusalem on 3 Aprill 33 CE. This is a verifiable astronomical fact. Astrology was very popular in the Roman empire at the time and the Gospel writers were likely into astrology as well, referencing astrology numerous times. Jesus himself is recorded as referencing astrology in his teachings a few times in the gospels. So it's very likely that the early Christian writers would have taken note of the blood moon rising event. This probably greatly contributed to to veneration of Jesus and the rapid rise of the sect in Jerusalem ("If the friggin' moon morns his death, what else should we know about the guy!") I personally think the blood moon over Jerusalem (which again, is a verifiable astrological fact) probably dates the death of Jesus and was highly likely to have contributed to his veneration (if taking a purely secular academic view on the matter).
Yep. It's pretty insane to think about, isn't it?! There's also this. Good job! Geologists say Jesus, as described in the New Testament, was most likely crucified on Friday, April 3, in the year 33. The latest investigation, reported in International Geology Review, focused on earthquake activity at the Dead Sea, located 13 miles from Jerusalem. The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 27, mentions that an earthquake coincided with the crucifixion:
I think that none of the gospels mention the blood moon. The moment you are probably thinking of is by a gospel writer, but it's Acts 2:20. It's not an original statement to Luke but an extended quotation of a prophecy from Joel. The passage does mention that a lunar eclipse will occur (if that's how we interpret the moon turning to blood, which I agree with) but it's not specifically referencing the crucifixion. Nothing in Peter's speech directly ties it to the crucifixion and the passage also mentions a solar eclipse, which does not appear to have occurred in Jerusalem that day. If we knew the date of Jesus' crucifixion, we could use it to confirm the theory of the blood moon, but to use the theory of the blood moon to confirm the date is suspect for two reasons. First, as Useful Charts points out, it only lines up with one out of the four gospel accounts. And second, that would be assuming the correctness of the blood moon theory. But given that none of the gospels mention the blood moon (by god, wouldn't you mention such an important occurrence?) and the reference in Acts is indirect, it seems better to assume there probably was not a blood moon on the day of Jesus' death. Surely they would have been more clear about that.
As Matt says, the gospels are religious works where symbolism plays an important part. Even Christian scholars admit that many details may have been included for literary reasons and not because they actually happened. I think Matt did a great job at condensing and visualizing what the historical consensus is.
Two things I believe that were overlooked (unless I just missed it) and should be considered are: 1. Preparation Day for the Sabbath and Preparation Day for the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread are not always the same. They can both fall on the same day in certain years, but not every year. Preparation Day for the “weekly” Sabbath is always Friday. But Passover Preparation Day is for the “high” Sabbath of the Feast of Unleavened…and that differs from year to year. So, the “Sabbath” mentioned in the gospels may not mean or imply the weekly Sabbath that falls on Saturday. That must be considered 2. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus on the first day of the week (Sunday). In Luke 24:21, they told Jesus (not knowing it was Him) that “it is now the third day since these things happened.” “These things” refers to the chief priests and rulers handing Him over to be sentenced to death and crucified. So, if one were to count backward three days then Saturday would be one day ago, Friday would be two days ago and Thursday would be three days ago. That is plausible and should be considered. You could of course say Sunday is the “third day” and then Saturday would be the second day “since these things happened” and Friday would be the first day “since these things happened”…which would be kind of odd to say it that way if Friday was actually meant. This whole thing of how days are counted has caused contention for some. The expression “In three days” and the expression “On the third day” may not equal the same future day. Personally, I find these two things interesting to consider, but don’t matter in the end regardless of if you believe in Christ and what the gospel writers stated or not. There are plenty of scholars that believe Christ was crucified on Thursday and not Friday and there are some who think it happened on Wednesday. For me, I’d have to go with Thursday. Thanks for the video.
They did not count days the same way as we do today. Jesus was resurrected on the third day of his death. Jesus died on Friday. That's the first day of his death. Saturday is the second day and Sunday is the third day.
@@Xerxes2005 Except the Gospels make a big deal out of "three days and three nights." This seems awfully specific. In church I was always taught Wednesday or maybe Thursday, and that Friday was simply a misunderstanding about what is meant by the Day of Preparation. I know many, but not all Protestants believe this. I'm now curious how widespread that belief is.
@@stephenwilhelm The Gospels speak of three days and three nights one time. But the "third day" is used several times. The Evangelists were not idiots. I suppose they know how to count.
Also, being overlooked is that he had in prior days stated that like Jonah, it would be 3 days and 3 nights. Making Friday night to Sunday morning unlikely (these do not equal 72 hrs) I agree with you, John 19.31 explains that it was a *high* sabbath which was different from the regular sabbath. According to Lev 23, it explains that in Nisan fifteen/day 15 they were to rest and not do any work therefore this was a different type of sabbath apart from the 'saturday sabbath'. As you said he therefore died on Wednesday night, next day thursday was high sabbath, then friday, the saturday sabbath and rose on the first day of the week which was Sunday. Those are 3 days and 3 nights
How do you think YHWH feels about his three religions? Because at some level thinking of them all as valid is much more of a political point of you than it is a religious one. I mean let us have peace and let each worship in his own way. But the truth is one. And I’m not even sure we have access to it. So let’s do the brotherhood thing. I like to say all the preachers got to keep the game going so they all smile each other’s religion even as they hold them in contempt In private… And you know that’s true.
The Passover is the day before the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The 1st day of the Feast of unleavened bread was a High Sabbath regardless of the day of the week. They are called to sacrifice each day of the feast... They would also have their normal Sabbath on that Saturday as well.
This is not how Jews see it. "Passover" is not a seperate holiday on the day before the First Day of Unleavened Bread. For Jews, Passover (we can it Pesach) and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are the same thing. However, the Passover meal (Seder) is celebrated on the night before Day 1, hence the confusion
@@UsefulCharts this is one of the things I did not understand until a few years ago. The swapping of terms in the gospels talking about the disciples going and preparing the meal is central to some confusion in the terms being an event within a time.
@@kafon6368 Not even really to say that you're wrong, but even atheists can benefit from understanding different religions better. Helps to contextualize history and psychology. Plus, some people just find it interesting. To each their own.
@@kafon6368 How can you separate history from religion? They are intertwined. Also, understanding a religion can help you to reason with those that subscribe to that religion. I do agree however that learning can be addictive like a drug. Which is generally a good thing.
It's interesting that scholars who try to nail the date down to a specific point all seem to prefer John over the synoptic gospels. Considering that the synoptics were written earlier, one would assume they would be preferred...
My (admittedly limited) understanding is that the synoptic gospels are preferred in some cases for being written earlier and generally agreeing with one another better than they do with John. But for this SPECIFIC topic of Jesus's death, all of the accounts seem theologically motivated. Which makes them all suspect for nailing down a date. Honestly considering how fuzzy dates can be, it's pretty fortunate that we have as much historical information for Jesus as we do.
Actually sir There was 2 sabaths during that week. One was for the passover week which took place on Thursday and the other was on Saturday. Putting the death either at 31AD or 32AD. I hope that this helps ur research and ur viewers :)
The preparation day for Passover was on Wednesday, thus the 15th was the High Day sabbath a Thussday which began at sundown on Wednesday going into Thursdsy - a day of rest. That is why Jesus has to be quickly taken from the cross and buried therefore you get the 3 complete days and nights.
Wasn't the week called a "High Holy Week" celebrated once a year? Right 2 sabbaths, and I'm guessing 32AD. I'm editing now, just Googled and found out yr was 31AD Thurs. was High Passover that yr.
From what I've gathered theologists seem to be fixated on 37 years of life for Jesus. So when we take the 4 BC as his birth year, then he probably died in 33 AD. Just my guess tho, I might be wrong.
My dad and I love watching your videos! We send them to my grandpa aswell. He's extremely christian and denies alot of science, so we love to see his reactions to these types of videos. It's all in good faith though😂😂
One thing I always remember is, the Romans and Pontius Pilate, didn't get themselves involved with Jewish religion as much as possible. Pontius may or may not have liked Jesus, but he couldn't put him to death. The reason jesus was put to death was outcry from the pharisees and saddeusces ( I butchered both those spellings). Two Jewish groups Jesus was against. ( yes it was ordered by Pontius but under assumed under threat or heavily upholstered by these two groups) The general assumption that Pontius disliked jesus enough to kill him, seems to be, atleast in the west, mostly due to his name in the bible being prominent + comedy such as Family Guy mocking him.
As a Catholic personally it doesn't matter to Me if it's 30 or 33 I accept he died and it was around the time of passover. I read alot about history and it really fascinates me how there is some truth written in the old religious text from many religions and a bit more of a story that isnt 100% factual but sends across a particular message. I think you have done a good job with your research and having it narrowed down to a gap of 3 years. The harder thing will be determining his resurrection if it was real or not and the dates
Determining the date of resurrection is simple if you know the date of death and can count 3 days using the Jewish counting method. Crucifixion day is day 1(Friday), day 2 would be Saturday, so day 3 is Sunday. Now to the second part of your question, proving the resurrection: unless you can find an extra-Biblical account of the story you'll have to take the Bible literally. One passage that points to the unlikelihood of finding support outside of the Bible is Matthew 28:11-15 which describes the Jewish leaders and the guards(be they Jewish or Roman) devising a plan to figuratively cover up the resurrection. But many were reported to have seen Jesus after his resurrection, unfortunately we only have accounts of a select few as recorded in the New Testament.
One clarifying question about something you mentioned near the end. You discussed that the Jewish calendar, which was lunar, was based on observing the new moon and that inclement weather may have prevented observing a new moon in 31CE-32CE. My question is: after hundreds or thousands of years, wouldn't the Jews have understood the cycle well enough to kind of proclaim a new month had begun even if there was cloud cover? I mean by that time the 28-day cycle would be extremely well documented, and they probably could even predict when they'd need Adar Aleph intercalated in the future. I guess I'm curious if the actual, physical observation of a new moon was required by custom or law to kind of formally declare that a new month had begun. Thanks
As he says in the video: the calendar "was based on literal observations," so, yes, actual, physical (i.e., literal) observation was required. In fact, the Mishnah (the first major written collection of Jewish oral tradition) says that the Sanhedrin (basically a city council) required the eyewitness testimony of two different people before proclaiming that a new month* had started. *This was a requirement for every month, not just the year.
It is not a case of "weather preventing a new moon being observed in 31 or 32"; it's a case of _generally_ requiring a "new moon" observation to be made for a rosh chodesh to be declared. The exclusion of 31 and 32 comes from the fact that - assuming 'regular' calendrical observations, not hampered by weather - in 31 and 32 Nisan rosh chodesh would not have fallen on a Friday (and therefore neither would the 14th/15th). However, the fact that rosh chodesh had to be declared based on factual observation of a new moon, in my view invalidates the preferential choice of CE 30 or CE 33, as there is no particular reason to assume that the Nisan rosh chodesh of CE 30 or 33 would _not_ have been delayed. All we can say is "on a 6th day (Friday), in the first half of Nisan between 30 and 33".
@@laurahunter651 because tradition and law. It wasn’t until much later that we ended up with a standardized calendar that didn’t require literal moon observations. By the ninthish century. Maybe before. Remember change is slow in tradition. It has to be incremental most times to be allowed.
Based on the info in your videos, a hypothesis can be made that Jesus was born around the Winter Solstice 4BCE, began his ministry in the fall of 26CE just before his 30th birthday, ministered for 3 1/2 years until his death sometime in March/April of 30CE at the age of 33.
I think he was born in 8BC. We have evidence that a census took place across the Roman empire that year (which is NOT the census mentioned in Josephus) that was administrated by Quirinius (as mentioned in Luke). It also places his birth in the reign of Herod the Great. If Jesus' ministry began in 28, that places him at 36 years old at the beginning of his ministry, which is reasonably close to the 30 years mentioned in the Gospels (counting exact age is more of a modem thing).
@@StephensCrazyHour Quirinius' census was in 6CE - I would certainly be interested in this "evidence" that says otherwise. "The career of Quirinius and the names and dates of the governors are well documented and there is no time before 6 CE when he could have served as governor of Syria. Biblical scholars point out that there was no single census of the entire Roman Empire under Augustus and the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms; further, no Roman census required that people travel from their own homes to those of their ancestors"
@@DwayneShaw1 100% true ! Traveling with an 8 months pragnet Mary to the home of "her ancestors" it's just a made up story for to link the Nazareth born Jesus with the House of David !
@@DwayneShaw1 Joseph the father...being married with Mary and working in Nazareth of nearby, where a new town was building by Herod Antipas for the glory of Caesar Tiberius (Joseph was a foreman builder and not a furniture carpentier as usualy thinking)..... Joseph would have AT LEAST a rented house in Nazareth ,where he lived with his family ! There,he would gather some welth..... THE CENSOR WANTED TO SEE YOUR WELTH...SO THE AUTORITIES WOULD TAX YOU ACORDING TO THIS WELTH.....NOT to estabish your genealogical tree !!!
I seem to remember being taught that Jesus was 33 years old when he died. I don't remember where that piece of information came from. But if he was born in 4 BCE, and lived 33 years, then he died in 30 CE.
The sheep being in the field precludes a spring birthday, those fields around Bethlehem where used to plant crops, the planters would want them in the winter not the spring.
Fascinating. I prefer to go by 7th April 30 CE, because, since Jesus's birth was most probably in 4 BC, it is more likely he died at the age of 33 or 34 rather than 37.
@@jordanbtucker Because Jesus's preaching covered a period of one and a half to two and a half years - certainly not more than three. It is unlikely that Jesus would have led a private life until the age of 34. Given the relative shorter life expectancy, whatever his mission, Jesus would have embarked upon it before he reached his 30th year.
@@anthonydesa5561 I think you misunderstand what "average life expectancy" means and how it's measured. It's true that 2000 years ago life expectancy at birth was much lower than today, but a good part of that was because of extremely high rates of infant and child mortality. Someone who lived until their maturity (~20) was quite likely to reach 70.
@@anthonydesa5561 Even when the preaching period was about three years and he died in his 33th year, what the heck was he doing in those 15 years prior. Probably just working on the farm, till it was maybe taken by the tax farmers and he joined the army of landless peasants. Or he was told by Joseph he was adopted having worked all those years for a wage so meagre he could not even get married and stormed off going preaching.
@@kamion53 The gospels tell us that Jesus "grew in wisdom and virtue and strength of mind and body." I doubt he worked on a farm, since Joseph is referred to as being a "tekton" - Greek for "craftsman" - he could have been a carpenter, but he could also have been a draughtsman or builder. But certainly not a farmer. If Joseph did not own land, it is unlikely that Jesus did. Most historians feel that he assisted Joseph in his skilled trade (a tekton was a skilled worker, not a labourer), and simultaneously continued with his study of Scripture and interaction with the various rabbis of the time. He obviously spent a considerable amount of time in mediation, as well as engaging privately in matters of discussion and philosophy (otherwise Mary would not have so confidently asked him to deal with the problem at the wedding feast of Cana); and when he felt the time was ripe for his public ministry, he went to John to be baptised, and commenced his mission.
It always seemed to me that Roman Justice was remarkably swift. Consider the timeline in the case of the Sanhedrin vs. Jusus Ben Joseph: Dinner at sundown, arrested around midnight, tried in the wee hours, examined by Pontius Pilot first thing in the morning, referred to Herod Antipas, returned to Pilot for sentencing, scourged, paraded, and crucified by noon, and dead by 3pm; all in one day! Talk about your speedy trial!
A follow-up on my suggestion: after watching your video, I went back and looked at Raymond E. Brown's discussion of different Paul chronologies in his excellent Introduction to the New Testament (1997) and it and your comment about those 17 years led me to purchase second-hand A Chronology of Paul's Life by Robert Jewett (1979) which includes an argument Paul's conversion was in October 34 and the Jerusalem conference was in October 51, with his appearance before Gallio shortly before that in July or August 51. So Jewett basically agrees with you :)
Hi Mat. I have been looking forward to this Easter video. Didn't one of the gospels mention that an earthquake or an eclipse of the sun happened when Jesus died? I thought one of the gospels said it got very dark at 3pm when he died. Couldn't they figure out a date based on an earthquake/eclipse during Passover? Just something I thought I read somewhere. I very much enjoy and look forward to your videos. Thank you for all the attention to detail that you put into them.
Relating the "darkness" to an eclipse requires an assumption that they were the same thing. You know what they say about assumptions... Unfortunately the biblical accounts of the "darkness" do not elaborate on the specifics. As far as the earthquake -- they were, and are very common in that part of the world. Many are minor, fewer are major. But prior to the invention of the Richter scale, they were not recorded consistently.
There wouldn’t be an eclipse during Passover. An eclipse happens when the moon passes in front of the sun, which can only happen on a new moon, and since the new moon is the sign of the start of the jewish month, there is no way for an eclipse to occur on the 14 or 15 Nisan. That’s not to say it’s impossible there was an eclipse when Jesus died, just that for that to be the case you would have to discount all four gospels’ account that it happened during Passover, and if you do that there’s no reason to assume the sun “going dark” has to be accurate. TL;DR the eclipse theory probably has merits, but you can’t really use it to calculate a date for certain because it contradicts the Passover date
Geologists say Jesus, as described in the New Testament, was most likely crucified on Friday, April 3, in the year 33. The latest investigation, reported in International Geology Review, focused on earthquake activity at the Dead Sea, located 13 miles from Jerusalem. The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 27, mentions that an earthquake coincided with the crucifixion:
@@jehl1963 another problem with the "darkness" being equated to an eclipse is that the length of time described is utterly wrong for it to be an eclipse. We're not talking a small difference here but a difference of orders of magnitude. A totality of a solar eclipse can last at maximum 7.5 minutes. The darkness described in the gospels was roughly 3 hours long. That's 24 or 25 times as long as totality of a solar eclipse. Then there's the small matter of solar eclipse tracks being completely predictable. We know when. We know where. We know how long. We know all three to great accuracy and precision. If there were a candidate eclipse it would be trumpeted from the rooftops. In 30 and 31 the totalities were at the wrong times of the year: May and November. In 32 there were no totalities. In 33 there were totalities in March and September, but the March one was in the southern hemisphere. In short no eclipse comes anywhere near being a plausible candidate for the "darkness". That doesn't rule out a miraculous source of course, but there we get beyond the realms of history and science.
Luke says he was born is 6CE. Matthew says he was born during the reign of Herod - not the year of his death - so 4BC is not stated at all - it could have referred to anytime from 37-4BC. so you have two wildly incompatible Biblical claims (that are both supposed to be 'unerring') - and you misrepresent the one you choose without any indication of how you determined it was the true-er version - when both claims cancel out the validity of either - - back to the drawing board ...
Chinese churches teach the follows shorthand to calculate the date of Good Friday: 春分月圓星期五 Literally, the first Friday on or after the first full moon on or after the spring solstice. This simplification of the Roman Catholic formula for determining Easter dates make use of the fact that both full moons and the spring solstice are observed in the Chinese lunisolar calendar, and does get to the same answer as the Roman Catholic Good Friday most years!
Hi Matt. Thank you for the video. Actually, some studies tell us Jesus died on a Thursday, the day of the preparation for the Passover, and not the day of preparation for the Sabbath. There were 2 Sabbaths that week, the High Sabbath which is the Passover, and the actual Sabbath which is the seventh day. It's interesting to really look at and study different accounts and perspectives regarding this matter. But for me, why Jesus died is more important than the when. But thank you for this perspective, Matt. Always love your videos.
Note that from a Jewish perspective, the term "Preparation Day" never refers to any other day than the weekly Sabbath. For other Sabbaths, a more specific term is always used, such as, "Day of Preparation for X Festival".
@@MyChihuahua ah, no, it means that the Passover could easily be a few days off because of best guess observation. Meaning, 31CE or 32CE are still reasonable years.
@@MyChihuahua If you believe Friday the 31AD is wrong UNLESS you understand the New Moon observation can be off by a few days. Jesus was following his customs, and it was normal for the Passover to be shifted depending how the council ruled on the new moon.
I like using 33 CE because it stands out more poetically than 30 CE, and because it is inherited tradition for me, but practically, I use “around 30 CE” in the historical sense, like how I might refer to the 1950s, because the exact year really isn’t all that important. Same with the Gospel accounts. The facts can be reconciled sometimes (like how many women were at the tomb - the writers weren’t there, so they didn’t remember all of them, and they may have not stayed together), but exact facts are not the point. I think John’s Gospel hints that the story took place before the Seder and that is likely right for the reasons you mention. The Last Supper was likely not the Seder. I could accept that Pilate was late about releasing a prisoner for the Passover, though. He wouldn’t have really cared about the purification rituals.
As always, I enjoyed your video tremendously. 😊 One detail that always bugs me in those kinds of calculations is the use of Luke as a quasi-historic source. While I studied theology I was always taught that Luke's 'overly specific' take on precise dates would best be interpreted as the attempt to lend authority to facts whose details had already been lost to history when the gospel was written. (This point of view always made a lot of sense to me.) In fact, Matt, I think you would enjoy my professor Matthias Klinghardt's take on this whole subject quite a lot, because, I feel your points of view might merge in a lot of ways. What's more, he proposed a solution to the Synoptic Problem that makes much more sense than the Two-Source Hypothesis. I'd be glad to hook you up with material on the subject as a videographic representation of his findings (in your style) seems to be long overdue… 😉
How long ago was your study? I heard that more recent research on Luke proofs him to be extremely precise and reliable. Ok, he painted roman soldiers in a very favourable light, as his gospel and acts might have been the main defense document for Paul's imperial court hearing...
@@ReadersOfTheApocalypse Well, first of all: no research can /proof/ Luke to be reliable. /If/ the content of his gospel is historic truth can't be proven or disproven. What stands out in Luke's gospel (and Acts), though, is his tendency to be disturbingly precise at some points (cf. Lk 3,1 for instance). The question, now, is how to /interpret/ these accuracies. Even if (or better: especially if) they are historically plausible (which I don't deny at all) they don't necessarily depict the 'historic truth' - they just mean that the author of this gospel did his research well. 😉 Don't get me wrong: Of course, the author of Luke's gospel and Acts /might/ have had other sources that lend some more detail to the descriptions in Paul's epistles and, thus, might be giving a fairly accurate account of what happened in Corinth. But he also /might/ have been making things up that seem plausible to lend authority to his writings. Just imagine if /you/ wanted to write an account of Paul's travels, your only source being the Pauline epistles. Judging by the extent of letters from Paul to the Corinthians you know that obviously he was connected to Corinth in a meaningful way. So, in your story there /must/ be a detailed description of what happened there. Now, you do your homework and do research about the time during which Paul might well have been in Corinth. You find out about an important guy called Gallio and integrate him into your story to make it even more plausible. I think that, being obsessed with a precise dating, scholars take the events only depicted in Acts for granted because they give us Gallio as a historical anchor from where Paul's whole life seems to be calculable. The question of the author's sources and general credibility is, in my opinion, neglected too much. The fact remains: We just don't know if the events from Acts are historical at all. So, we have to judge the composition of Luke-Acts for its historical plausibility. And other considerations (such as Luke being a revision and recomposition of Marcion's gospel (= Klinghardt's hypothesis from 2015 to answer your question about the time of my studies) and, thus, a pretty late text) may lead one to believe that Acts is - in the best sense of the word - 'fan fiction'. It certainly does that for me.
@@ollipoppolli Thanks for the detailed response as I'm not familiar with Klinghardt and his hypothesis. Sounds interesting on an intellectual level. Why on an "intellectual level"? There's another approach to this topic which was more widespread in previous centuries and is utterly neglected in academia today: To first find out if Jesus indeed is, who he claimed to be (is there any doubt about his claim?). And go from there: IF Jesus WASN'T God, then you can be SURE that Luke and all the other documents are elaborate lies or well written fan fiction or things of that kind. The following distinction between the original lies and follow-up fan fiction is perhaps not worth much effort (or interesting only on an "intellectual level" 😁). It wouldn't justify spending money on whole fields of study with faculties everywhere! And it certainly wouldn't justify dying for it! But IF he WAS (ergo still is) God, you can approach the authenticity of the WHOLE bible differently: Then the question is about how well can God himself establish, protect and preserve his own words? But that wouldn't be purely intellectual any more. It'd become a question of life and death. So I guess it would be worth putting a lot of effort into first solving the underlying question and go from there.
Great video, although I consider these things based on faith I enjoy the secular historic discussion too. My question is how does the dates you provided equate with the destruction of Solomon’s Temple? I feel more led to agree with 3 April 33 CE due to a class I took that discussed the apostles using the dates of Solomon’s temple destruction correlating with Jesus’ death. I just can’t remember all the details but it is important to view the OT views since the apostles only had the OT. Thanks again
This is correct. This can be deduced from the astronomical data specified by the gospels. It coincided with a lunar eclipse during passover. The archeoastronomy of astronomical events in the bible is a useful and absolute point of reference after other historical events have circumscribed the period of possibilities.
Good question!!! One thing for sure is that he was NOT born on Dec. 25 under a Christmas tree. Dec. 25 or Christmas was a pagan holiday to celebrate the birth of the sun as pagans referred to this holiday I know it's ironic that Christians are probably the first to bring out Christmas decorations way before this holiday comes around!!!
one thing i never understood... if jesus, according to Christian belief, was pure and sinless then why did he need to be baptized, the sacrament that washed away sin, in the first place?
The day of preparation is the day before a Sabbath. Every Saturday is a Sabbath. Every Friday is a day of preparation. But Passover is also a Sabbath. And the day before Passover is a day of preparation. Jesus was ressurected Sunday morning after having spent 3 days and 3 nights in the ground. That would mean he was crucified on a Wednesday. There were multiple years, including 30 ad, when Nisan 14 Passover was on a Wednesday
There's another ambiguity you omitted; you left out the leap year. The Jewish calendar is approximately 11 days shorter than the solar year, in order to keep synced with the moon. So to catch up with the sun and keep Passover near the Spring Equinox, a leap month is inserted sometimes. The leap month is Adar II, which is inserted between Adar and Nisan, in other words just before the month of Pesach. Thus by using leap years, the calendar stays in sync with the sun, and also with the moon. (Note that the traditional Chinese calendar does something very similar, for the very same reason. After all, the sun is the sun and the moon is the moon all around the globe.) Today this is carefully calculated and absolutely predictable, and the equinox always falls in Nisan, and we can state all this with certainty but in ancient times the decision to insert a leap month was made based on observation of the crops. If the crops were not sufficiently ripened, the High Priest would declare a Leap Year, Adar II would pass, and thus the crops would be properly ripened for "springtime" to come in Nisan... and with it, Pesach. Since we can't know the growing conditions for most years in the ancient world, there is no way to guess whether the year of Jesus' death was a leap year or not. Thus with reference to the secular calendar, Passover could be a month earlier or later than the calculated date. We only know growing conditions when there is a particular drought recorded, and there is no drought mentioned around the possible years of Jesus' death.
@@louisasuta4234 that statement at 2:34 is the reason I asked for HISTORICAL SOURCES. Read works by the likes of Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald; they provide really compelling arguments against Jesus as a historical figure. Hence I'm interested in the academic work that supports the claim that Jesus really existed. Matt is brilliant, he can make sense of this.
I would honestly would like to know your take on the 3-days and 3-nights argument for the resurrection. Your video seems to explain quite conclusively that the death occurred on Friday. However, how the 3 day-night resurrection timeline harmonizes with these facts presented, from an historical perspective? Would like an expert non-faith based opinion on this subject. Perhaps next Easter's video?
The 3 days and 3 nights do NOT line up with the Passion-Resurrection narrative, considering it leaves only 1 day and 2 nights between his death and resurrection. Jesus's prophecy in Matthew 12:40 was, "Just as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the fish, so to shall the son of man remain days and 3 nights in the heart of the Earth." The heart of the Earth being the grave, not the planet's core! In Jonah 2:1-2, 11 we read, "But the LORD sent a large fish, that swallowed Jonah; and he remained in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. From the belly of the fish Jonah said [a] prayer to the LORD, his God. ... Then the LORD commanded the fish to [puke] Jonah [out] upon the shore." In the whole text of chapter 2 we find that Jonah remained alive the whole time. Since the timelines are off, and due to certain verses in Luke and John, Muslim apologists are having a field day, proclaiming that the gospels indicate that Jesus was alive the whole time. "He was not crucified, neither did they kill him, but it was made to appear that it was so." - The Qu'ran
Interesting, but one glaring problem. If the Gospel writers were willing to alter details to make theological points, then any detail which keys into a theological point is suspect. So, it is safe to say Jesus was condemned by Pontius Pilate because there is no theological point being made. But John's desire to have Jesus die on the same day as the Passover lambs being sacrificed is highly suspicious. ... This leads to a major issue: the Gospels are full of supernatural events to which "prove" certain theological points. This implies that details could easily have been twisted every which way. In the end, we simply don't know which details are accurate and which are baloney.
Even worse - if you read the text, particularly in John, it's very clear that the Gospel's author had in mind that the specific version of the events was _precisely so_ that it could conform to prophecy. Even assuming good faith (!) in describing the event (i.e. no deliberate distortion of the facts - which are at best third-hand accounts, btw), the risk of confirmation bias is well understood...
@@dlevi67 One of those weird things when the author tries to make the account seem more realistic by adding unrealistically precise details, thus making the account more suspect
The general view, even among some of the most conservative, Creationist Christian scholars, is that John's gospel is not very accurate historically. The other three gospels (synoptic) are generally considered much more accurate. Also - the documents are, at least in part, historical records, and we pretty much know they are not very altered since their creation. It would be weird not to use them in a situation such as this when they contain so much material when compared to secular sources.
It is mind-boggling to see such ignorance! All of you need to study and if you did you would find out there were two Passover sacrifices--the first sacrifice was the one that Moses talked about and was eaten on the 14th DAY after sunset that day, which became Friday at sunset. The second Passover sacrifice was eaten by the High Priest and the 24 Chief Priests the next day after the national sacrifice was eaten. This is why the Priests did not want to enter Pilate's house that evening, fearing they would make themselves unclean to eat their special sacrifice the next day. If Jesus had not eaten the first sacrifice Thursday evening, He would have violated the Mosaic Law. The first sacrifice was mandatory, but the second sacrifice was not mandatory because it was not mentioned in the Mosaic Law. The second sacrifice by the priests was called the chagigah sacrifice. Finally, Norm, Jesus did not die on the same day the lambs were sacrificed, He died on Friday instead of Thursday, and he matched the chagigah sacrifice perfectly. This was for the benefit of the rulers of the Temple, the priests. Oh, and by the way, he did die on Passover and Preparation Day as the Scriptures said.
Not sure if you are familiar with the book by Sir Robert Anderson, THE COMING PRINCE. He was knighted for his work using the prophecy of Daniel which points to the specific day of the triumphal entry and subsequently the crucifixion. He landed on 33 AD.
SUMMARY: Using Genesis counting of Days "Evening and the Morning." (not 24 Hours per day or a complete 72 Hours) 1ST DAY = THURSDAY Evening (Passover Meal/Last Supper/Slaughtered Lamb/Bread and Wine) + FRIDAY Morning (Passion of Christ/Crucifixion and Death) = 15th Day of Nisan 2nd DAY = FRIDAY Evening + SATURDAY Morning (still in the Tomb) = 16th Day of Nisan 3rd DAY = SATURDAY Evening (still in the Tomb) + SUNDAY Morning before Sunrise, the RESURRECTION DAY (Sabbath of Man/Christ/Son of God) = 17th Day of Nisan Facts and Truth of the Matters, Biblically, Spiritually, and logically speaking... Glory and Praise be to God through Christ Jesus... Amen.
I dunno about this Jesus fellow, but I know a very similar figure named Brian of Nazerth died in 33 AD, which would explain some of the conflict between scholars. Fun fact: Brian was born in the manger *next* to that of Jesus, one of many shared experiences between the two. Brian was also known for bestowing wisdom upon the conforming masses and performing miracles, most famously that of the juniper bush. However, unlike Jesus, Brian was known as a “very naughty boy” and an active member of the People’s Front of Judea, characteristics which no doubt led to his crucifixion despite being pardoned by Pontius Pilate.
Totally true! His disciples show in the sacred scripture Life of Brian that the evidence is unquestionable! Let Lord Brian be with you, and always look on the bright side of life! ;-D
I recall reading that 33AD was more likely due to what is known of Pontius Pilate's governorship being more under threat in 33AD than 30AD, and his reluctance to antagonise the crowds (as recorded in the gospels).
Maybe Sejanus that appointed Pilate was found a traitor to Tiberius Caesar and killed in 31 A.D Pilate might’ve been afraid all his appointments might be getting replaced soon as well. Makes the Pharisees shouting at Pilate In John 19:12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.” Have more meaning
I choose to believe that Jesus: On the third day He rose again; He ascended into heaven, He is seated at the right hand of the Father, and He will come again to judge the living and the dead. Like it says in the Apostles' Creed.
YES HE DID RISE ON ON THE THIRD DAY BEING A SUNDAY AND THE DAY OF FIRST FRUITS! Perhaps that is why he is called the The First Fruits from the Deatd into immortality. You think?
I was reading Joseph Ratzinger's book on Jesus and he argued that the last supper was likely not an actual easter supper but something that probably happened a lot earlier. The gospel writers knew about an important meal and had lots of details about it (probably phrases and descriptions from previous sources) and made it into an easter supper so their description is not very useful when giving us an actual timeline of events.
The bread Yeshua broke was "artos", ordinary bread. Each of the gospels report this. It was not "azmay", unleavened bread. And Judas left the left supper. The disciples thought he was going to buy something "against the feast" or to give an alms to the poor. That would never happen in a passover seder.
Interestingly, a partial lunar eclipse occurred on April 3 in 33 A.D. This might possibly related to the crucifixion darkness described in the gospels as well.
@@chicken_punk_pie The blood moon isn't mentioned in the gospels. It's mentioned in Acts 2 in an extended quotation by Peter of a passage from Joel. There is nothing in the passage that would specify that Peter is referencing the crucifixion or that Peter wanted specifically to call attention to Joel's prediction of eclipses. If a lunar eclipse had indeed occurred on the day of Jesus crucifixion this would be a very significant occurrence. It seems odd that the gospels wouldn't mention it, and it's fairer to assume there probably wasn't one. Yes they mention the darkness, but that's not how people talk about a lunar eclipse, now or then. If anything, that seems to be a reference to a solar eclipse (and early manuscripts of Luke do say so) but this of course seems to be a mistake corrected by later scribes, given the impossibility of a solar eclipse during a full moon.
Might possibly, but it's a big stretch. It sounds more like a reference to a solar eclipse, and indeed some of the earliest of Luke's manuscripts do specify that it is a solar eclipse.
Yo UsefulCharts Good video as a Christian i want to explain how i reconcile this discrepancy. If we keepnin mind during Jesus the second temple was still up amd active. According to Torah there's actually 2 events. The Pesach and the Feast or unleavened bread. The Pesach was on 14th or Nisan where Jews would kill the Lamb and eat it in the night. Then the sundown at 14th Nisan marks the Beginning of anjew day ik Jewish calendar. According to Matthew and Mark. The Last supper was on 14th seder. As they asked Jesus where to get a lamb for the passover. The passover referring to Pesach 14th Nisan. There's also another celebration called the Feast of unleavened bread in the Torah (Exodus 12 snd leviticus 23) which ie what Jews refer to "Passover". Jews don't celebrate the 14th of Nisan because there's no holy temple, so they can't slaughter animals. So they jump right at The feast of unleavened bread which is what we refer to as Passover. So the argument ie John is in agreement with the synoptic. John 13:1-2 alludes to a passover supper meal dinner that would happen at the dawj of Nisan 13 going to 15. Then Jesus got arrested. And when they arrested him on the day of preparation of the passover. It refers to the preparation of the passover week the feast of unleavened bread that begins at 15th Nisn. Good Friday corresponds to 14 of Nisan Jewish calendar. So ot would make sense that the Jews prepared on that day for the long passover week (which isbthe feast of the unleavened bread). So the last supper was a seder meal that incorporated the killing of Lambs. Since the festival of Passover and feast of unleavened bread wqs lumped together. A total of 8 days starting from 14th Nisan. Mark 14 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the **Passover lamb**, Sacrificing the passover lamb in this verse indicates, the last supper took place at the sundown of Thursday, (which begins a new day of Nisan 14 in Jewish calendar). It was during night period on Thursday which Christians celebrate Maundy Thursday, the last supper. With this breakdown it's not s discrepancy as John seemed to have used the term passover to refer to the week long celebration. And it began on Nisan 15,with the previous day Nisan 14. Nisan 14 was also the day Jews cleared out bread with yeast (leaven) for the Feast of unleavened bread, aka Matvahs. Hope this helps
Dear brother, first of all he did not die on Friday because that shabbat was not a regular Saturday shabbat but it was a high shabbat, please see John 19:31. This is a festival shabbat and not the normal shabbat.
@@venio6875 Matt is Jewish. I know the exodus story very well. Christianity is offshoot of Judaism. Disagree with pagan idols etc. Anything can be a false god eg money
Thank you. This is good information and it is fun to define such things without becoming too 'set in stone' ish. I don't care what year it was nor the exact day. All I care about is that, currently, Easter is defined as the Sunday, after the first full moon after the Vernal Equinox. But this was fun to listen to and find out all the details. Thank you.
We find a clue in John’s writings as why he changed the date of the Crucifixion when he refers to Jesus as the “Lamb of God”: *The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” [John 1:29]* It’s crucial to note that John is the only Gospel that identifies Jesus as the “Lamb of God”. John’s Gospel thus portrays Jesus as the Passover lamb, slaughtered on the day of Preparation of Passover, whose shed blood somehow brings salvation, just as the blood of the Passover lamb brought salvation to the children of Israel so many centuries before. For John, Jesus was the Lamb of God - he died at the same time, in the same place (Jerusalem), and at the hands of the same people (the Jewish priests) as the Passover lambs. In other words, John has told a story that is not historically accurate, but is, in his judgement, theologically true. Thus we can see that the Gospel of John is not writing about the historical Jesus. John alters the day of the Crucifixion to portray Jesus as the Passover lamb, he alters the story to make a theological point. This is one of the many reasons why New Testament scholars conclude that the Gospel of John is not historically accurate. It’s not just liberal scholars saying this - even conservative, Bible-believing Christian scholars no longer believe that Jesus actually said the words attributed to him in John. For example, British Biblical scholar and Anglican priest Christopher Tuckett, in his book “Christology and the New Testament”, has this to say: *“In terms simply of historical reliability or ‘authenticity’, it seems impossible to maintain that both John and the synoptics can be presenting us with equally ‘authentic’ accounts of Jesus‘ own life. By ‘authentic’ accounts I mean here historically accurate representations of what Jesus himself actually said and did. The theological ‘authenticity’ of John’s account is quite another matter. The differences between the two are too deep seated and wide ranging for such a position to be sustainable. If there is a choice, it is almost certainly to be made in favour of the synoptic picture, at least in broadly general terms. The picture John then presents us with is a view of the Jesus tradition which has been heavily coloured and influenced by John and his own situation.”* *- Christopher Tuckett, Christology and the New Testament, chapter 9: ‘The Gospel of John’, pp.151-152*
@@julianhansen3717 We can use history, scripture and reason to uncover the historical Jesus. Qur'an has the true insight into the crucifixion: *They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him. God raised him up to Himself. God is almighty and wise. [Qur'an 4:157-158]* We can see that the Qur'an states that Jesus was not crucified; rather, it was made to appear so. But how can we trust the Qur'an? Unlike the Gospels, the Qur'an states in no uncertain terms that it is divinely revealed: *Nor could this Quran have been devised by anyone other than God. It is a confirmation of what was revealed before it and an explanation of the Scripture- let there be no doubt about it- it is from the Lord of the Worlds. [Qur'an 10:37]* If the Qur'an is from God, then this means that it is not limited by what is apparent to humans; in fact, it reveals the reality of history. The Qur'an proclaims that it reveals the knowledge of the unseen: *"That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you, [O Muhammad]. You knew it not, neither you nor your people, before this..." [Qur'an 11:49]* Having knowledge of the unseen is a divine quality of God, not human beings. The verses of the Qur'an that discuss the crucifixion show remarkable insight when we analyse them in detail. The Qur'an states that those who differ with it's claims about the crucifixion are in "full of doubt": *"They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition..."* As we have already seen with John and the Synoptics, this is exactly the situation that we found with the crucifixion narratives in the Gospels with all their contradictions and discrepancies.
@@julianhansen3717 My final point is that the belief that Jesus was not crucified but it was only made to appear so actually goes back to 1st century. There were numerous 1st and 2nd century Christian groups who denied the crucifixion: *1. The Basilidians* The 1st century scholar Basilides and his followers, the Basilidians, believed that Jesus was saved from the crucifixion and that another, Simon the Cyrene, was crucified in his place: *“The Unborn and Nameless Father seeing their miserable plight, sent his First-born, Nous (and this is the one who is called Christ) to deliver those who should believe in him from the power of the angelic agencies who had built the world. And to men Christ seemed to be a man and to have performed miracles. It was not, however, Christ who suffered, but rather Simon of Cyrene, who was constrained to carry the cross for him, and mistakenly crucified in Christ’s stead…”* *- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 24, section 4* The beliefs of Basilides matters because he was living very close to the time of the disciples, and there are even traditions that he got these teachings from the disciples of Jesus such as Peter. From this account we can see that it's not the Qur'an that invented this claim of substitutionary crucifixion but it goes back to earliest time of Church history. *2. The Philadelphians* The 1st century Church Father Ignatius wrote a letter to a Christian community, the Philadelphians, who seemed to deny that Jesus died and was resurrected on the basis that it was not found in the Old Testament Scriptures: *"And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified."* *- The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter 8* This community seemed to be one of Jewish Christians, as earlier in his letter Ignatius mentions that they should not fall into Judaism: *"But if any one preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised..."* *- The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter 6* Moreover, we can see in the letter that this community placed great significance on the Old Testament: *_If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel_* In their view, the life of Jesus was to be interpreted through the Old Testament, and not vice versa as Ignatius maintained. *3. The Trallians* Ignatius wrote a letter to a Christian group known as the Trallians, who seemed to believe that the death of Jesus was only in appearance, not reality. Here Ignatius tries to correct their understanding about the crucifixion: *"And when He had lived among men for thirty years, He was baptized by John, really and not in appearance; and when He had preached the Gospel three years, and done signs and wonders, He who was Himself the Judge was judged by the Jews, falsely so called, and by Pilate the governor; was scourged, was smitten on the cheek, was spit upon; He wore a crown of thorns and a purple robe; He was condemned: He was crucified in reality, and not in appearance, not in imagination, not in deceit. He really died, and was buried, and rose from the dead, even as He prayed in a certain place, saying, "But do Thou, O Lord, raise me up again, and I shall recompense them."* *- The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chapter 10* Now the reason why historians do not accept Jesus being saved from the crucifixion is the same reason why no historian accept that Jesus rose from the dead, it's too miraculous to be historically true, historians would consider such stories in the category of mythology.
@@moizahmed4705 I will try to make this as short as I can. I’ve heard someone said that Islam is a heretic branch of Christianity, Now I believe and here’s why: All heretic group that ever existed denied Jesus suffering on the cross! To burst your bubbles, All these heretic groups you appeal to doesn’t align with your Quran, Secondly non of them were from the 1stCE they’re all later development from heretical church fathers and agnostics. For you to use them as a reference they must tally with your Quran if they differ with the Quran at one point then it’s irrelevant. First the Basilides believe that Jesus is a divine being who couldn’t suffer bodily pain therefore couldn’t die on the cross, They belief Simon of Cyrene took His place and that the God of the Old Testament is a lower angelic God and Inferior to the Father Jesus preached about. Does that align with the Quran? Philadelphians, Doesn’t deny the crucifixion of Jesus they only have troubles that some of the teachings of the New Testament doesn’t perfectly align with the OT which to me is no problem because if they align then God brought nothing new through Jesus. Chapter Ignatius 8:68 His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith(68) which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified. Philadelphians isn’t denying the crucifixion, Don’t assume and assert what you don’t know. The Trallians are Docetism or the illusionists. It’s a heterodox doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality. They believe Christ was born without any participation of matter and that all the acts and sufferings of his life, including the Crucifixion, were mere appearances. Does this align with the Quran? Ignatius chapter 10:But if, as some that are without God, that is, the unbelieving, say, that He only seemed to suffer (they themselves only seeming to exist). If you’ve to accept this doctrines to validate your Quran then stick to it all and don’t cherry pick. After all it was Allah that revealed it to them that Jesus crucifixion was an illusion isn’t it? It gets worse early Muslim exegesis implies that God raised Jesus to heaven before the crucifixion happened, But some of agnostics texts you referenced implies that Jesus was still around laughing at Simon of Cyrene while he was getting nailed on the cross how’s Jesus still around laughing while Quran said he’s already in heaven? First conclusion. What we keep seeing is how Muslims are so desperate to find evidences that support the unhistorical claim made in Surah 4:157 which is another heretical ideology born by the by the evil one who uses those who lack true knowledge of God. Paul who’s letter was the earlier than the gospels affirmed without any form of doubt that Jesus crucifixion was a historical reality. Paul wasn’t present at the crucifixion, But Paul knew and met people who were. Paul knew Jesus mother who was present at the crucifixion, Paul must have also known many scribes and ordinary people who were present at the crucifixion. John19:25, Acts:21:18, luke 23:27 1 Corinthians 15:1-10 This verses undeniable prove that even though the apostles weren’t present at the crucifixion Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of Jesus and people who knew Jesus face to face were. I will lay one challenge for you, Surah 3:55 Talked about Jesus followers and according to you Muslims, Christians aren’t true followers of Jesus, So my question to you is who are this followers of Jesus Quran talked about from the 1stCE till the time of Muhammad whose belief about Jesus aligned with what Islam taught about Jesus before islam emerged? And who are superior today, Christian world or the Muslims world?
@@moizahmed4705 Lastly you assert that the gospels has no historical value or could be use as a reliable source of what Jesus said and did. Most New Testament critics like Bart Erhman will agree with you, but to an extent because they believe some of the verses in the gospels were actual word of Jesus. Example Jesus exclamation in Mathew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). Bart Erhman said that such words that reveals Jesus weakness, His struggles or His dependency on God can’t be a forgery because if the writers of the NT wants to make a forgery and make Jesus look perfect as a God they won’t include such verses that reveals His weakness. Secondly scholars has used the Bible to picture what the 1stCE Israel must of looked like because it contains a good geographical description of 1stCE Israel. And the Bible got all leaders of Rome and their year of reign correctly. So your claims is based on emotions and not reality or facts. Secondly you claimed the gospels of John has no historical value well that’s partially true, It’s true Christians view gospel of John as spiritual gospel it indeed has historical and theological value. For instance in John 19:33-34 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced(A) Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. Science and medical research institutions has found this to be a true statement, It’s called “haemothorax” A retired cardio-thoracic surgeon, Dr. Antony de Bono gave a good medical explanation to this you can go look it up. Lastly you referenced the Quran as containing the correct insight about Jesus life. First Bart Erhman said that “the Quran can’t be use as a source about the historical Jesus” So you do expect a sane man to place the Quran that came 600 yrs later above the gospels that were closer to the time of Jesus as a more credible source of Jesus life? No! Only a delusional mind can do that. First let’s talk about the Quran, Is Quran really divinely dictated to Muhammad by God through angel Gabriel? The answer is No. Here’s why: Quran got all the cosmological statements in it wrong. Quran plagiarized from sources that are know to be fictional and portray them as actual historical facts. Like the Syriac version of “Alexander Romance” which influenced Surah 18:83-101, Muslims make silly argument about this but an Australian convert to Islam Musa Cerantonio left Islam after he did a careful study of the Syriac and Arabic version of the story, He found that it’s impossible that the Syriac version was borrowed from the Arabic version as Muslims always claimed, instead he found out that the contrary was possible. Quran plagiarized an Arabized version of Greek medical philosophy, Like the embryo, Origin of sperm in the body etc. which are all wrong. What Quran taught at the time was a common knowledge among the people of Arabs. And Muhammad the prophet of Islam did no miracles, All the miracles in the Hadiths are ascribed to him 300 yrs later after his death after 3 yrs of suffering from poison. Quran made several false theological statements that doesn’t align with what Jews and Christians and prophets of old believed. For Example Quran made a claim that Solomon(suleiman)has a flying mattress lol, this is unhistorical statement. No Jews or Christian past and present will believe this, Quran said angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit or Spirit Of God but this is false, No Jews past and present will agree with this. Jews and Christians knew that the Holy Spirit is above the angels the only difference is Christians personalized the Holy Spirit the Jews didn’t. Lastly Quran that was supposed to be a perfect preserved book from God is not. The term perfectly preserved word for word dots for dots has been debunked. Muslims apologetics are now appealing to Islamic hypothesis to prove the perfect preservation of the Quran. Even Muhammad Hijab in his debate with a Christian on Soco Films admits that the term perfectly preserved word for word dots for dots is a dawa propaganda not based on fact and he apologized on behalf of Muslims for that. So tell me Moiz How do I take such book as the Quran serious? The earlier you Muslims realize that Quran is just an outdated book of its time the earlier you wake up to reality.
The sabbath starts from Friday night to Saturday. The Preparation day is the day before the sabbath. Also it stayed 3 days and 3 nights. That doesn't add up if he died on Friday since a day consists of 24 hours, how is Friday to Sunday 3 days and 3 nights.
Count from Thursday the last Supper then the Garden Thursday night. The term Preparation is Greek for Friday. Putting April 3rd 33AD during and at 3pm the time of his death and that evening a Lunar eclipse. This is Day 2' and Jesus will be in the tomb the second night friday night. The third day is Saturday and Saturday night is the 3rd' night.
Somewhat convenient to ignore one minor detail. The day of preparation before passover was a floating day. It could be any day of the week, just as the 1st day of Passover. And the first day of Passover was a consecrated day unto the Lord and no work would be done, like on a Sabbath. So the crucifixion works best when the Passover sabbath starts Thursday evening. From a Thursday crucifixion standpoint, Jesus enters tomb at near 5pm, or 1 hour before sundown on day 1; from sunset to daybreak is night 1; from daybreak to sunset is day 2; from sunset Fri to daybreak Sat is night 2; from daybreak to sunset is day 3; from sunset to resurrection is about 1 hour. In judaism partial days or nights are whole days or nights, days don’t count like we do. Also the resulting 50 hours in the tomb has a Biblical elegance to it, because of the year of jubilee is the 50th year. And 50 hours in the tomb is bringing jubilation. Also scripture says Sabbaths, and that means more than one. Also 2 sabbaths in a row would prevent the women from anointing the body until Sunday morning. A Thursday crucifixion works better than a Wed or Fri crucifixion.
It has been pointed out that anointing a body that had been dead for several days was superfluous.The whole point of anointing a body in that climate was to disguise offensive odour during the burial procedures.
@@mikev4621 stone temperature in a tomb would be about what the low temp would be this time of year or about 50 to 55 degrees. That would be enough to keep a body temp low enough to keep the decay from setting in for several days.
@@mikev4621 because that is what we have always done… How many times have you been told to do something at work because of tradition rather than function. Once upon a time before computers it made sense but creating paper copies by hand and a computer record makes no sense anymore.
@@joefromravenna But the women must have known there was a huge stone in front of the tomb and probably Roman guards.They weren't expecting a resurrection, so why did they even bother wasting time and precious money?
I would love to see you take this knowledge and apply it to the dating of easter as done by the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and previously Celtic churches since they often differ.
@@glebeboi he said historians, not priests, and he said "absolutely sure". Since Matt is very serious concerning religion and is not christian, there must be some rock-solid argument underneath, no?
@@glebeboi It would be silly to hand out a business card with John-not-the-Baptist printed on it. Of course, it would make sense if it said John the Mormon, John the Christadelphian or even John the Plumber. I agree that your rationale makes the most sense.
I'm a bit surprised to hear that the consensus view of the date is based on John (the clear outlier, the last to be written and by far the more stylized and having the most blatant theological agenda). I'd have thought the earlier three synoptics were more likely to be credible and that you'd be looking for dates circa 30-33 CE where the night of Pesach fell on the relevant day of Nisan in the same rough range of years...
The reason for taking John's account is because the synoptics tie Friday and the first day of Passover, which is impossible on the jewish calendar (it also cannot occur on Monday or Wednesday, btw)
@@adrianblake8876 There is no discrepancy. It's a matter of varied nomenclature. The feast of unleavened bread covers seven days. It is a requirement that no leaven is in the house for that period. In all four gospels Jesus broke arton, - leavened bread, with the disciples. John's gospel is more detailed and makes it clear that it that it was the preparation. People jump to *wrong conclusions* because of wrong assumptions. Mathew 26:17 the *first day* of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” Mark 14:12 the first day of the *Feast of Unleavened Bread,* when the Passover lamb was *to be sacrificed,* Jesus’ disciples asked Him, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” Merely saying that passover is part of the feast of unleavened bread and the passover is sacrificed during it. Luke 22:7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on (DURING) which the Passover lamb was to be sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare for us to eat the Passover.” Luke 21:19 He took some bread and gave thanks to God for it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” Καὶ λαβὼν *ἄρτον* εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν... Ordinary bread. The unleavened bread was referred to generically as "the passover", that is true today. It is referred to as Pesach. There is something of an anomaly to explain. It's this. Luke 21:14 When the time came, Jesus and the apostles sat down together at the table. 15 Jesus said, “I have been very eager to eat this Passover meal with you before my suffering begins. 16 For I tell you now that I won’t eat this meal again until its meaning is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.” Jesus was telling them that though he eagerly desired eat this passover with them, he *would not* be eating it until its meaning was fulfilled. This fellowship meal had elements of the passover in it, and he taught them what they stood for. (There was no lamb though...) This meal was a fellowship meal during the lead up to the actual passover. The big "problem" claimed is that while John has Yeshua dying while the lambs are being slain, the synoptics had Yeshua eating the passover with the disciples. But he did not. It was the day of preparation. John adds that Judas left, to complete his transaction. Watch this: Matthew 26:1 When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, 2 “As you know, Passover begins in two days, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” (Generically referring to the seven days of unleavened bread) Matthew 26:3 At that same time the leading priests and elders were meeting at the residence of Caiaphas, the high priest, 4 plotting how to capture Jesus secretly and kill him. 5 *“But not during the Passover celebration,”* they agreed, “or the people may riot.” very telling. Mark 14:12 On the first day of the *Festival of Unleavened Bread,* when (during which) the Passover lamb is sacrificed, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go to prepare the Passover meal for you?” Luke 22:1 The Festival of Unleavened Bread, which is *also called Passover,* was approaching. 2 The leading priests and teachers of religious law were plotting how to kill Jesus, but they were afraid of the people’s reaction. Here, Luke points out that the unleavened bread is *generically referred to as passover* though it starts before the celebration. Luke 22:7 Now the *Festival of Unleavened Bread arrived,* when the Passover lamb is sacrificed. Same again. Yet the disciples ate leavened bread. Artos. John 13:1 Before the Passover *celebration,* Jesus knew that his hour had come to leave this world and return to his Father. People fail to see that passover is a generic term for the unleavened bread festival and jump to the conclusion the last supper was a seder. It was *not.*
@@Lucid.dreamer I forgot to add that the source to my statement: I'm jewish. Also, festival of unleavand bread is an epithet for passover. This is evident from the Torah (Exodus and Deuteronomy specifically), so I'll ignore your wall of text, unless you have a tldr version...
@@adrianblake8876 Adrian. I appreciate Jewish people very much. But Jewish people can have misconceptions, too. I'm simply saying that the "synoptic problem" is an invention of men's minds. Be they Jewish or otherwise. Unfortunately, try as a might, I couldn't make my post any more compact. It's your choice, ofc, whether you want to read through it. But in summary... The last supper was not a passover seder. It was the article of a Jewish rabbi that altered me to that. (There are numerous such articles). A little bit of research will put "paid" to the "synoptic problem" for anyone wiling to make that effort. Like "Scotch mist" and "missing link", "synoptic problem" is a name for nothing. Thanks for responding, though.
(An-Nisa 4:157) And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of Allāh." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.1 Footnote Another meaning is "And they did not kill him, being certain [of his identity]," i.e., they killed another assuming it was Jesus (upon whom be peace).
@@Masahanate-777 [Surah An-Nahl: 92] And do not be like she who untwisted her spun thread after it was strong [by] taking your oaths as [means of] deceit between you because one community is more plentiful [in number or wealth] than another community. Allah only tries you thereby. And He will surely make clear to you on the Day of Resurrection that over which you used to differ. [Surah An-Nahl: 93] And if Allah had willed, He could have made you [of] one religion, but He causes to stray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And you will surely be questioned about what you used to do.
Although this quote from the Quran is of interest especially to Muslims, if not relevant to this discussion which is using the Greek Bible, that is the New testament, to come up with ideas about the death of Jesus.
If you could step back from your own personal beliefs you might be able to see that there’s a little bit of insanity in order to downgrade Jesus from the son of God to just a prophet. You see what I mean?
This assumes that the Gospel accounts are accurate. As you've pointed out, the Gospels were written quite awhile after Jesus died and were often allegorical. Can we rely on them for dating?
Actually, yes. The Gospels are trustworthy. There is so much textual evidence and historical documentation even outside the gospels that back up the truth of what they say. Jesus was real, he did die, and he did rise again. Historically proven fact
@@venio6875 Psalm 22, which the first verse was quoted by Jesus before He died, is a prophecy telling about his death. So is Isaiah 53, foretelling the death of the suffering servant of God. By His stripes we are healed. So that’s 2 passages there
@venio Stop soresdijg false information Constantine had nothing to do with the new testament. Although we don't know q00 percent who wrote the gospels its usually attributed to the traditional names. Or disciples of the names the church attribute it. But who cares? No one knows who really wrote some books in the hebrew Bible. Anonymous authorship doesn't downplay credibility or authenticity
@@venio6875 The council of nicse was set to resolve the Arian controversies within the church which affected the empire. Not the new testament lol. There's evidence that church fathers quoted from 1 John 5:7-8 and early Christians before we have the oldest complete copy of the gospels. The oldest copy doesn't have it, it's lster byzantine that has it. But many church fathers who lived prior to the oldest manuscript webhave available quoted that verse.
Matt, one other thing that might be used is that 3 of the gospels describe an eclipse during the crucifixion. So, which year, in that range, has a solar eclipse in Jerusalem on a Friday?
Good work man I keep watching all your videos I love them I’m really happy with them that’s fantastic that I’m learning a lot from you at the age of 75 years old keep the good work up don’t stop thank you so much❤
Try out Ground News now:
ground.news/usefulcharts
Ground news seems really cool
Jesus did not die on a Friday. He died on Wednesday: three days and 3 nights!! There's no way to get 3 full days and 3 full Jewish sabbatical nights if he died on Friday. That would only give you one day and a half. He rose before dawn Sunday morning while it was still dark.
Been told always around fall which is why Halloween shoulda been co opted than Easter/Ishter fertlilty pagan festival. Instead use good friday & all souls day the celebrating supposedly dying & rising. Sorry to blow people's mind but there's no proof burial of Jesus(real person wise) but region people have known all the fantasy talk of him risen and becoming a spirit was due to his followers not understanding high priests & people of money & women close took him from the cross ALIVE but looking dead after feeding him drugs and the 3days in a tombs he was being wrapped & nursed, looked like hell why no one recognized him and he was taken east into Jewish trade area in Kashmir. Google JESUS DIED IN KASHMIR, locals have a tomb and records of a guy coming from Israel running from the Romans had been crucfied but his name was changed. The holy grail myth comes from connected story rumors Mary Magdalene was pregnant with his child went to west Jewish settlements to hide away from anyone trying to track Jesus escaping .
@@laique8797 Actually, I am not ethnically Jewish. I converted to Judaism. And I have nothing against Jesus or Christians. I simply have a different viewpoint, which I share.
@@laique8797 What are u talking about he literally said in one of his videos that Moses probably wasn't a historical figure and the Exodus was a myth, pretty foundational Jewish beliefs.
Matt, when you posted your "When was Jesus born?" video last Christmas, I left a comment wishing for a "When did Jesus die?" sequel. And now you give me this on my birthday! Thanks a lot!
Dare I make another wish, this time for next year’s Easter? I would love to see you tackle the complicated topic of Julian and Gregorian computus (calculation of Easter date). It’s the kind of dry mathematical subject which could gain a lot from visual explanations, and I’m sure you could be up to the task. Take your time, you have one whole year to put it together...
I would love this!
JESUS was NOT born on pagan xmas, and we are to do PASSOVER, NOT pagan easter.
@@bethlehemeisenhour5807 Passover has now become Resurrection. Easter is a mostly commercial thing today.
@@bethlehemeisenhour5807 We can all agree that religion is evil. Come and join the atheist movement and let's make this a better world!
this conversation is what turns people away from religion. Eisenhour, you're creating more agnostics than believers.
I once had the good fortune to witness an elderly group gather to collect their memories of the first founders of the American Youth Foundation. The original founders had all died decades ago, and I found the written history building process fascinating and the results very much like what we see in the Old and New Testaments: including common threads as well as minor inconsistencies in detail and timelines.
That sounds like it must have been a lot of fun!
That's a really interesting take
Minor?
Very cool :) That's actually a "proof" used by scholars and historians to assert the authentic historical accuracy of the gospels - namely, that if Jesus never lived, died, etc. and the Christian story was bogus, the authors would have banned together to "get their facts straight" to sell a story with all the same details. The fact that they, in fact, differ in some minor details speaks to the authenticity of the historical individuality of each author's account. Meaning, that a giant conspiracy to sell a false narrative isn't likely at all. Much like your story above :)
@@WelcomeToJ ^^^^ Christians should recognize this!!
Matt, a quick note about your observation that releasing Barabbas after the seder would not make sense from the Jewish perspective - Pontius Pilate as a governor had a reputation for offending the religious and cultural sensitivities of Jews numerous times throughout his tenure. If the Romans were to engage in a custom of releasing a prisoner during the Passover, it could plausibly be a half-hearted political concession that would not necessarily align with the actual needs of a Jewish person or make sense from a Jewish perspective, which the Romans often overlooked or misunderstood.
Yeah I thought that was a odd point because Pilate wasn’t Jewish so he’d mess up their tradition easily
What makes perfect sense is that the Gospels are fiction.
As far as I can tell, there is no record of such a custom existing. Just fiction.
my view is that the story was "made up"(not to be offensive or anything) or inspired by the jewish festival of yom kippur, and is instead a story that reflects christian theology rather than an actual event in history
It really could go either way. Pilot was weird and did some weird stuff, and the detail is included in every Gospel. But at the same time it is a bit of a perfect narrative piece. In the end you really can choose whatever way you want to see it, as neither answer is all that egregious
There were 2 sabbaths that week the Passover feast day (all feast days are referred to as sabbaths) and so 2 preparation days. The only way that you can fit 3 days and 3 nights between His death and resurrection is if He died on Wednesday and rose on Saturday evening. Remember that when the women came to the tomb on the first day of the week (while it was still dark) He had already gone.
That the truth!
Wednesday arguably gives you four days (Wed + Thurs + Fri + Sat) and four nights, but the possibility of two sabbaths in one week is a real one. I lean more towards a Thursday crucifixion myself.
You are counting the days correctly. Jesus died Wednesday say 5pm. Thursday @ 5 pm is 1 day. Friday @ 5pm is 2 days. Saturday @ 5pm is the third day. Thursday was the Unleavened bread sabbath on the 15th. The women's purchase spices on Friday and rested on the Commandment sabbath and Jesus rose that day @ 5pm.
I too believe Thursday
Correct.😊
I confess, when you got to the section of "assuming John's timeline is accurate, these would be the possible dates," I hoped you would continue with "assuming the timeline of the synoptics is accurate instead, then..." Even if the conclusion was "no time between 30-33 CE fits."
Agreed. Especially considering that most historians use Markan piority, and count the synoptic gospels as more historically accurate than John.
@@chickenmcnuggets2596 weirdly though most scholars follow John on the dating of the last supper and crucifixion.
@@hgv85 Basicaly, the timeline of the synoptics seems impossible from the jewish/high priest point of you : arrest a man, judge him, have him condemned, all during passover seems impossible. On the other hand, John timing of arrestation one day before Seder accounts for things being rushed : they want it all finished before Seder
@@lecrocodile1105 except it was the Roman's doing the execution, so if they didn't really care about pesach they might have been willing to do it at that time, which also accounts for why they are doing it in the first place because it's doubly politically convenient for the Sanhedrin to not be the executioners then.
@@lecrocodile1105 right, by calling it weird I just meant that it’s one of those peculiar places where John is seen to be more historically accurate than the Synoptics. For my part, I disagree with the common reading of John’s timeline.
I adore how you can tackle such charged topics with respect and intellectual integrity.
Though no respect is warranted for sewer-stench mythology.
Indeed.
@@michaelanderson7715 Jesus Christ was always hated, no surprise there. But the Faith He established will still be here long, long after your deserved passing away.
@@kafon6368 "Jesus Christ was always hated, no surprise there. But the Faith He established will still be here long, long after your deserved passing away."
- ah yes, the retreat to snark in absence of substance
@@michaelanderson7715 You couldn't even define the word without a dictionary.
If we consider the year 14CE as the 1st year of reign of Emperor Tiberius that would place the year 28CE as its 15th. If Jesus started his preaching somewhere during the year 28CE we have also to rember that according to the Gospel of John are mentioned three separate Pesach, being obviously the 3rd the one where his death took place. So the date of 30CE for his death it seems the more plausible. Thank you for your great and unbiased work!
In those times some people counted years "inclusively", meaning you'd count both the start AND end year. That could be the reason behind the discrepancy in the video
Also, the Bible foretells that “The Son of Man” or Jesus will spend 3 days in the tomb just as Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of the fish. If that were to be taken into account along with the Jewish sabbath, it means that Jesus has to observe the sabbath and “rest” on the Saturday, making his ressureccion on a Saturday evening (or Sunday) since the days are measured from evening to evening; thus, making his death on a Thursday evening not Friday evening.
@@dtoltecatl He died in the afternoon, not evening. he was buried hastily before sundown to avoid the sabbath problem. Ergo Friday.
See the Greek of John 20 1.
baptized 15 Ethanim year 29 C.E.....died Nisan 14 year 33 C.E
You do such an amazing job of breaking done information without getting to bogged down.
You may also consider for calculations, the verses that mentions Yeshua's age, the period of his ministry, etc to try to get closer. For this, it will be necessary to use the chart of his birth too. Great video and well explained. Thanks.
Likewise, if there is a “ceiling” to how old Jesus could have been at the time he died, that could help us narrow the range of possible years for his birth.
There is no evidence that is actually indicative of how long his ministry lasted. The video made it a point to mention this, so I am not sure why commenters are ignoring this. Scholars also agree that we cannot know Jesus' age, as this would require knowing his exact birthdate, which we do not.
Christ's ministry began in 27AD at 30 years of age.
Prophetic terminology states a "day" often symbolizes a year in fulfillment. Daniel's prophecy states there are 69 weeks leading up to Messiah (Daniel 9:25), each consisting of 7 days, in turn = 483 prophetic years. The decree of Artaxerxes is the starting point, of which scholars agree with and historians place it at 457BC and 483 years later leads us to 27AD (no year zero). Subtracting 30 years from 27AD leads us to 4BC of Christ's Birth in the Fall; you can see this in the Tomorrow's World booklet "Is Christmas Christian?" with more details.
Jesus died in the middle of the week (Dan.9:27) and that is Wednesday.
Sequence of Bible events in order according to the Bible.
Now if one knew when Passover started, it starts in the evening (Lev.23:5), and days begin in the evening and end at evening according to Lev.23:32, Gen.1:5,8, etc. According to Lev.23, Passover and Unleavened Bread are 2 separate feasts; see Mark 14:1. 👉Now we know that the 1st evening of Wednesday (which is our Tuesday evening) was Passover according to Matt.26:17-30, Mark 14:12-26, Luke 22:7-21; notice the word "evening" in Matt.26:20. Let's go further in this evening of where the Bible says "night" in Mark 14:27,30,32-50. Now in the morning of Passover Wednesday (Matt.27:1,11,15,31,Mark 15:1,6,20, Luke 23:1,17,24,32, John 18:39,19:14-20), the chief priests and elders bound Jesus for crucifixion. Now at 3PM, Jesus was crucified (Matt.27:46 =9th hour from 6am is 3PM)(Mark 15:25 = 3rd hour from 12pm is 3pm.) Then it is noted in John 19:31 that the bodies should NOT remain on the cross because the next day was a "high Sabbath day" known as Feast of Unleavened Bread in Lev.23:6. So in the evening on Passover (Matt.27:57-61, Mark 15:42-47, Luke 23:50-55, John 19:38-42),Joseph of Arimathea wrapped Christ's body and laid it in the tomb.
👉 Jesus was put in grave in the evening before the next day began as noted from Luke 23:54.
Thursday 15 (Unleavened Bread)
👉1st evening = Jesus in grave.
👉1st day = Jesus in grave.
Sabbath was beginning in Luke 23:54-55.
Matt.27:62-66
Friday 16
👉2nd evening = Jesus in grave
👉2nd day = Jesus in grave.
Mark 16:1 = bought spices after the sabbath and prepared them before the weekly Sabbath according to Luke 23:56.
Saturday 17 (weekly Sabbath)
👉3rd night = Jesus in grave
👉3rd day = Jesus in grave.
Jesus rose on Saturday before the Sabbath ended, for Jesus couldn't stay another night, He had to precisely raise same time as He was put in the grave on Wednesday evening. Yes Jesus proclaimed His day because Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath in Mark 2:28.
Explanation:
Jesus would "rise on the 3rd day"(Luke 24:7, Mark 9:31), Jesus would "rise in 3 days" and NOT after (John 2:19), and Jesus would "rise after 3 days" and NOT before (Matt.27:63, Mark 8:31), making Matthew 12:40 correct: Jesus in the grave for 3 full nights (12 hrs in night X 3 nights = 36hrs) and 3 full days (12 hrs in day X 3 days = 36 hrs) = 72hrs.
Matthew 12:40 (Easy to Read Version - ERV) = "...In the same way, the Son of Man will be in the grave three days and three nights."
Yes people can try to get around this, to play the card that Jesus rose sometime on Sunday, but the Bible is frank about this that certain people would say the resurrection is past already to destroy the faith of some (2Tim.2:18).
Hi Matt,
Good video, Matt! This is a subject which has fascinated me for quite some time. We both use similar methodologies, but I have come to a different conclusion. Here are some points I used in my estimation:
Nissan 10 was the day when the Pesach lamb was chosen and brought into the house. Theologically, this corresponds to Palm Sunday . The lamb had to be kept in the house with the family until Nissan 14 when it was to be killed. If Jesus was "the Lamb of God", then he had to be killed on Pesach, Nissan 14.
The Passover meal was held after sundown on what we would call the 13th, but it was actually Nissan 14 by Jewish reckoning. After the Seder, Jesus was arrested, interrogated, and abused throughout the night. At dawn, the chief priests, elders, and lawyers tried him (illegally), and then sent him to Pilate. Jesus was subsequently executed later that day. Thus, Jesus was killed on Nissan 14, just as all passover lambs had been killed, before him.
The Feast of Unleavened Bread actually started on Passover (Nissan 14) (Exodus 12:18), but was officially observed the next day (on Nissan 15) , which was a special sabbath (Leviticus 23:6). Therefore, Jesus' execution on the first day of Unleavened Bread (Nissan 14), was not a problem for the Jewish officials, but because the 2nd day of Unleavened Bread (Nissan 15) was a special sabbath, they were anxious to have Jesus' body taken down and entombed before sundown (which started Nissan 15). Thus Jesus was executed and buried on Passover day (Nissan 14), before sundown.
In Matthew 12:40, Jesus prophesied about himself, saying that "...as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the son of man (Jesus) will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Many try to find ways around that inconvenient statement, but if it is taken literally, at face value, then three days and three nights are hard numbers. I, therefore, count it this way: Nissan 14 (day 1), Nissan 15 (night 1 and day 2), Nissan 16 (night 2 and day 3), and Nissan 17 (night 3). When the women got to the tomb "very early" on the morning of Nissan 17, they found that Jesus had already risen, after having spent the prophesied 3 days and three nights in the tomb.
Luke 24:1 tells us that the women arrived at the tomb very early on "the first day of the week" (some Bible versions say "Sunday morning"), so to determine what day of the week Jesus was killed, one only needs to count backwards from Sunday. Assuming that Nissan 17 was a Sunday, and that Jesus had spent three day and three nights in the grave, the day of his execution (Nissan 14) would have had to be a Thursday. In any case, IF the women found the tomb empty on Sunday morning, Jesus could NOT have been cruxified on the previous Friday. First, because three literal days and nights had not been fulfilled, and Secondly, (and maybe more importantly), because Friday would have been the special sabbath for Unleavened Bread and the Jews would not have permitted it.
Luke 23:54 is often used as proof for a Friday cruxifiction, because is says it was "the day before the sabbath". That could mean Friday, but it could just as easily mean Thursday (Nissan 14) which was the day of preparation for the special sabbath (on Nissan 15) to celebrate Unleavened Bread.
Lastly, I will concede that Jesus being a literal "three days and three nights in the earth" is slightly problematic. The "nights" are no problem. If Jesus was cruxified on Thursday, as I assert, he was clearly in the grave for three entire nights. That's easy to see. But the "days" are a little less clear. A Thursday cruxifiction would mean burial for only a short portion of the day on Thursday, Nissan 14, followed by two full days on Nissan 15 and 16, and a possible portion of Sunday, Nissan 17. I have heard it said that the ancient Jews reckoned any portion of a day to be a full day. Using that explanation, I interpret the short portion of Nissan 14 as day 1, Nissan 15 as day two, and Nissan 16 as day 3, totaling three full days. I do not count Nissan 17 (Sunday) as a day in the tomb at all. The fact that the women found the tomb empty early on Sunday morning (Nissan 17), does not mean that Jesus spent any portion of that day in the tomb. In fact, it is likely that Jesus rose from the dead just before dawn on that day, thus making Sunday non-applicable as "a day" in the tomb. This is my interpretation.
I'm sure that there are many other arguments or approaches to determine the day of Jesus' death, (and resurrection), but the facts above make the best sense to me.
Writing in the Greek language, in the end of century, never been to province of Palestine , Luke knew everything about the events?
Also it seems to me, though my math may be wrong, that you've found a contradiction between exodus and leviticus. In exodus the festival ends on the evening of the 21st. That's the beginning of the day. But in leviticus you are to celebrate seven days starting from the 15th. That means the 21st is included and the festival ends on the evening of the 22nd. Or did I math wrong? I can't imagine the jews would overlook this contradiction if it is one.
Yes this makes sense.
I agree with everything except the days of the week reasoning. At that time...the Sabbath was not fixed like our modern day calendar...it was done by the moon. The full moon being Nissan 15. This fixed calendar stuff didn't exist until 321AD.
Great job. It makes a lot of sense
I'm so glad this got uploaded! I was wondering about this whole week long
There is great new schlorship these days and the day Jesus was actually crucified has now been established. I certainly hope Christians will cease trying to use every inconceivable analogy to foce 3 days and nights within a Friday crucification. It jusy isn"t going to work no matter what silly Math you use!
I love these kind of investigative videos you do Matt, really awesome to see!
Another thing to consider is rather or not there was the use of a leap year (when there was an additional month added before Nisan, every 4 years- today we would call it "Adar ב /Adar B/Adar 2", which is added after the month Hadar): If it was actually a custom at that time and if that specific year was a leap year. If so, all calculations would move one month forward.
Intercalary month that decided using complex calculation are actually newer invention, it was made a few centuries after the arrival of Christianity.
Before that, such intercalary month was added based upon physical observation I believe it was based upon observation if certain type of plant have sprouted or not.
Adar* ! There is no 'H'!
@@Nooticus Oh no, you're right! oops 😅
Caesar fixed the calendar so assuming they do
I would suggest looking through historical records for the very first clearance sale on Easter candy.
Oh, my dog, it is terrific to get wise advice at this time.
Yet another exceptional video, which I'm actually watching straight after our second seder! Pesach sameach Matt and family!
Well, if there’s one thing this comment section (and the comment section on “When was Jesus Born?”) demonstrates, it’s that Christians, Atheists, Muslims, and presumably everyone else all have those among them that will stubbornly insist their exact view is correct, no matter what the mainstream historical consensus may be.
With that said, I hope you all have a good Passover/Good Friday, for those who celebrate them, and for those who don’t…well, it’s Friday, so enjoy your weekend.
Well, one form of atheism is 'not believing a god exists', so your silly 'will stubbornly insist their exact view is correct' is nonsensical in regard to this meaning.
Consensus always changes. Why should I, for example, bother to remember it?
Thanks same to you.
Thanks. You, too! Blessings from The Most High God! Pax Christi 🕊️✝️
History schmystery!
Hey Matt. Thanks for the video. Which bible/translation or documents did you use for the basis of this research? I am particularly interested in the wording of the scriptures used to establish the timelines. Thanks as always for your work.
I always refer to the original Hebrew or Greek.
In that case, I usually use the JPS for the "Old Testament" and the NRSV for the new.
@@elliotb6727 Or he could be translating it directly from the Greek and/or Hebrew.
I find translations of anything to be challenging. Modern or ancient. The only one who knows what they mean by the words they use is the speaker or writer and that is foundationally limited in scope to the speakers knowledge of the language they choose to speak in, adding a 2nd or 3rd person to it only further complicates or makes it impossible to perfectly translate or otherwise communicate the meaning of what was originally said. Yet I am always interested in doing the best I can with what I have to work with... I am half Greek and I love debate and deep thinking.
Since you are familiar with my religious history Matt, I can perhaps communicate more clearly the challenges I face when trying to develop a foundation to understand where other folks are in their thinking. For instance the Hebrew and Jewish system is unclear to me growing up as I did. I actually have a better understanding of the Greek perspective from growing up in a Greek community very immersed in the culture and some history.
I find the disagreement between gospels so much more interesting and rich than a perfect match between them. It gives a great touch of humanity to the works that endears them to me even if it does somewhat undermine the academic credibility of the exact writing.
It’s not that they “disagree” but that they offer different perspectives. For example, while one may say there were 2 “angels” and another might only report one “angel” (which doesn’t necessarily mean thee weren’t two angels there, but that only one was important to that telling), so some effort to reconcile is required. Unless they actually contradict each other, they may be reconciled.
They're eyewitness accounts. Eyewitnesses always disagree.
@@scottintexas
The fact that there are claims of angles makes you wonder if they were discussing Euclidean geometry, as nobody in their right mind could think of anything else.
Matt, love your content. I think most of the time, how much time do you put into research to make your videos. However much time you do put into them is shows in the depth of your work. Nice job.
Not much time I tell you. His "theory" is full of holes.
There is one more reference.
1 Corinthians 11 [in a context of describing Jesus as the Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7)] the apostle Paul points out in verse 11:22 that "on the night he was betrayed", Jesus was resignifying the Seder foods. And then guides to commemorate the Seder not only with reference to the freedom of Egypt, but also in memory of Jesus.
According to the Hebrew Masoretic text of genesis 17:1 onkelos or Targum Jonathan says that Prophet Abraham was a ( shelim ) שְׁלִים means a Muslim
וַהֲוָה אַבְרָם בַּר תִּשְׁעִין וּתְשַׁע שְׁנִין וְאִתְגְלֵי יְיָ לְאַבְרָם וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ אֲנָא אֵל שַׁדַי פְּלַח קֳדָמַי וֶהֱוֵי שְׁלִים בְּבִשְרָךְ
And Abram was the son of ninety and nine years, and the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him, I am El Shadai; serve before Me and be perfect (shelim) in thy flesh.
שְׁלִים
Check out the Hebrew English chaldan lexicon book
You will find the Hebrew word שְׁלִים means a Muslim / Islam / devote to God
Lookout for these words in safaria .org
/ perfect / complete / blameless
Page 1064
The other similar books like that it says Muslim too
On archive .org
Or Google Hebrew strong 7999
In Targum Jonathan or onkelos and Aramaic Targum in safaria . Org
There is many verses have the word shelim / שְׁלִים / Muslim in around 25 verses
In the holy twelve gospel the word perfect law / Islamic law is used too by Jesus
see your good works, and glorify your Parent who is in heaven.
8. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law or the prophets till all be fulfilled. But behold One greater than Moses is here. and he will give you the higher law, even the perfect Law, and this Law shall ye obey.
18. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Parent Who is in heaven is perfect.
My TikTok username is lordofpeace25e
I do Dawah to none Muslims
Interesting questions! I wish we could know for sure. By the way, I am now halfway through your book and have been enjoying it so far!
There is a way to know whether or not it was cloudy in Jerusalem. The gospel writers reference that a Blood moon rose on the day Jesus died. In fact, a blood moon rose over Jerusalem on 3 Aprill 33 CE. This is a verifiable astronomical fact. Astrology was very popular in the Roman empire at the time and the Gospel writers were likely into astrology as well, referencing astrology numerous times. Jesus himself is recorded as referencing astrology in his teachings a few times in the gospels. So it's very likely that the early Christian writers would have taken note of the blood moon rising event. This probably greatly contributed to to veneration of Jesus and the rapid rise of the sect in Jerusalem ("If the friggin' moon morns his death, what else should we know about the guy!")
I personally think the blood moon over Jerusalem (which again, is a verifiable astrological fact) probably dates the death of Jesus and was highly likely to have contributed to his veneration (if taking a purely secular academic view on the matter).
Yep. It's pretty insane to think about, isn't it?! There's also this. Good job!
Geologists say Jesus, as described in the New Testament, was most likely crucified on Friday, April 3, in the year 33.
The latest investigation, reported in International Geology Review, focused on earthquake activity at the Dead Sea, located 13 miles from Jerusalem. The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 27, mentions that an earthquake coincided with the crucifixion:
Both of the above posts make great points.
I think that none of the gospels mention the blood moon. The moment you are probably thinking of is by a gospel writer, but it's Acts 2:20. It's not an original statement to Luke but an extended quotation of a prophecy from Joel. The passage does mention that a lunar eclipse will occur (if that's how we interpret the moon turning to blood, which I agree with) but it's not specifically referencing the crucifixion. Nothing in Peter's speech directly ties it to the crucifixion and the passage also mentions a solar eclipse, which does not appear to have occurred in Jerusalem that day. If we knew the date of Jesus' crucifixion, we could use it to confirm the theory of the blood moon, but to use the theory of the blood moon to confirm the date is suspect for two reasons. First, as Useful Charts points out, it only lines up with one out of the four gospel accounts. And second, that would be assuming the correctness of the blood moon theory. But given that none of the gospels mention the blood moon (by god, wouldn't you mention such an important occurrence?) and the reference in Acts is indirect, it seems better to assume there probably was not a blood moon on the day of Jesus' death. Surely they would have been more clear about that.
Interesting, but something being true doesn't make the rest of the stories true.
As Matt says, the gospels are religious works where symbolism plays an important part. Even Christian scholars admit that many details may have been included for literary reasons and not because they actually happened. I think Matt did a great job at condensing and visualizing what the historical consensus is.
Two things I believe that were overlooked (unless I just missed it) and should be considered are:
1. Preparation Day for the Sabbath and Preparation Day for the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread are not always the same. They can both fall on the same day in certain years, but not every year. Preparation Day for the “weekly” Sabbath is always Friday. But Passover Preparation Day is for the “high” Sabbath of the Feast of Unleavened…and that differs from year to year. So, the “Sabbath” mentioned in the gospels may not mean or imply the weekly Sabbath that falls on Saturday. That must be considered
2. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus on the first day of the week (Sunday). In Luke 24:21, they told Jesus (not knowing it was Him) that “it is now the third day since these things happened.” “These things” refers to the chief priests and rulers handing Him over to be sentenced to death and crucified. So, if one were to count backward three days then Saturday would be one day ago, Friday would be two days ago and Thursday would be three days ago. That is plausible and should be considered. You could of course say Sunday is the “third day” and then Saturday would be the second day “since these things happened” and Friday would be the first day “since these things happened”…which would be kind of odd to say it that way if Friday was actually meant. This whole thing of how days are counted has caused contention for some. The expression “In three days” and the expression “On the third day” may not equal the same future day.
Personally, I find these two things interesting to consider, but don’t matter in the end regardless of if you believe in Christ and what the gospel writers stated or not. There are plenty of scholars that believe Christ was crucified on Thursday and not Friday and there are some who think it happened on Wednesday. For me, I’d have to go with Thursday.
Thanks for the video.
They did not count days the same way as we do today. Jesus was resurrected on the third day of his death. Jesus died on Friday. That's the first day of his death. Saturday is the second day and Sunday is the third day.
@@Xerxes2005 Except the Gospels make a big deal out of "three days and three nights." This seems awfully specific.
In church I was always taught Wednesday or maybe Thursday, and that Friday was simply a misunderstanding about what is meant by the Day of Preparation. I know many, but not all Protestants believe this. I'm now curious how widespread that belief is.
@@stephenwilhelm The Gospels speak of three days and three nights one time. But the "third day" is used several times. The Evangelists were not idiots. I suppose they know how to count.
@@Xerxes2005 John 11.9 sides more with the argument that they did count days same as us
Also, being overlooked is that he had in prior days stated that like Jonah, it would be 3 days and 3 nights. Making Friday night to Sunday morning unlikely (these do not equal 72 hrs)
I agree with you, John 19.31 explains that it was a *high* sabbath which was different from the regular sabbath. According to Lev 23, it explains that in Nisan fifteen/day 15 they were to rest and not do any work therefore this was a different type of sabbath apart from the 'saturday sabbath'.
As you said he therefore died on Wednesday night, next day thursday was high sabbath, then friday, the saturday sabbath and rose on the first day of the week which was Sunday. Those are 3 days and 3 nights
Really great breakdown! It’s a wonderful year when Passover, Easter, and Ramadan overlap so here’s to understanding, peace, and building community
How do you think YHWH feels about his three religions? Because at some level thinking of them all as valid is much more of a political point of you than it is a religious one. I mean let us have peace and let each worship in his own way. But the truth is one. And I’m not even sure we have access to it. So let’s do the brotherhood thing. I like to say all the preachers got to keep the game going so they all smile each other’s religion even as they hold them in contempt In private… And you know that’s true.
Nonsense
This was amazing! Thanks for doing it! Have a happy & blessed Easter!
This guy isn't leveling with you.
@@priscillajervey8345 what u mean?
The Passover is the day before the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The 1st day of the Feast of unleavened bread was a High Sabbath regardless of the day of the week. They are called to sacrifice each day of the feast... They would also have their normal Sabbath on that Saturday as well.
This is not how Jews see it. "Passover" is not a seperate holiday on the day before the First Day of Unleavened Bread. For Jews, Passover (we can it Pesach) and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are the same thing. However, the Passover meal (Seder) is celebrated on the night before Day 1, hence the confusion
@@UsefulCharts this is one of the things I did not understand until a few years ago. The swapping of terms in the gospels talking about the disciples going and preparing the meal is central to some confusion in the terms being an event within a time.
@@UsefulCharts please make a video of aryan invasion/ migration theory in india please make it🙏🙏🙏🙏 please
Indeed, and the day before high sabbath is also a preparation day. People fail to take that into consideration.
Error in the transition in 13:10? Two sets of Thursday, Friday, Saturday labels. Anyway, love your videos!
Truly hoped you posted a video for Easter, sure I wasn't disappointed, thanks, keep going, these religious videos are amazing
Agreed! I’m atheist in the UK so it’s always good to get my history & religion fill when I’m just doing nothing over a bank holiday weekend
@@venushale7113 You'd do better studying in any specific scientific academic field.
@@kafon6368 Not even really to say that you're wrong, but even atheists can benefit from understanding different religions better. Helps to contextualize history and psychology. Plus, some people just find it interesting. To each their own.
@@stewartminges No, they do not benefit from it. Unless it stimulates you like a drug, even then the benefits are questionable.
@@kafon6368 How can you separate history from religion? They are intertwined. Also, understanding a religion can help you to reason with those that subscribe to that religion. I do agree however that learning can be addictive like a drug. Which is generally a good thing.
It's interesting that scholars who try to nail the date down to a specific point all seem to prefer John over the synoptic gospels. Considering that the synoptics were written earlier, one would assume they would be preferred...
My (admittedly limited) understanding is that the synoptic gospels are preferred in some cases for being written earlier and generally agreeing with one another better than they do with John. But for this SPECIFIC topic of Jesus's death, all of the accounts seem theologically motivated. Which makes them all suspect for nailing down a date. Honestly considering how fuzzy dates can be, it's pretty fortunate that we have as much historical information for Jesus as we do.
scholars who try to nail the date down to a specific point - haha I see what you did there
@@glebeboi Can't get much more specific than the Plank epoch.
Actually sir
There was 2 sabaths during that week.
One was for the passover week which took place on Thursday and the other was on Saturday. Putting the death either at 31AD or 32AD.
I hope that this helps ur research and ur viewers :)
The preparation day for Passover was on Wednesday, thus the 15th was the High Day sabbath a Thussday which began at sundown on Wednesday going into Thursdsy - a day of rest. That is why Jesus has to be quickly taken from the cross and buried therefore you get the 3 complete days and nights.
I always knew "good Friday" was a myth. Friday was the 2nd day of His burial.
Wasn't the week called a "High Holy Week" celebrated once a year? Right 2 sabbaths, and
I'm guessing 32AD.
I'm editing now, just Googled and found out yr was 31AD Thurs. was High Passover that yr.
From what I've gathered theologists seem to be fixated on 37 years of life for Jesus. So when we take the 4 BC as his birth year, then he probably died in 33 AD.
Just my guess tho, I might be wrong.
My dad and I love watching your videos! We send them to my grandpa aswell. He's extremely christian and denies alot of science, so we love to see his reactions to these types of videos. It's all in good faith though😂😂
Science is magic. Dig deep enough and you will find a bunch of nothing.
@@joefromravenna I live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant so if you're right I'm in trouble.
@@NikeonaBike the smallest particles are strings of energy. Slap 2 gamma photons at each other you get an electron and positron. How magical is that?!
One thing I always remember is, the Romans and Pontius Pilate, didn't get themselves involved with Jewish religion as much as possible.
Pontius may or may not have liked Jesus, but he couldn't put him to death.
The reason jesus was put to death was outcry from the pharisees and saddeusces ( I butchered both those spellings). Two Jewish groups Jesus was against. ( yes it was ordered by Pontius but under assumed under threat or heavily upholstered by these two groups)
The general assumption that Pontius disliked jesus enough to kill him, seems to be, atleast in the west, mostly due to his name in the bible being prominent + comedy such as Family Guy mocking him.
Wonderful clear analysis, as always. Thank you.
0:01 “last Christmas.. I gave you my heart”
As a Catholic personally it doesn't matter to Me if it's 30 or 33 I accept he died and it was around the time of passover. I read alot about history and it really fascinates me how there is some truth written in the old religious text from many religions and a bit more of a story that isnt 100% factual but sends across a particular message. I think you have done a good job with your research and having it narrowed down to a gap of 3 years. The harder thing will be determining his resurrection if it was real or not and the dates
"As a Catholic personally it doesn't matter to Me if it's 30 or 33"
- of course not! Look at the credulous bs you accept as it is!
Determining the date of resurrection is simple if you know the date of death and can count 3 days using the Jewish counting method. Crucifixion day is day 1(Friday), day 2 would be Saturday, so day 3 is Sunday.
Now to the second part of your question, proving the resurrection: unless you can find an extra-Biblical account of the story you'll have to take the Bible literally. One passage that points to the unlikelihood of finding support outside of the Bible is Matthew 28:11-15 which describes the Jewish leaders and the guards(be they Jewish or Roman) devising a plan to figuratively cover up the resurrection.
But many were reported to have seen Jesus after his resurrection, unfortunately we only have accounts of a select few as recorded in the New Testament.
When the child sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic church (RCc) came to light in the mid 1990s far more people should have left the RCc.
One clarifying question about something you mentioned near the end. You discussed that the Jewish calendar, which was lunar, was based on observing the new moon and that inclement weather may have prevented observing a new moon in 31CE-32CE.
My question is: after hundreds or thousands of years, wouldn't the Jews have understood the cycle well enough to kind of proclaim a new month had begun even if there was cloud cover? I mean by that time the 28-day cycle would be extremely well documented, and they probably could even predict when they'd need Adar Aleph intercalated in the future. I guess I'm curious if the actual, physical observation of a new moon was required by custom or law to kind of formally declare that a new month had begun. Thanks
As he says in the video: the calendar "was based on literal observations," so, yes, actual, physical (i.e., literal) observation was required. In fact, the Mishnah (the first major written collection of Jewish oral tradition) says that the Sanhedrin (basically a city council) required the eyewitness testimony of two different people before proclaiming that a new month* had started.
*This was a requirement for every month, not just the year.
The Jewish leaders where able to postpone based upon the sighting of the moon. Also it's a 29 day cycles not 28.
It is not a case of "weather preventing a new moon being observed in 31 or 32"; it's a case of _generally_ requiring a "new moon" observation to be made for a rosh chodesh to be declared. The exclusion of 31 and 32 comes from the fact that - assuming 'regular' calendrical observations, not hampered by weather - in 31 and 32 Nisan rosh chodesh would not have fallen on a Friday (and therefore neither would the 14th/15th).
However, the fact that rosh chodesh had to be declared based on factual observation of a new moon, in my view invalidates the preferential choice of CE 30 or CE 33, as there is no particular reason to assume that the Nisan rosh chodesh of CE 30 or 33 would _not_ have been delayed. All we can say is "on a 6th day (Friday), in the first half of Nisan between 30 and 33".
@@dracodis that’s a goof point; why would they still rely on observation of the moon if they knew it went in 28 day cycles?
@@laurahunter651 because tradition and law. It wasn’t until much later that we ended up with a standardized calendar that didn’t require literal moon observations. By the ninthish century. Maybe before. Remember change is slow in tradition. It has to be incremental most times to be allowed.
Based on the info in your videos, a hypothesis can be made that Jesus was born around the Winter Solstice 4BCE, began his ministry in the fall of 26CE just before his 30th birthday, ministered for 3 1/2 years until his death sometime in March/April of 30CE at the age of 33.
I think he was born in 8BC. We have evidence that a census took place across the Roman empire that year (which is NOT the census mentioned in Josephus) that was administrated by Quirinius (as mentioned in Luke). It also places his birth in the reign of Herod the Great.
If Jesus' ministry began in 28, that places him at 36 years old at the beginning of his ministry, which is reasonably close to the 30 years mentioned in the Gospels (counting exact age is more of a modem thing).
It all adds up
@@StephensCrazyHour Quirinius' census was in 6CE - I would certainly be interested in this "evidence" that says otherwise. "The career of Quirinius and the names and dates of the governors are well documented and there is no time before 6 CE when he could have served as governor of Syria. Biblical scholars point out that there was no single census of the entire Roman Empire under Augustus and the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms; further, no Roman census required that people travel from their own homes to those of their ancestors"
@@DwayneShaw1 100% true ! Traveling with an 8 months pragnet Mary to the home of "her ancestors" it's just a made up story for to link the Nazareth born Jesus with the House of David !
@@DwayneShaw1 Joseph the father...being married with Mary and working in Nazareth of nearby, where a new town was building by Herod Antipas for the glory of Caesar Tiberius (Joseph was a foreman builder and not a furniture carpentier as usualy thinking)..... Joseph would have AT LEAST a rented house in Nazareth ,where he lived with his family ! There,he would gather some welth.....
THE CENSOR WANTED TO SEE YOUR WELTH...SO THE AUTORITIES WOULD TAX YOU ACORDING TO THIS WELTH.....NOT to estabish your genealogical tree !!!
I seem to remember being taught that Jesus was 33 years old when he died. I don't remember where that piece of information came from. But if he was born in 4 BCE, and lived 33 years, then he died in 30 CE.
The sheep being in the field precludes a spring birthday, those fields around Bethlehem where used to plant crops, the planters would want them in the winter not the spring.
Thank you. I love your Biblical series.
Fascinating. I prefer to go by 7th April 30 CE, because, since Jesus's birth was most probably in 4 BC, it is more likely he died at the age of 33 or 34 rather than 37.
Why do you think it is more likely that Jesus died at 33 or 34 rather 37?
@@jordanbtucker Because Jesus's preaching covered a period of one and a half to two and a half years - certainly not more than three. It is unlikely that Jesus would have led a private life until the age of 34. Given the relative shorter life expectancy, whatever his mission, Jesus would have embarked upon it before he reached his 30th year.
@@anthonydesa5561 I think you misunderstand what "average life expectancy" means and how it's measured. It's true that 2000 years ago life expectancy at birth was much lower than today, but a good part of that was because of extremely high rates of infant and child mortality. Someone who lived until their maturity (~20) was quite likely to reach 70.
@@anthonydesa5561 Even when the preaching period was about three years and he died in his 33th year, what the heck was he doing in those 15 years prior.
Probably just working on the farm, till it was maybe taken by the tax farmers and he joined the army of landless peasants.
Or he was told by Joseph he was adopted having worked all those years for a wage so meagre he could not even get married and stormed off going preaching.
@@kamion53 The gospels tell us that Jesus "grew in wisdom and virtue and strength of mind and body." I doubt he worked on a farm, since Joseph is referred to as being a "tekton" - Greek for "craftsman" - he could have been a carpenter, but he could also have been a draughtsman or builder. But certainly not a farmer. If Joseph did not own land, it is unlikely that Jesus did. Most historians feel that he assisted Joseph in his skilled trade (a tekton was a skilled worker, not a labourer), and simultaneously continued with his study of Scripture and interaction with the various rabbis of the time. He obviously spent a considerable amount of time in mediation, as well as engaging privately in matters of discussion and philosophy (otherwise Mary would not have so confidently asked him to deal with the problem at the wedding feast of Cana); and when he felt the time was ripe for his public ministry, he went to John to be baptised, and commenced his mission.
Happy Easter to all my fellow Christians and Happy Passover to all the Jews here as well 😀👍
Why are you celebrating a pagan feast instead of God’s Feast?
@@onejohn2.26 Then what do you call what is typically referred to in English as “Easter”?
@@onejohn2.26 Greek, Spanish Aramaic Latin French Christian call it "pascha" which is the Aramaic of passover.
English Christians call it Easter
Happy pascha to my christian brother ☦️✝️♥️♥️
@@onejohn2.26 you need to learn a lot, *ANTI-CHRIST*
About his birth was likely to be in the Festival of Lights . The 25th of Kislev in the solar calendar was equivalent to the Julian December 25th.
Grateful, very, for your hard work. Thanks!
It always seemed to me that Roman Justice was remarkably swift. Consider the timeline in the case of the Sanhedrin vs. Jusus Ben Joseph: Dinner at sundown, arrested around midnight, tried in the wee hours, examined by Pontius Pilot first thing in the morning, referred to Herod Antipas, returned to Pilot for sentencing, scourged, paraded, and crucified by noon, and dead by 3pm; all in one day! Talk about your speedy trial!
I'd like to see a chart with those 17 years (minimum) that occurred between Paul's conversion and his arrest by Gallio in 51.
A follow-up on my suggestion: after watching your video, I went back and looked at Raymond E. Brown's discussion of different Paul chronologies in his excellent Introduction to the New Testament (1997) and it and your comment about those 17 years led me to purchase second-hand A Chronology of Paul's Life by Robert Jewett (1979) which includes an argument Paul's conversion was in October 34 and the Jerusalem conference was in October 51, with his appearance before Gallio shortly before that in July or August 51. So Jewett basically agrees with you :)
Hi Mat. I have been looking forward to this Easter video. Didn't one of the gospels mention that an earthquake or an eclipse of the sun happened when Jesus died? I thought one of the gospels said it got very dark at 3pm when he died. Couldn't they figure out a date based on an earthquake/eclipse during Passover? Just something I thought I read somewhere. I very much enjoy and look forward to your videos. Thank you for all the attention to detail that you put into them.
Relating the "darkness" to an eclipse requires an assumption that they were the same thing. You know what they say about assumptions... Unfortunately the biblical accounts of the "darkness" do not elaborate on the specifics.
As far as the earthquake -- they were, and are very common in that part of the world. Many are minor, fewer are major. But prior to the invention of the Richter scale, they were not recorded consistently.
There wouldn’t be an eclipse during Passover. An eclipse happens when the moon passes in front of the sun, which can only happen on a new moon, and since the new moon is the sign of the start of the jewish month, there is no way for an eclipse to occur on the 14 or 15 Nisan.
That’s not to say it’s impossible there was an eclipse when Jesus died, just that for that to be the case you would have to discount all four gospels’ account that it happened during Passover, and if you do that there’s no reason to assume the sun “going dark” has to be accurate.
TL;DR the eclipse theory probably has merits, but you can’t really use it to calculate a date for certain because it contradicts the Passover date
Geologists say Jesus, as described in the New Testament, was most likely crucified on Friday, April 3, in the year 33.
The latest investigation, reported in International Geology Review, focused on earthquake activity at the Dead Sea, located 13 miles from Jerusalem. The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 27, mentions that an earthquake coincided with the crucifixion:
@@jehl1963 another problem with the "darkness" being equated to an eclipse is that the length of time described is utterly wrong for it to be an eclipse. We're not talking a small difference here but a difference of orders of magnitude. A totality of a solar eclipse can last at maximum 7.5 minutes. The darkness described in the gospels was roughly 3 hours long. That's 24 or 25 times as long as totality of a solar eclipse.
Then there's the small matter of solar eclipse tracks being completely predictable. We know when. We know where. We know how long. We know all three to great accuracy and precision. If there were a candidate eclipse it would be trumpeted from the rooftops. In 30 and 31 the totalities were at the wrong times of the year: May and November. In 32 there were no totalities. In 33 there were totalities in March and September, but the March one was in the southern hemisphere.
In short no eclipse comes anywhere near being a plausible candidate for the "darkness". That doesn't rule out a miraculous source of course, but there we get beyond the realms of history and science.
Those are literally inventions to show how special Jesus is. It so unlikely either of those things happened.
Watching this on Good Friday again 😍
Your videos are always a pleasure to watch!
I think 30 CE makes more sense since he was born around 4 BCE and supposedly died at age 33.
Yeah he especially if he was born around Winter Solstice and died around the Spring it adds up nicely
Luke says he was born is 6CE. Matthew says he was born during the reign of Herod - not the year of his death - so 4BC is not stated at all - it could have referred to anytime from 37-4BC. so you have two wildly incompatible Biblical claims (that are both supposed to be 'unerring') - and you misrepresent the one you choose without any indication of how you determined it was the true-er version - when both claims cancel out the validity of either - - back to the drawing board ...
Chinese churches teach the follows shorthand to calculate the date of Good Friday:
春分月圓星期五
Literally, the first Friday on or after the first full moon on or after the spring solstice.
This simplification of the Roman Catholic formula for determining Easter dates make use of the fact that both full moons and the spring solstice are observed in the Chinese lunisolar calendar, and does get to the same answer as the Roman Catholic Good Friday most years!
Hi Matt. Thank you for the video. Actually, some studies tell us Jesus died on a Thursday, the day of the preparation for the Passover, and not the day of preparation for the Sabbath. There were 2 Sabbaths that week, the High Sabbath which is the Passover, and the actual Sabbath which is the seventh day. It's interesting to really look at and study different accounts and perspectives regarding this matter. But for me, why Jesus died is more important than the when. But thank you for this perspective, Matt. Always love your videos.
Note that from a Jewish perspective, the term "Preparation Day" never refers to any other day than the weekly Sabbath. For other Sabbaths, a more specific term is always used, such as, "Day of Preparation for X Festival".
Apostle roslynd Solomon explains what yah reveals to get
Super video. As usual. Thanks.
16:50 is the most important point that a modern-day perspective wouldn't normally be aware of. I'm glad you pointed it out.
@@MyChihuahua ah, no, it means that the Passover could easily be a few days off because of best guess observation. Meaning, 31CE or 32CE are still reasonable years.
@@MyChihuahua If you believe Friday the 31AD is wrong UNLESS you understand the New Moon observation can be off by a few days. Jesus was following his customs, and it was normal for the Passover to be shifted depending how the council ruled on the new moon.
@@MyChihuahua it's not a sin; it's literally the process that Judaism followed until about the 5th century.
@@MyChihuahua nah, you're definitely the sin. You're welcome for the free lesson.
@@MyChihuahua *Jesus replied, “Your mistake is that you don't know the Scriptures, and you don't know the power of God."*
I like using 33 CE because it stands out more poetically than 30 CE, and because it is inherited tradition for me, but practically, I use “around 30 CE” in the historical sense, like how I might refer to the 1950s, because the exact year really isn’t all that important. Same with the Gospel accounts. The facts can be reconciled sometimes (like how many women were at the tomb - the writers weren’t there, so they didn’t remember all of them, and they may have not stayed together), but exact facts are not the point. I think John’s Gospel hints that the story took place before the Seder and that is likely right for the reasons you mention. The Last Supper was likely not the Seder. I could accept that Pilate was late about releasing a prisoner for the Passover, though. He wouldn’t have really cared about the purification rituals.
Don't be lose with the facts because there is all kinds of historical information available to prove what year he died in.
As always, I enjoyed your video tremendously. 😊
One detail that always bugs me in those kinds of calculations is the use of Luke as a quasi-historic source. While I studied theology I was always taught that Luke's 'overly specific' take on precise dates would best be interpreted as the attempt to lend authority to facts whose details had already been lost to history when the gospel was written. (This point of view always made a lot of sense to me.)
In fact, Matt, I think you would enjoy my professor Matthias Klinghardt's take on this whole subject quite a lot, because, I feel your points of view might merge in a lot of ways.
What's more, he proposed a solution to the Synoptic Problem that makes much more sense than the Two-Source Hypothesis. I'd be glad to hook you up with material on the subject as a videographic representation of his findings (in your style) seems to be long overdue… 😉
How long ago was your study?
I heard that more recent research on Luke proofs him to be extremely precise and reliable.
Ok, he painted roman soldiers in a very favourable light, as his gospel and acts might have been the main defense document for Paul's imperial court hearing...
@@ReadersOfTheApocalypse Well, first of all: no research can /proof/ Luke to be reliable. /If/ the content of his gospel is historic truth can't be proven or disproven. What stands out in Luke's gospel (and Acts), though, is his tendency to be disturbingly precise at some points (cf. Lk 3,1 for instance). The question, now, is how to /interpret/ these accuracies. Even if (or better: especially if) they are historically plausible (which I don't deny at all) they don't necessarily depict the 'historic truth' - they just mean that the author of this gospel did his research well. 😉
Don't get me wrong: Of course, the author of Luke's gospel and Acts /might/ have had other sources that lend some more detail to the descriptions in Paul's epistles and, thus, might be giving a fairly accurate account of what happened in Corinth. But he also /might/ have been making things up that seem plausible to lend authority to his writings.
Just imagine if /you/ wanted to write an account of Paul's travels, your only source being the Pauline epistles. Judging by the extent of letters from Paul to the Corinthians you know that obviously he was connected to Corinth in a meaningful way. So, in your story there /must/ be a detailed description of what happened there. Now, you do your homework and do research about the time during which Paul might well have been in Corinth. You find out about an important guy called Gallio and integrate him into your story to make it even more plausible.
I think that, being obsessed with a precise dating, scholars take the events only depicted in Acts for granted because they give us Gallio as a historical anchor from where Paul's whole life seems to be calculable. The question of the author's sources and general credibility is, in my opinion, neglected too much.
The fact remains: We just don't know if the events from Acts are historical at all. So, we have to judge the composition of Luke-Acts for its historical plausibility. And other considerations (such as Luke being a revision and recomposition of Marcion's gospel (= Klinghardt's hypothesis from 2015 to answer your question about the time of my studies) and, thus, a pretty late text) may lead one to believe that Acts is - in the best sense of the word - 'fan fiction'. It certainly does that for me.
@@ollipoppolli Thanks for the detailed response as I'm not familiar with Klinghardt and his hypothesis. Sounds interesting on an intellectual level. Why on an "intellectual level"?
There's another approach to this topic which was more widespread in previous centuries and is utterly neglected in academia today:
To first find out if Jesus indeed is, who he claimed to be (is there any doubt about his claim?). And go from there:
IF Jesus WASN'T God, then you can be SURE that Luke and all the other documents are elaborate lies or well written fan fiction or things of that kind. The following distinction between the original lies and follow-up fan fiction is perhaps not worth much effort (or interesting only on an "intellectual level" 😁). It wouldn't justify spending money on whole fields of study with faculties everywhere! And it certainly wouldn't justify dying for it!
But IF he WAS (ergo still is) God, you can approach the authenticity of the WHOLE bible differently:
Then the question is about how well can God himself establish, protect and preserve his own words?
But that wouldn't be purely intellectual any more. It'd become a question of life and death.
So I guess it would be worth putting a lot of effort into first solving the underlying question and go from there.
I would take Luke over quasi-theological quacks.
Great video, although I consider these things based on faith I enjoy the secular historic discussion too. My question is how does the dates you provided equate with the destruction of Solomon’s Temple? I feel more led to agree with 3 April 33 CE due to a class I took that discussed the apostles using the dates of Solomon’s temple destruction correlating with Jesus’ death. I just can’t remember all the details but it is important to view the OT views since the apostles only had the OT. Thanks again
This is correct. This can be deduced from the astronomical data specified by the gospels. It coincided with a lunar eclipse during passover.
The archeoastronomy of astronomical events in the bible is a useful and absolute point of reference after other historical events have circumscribed the period of possibilities.
Good question!!! One thing for sure is that he was NOT born on Dec. 25 under a Christmas tree. Dec. 25 or Christmas was a pagan holiday to celebrate the birth of the sun as pagans referred to this holiday I know it's ironic that Christians are probably the first to bring out Christmas decorations way before this holiday comes around!!!
one thing i never understood... if jesus, according to Christian belief, was pure and sinless then why did he need to be baptized, the sacrament that washed away sin, in the first place?
The day of preparation is the day before a Sabbath. Every Saturday is a Sabbath. Every Friday is a day of preparation. But Passover is also a Sabbath. And the day before Passover is a day of preparation. Jesus was ressurected Sunday morning after having spent 3 days and 3 nights in the ground. That would mean he was crucified on a Wednesday. There were multiple years, including 30 ad, when Nisan 14 Passover was on a Wednesday
Jesus was NOT crucified on a Friday
Nissan 14 3782 Samstag 22 4 April
Nissan 14 3783 Mittwoch 23 24 März
Nissan 14 3784 Mittwoch 24 12 April
Nissan 14 3785 Montag 25 2 April
Nissan 14 3786 Freitag 26 22 März
Nissan 14 3787 Mittwoch 27 9 April
Nissan 14 3788 Montag 28 29 März
Nissan 14 3789 Samstag 29 16 April
Nissan 14 3790 Mittwoch 30 5 April
Nissan 14 3791 Montag 31 26 März
Nissan 14 3792 Montag 32 14 April
Nissan 14 3793 Freitag 33 3 April
Nissan 14 3794 Montag 34 22 März
Nissan 14 3795 Montag 35 11 April
Q
There's another ambiguity you omitted; you left out the leap year. The Jewish calendar is approximately 11 days shorter than the solar year, in order to keep synced with the moon. So to catch up with the sun and keep Passover near the Spring Equinox, a leap month is inserted sometimes. The leap month is Adar II, which is inserted between Adar and Nisan, in other words just before the month of Pesach. Thus by using leap years, the calendar stays in sync with the sun, and also with the moon. (Note that the traditional Chinese calendar does something very similar, for the very same reason. After all, the sun is the sun and the moon is the moon all around the globe.)
Today this is carefully calculated and absolutely predictable, and the equinox always falls in Nisan, and we can state all this with certainty but in ancient times the decision to insert a leap month was made based on observation of the crops. If the crops were not sufficiently ripened, the High Priest would declare a Leap Year, Adar II would pass, and thus the crops would be properly ripened for "springtime" to come in Nisan... and with it, Pesach.
Since we can't know the growing conditions for most years in the ancient world, there is no way to guess whether the year of Jesus' death was a leap year or not. Thus with reference to the secular calendar, Passover could be a month earlier or later than the calculated date. We only know growing conditions when there is a particular drought recorded, and there is no drought mentioned around the possible years of Jesus' death.
Hey Matt. I'd love to take a look at your historical sources on the historicity of Jesus. Actually, a video on that would be great 😊
He has a couple, search his videos.
@@DominicNJ73 references would be nice..
at 2:34 ...
@@louisasuta4234 that statement at 2:34 is the reason I asked for HISTORICAL SOURCES. Read works by the likes of Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald; they provide really compelling arguments against Jesus as a historical figure. Hence I'm interested in the academic work that supports the claim that Jesus really existed. Matt is brilliant, he can make sense of this.
@@DominicNJ73 I don't find any of his videos about the historical works that support Jesus' existence. Only about Moses, and some other characters.
"Jesus is a Mexican that fixes my cars."
A quote by Canadian comedian Steve Patterson.
That reminds me of the parrot named Moses and the Rottweiler named Jesus in a house that was being robbed.
I find your videos interesting. Thanks and I look forward to more.
I would honestly would like to know your take on the 3-days and 3-nights argument for the resurrection. Your video seems to explain quite conclusively that the death occurred on Friday. However, how the 3 day-night resurrection timeline harmonizes with these facts presented, from an historical perspective? Would like an expert non-faith based opinion on this subject. Perhaps next Easter's video?
The 3 days and 3 nights do NOT line up with the Passion-Resurrection narrative, considering it leaves only 1 day and 2 nights between his death and resurrection. Jesus's prophecy in Matthew 12:40 was, "Just as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the fish, so to shall the son of man remain days and 3 nights in the heart of the Earth." The heart of the Earth being the grave, not the planet's core!
In Jonah 2:1-2, 11 we read, "But the LORD sent a large fish, that swallowed Jonah; and he remained in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. From the belly of the fish Jonah said [a] prayer to the LORD, his God. ... Then the LORD commanded the fish to [puke] Jonah [out] upon the shore." In the whole text of chapter 2 we find that Jonah remained alive the whole time.
Since the timelines are off, and due to certain verses in Luke and John, Muslim apologists are having a field day, proclaiming that the gospels indicate that Jesus was alive the whole time. "He was not crucified, neither did they kill him, but it was made to appear that it was so." - The Qu'ran
Interesting, but one glaring problem. If the Gospel writers were willing to alter details to make theological points, then any detail which keys into a theological point is suspect. So, it is safe to say Jesus was condemned by Pontius Pilate because there is no theological point being made. But John's desire to have Jesus die on the same day as the Passover lambs being sacrificed is highly suspicious. ... This leads to a major issue: the Gospels are full of supernatural events to which "prove" certain theological points. This implies that details could easily have been twisted every which way. In the end, we simply don't know which details are accurate and which are baloney.
Even worse - if you read the text, particularly in John, it's very clear that the Gospel's author had in mind that the specific version of the events was _precisely so_ that it could conform to prophecy. Even assuming good faith (!) in describing the event (i.e. no deliberate distortion of the facts - which are at best third-hand accounts, btw), the risk of confirmation bias is well understood...
@@dlevi67
One of those weird things when the author tries to make the account seem more realistic by adding unrealistically precise details, thus making the account more suspect
The general view, even among some of the most conservative, Creationist Christian scholars, is that John's gospel is not very accurate historically. The other three gospels (synoptic) are generally considered much more accurate. Also - the documents are, at least in part, historical records, and we pretty much know they are not very altered since their creation. It would be weird not to use them in a situation such as this when they contain so much material when compared to secular sources.
You have made a very good point.
It is mind-boggling to see such ignorance! All of you need to study and if you did you would find out there were two Passover sacrifices--the first sacrifice was the one that Moses talked about and was eaten on the 14th DAY after sunset that day, which became Friday at sunset. The second Passover sacrifice was eaten by the High Priest and the 24 Chief Priests the next day after the national sacrifice was eaten. This is why the Priests did not want to enter Pilate's house that evening, fearing they would make themselves unclean to eat their special sacrifice the next day. If Jesus had not eaten the first sacrifice Thursday evening, He would have violated the Mosaic Law. The first sacrifice was mandatory, but the second sacrifice was not mandatory because it was not mentioned in the Mosaic Law. The second sacrifice by the priests was called the chagigah sacrifice. Finally, Norm, Jesus did not die on the same day the lambs were sacrificed, He died on Friday instead of Thursday, and he matched the chagigah sacrifice perfectly. This was for the benefit of the rulers of the Temple, the priests. Oh, and by the way, he did die on Passover and Preparation Day as the Scriptures said.
Not sure if you are familiar with the book by Sir Robert Anderson, THE COMING PRINCE. He was knighted for his work using the prophecy of Daniel which points to the specific day of the triumphal entry and subsequently the crucifixion. He landed on 33 AD.
@@MyChihuahua what facts of his do you dispute? Or are you just blindly objecting because you refuse to consider the conclusion?
@@MyChihuahua you obviously aren’t familiar with the book and his calculations.
Not every sabbath is a Saturday. This is so for weekly sabbaths but not necessarily for annual sabbaths which can fall on any other day
SUMMARY: Using Genesis counting of Days "Evening and the Morning." (not 24 Hours per day or a complete 72 Hours)
1ST DAY = THURSDAY Evening (Passover Meal/Last Supper/Slaughtered Lamb/Bread and Wine) + FRIDAY Morning (Passion of Christ/Crucifixion and Death) = 15th Day of Nisan
2nd DAY = FRIDAY Evening + SATURDAY Morning (still in the Tomb) = 16th Day of Nisan
3rd DAY = SATURDAY Evening (still in the Tomb) + SUNDAY Morning before Sunrise, the RESURRECTION DAY (Sabbath of Man/Christ/Son of God) = 17th Day of Nisan
Facts and Truth of the Matters, Biblically, Spiritually, and logically speaking... Glory and Praise be to God through Christ Jesus... Amen.
I dunno about this Jesus fellow, but I know a very similar figure named Brian of Nazerth died in 33 AD, which would explain some of the conflict between scholars.
Fun fact: Brian was born in the manger *next* to that of Jesus, one of many shared experiences between the two. Brian was also known for bestowing wisdom upon the conforming masses and performing miracles, most famously that of the juniper bush. However, unlike Jesus, Brian was known as a “very naughty boy” and an active member of the People’s Front of Judea, characteristics which no doubt led to his crucifixion despite being pardoned by Pontius Pilate.
This is heresay
Totally true! His disciples show in the sacred scripture Life of Brian that the evidence is unquestionable! Let Lord Brian be with you, and always look on the bright side of life! ;-D
@@LetsTalkSports001
I’m sorry, but did you mean “heresy” or “hearsay”?
@@maatjusticia3954
Truly the only question of Brianism is whether the gourd or the sandal is more holy
Judean's Peoples Front?
I recall reading that 33AD was more likely due to what is known of Pontius Pilate's governorship being more under threat in 33AD than 30AD, and his reluctance to antagonise the crowds (as recorded in the gospels).
Maybe Sejanus that appointed Pilate was found a traitor to Tiberius Caesar and killed in 31 A.D Pilate might’ve been afraid all his appointments might be getting replaced soon as well. Makes the Pharisees shouting at Pilate In John 19:12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.” Have more meaning
1:40 Jesus looks like the plumber I called last week. I always thought the Second Coming would be a little more momentous...and much less expensive.
Thanks for sharing❤️
This channel is amazing.
I choose to believe that Jesus:
On the third day He rose again;
He ascended into heaven,
He is seated at the right hand of the Father, and He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
Like it says in the Apostles' Creed.
DONALD, halleluhah, Amen, agree!!!
YES HE DID RISE ON ON THE THIRD DAY BEING A SUNDAY AND THE DAY OF FIRST FRUITS! Perhaps that is why he is called the The First Fruits from the Deatd into immortality. You think?
I was reading Joseph Ratzinger's book on Jesus and he argued that the last supper was likely not an actual easter supper but something that probably happened a lot earlier. The gospel writers knew about an important meal and had lots of details about it (probably phrases and descriptions from previous sources) and made it into an easter supper so their description is not very useful when giving us an actual timeline of events.
The bread Yeshua broke was "artos", ordinary bread. Each of the gospels report this.
It was not "azmay", unleavened bread.
And Judas left the left supper.
The disciples thought he was going to buy something "against the feast" or to give an alms to the poor.
That would never happen in a passover seder.
I'd love to see your analysis of the resurrections of Jesus. Very good video.
😂 yeah, good luck with substantiating that bs!
It was said to be three days later.... so this but three days later, surely?
@@SamButler22 wood and trees...
@@michaelanderson7715 There are witnesses that say otherwise.
@@michaelanderson7715 Yours will be unmarked with only worms for company.
Incredibly interesting! Love your channel!
Another great investigation!!! Love your work….. I am now a subscriber. 11/2022.
Interestingly, a partial lunar eclipse occurred on April 3 in 33 A.D. This might possibly related to the crucifixion darkness described in the gospels as well.
And the "blood moon"
@@chicken_punk_pie The blood moon isn't mentioned in the gospels. It's mentioned in Acts 2 in an extended quotation by Peter of a passage from Joel. There is nothing in the passage that would specify that Peter is referencing the crucifixion or that Peter wanted specifically to call attention to Joel's prediction of eclipses. If a lunar eclipse had indeed occurred on the day of Jesus crucifixion this would be a very significant occurrence. It seems odd that the gospels wouldn't mention it, and it's fairer to assume there probably wasn't one. Yes they mention the darkness, but that's not how people talk about a lunar eclipse, now or then. If anything, that seems to be a reference to a solar eclipse (and early manuscripts of Luke do say so) but this of course seems to be a mistake corrected by later scribes, given the impossibility of a solar eclipse during a full moon.
Might possibly, but it's a big stretch. It sounds more like a reference to a solar eclipse, and indeed some of the earliest of Luke's manuscripts do specify that it is a solar eclipse.
Yo UsefulCharts Good video as a Christian i want to explain how i reconcile this discrepancy.
If we keepnin mind during Jesus the second temple was still up amd active.
According to Torah there's actually 2 events. The Pesach and the Feast or unleavened bread.
The Pesach was on 14th or Nisan where Jews would kill the Lamb and eat it in the night.
Then the sundown at 14th Nisan marks the Beginning of anjew day ik Jewish calendar.
According to Matthew and Mark. The Last supper was on 14th seder. As they asked Jesus where to get a lamb for the passover. The passover referring to Pesach 14th Nisan.
There's also another celebration called the Feast of unleavened bread in the Torah (Exodus 12 snd leviticus 23) which ie what Jews refer to "Passover".
Jews don't celebrate the 14th of Nisan because there's no holy temple, so they can't slaughter animals. So they jump right at The feast of unleavened bread which is what we refer to as Passover.
So the argument ie John is in agreement with the synoptic. John 13:1-2 alludes to a passover supper meal dinner that would happen at the dawj of Nisan 13 going to 15.
Then Jesus got arrested. And when they arrested him on the day of preparation of the passover. It refers to the preparation of the passover week the feast of unleavened bread that begins at 15th Nisn.
Good Friday corresponds to 14 of Nisan Jewish calendar. So ot would make sense that the Jews prepared on that day for the long passover week (which isbthe feast of the unleavened bread).
So the last supper was a seder meal that incorporated the killing of Lambs. Since the festival of Passover and feast of unleavened bread wqs lumped together.
A total of 8 days starting from 14th Nisan.
Mark 14 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the **Passover lamb**,
Sacrificing the passover lamb in this verse indicates, the last supper took place at the sundown of Thursday, (which begins a new day of Nisan 14 in Jewish calendar). It was during night period on Thursday which Christians celebrate Maundy Thursday, the last supper.
With this breakdown it's not s discrepancy as John seemed to have used the term passover to refer to the week long celebration. And it began on Nisan 15,with the previous day Nisan 14.
Nisan 14 was also the day Jews cleared out bread with yeast (leaven) for the Feast of unleavened bread, aka Matvahs.
Hope this helps
Dear brother, first of all he did not die on Friday because that shabbat was not a regular Saturday shabbat but it was a high shabbat, please see John 19:31. This is a festival shabbat and not the normal shabbat.
True..
Your videos are legendary🙏🏻thanks man.
Simple superb excellent explanation on your viewpoint...,
Blessed passover Matt
@@venio6875 Matt is Jewish. I know the exodus story very well. Christianity is offshoot of Judaism. Disagree with pagan idols etc. Anything can be a false god eg money
@@venio6875 the fuck does that have anything to do with what Annette said?
Thank you. This is good information and it is fun to define such things without becoming too 'set in stone' ish. I don't care what year it was nor the exact day. All I care about is that, currently, Easter is defined as the Sunday, after the first full moon after the Vernal Equinox. But this was fun to listen to and find out all the details. Thank you.
We find a clue in John’s writings as why he changed the date of the Crucifixion when he refers to Jesus as the “Lamb of God”:
*The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” [John 1:29]*
It’s crucial to note that John is the only Gospel that identifies Jesus as the “Lamb of God”.
John’s Gospel thus portrays Jesus as the Passover lamb, slaughtered on the day of Preparation of Passover, whose shed blood somehow brings salvation, just as the blood of the Passover lamb brought salvation to the children of Israel so many centuries before.
For John, Jesus was the Lamb of God - he died at the same time, in the same place (Jerusalem), and at the hands of the same people (the Jewish priests) as the Passover lambs. In other words, John has told a story that is not historically accurate, but is, in his judgement, theologically true.
Thus we can see that the Gospel of John is not writing about the historical Jesus. John alters the day of the Crucifixion to portray Jesus as the Passover lamb, he alters the story to make a theological point.
This is one of the many reasons why New Testament scholars conclude that the Gospel of John is not historically accurate. It’s not just liberal scholars saying this - even conservative, Bible-believing Christian scholars no longer believe that Jesus actually said the words attributed to him in John.
For example, British Biblical scholar and Anglican priest Christopher Tuckett, in his book “Christology and the New Testament”, has this to say:
*“In terms simply of historical reliability or ‘authenticity’, it seems impossible to maintain that both John and the synoptics can be presenting us with equally ‘authentic’ accounts of Jesus‘ own life. By ‘authentic’ accounts I mean here historically accurate representations of what Jesus himself actually said and did. The theological ‘authenticity’ of John’s account is quite another matter. The differences between the two are too deep seated and wide ranging for such a position to be sustainable. If there is a choice, it is almost certainly to be made in favour of the synoptic picture, at least in broadly general terms. The picture John then presents us with is a view of the Jesus tradition which has been heavily coloured and influenced by John and his own situation.”*
*- Christopher Tuckett, Christology and the New Testament, chapter 9: ‘The Gospel of John’, pp.151-152*
What book can we rely on to give us accurate account of Jesus life aside from the gospels?
@@julianhansen3717
We can use history, scripture and reason to uncover the historical Jesus.
Qur'an has the true insight into the crucifixion:
*They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him. God raised him up to Himself. God is almighty and wise. [Qur'an 4:157-158]*
We can see that the Qur'an states that Jesus was not crucified; rather, it was made to appear so. But how can we trust the Qur'an? Unlike the Gospels, the Qur'an states in no uncertain terms that it is divinely revealed:
*Nor could this Quran have been devised by anyone other than God. It is a confirmation of what was revealed before it and an explanation of the Scripture- let there be no doubt about it- it is from the Lord of the Worlds. [Qur'an 10:37]*
If the Qur'an is from God, then this means that it is not limited by what is apparent to humans; in fact, it reveals the reality of history.
The Qur'an proclaims that it reveals the knowledge of the unseen:
*"That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you, [O Muhammad]. You knew it not, neither you nor your people, before this..." [Qur'an 11:49]*
Having knowledge of the unseen is a divine quality of God, not human beings. The verses of the Qur'an that discuss the crucifixion show remarkable insight when we analyse them in detail.
The Qur'an states that those who differ with it's claims about the crucifixion are in "full of doubt":
*"They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition..."*
As we have already seen with John and the Synoptics, this is exactly the situation that we found with the crucifixion narratives in the Gospels with all their contradictions and discrepancies.
@@julianhansen3717
My final point is that the belief that Jesus was not crucified but it was only made to appear so actually goes back to 1st century.
There were numerous 1st and 2nd century Christian groups who denied the crucifixion:
*1. The Basilidians*
The 1st century scholar Basilides and his followers, the Basilidians, believed that Jesus was saved from the crucifixion and that another, Simon the Cyrene, was crucified in his place:
*“The Unborn and Nameless Father seeing their miserable plight, sent his First-born, Nous (and this is the one who is called Christ) to deliver those who should believe in him from the power of the angelic agencies who had built the world. And to men Christ seemed to be a man and to have performed miracles. It was not, however, Christ who suffered, but rather Simon of Cyrene, who was constrained to carry the cross for him, and mistakenly crucified in Christ’s stead…”*
*- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 24, section 4*
The beliefs of Basilides matters because he was living very close to the time of the disciples, and there are even traditions that he got these teachings from the disciples of Jesus such as Peter.
From this account we can see that it's not the Qur'an that invented this claim of substitutionary crucifixion but it goes back to earliest time of Church history.
*2. The Philadelphians*
The 1st century Church Father Ignatius wrote a letter to a Christian community, the Philadelphians, who seemed to deny that Jesus died and was resurrected on the basis that it was not found in the Old Testament Scriptures:
*"And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified."*
*- The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter 8*
This community seemed to be one of Jewish Christians, as earlier in his letter Ignatius mentions that they should not fall into Judaism:
*"But if any one preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised..."*
*- The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter 6*
Moreover, we can see in the letter that this community placed great significance on the Old Testament:
*_If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel_*
In their view, the life of Jesus was to be interpreted through the Old Testament, and not vice versa as Ignatius maintained.
*3. The Trallians*
Ignatius wrote a letter to a Christian group known as the Trallians, who seemed to believe that the death of Jesus was only in appearance, not reality.
Here Ignatius tries to correct their understanding about the crucifixion:
*"And when He had lived among men for thirty years, He was baptized by John, really and not in appearance; and when He had preached the Gospel three years, and done signs and wonders, He who was Himself the Judge was judged by the Jews, falsely so called, and by Pilate the governor; was scourged, was smitten on the cheek, was spit upon; He wore a crown of thorns and a purple robe; He was condemned: He was crucified in reality, and not in appearance, not in imagination, not in deceit. He really died, and was buried, and rose from the dead, even as He prayed in a certain place, saying, "But do Thou, O Lord, raise me up again, and I shall recompense them."*
*- The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chapter 10*
Now the reason why historians do not accept Jesus being saved from the crucifixion is the same reason why no historian accept that Jesus rose from the dead, it's too miraculous to be historically true, historians would consider such stories in the category of mythology.
@@moizahmed4705 I will try to make this as short as I can. I’ve heard someone said that Islam is a heretic branch of Christianity, Now I believe and here’s why:
All heretic group that ever existed denied Jesus suffering on the cross!
To burst your bubbles, All these heretic groups you appeal to doesn’t align with your Quran, Secondly non of them were from the 1stCE they’re all later development from heretical church fathers and agnostics. For you to use them as a reference they must tally with your Quran if they differ with the Quran at one point then it’s irrelevant.
First the Basilides believe that Jesus is a divine being who couldn’t suffer bodily pain therefore couldn’t die on the cross, They belief Simon of Cyrene took His place and that the God of the Old Testament is a lower angelic God and Inferior to the Father Jesus preached about. Does that align with the Quran?
Philadelphians, Doesn’t deny the crucifixion of Jesus they only have troubles that some of the teachings of the New Testament doesn’t perfectly align with the OT which to me is no problem because if they align then God brought nothing new through Jesus.
Chapter Ignatius 8:68 His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith(68) which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified. Philadelphians isn’t denying the crucifixion, Don’t assume and assert what you don’t know.
The Trallians are Docetism or the illusionists. It’s a heterodox doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality. They believe Christ was born without any participation of matter and that all the acts and sufferings of his life, including the Crucifixion, were mere appearances.
Does this align with the Quran?
Ignatius chapter 10:But if, as some that are without God, that is, the unbelieving, say, that He only seemed to suffer (they themselves only seeming to exist). If you’ve to accept this doctrines to validate your Quran then stick to it all and don’t cherry pick. After all it was Allah that revealed it to them that Jesus crucifixion was an illusion isn’t it? It gets worse early Muslim exegesis implies that God raised Jesus to heaven before the crucifixion happened, But some of agnostics texts you referenced implies that Jesus was still around laughing at Simon of Cyrene while he was getting nailed on the cross how’s Jesus still around laughing while Quran said he’s already in heaven?
First conclusion. What we keep seeing is how Muslims are so desperate to find evidences that support the unhistorical claim made in Surah 4:157 which is another heretical ideology born by the by the evil one who uses those who lack true knowledge of God.
Paul who’s letter was the earlier than the gospels affirmed without any form of doubt that Jesus crucifixion was a historical reality. Paul wasn’t present at the crucifixion, But Paul knew and met people who were. Paul knew Jesus mother who was present at the crucifixion, Paul must have also known many scribes and ordinary people who were present at the crucifixion. John19:25, Acts:21:18, luke 23:27
1 Corinthians 15:1-10
This verses undeniable prove that even though the apostles weren’t present at the crucifixion Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of Jesus and people who knew Jesus face to face were.
I will lay one challenge for you, Surah 3:55 Talked about Jesus followers and according to you Muslims, Christians aren’t true followers of Jesus, So my question to you is who are this followers of Jesus Quran talked about from the 1stCE till the time of Muhammad whose belief about Jesus aligned with what Islam taught about Jesus before islam emerged?
And who are superior today, Christian world or the Muslims world?
@@moizahmed4705 Lastly you assert that the gospels has no historical value or could be use as a reliable source of what Jesus said and did. Most New Testament critics like Bart Erhman will agree with you, but to an extent because they believe some of the verses in the gospels were actual word of Jesus. Example Jesus exclamation in
Mathew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
Bart Erhman said that such words that reveals Jesus weakness, His struggles or His dependency on God can’t be a forgery because if the writers of the NT wants to make a forgery and make Jesus look perfect as a God they won’t include such verses that reveals His weakness. Secondly scholars has used the Bible to picture what the 1stCE Israel must of looked like because it contains a good geographical description of 1stCE Israel. And the Bible got all leaders of Rome and their year of reign correctly. So your claims is based on emotions and not reality or facts.
Secondly you claimed the gospels of John has no historical value well that’s partially true, It’s true Christians view gospel of John as spiritual gospel it indeed has historical and theological value.
For instance in John 19:33-34
But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced(A) Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
Science and medical research institutions has found this to be a true statement, It’s called “haemothorax”
A retired cardio-thoracic surgeon, Dr. Antony de Bono gave a good medical explanation to this you can go look it up.
Lastly you referenced the Quran as containing the correct insight about Jesus life. First Bart Erhman said that “the Quran can’t be use as a source about the historical Jesus”
So you do expect a sane man to place the Quran that came 600 yrs later above the gospels that were closer to the time of Jesus as a more credible source of Jesus life? No! Only a delusional mind can do that.
First let’s talk about the Quran, Is Quran really divinely dictated to Muhammad by God through angel Gabriel? The answer is No. Here’s why:
Quran got all the cosmological statements in it wrong.
Quran plagiarized from sources that are know to be fictional and portray them as actual historical facts. Like the Syriac version of “Alexander Romance” which influenced Surah 18:83-101, Muslims make silly argument about this but an Australian convert to Islam Musa Cerantonio left Islam after he did a careful study of the Syriac and Arabic version of the story, He found that it’s impossible that the Syriac version was borrowed from the Arabic version as Muslims always claimed, instead he found out that the contrary was possible.
Quran plagiarized an Arabized version of Greek medical philosophy, Like the embryo, Origin of sperm in the body etc. which are all wrong.
What Quran taught at the time was a common knowledge among the people of Arabs. And Muhammad the prophet of Islam did no miracles, All the miracles in the Hadiths are ascribed to him 300 yrs later after his death after 3 yrs of suffering from poison.
Quran made several false theological statements that doesn’t align with what Jews and Christians and prophets of old believed. For Example Quran made a claim that Solomon(suleiman)has a flying mattress lol, this is unhistorical statement. No Jews or Christian past and present will believe this, Quran said angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit or Spirit Of God but this is false, No Jews past and present will agree with this. Jews and Christians knew that the Holy Spirit is above the angels the only difference is Christians personalized the Holy Spirit the Jews didn’t.
Lastly Quran that was supposed to be a perfect preserved book from God is not. The term perfectly preserved word for word dots for dots has been debunked. Muslims apologetics are now appealing to Islamic hypothesis to prove the perfect preservation of the Quran. Even Muhammad Hijab in his debate with a Christian on Soco Films admits that the term perfectly preserved word for word dots for dots is a dawa propaganda not based on fact and he apologized on behalf of Muslims for that.
So tell me Moiz How do I take such book as the Quran serious?
The earlier you Muslims realize that Quran is just an outdated book of its time the earlier you wake up to reality.
I have just noticed, « Nisan » is actually April in Turkish, I’m surprised that they have put this name for this month.
The sabbath starts from Friday night to Saturday. The Preparation day is the day before the sabbath. Also it stayed 3 days and 3 nights. That doesn't add up if he died on Friday since a day consists of 24 hours, how is Friday to Sunday 3 days and 3 nights.
Count from Thursday the last Supper then the Garden Thursday night. The term Preparation is Greek for Friday. Putting April 3rd 33AD during and at 3pm the time of his death and that evening a Lunar eclipse. This is Day 2' and Jesus will be in the tomb the second night friday night. The third day is Saturday and Saturday night is the 3rd' night.
Somewhat convenient to ignore one minor detail. The day of preparation before passover was a floating day. It could be any day of the week, just as the 1st day of Passover. And the first day of Passover was a consecrated day unto the Lord and no work would be done, like on a Sabbath. So the crucifixion works best when the Passover sabbath starts Thursday evening. From a Thursday crucifixion standpoint, Jesus enters tomb at near 5pm, or 1 hour before sundown on day 1;
from sunset to daybreak is night 1;
from daybreak to sunset is day 2;
from sunset Fri to daybreak Sat is night 2;
from daybreak to sunset is day 3;
from sunset to resurrection is about 1 hour. In judaism partial days or nights are whole days or nights, days don’t count like we do. Also the resulting 50 hours in the tomb has a Biblical elegance to it, because of the year of jubilee is the 50th year. And 50 hours in the tomb is bringing jubilation.
Also scripture says Sabbaths, and that means more than one. Also 2 sabbaths in a row would prevent the women from anointing the body until Sunday morning. A Thursday crucifixion works better than a Wed or Fri crucifixion.
It has been pointed out that anointing a body that had been dead for several days was superfluous.The whole point of anointing a body in that climate was to disguise offensive odour during the burial procedures.
@@mikev4621 stone temperature in a tomb would be about what the low temp would be this time of year or about 50 to 55 degrees. That would be enough to keep a body temp low enough to keep the decay from setting in for several days.
@@joefromravenna Possibly , but why anoint a body which has already been entombed for three days approx?
@@mikev4621 because that is what we have always done… How many times have you been told to do something at work because of tradition rather than function. Once upon a time before computers it made sense but creating paper copies by hand and a computer record makes no sense anymore.
@@joefromravenna But the women must have known there was a huge stone in front of the tomb and probably Roman guards.They weren't expecting a resurrection, so why did they even bother wasting time and precious money?
I would love to see you take this knowledge and apply it to the dating of easter as done by the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and previously Celtic churches since they often differ.
Why are all historians so sure Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist?
So Jesus was baptize by who can you explain?
because well, as you know - it's in "the book", yeah "that" book, so it must be true. LOL
@@glebeboi he said historians, not priests, and he said "absolutely sure". Since Matt is very serious concerning religion and is not christian, there must be some rock-solid argument underneath, no?
@@glebeboi
It would be silly to hand out a business card with John-not-the-Baptist printed on it.
Of course, it would make sense if it said John the Mormon, John the Christadelphian or even John the Plumber.
I agree that your rationale makes the most sense.
Cool research. May God bless you.
I'm a bit surprised to hear that the consensus view of the date is based on John (the clear outlier, the last to be written and by far the more stylized and having the most blatant theological agenda).
I'd have thought the earlier three synoptics were more likely to be credible and that you'd be looking for dates circa 30-33 CE where the night of Pesach fell on the relevant day of Nisan in the same rough range of years...
It's not.
See my earlier post here.
All of the gospels teach that the last supper was *not* a passover seder. Could not be.
The reason for taking John's account is because the synoptics tie Friday and the first day of Passover, which is impossible on the jewish calendar (it also cannot occur on Monday or Wednesday, btw)
@@adrianblake8876
There is no discrepancy. It's a matter of varied nomenclature.
The feast of unleavened bread covers seven days. It is a requirement that no leaven is in the house for that period.
In all four gospels Jesus broke arton, - leavened bread, with the disciples.
John's gospel is more detailed and makes it clear that it that it was the preparation.
People jump to *wrong conclusions* because of wrong assumptions.
Mathew 26:17 the *first day* of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?”
Mark 14:12 the first day of the *Feast of Unleavened Bread,* when the Passover lamb was *to be sacrificed,* Jesus’ disciples asked Him, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?”
Merely saying that passover is part of the feast of unleavened bread and the passover is sacrificed during it.
Luke 22:7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on (DURING) which the Passover lamb was to be sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare for us to eat the Passover.”
Luke 21:19 He took some bread and gave thanks to God for it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Καὶ λαβὼν *ἄρτον* εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν... Ordinary bread.
The unleavened bread was referred to generically as "the passover", that is true today. It is referred to as Pesach.
There is something of an anomaly to explain. It's this.
Luke 21:14 When the time came, Jesus and the apostles sat down together at the table. 15 Jesus said, “I have been very eager to eat this Passover meal with you before my suffering begins. 16 For I tell you now that I won’t eat this meal again until its meaning is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.”
Jesus was telling them that though he eagerly desired eat this passover with them, he *would not* be eating it until its meaning was fulfilled.
This fellowship meal had elements of the passover in it, and he taught them what they stood for. (There was no lamb though...)
This meal was a fellowship meal during the lead up to the actual passover.
The big "problem" claimed is that while John has Yeshua dying while the lambs are being slain, the synoptics had Yeshua eating the passover with the disciples. But he did not.
It was the day of preparation.
John adds that Judas left, to complete his transaction.
Watch this:
Matthew 26:1 When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, 2 “As you know, Passover begins in two days, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” (Generically referring to the seven days of unleavened bread)
Matthew 26:3 At that same time the leading priests and elders were meeting at the residence of Caiaphas, the high priest, 4 plotting how to capture Jesus secretly and kill him. 5 *“But not during the Passover celebration,”* they agreed, “or the people may riot.” very telling.
Mark 14:12 On the first day of the *Festival of Unleavened Bread,* when (during which) the Passover lamb is sacrificed, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go to prepare the Passover meal for you?”
Luke 22:1 The Festival of Unleavened Bread, which is *also called Passover,* was approaching. 2 The leading priests and teachers of religious law were plotting how to kill Jesus, but they were afraid of the people’s reaction.
Here, Luke points out that the unleavened bread is *generically referred to as passover* though it starts before the celebration.
Luke 22:7 Now the *Festival of Unleavened Bread arrived,* when the Passover lamb is sacrificed.
Same again. Yet the disciples ate leavened bread. Artos.
John 13:1 Before the Passover *celebration,* Jesus knew that his hour had come to leave this world and return to his Father.
People fail to see that passover is a generic term for the unleavened bread festival and jump to the conclusion the last supper was a seder. It was *not.*
@@Lucid.dreamer I forgot to add that the source to my statement: I'm jewish.
Also, festival of unleavand bread is an epithet for passover. This is evident from the Torah (Exodus and Deuteronomy specifically), so I'll ignore your wall of text, unless you have a tldr version...
@@adrianblake8876
Adrian. I appreciate Jewish people very much.
But Jewish people can have misconceptions, too.
I'm simply saying that the "synoptic problem" is an invention of men's minds. Be they Jewish or otherwise.
Unfortunately, try as a might, I couldn't make my post any more compact.
It's your choice, ofc, whether you want to read through it.
But in summary...
The last supper was not a passover seder. It was the article of a Jewish rabbi that altered me to that.
(There are numerous such articles).
A little bit of research will put "paid" to the "synoptic problem" for anyone wiling to make that effort.
Like "Scotch mist" and "missing link", "synoptic problem" is a name for nothing.
Thanks for responding, though.
(An-Nisa 4:157)
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of Allāh." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.1
Footnote
Another meaning is "And they did not kill him, being certain [of his identity]," i.e., they killed another assuming it was Jesus (upon whom be peace).
SubhanAllah
I rather beleive in the injeel rather than a book coming in 700 years
@@Masahanate-777
[Surah An-Nahl: 92]
And do not be like she who untwisted her spun thread after it was strong [by] taking your oaths as [means of] deceit between you because one community is more plentiful [in number or wealth] than another community. Allah only tries you thereby. And He will surely make clear to you on the Day of Resurrection that over which you used to differ.
[Surah An-Nahl: 93]
And if Allah had willed, He could have made you [of] one religion, but He causes to stray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And you will surely be questioned about what you used to do.
Although this quote from the Quran is of interest especially to Muslims, if not relevant to this discussion which is using the Greek Bible, that is the New testament, to come up with ideas about the death of Jesus.
If you could step back from your own personal beliefs you might be able to see that there’s a little bit of insanity in order to downgrade Jesus from the son of God to just a prophet. You see what I mean?
This assumes that the Gospel accounts are accurate. As you've pointed out, the Gospels were written quite awhile after Jesus died and were often allegorical. Can we rely on them for dating?
no
Actually, yes. The Gospels are trustworthy. There is so much textual evidence and historical documentation even outside the gospels that back up the truth of what they say. Jesus was real, he did die, and he did rise again. Historically proven fact
@@venio6875 Psalm 22, which the first verse was quoted by Jesus before He died, is a prophecy telling about his death. So is Isaiah 53, foretelling the death of the suffering servant of God. By His stripes we are healed. So that’s 2 passages there
@venio
Stop soresdijg false information Constantine had nothing to do with the new testament.
Although we don't know q00 percent who wrote the gospels its usually attributed to the traditional names. Or disciples of the names the church attribute it.
But who cares? No one knows who really wrote some books in the hebrew Bible. Anonymous authorship doesn't downplay credibility or authenticity
@@venio6875
The council of nicse was set to resolve the Arian controversies within the church which affected the empire. Not the new testament lol.
There's evidence that church fathers quoted from 1 John 5:7-8 and early Christians before we have the oldest complete copy of the gospels.
The oldest copy doesn't have it, it's lster byzantine that has it.
But many church fathers who lived prior to the oldest manuscript webhave available quoted that verse.
Matt, one other thing that might be used is that 3 of the gospels describe an eclipse during the crucifixion. So, which year, in that range, has a solar eclipse in Jerusalem on a Friday?
Good work man I keep watching all your videos I love them I’m really happy with them that’s fantastic that I’m learning a lot from you at the age of 75 years old keep the good work up don’t stop thank you so much❤