Posted on 01/11/2008 10:59:47 AM PST by DouglasKC
***No one can argue the point that the immediate and extremely plain context is the First Sabbath of Unleavened Bread....the 15th of Abib.***
Just one little problem... what if the harvest comes a couple of weeks earlier or later than the Passover week? The waving of the firstfruits is to be done during the first week of harvest AFTER THE SABBATH in those weeks, again it is SUNDAY.
The reason this will never happen is because the Hebrew first month, Abib.....does not begin until the barley is ripened. In fact, that's what Abib means: Ripened Barley!
The Biblical year begins with the first New Moon after the barley in Israel reaches the stage in its ripeness called Abib. The period between one year and the next is either 12 or 13 lunar months. Because of this, it is important to check the state of the Barley crops at the end of the 12th month. If the barley is "Abib" at this time, then the following New Moon is Hodesh Ha-Aviv ("New Moon of the Abib"). If the barley is still immature, another month must be added and then check the barley again at the end of the 13th month.
Passover.....then is the 14th of the month of Abib....which has been determined by the ripened barley. And the First Sabbath of Unleavened follows the next day....the 15th.
***Passover.....then is the 14th of the month of Abib....which has been determined by the ripened barley. And the First Sabbath of Unleavened follows the next day....the 15th. ***
I see we wilL not have any consensus on it. I have just looked at several web sites and none really know the actual dates for PASSOVER. Jesus was crucified on Wednesday! Or was it Thursday! Or Friday!
He was resurected on 16 Abib! Or 17th Abib. Or 18 Abib.
Most all of the sites I looked at, including a Jewish Sabbatharian Messianic site, agree that Jesus was resurected on SUNDAY and call it THE FEAST OF FIRSTFRUITS.
Here is a few typical sites.
http://www.xenos.org/classes/chronc.htm
http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/chronology.htm
http://www.mesharet.org/resources/feast-of-first-fruits.html
I have not had time to really look and see just what doctrinal statements these people have so I cannot say that they support my faith.
You're correct. Many Sabbatarians also believe that the Feast of First Fruits falls on the weekly Sabbath after Passover.
Our Lord was not the First Fruits.....He was the First Fruit (singular) and this is where I disagree with most of them about the terminology. I have always followed the dates of 30 A.D. for the crucifixion/resurrection because of Daniel's prophecy and secular history dealing with the edict from Xerxes to rebuild Jerusalem..... and, of course.....the very easy dating of the death of King Herod.
As you can see by the calendar, Passover (the 14th) [Leviticus 23:5] fell on a Wednesday that year. The next day would have been the First Sabbath of Unleavened Bread [Leviticus 23:6] (the 15th). On the 16th is the day the Pharisees all began the 49 day count of the Omer to Pentecost (First Fruits) [Josephus Antiquities Book III, Chapter X, Paragraph 5] and the day of resurrection would have been the 17th....the weekly Sabbath and the first SABBATWN in that seven week count to Pentecost.
All of the resurrection passages show SABBATWN or the singular form, SABBATW as the resurrection day....the 17th.
So.....you see, my disagreement with them is not only the fact that The Lord was not the First "Fruits", but He was resurrected on the weekly Sabbath....not on Sunday morning as Main Stream Christianity would have you believe.
In my opinion this is not a salvation losing dilemma we face. It's only a disagreement of historical perspective. I can see so much in scripture that tells me of a Sabbath resurrection..... that to even consider a Sunday First Fruit observance seems outlandish and moot.
In due time we will all know the correct date.
Diego likes to push the 30 AD theory because he is doctrinally predisposed to reject a Sunday resurrection. There are serious problems chronologically with AD 30 not just with his proposed Sabbath sequence conflicts with the gospel narrative. There are other data points here that help us confirm the year.
First Luke 3:1–3 tells us that John the Baptist, Jesus’ forerunner, began his ministry “in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.” Both Roman historians Tacitus (Annales 4 §4) and Suetonius (Tiberius 73) date the beginning of Tiberius’s reign at A.D. 14 (the precise date is August 19, the day of Emperor Augustus’s death). Hence the 15th year of Tiberius’s reign, counting from August 19, A.D. 14, brings us to A.D. 29 (14 + 15 = 29).
Luke’s account also indicates that John, who was older, had been preaching for a while before Jesus was baptised. Note that AD 29 is only one year away from AD 30. Diego only allows 1 year for Jesus’ ministry, which is far too short of a period to account for the gospel account
The Apostle John lists 3 passovers - (2:13, 23); (6:4); and (11:55; 12:1). It is possible that there was a fourth that might be inferred from Mt 12:1 - but that could be another feast as well. This adds up to a length of about 3 ½ years for Jesus’ ministry - placing His crucifixion in AD33. Once again, Diego’s numbers don’t match the scriptural account.
The AD 33 date also agrees with the interpretation of Daniel’s vision of 70 “sevens” (490 prophetic years of 360 days each) (Daniel 9)- a period prophesied that at the end of the 69th week (483 years) after the decree to rebuild the city, messiah would present himself and be cut off. Artaxerxes gave the order to restore Jerusalem to Nehemiah in 444 BC. There is no 0 BC year, 1 BC jumps to 1 AD in 1 year of time. Therefore -
483years X 360 days = 73880 days
73880 / 365.242199( days/yr) = 476 years + 1 year (BC to AD) = 477 calendar years
477 - 444 = 33 AD
This comes out to be the exact day that Jesus rode into Jerusalem (Palm Sunday)
Luke 19:41 ¶ And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
Finally, in 33 CE the full moon occured on Friday, Nisan 14th. That makes the Passover a double sabbath since it coincides with the weekly sabbath. John in 20:31 writes ¶ The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
The chronology from the gospels is very straight forward from there on. Jesus died at the time the Passover lambs were being killed and was buried before the start of the High Sabbath (before 6 PM Friday). The guard was placed at the tomb some time Saturday. And the women came to the tomb at dawn (the day after the sabbaths - a reference to the double sabbath celebrated Friday night - Sat night and at dawn the angel removed the stone. Much more can be said of this sequence, but the simple facts point to 33 CE as the year of Jesus’ death. -
1. Only 33 AD meets the clear time line for the ministry documented in the gospels
2. Only 33 AD meets the date obtained from Daniel
3. It has the passover coinciding with the weekly sabbath, matching the gospel narrative.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
LOL
I sorta hate to burst your bubble, but the Sabbath is the LAST day of the week.
With all due respect, the individual has openly stated he is a sabbathtarian and that his doctrinal interpretations are based upon that belief (hence doctrinally predisposed). To point that out should not make it personal, but statement of what the individual already has a long history of posting those beliefs on his own. This is no different from identifying that some posters believe the book of mormon to be an authentic historic document, or for a Catholic to maintain the primacy of the Pope. It is an observation from which they have made themselves their intepretations of scripture from, and not derogatory.
But it is attributing motive to that individual Freeper to say he "likes to push" another belief because of it.
No disagreement here. Why do you believe I believe otherwise?
Is the argument here whether the phrase is translated correctly as "The Sabbath" or the "first day of the week"?
If so, I hardly think the translators, greek or otherwise, would have made such a mistake. How could you confuse the last day of the week with the first day of the week, even if you call the last day by something else? (The Sabboth)
OK, seems to be splitting theological frog hairs, but I will avoid the phrasology “likes to push” in the future. Thanks.
Ah...the argument is whether or not the phrase translated "first day of the week" in the King James and other places is correct or not.
Literally it is "first of the sabbaths", or "one of the sabbaths".
Some believe it refers to the first day of the counting toward the feast of weeks (Pentecost)(my view) and others believe it refers to a counting of the sabbaths up to the feast of weeks.
The main point is that Protestantism has seized upon these few passages to say that "first day of the week" meant that a pattern of Sunday worship had been established by the biblical church. Those who observe the Lord's holy days see that this simply means that they knew about the Lord's holy days and are using them as a reference.
OK.
It's always been my contention that Sunday worship came about, and ONLY MY opinion, that since the Jewish people had their "Sabboth", when the Gentiles became Christians they wanted their own "holy day" of worship.
More or less, "We'll show those Jews that they ain't so unique."
Now I know that the first Christians, even though not so named, were Jews and, probably, kept the Sabbath and the holy days and feasts.
But when the Gentiles got grafted in, there were many more Gentile Christians than Jewish Chriatians and they just sort of took it over after the death of the disciples.
Again, just my take on human nature and the, supposed, rift between Gentile and Jewish Christians.
I think that's essentially it. But most of the animosity toward the Jews stemmed from a series of revolts by the Jews against the Roman empire. Couple that with the belief that "Jews killed Jesus" and you can see how Rome would encourage their converts to not emulate Jews.
The Jews played their part in G*d's plan but I believe that we have outgrown the thought that it was the Jews fault that Jesus was put on the cross.
Seventh Day Adventists make the best Pharisees
Is that what they say?
Yup, it was my fault, your fault, everyone's fault.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.