Pentecost 33CE What really happened.

by biblexaminer 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  logical

  SJ (don't worry, folks, I was just passin' through. I've no intention of staying at this time...)

  Stay all you like, its so refreshing to read real discussions on here amongst the madness.
• 

  Larsguy

  You have a lot wrong with this post. But since there is so much wrong, let me just describe how I see these events occurring.

  First of all, the Jews celebrate Passover the night before the Festival of Unfermented Cakes which celebrates the date they left Egypt, which is Nisan 15th. The lambs are killed per Josephus from 3 through 5 pm (ninth to the eleventh hours) AT THE TEMPLE. The scriptures confirm that the lambs are slaughtered, of course the day before Nisan 15th on Nisan 14th. Bottom line then, Jesus must have been arrested on Nisan 15th which in 33CE was a sabbath day and thus could not have been killed that day. The only other date that fits all the scriptures is the next day of "preparation" which was Thursday, Nisan 20th. That allowed Jesus to be in the tomb for the prophesied "three nights" (Matthew 12:40). So since you talk about reasoning minds, please tell me how you can claim Jesus got raised on Nisan 16th which is just two nights from Friday, Nisan 14th, if he died that day?

  Anyway, after his death on Nisan 20th and being in the tomb for three days he rose before daylight that Saturday night/Sunday early morning and was around for 40 days. If he ascended on the 40th day, thus two days shy of a complete 6 weeks which is 42 days, then he would have ascended on a Thursday. The way I have to figure it is if he rose on a Sunday, then the 42nd day would have fallen on a Saturday, the 41st day on a Friday and thus the 40th day was a Thursday. Thus the events after his ascension until Pentecost was a period of just three days, not ten.

  Now as far as the house situation is concerned, this is an UPPER CHAMBER and thus I presume a roof chamber, meaning the roof which covered the entire surface area of the entire house that might have been covered but with large windows open to the outside. Thus they used the roof area for large banquets and gatherings, etc.

  Thus when the holy sprit occurred and all this noise and the speaking in tongues, which probably echoed and amplified to the outside, a large multitude gathered outside the house where the upper chamber had windows lining the outer wall. Thus Peter "with a loud voice" could have addressed the people being gathered there from the upper story, probably walking out onto a balcony.

  So try to imagine what happened. Imagine that holy spirit amplified the voices in tongues and it was a VERY LOUD noise, like the PA system of an assembly, so that people for nearly a mile around heard this speaking amplified in their own tongue. They were amazed and then began to collect outside where they heard this amplified voice in their own tongue. Then Peter went to the large window or balcony and explained what was happening.

  That's it. No mystery. No complexities to try to move this ten-day event to the temple which contradicts scripture. Furthermore, that large multitude didn't go inside the house and then run upstairs to see all this. They merely gathered at the house where they heard this amplified voice in their tongue.

  What we must learn to do is to take what the scripture way and then extrapolate scenarios that fit the scripture, not use our limited imaginations to find "reasonable" contradictions that don't exist.

  Thanks, again for this nice article though. It would be nice if you rewrote it correcting the details I pointed out and see how much better it works out.

  LG
• 

  logical

  LG

  There is a pretty important reason why I am more inclined to believe AGuest's explanation rather than yours.

  Nowhere in your post have you attributed Jesus as the source of your understanding, however AGuest has.

  Cant remember the exact scripture, but it goes something like "Do not lean upon your own understanding".
• 

  Larsguy

  Dear logical,

  There is an academic contest here that you are ignoring. AGuest is presuming that Herod's death in 4BCE is unchallenged,which is not; plus the fact that the 2BCE dating is directly based upon the historical dating of Tiberius' 15th year falling in 28-29CE.

  Thus there is a direct conflict between Herod's death in 4BCE and Tiberius' 15th year in 29CE if Jesus was barely 30 in that year (i.e. "as if 30" implies he was still actually 29 but close to 30).

  But since the eclipse in 4BCE seems to be so preemptive, you should know it doesn't work historically and thus can be dismissed.

  For instance, the traditional date for the death of Herod is on Shebat 2nd, which is the 11th month. The eclipsed occurred in the 12th month on on March 13/14, just a month before Passover on full moon April 13/14. So you see, the eclipse happens some 6 to 10 weeks AFTER the death of Herod if he actually died on Shebat 2nd.

  In the meantime, this eclipse event doesn't work historically either since it has to follow an annual Jewish fast. Therefore, since the fast and eclipse occurred just before Herod's death, within a month, and he died on Shebat 2, the only possible month for both the fast and an eclipse closely following is the 10th month, during which the fast of Tebet 10 does occur just 3-4 days before an eclipse would have taken place on Tebet 13-15 during full moon (i.e. lunar eclipses only occur during full moon.)

  So the only question here is, before we dismiss this eclipse reference totally is whether or not there was an eclipse on Tebet 13-15 1BCE which would have been consistent with Jesus being between 1-2 years old when Herod died. The answer, of course, is yes!

  Thus we know that Herod's reign was moved by erroneously by 3 years for some reason, but the eclipse event was provided for the Jewish rabbis to secretly confirm the true date of Herod's death correctly in line with that eclipse event in 1 AD.

  Please also note this is more than apparent when we see that two rulership periods are given for Herod, one 37 years from the time he was appointed by Caesar and one when he actually began his rule. These dates are 40BCE and 37CE. But usually when there is a historical revisionism, a second jive reference to the historical rulership is invented to cover the original reference. So even if we made this presumption whenever we saw double-dated reigns like this, we would assume alternatively a reference that Herod actually ruled for 37 years but from 37CE. In that case, his death would have occurred on Shebat 2, 1 AD. Actually, this confirms the original dating for some. Thus there is some strong supplemental historical dating apart from scripture that confirms Herod's original dated death on Shebat 2, 1AD. In the meantime, the 4BCE eclipse is totally spurious historically, occurring after he allegedly died!!!! So it doesn't work. The true reference was to the eclipse of Tebet 14 1BCE following the fast of Tebet ten, these two events occurring corretly just less than a month for Herod's death on Shebat 2.

  There is more information why the 4BCE eclipse is totally bogus if you actually want to get into it. But it is interesting that AGuest uses the elipse as the critical reference for Jesus' correct birth date rather than the Biblical dating of the 15th year of Tiberius in 29CE to date Jesus' birth in 2BCE. Even though now, alternative historical references also confirm Herod's death in 1AD, completely in harmony with the Biblical context of these events.

  Thus the accurate date for Jesus' birth is 2BCE and for Herod's death, Shebat 2, 1AD for some of us.

  And by the way, this is the Biblical dating, which I prefer to use as a reference rather than bogus claims of getting this information from Jesus Christ which since it is totally wrong, apparently AGuest did not. Jesus doesn't give out false dates.

  LG
• 

  AGuest

  Lordy, I really hate when people say I said something I did not say. BTW, peace to you all!
  LG has stated:

  :>AGuest is presuming that Herod's death in 4BCE is unchallenged,which is not; plus the fact that the 2BCE dating is directly based upon the historical dating of Tiberius' 15th year falling in 28-29CE."

  AND

  :>"There is more information why the 4BCE eclipse is totally bogus if you actually want to get into it. But it is interesting that AGuest uses the elipse as the critical reference for Jesus' correct birth date rather than the Biblical dating of the 15th year of Tiberius in 29CE to date Jesus' birth in 2BCE. Even though now, alternative historical references also confirm Herod's death in 1AD, completely in harmony with the Biblical context of these events."

  And INDEED, I SAID:

  :>"There is some discrepancy as to when Herod died, though. Due to an eclipse, some have him dying in 4BCE due to a partial eclipse that occurred that year. That would mean, however, that my Lord was born in about 6BCE and died in the flesh, then, in 28 or 29CE. The truth is, however, that a FULL eclipse occurred just before the Passover in the year 1BCE (year 3761 for Jews), and Herod died that year, in the Spring, a few months after that eclipse."

  Please, LG, if you are going to disagree with what I said, then at least disagree... with WHAT I SAID.

  I bid you peace, and maintain that what my Lord told me and research later PROVED to me... is true.

  A slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  AGuest

  Lordy, I really hate when people say I said something I did not say. BTW, peace to you all!
  LG has stated:

  :>AGuest is presuming that Herod's death in 4BCE is unchallenged,which is not; plus the fact that the 2BCE dating is directly based upon the historical dating of Tiberius' 15th year falling in 28-29CE."

  AND

  :>"There is more information why the 4BCE eclipse is totally bogus if you actually want to get into it. But it is interesting that AGuest uses the elipse as the critical reference for Jesus' correct birth date rather than the Biblical dating of the 15th year of Tiberius in 29CE to date Jesus' birth in 2BCE. Even though now, alternative historical references also confirm Herod's death in 1AD, completely in harmony with the Biblical context of these events."

  And INDEED, I SAID:

  :>"There is some discrepancy as to when Herod died, though. Due to an eclipse, some have him dying in 4BCE due to a partial eclipse that occurred that year. That would mean, however, that my Lord was born in about 6BCE and died in the flesh, then, in 28 or 29CE. The truth is, however, that a FULL eclipse occurred just before the Passover in the year 1BCE (year 3761 for Jews), and Herod died that year, in the Spring, a few months after that eclipse."

  Please, LG, if you are going to disagree with what I said, then at least disagree... with WHAT I SAID.

  I bid you peace, and maintain that what my Lord told me and research later PROVED to me... is true.

  A slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  Larsguy

  Dear AGuest,

  Sorry for misquoting you. I should have read you more closely.

  Based upon your statements, however, you still don't address that the Bible dates Jesus' baptism in the 15th of Tiberius which locks it into 29CE, meaning if he was almost 30 at the time he would have been born in the fall of 2BCE based upon that. The fact that Herod's death date is up in the air would seem to permit us to date Jesus' birth correctly in 2BCE without critical contradiction historically.

  LG
• 

  God_knows

  BIBLEEXAMINER

  I am not a JW and never was, but I can tell you this; in your first post you re asking a lot of questions that are of no importance and do not affect the facts in any way.

  As for the last two questions, baptisms were done in the Jordan, and quite clearly those 3000 that were saved that day did not all have to fit in the upper room of that house, or even be in that house.
• 

  biblexaminer

  I have read all these nice things that people wrote. In the end, it is absolutely true, and nobody here will contest I'm sure... that I or you nor anyone on this planet will live or die for our understanding or mis-understanding of these events. Can anyone prove I will die if I dont accept so and so's ideas?

  Yet the WTS DOES say that I WILL die if I don't accept what the GB teaches. This proves they are wrong.

  As well, I did not make the claim, as have others, that I had some revelation from God or Christ. Shame.

  Nor do I use as the foundation for my exegeses "Ben Hur" or any other Hollywood production.

  Those who insist on squashing 120 persons into a tiny "upper room" for some duration, only do so as the result of pressures to conform to some religious edict of a church organization or teachings from upbringing.

  I hold to Scripture. I hold to common sense. I hold to love.
• 

  AGuest

  Hello, Joshua (Larsguy) and BibleExaminer...

  Sorry, it took me so long to reply to your responses ('15th year of Tiberius' and 'holding to scripture'). I didn't see the new posts until just today. Of course, I had to go back to my Lord and ask... in order to 'receive'. And I did. I was directed to research the reign of Tiberius... and, Joshua, you are a bit off.

  You see, although Tiberius Caesar started to rule INDEPENDENTLY in the 14 A.D., he actually BEGAN his rulership, as co-ruler of his stepfather, Augustus Caesar... in 11 CE, 3 years earlier. And he was RECOGNIZED as ruler then. So, when speaking of Tiberius' 15th year, Luke was going by what folks went by back THEN... and not what WE go by now. August died in the early Fall of 14 and Tiberius became sole ruler that Winter. However, counting from when Tiberius' reign was RECOGNIZED, 11 CE, my Lord WAS baptized in late Summer/early Fall of 26CE, within the '15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, prior to the start of Tiberius' 16th year, which would have started the Winter of 26CE.

  Almost 3-1/2 years from that, in the Spring of 30 CE, my Lord was put to death in the flesh.

  Here is the chronology:

  Early fall 4 BCE: My Lord born in the flesh - age 0

  Fall 3BCE: My Lord turns age one

  Fall 2BCE: My Lord turns age two

  Spring 1 BCE: My Lord age 2-1/2; Herod dies

  Late Fall 11 BCE: Beginning of Tiberius' corule w/Augustus)

  Late Summer 26CE: My Lord baptized in Jordan river just before starting his 30th year and still in the 15th year of Tiberius' reign

  Spring 30CE: Nisan 14 (Wednesday)- My Lord celebrates the Passover with his apostles that evening

  Nisan 15 (Thursday) - A 'holy convention' sabbath which started at daybreak, but for the Jews, 'Preparation' day (they would celebrate the sabbath that EVENING... my Lord taken to 'mock' trial before the Sanhedrin, taken before Pilate (who was in town), before Herod (who resided in the palace IN town), and then back to Pilate, who delivered him up at about noon. My Lord was then put to death in
  the flesh at about 3:00pm.

  Nisan 17th (Saturday) - the 'weekly' sabbath.

  Nisan 18th (Sunday) - The day AFTER the 'weekly' sabbath, my Lord raised up after spending three days and nights in Hades. Women come to tomb in early morning.

  I am TRULY sorry that the 'false stylus' (Jeremiah 8:8) of 'earthling' man has been remiss in recording with accuracy. But we are, after all, imperfect. History is RECORDED... to the best of 'earthling' man's ability, and nothing more. And, BibleExaminer, that is the VERY reason WHY my Lord said:

  "You are SEARCHING the scriptures...
  because you THINK...
  that by means of THEM...
  you will have life.
  And THESE (the scriptures)...
  are the VERY ones...
  that bear witness...
  ABOUT ME!

  And yet...
  YOU DO NOT WANT TO COME...
  TO ME...
  that you may have life!"

  John 5:39, 40

  It is these very words, dear ones, that make me KNOW I cannot rely on what is 'written' because what is 'written' HAS been tampered with. Not just the Bible, the scriptures, etc., by mankind's recorded history. NONE of it is absolutely accurate. Even YOU know this. Read your newspapers and magazines... is earthling man SO much LESS accurate now than before? Or more? Why then does one news report say it occurred such and so... and another say it occurred thus and so. It is BECAUSE... we are imperfect.

  Am I saying the prophets were inaccurate? Never may that happen! I AM saying, however, that the COPYISTS... and scribes... were! That is why we HAVE so many versions, renderings and translations, dear ones!

  So... I HAVE to RELY... on the Truth. John 14:6 For he is the ONLY One who possesses the truth... and dispenses it... truthfully. Proverbs 8:4-9 Indeed, if you want to KNOW the truth... know him or ABOUT him... should you not then GO... TO HIM?
  John 7:37, 38

  Were we not told that 'anything you ask in my name, the Father WILL give you'? Why then would I not ask for CLARIFICATION of what occurred? I did... and do. And... I 'receive'. You can do it, too. Or... you can continue to 'put your trust in earthling man... to whom NO SALVATION BELONGS.' The choice... is entirely yours.

  A slave of Christ,

  SJ