Poll on Creationist Beliefs

[zoegirl]

WE are agreed, there

Let's get more specific on your beliefs

It seems like you are very critical on parts of the new testament (Pauline theology) and yet you ask me what parts of the Bible I accept.

Are you a Christian? Do you accept the inspiration of all parts of scripture, including the Pauline letters?

[hfd]

"Are you a Christian? Do you accept the inspiration of all parts of scripture, including the Pauline letters?"

A strange question coming from one who seemingly picks and chooses what to support. For example, you've not answered my question bout Jesus in the tomb. Was he there for three literal days?

[zoegirl]

"Are you a Christian? Do you accept the inspiration of all parts of scripture, including the Pauline letters?"

A strange question coming from one who seemingly picks and chooses what to support. For example, you've not answered my question bout Jesus in the tomb. Was he there for three literal days?

No, that is your opinion...I accept it all...
Yes, I believe that that Christ was in for three days, now will you answer my questions?

Why all the smoke and mirrors and diversions??! this is a simple question....I would like to know where you are coming from. You seem to reject or at least criticize Pauline thology (indeed, even Canuckster brought this up and you have yet to answer him http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=2060 ) and yet you accuse me of picking and choosing. Please answer the questions. I am wanting to know your beliefs. It is taking a ridiculous amount of time to establish these!!!

[B. W.]

"Are you a Christian? Do you accept the inspiration of all parts of scripture, including the Pauline letters?"

A strange question coming from one who seemingly picks and chooses what to support. For example, you've not answered my question bout Jesus in the tomb. Was he there for three literal days?

Do you know ancient Hebrew cultural? What do you do when the Sabbath falls on the same day as Passover? Point is Passover and Sabbath dates fall on different days of the year according to our calendar system. For example, you have Passover say falling on Wednesday and the Sabbath on Saturday one year — which is I think happened 33 or 35 AD. Another year Passover would be for example fall on a Friday and the Sabbath falls on Sunday. Each day draws closer to each other till each eventually falls on the same day about every seventh year.

Ancient Hebrew Custom — No work on Passover which begins at sundown. - Day after Passover the women went to purchase the items for proper burial which took all day. Three — Sabbath day begins at sundown — no work allowed that day. Technically yes, three full 24 days in the tomb according to the custom and calendar used back then. Early on the third day would begin at sundown on third day all night and morning…

You go figure the rest…

Problem is human tradition's imposing on actual calendar dates and custom's of that time and era to make it 1.5 days instead of the actual three days and night just as Jesus said in Matthew 12:40, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” KJV

Who do you want to believe? What Jesus says or human tradition enslaved to ritual habit concerning the Sabbath at the expense of Passover and its effect on the Sabbath?
-
-
-

[hfd]

"Are you a Christian? Do you accept the inspiration of all parts of scripture, including the Pauline letters?"

A strange question coming from one who seemingly picks and chooses what to support. For example, you've not answered my question bout Jesus in the tomb. Was he there for three literal days?

No, that is your opinion...I accept it all...
Yes, I believe that that Christ was in for three days, now will you answer my questions?

Why all the smoke and mirrors and diversions??! this is a simple question....I would like to know where you are coming from. You seem to reject or at least criticize Pauline thology (indeed, even Canuckster brought this up and you have yet to answer him http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=2060 ) and yet you accuse me of picking and choosing. Please answer the questions. I am wanting to know your beliefs. It is taking a ridiculous amount of time to establish these!!!

I've answered Canuckster. Paul was, in my opinion, a heretic. Jesus was a Jew who followed Jewish religious tradition. That's a hard concept for many to understand and accept.

As far as my personal beief system is concerned, I find the Biblical narrative not unlike those found in other religious systems. The story of Jesus for example is basically that of Osiris, and the evolution of Mary is quite similar to Isis, Ishtar, Venus and others.

My questions deal with the relationship those professing to be Christian have with the content of the Biblical narrative. Not with whether or not it is the 'word of God'.

I do not view Xmas or Easter as anything but what they are, pagan holidays, events we are admonished in the Bible not to observe. I find it fascinating that you, and most Christians, reject a literal perspective of Genesis, yet, accept a literal ressurection narrative.

To answer your question, I am not a Christian as defined by most. I attend no church.

[hfd]

"Are you a Christian? Do you accept the inspiration of all parts of scripture, including the Pauline letters?"

A strange question coming from one who seemingly picks and chooses what to support. For example, you've not answered my question bout Jesus in the tomb. Was he there for three literal days?

Do you know ancient Hebrew cultural? What do you do when the Sabbath falls on the same day as Passover? Point is Passover and Sabbath dates fall on different days of the year according to our calendar system. For example, you have Passover say falling on Wednesday and the Sabbath on Saturday one year — which is I think happened 33 or 35 AD. Another year Passover would be for example fall on a Friday and the Sabbath falls on Sunday. Each day draws closer to each other till each eventually falls on the same day about every seventh year.



Ancient Hebrew Custom — No work on Passover which begins at sundown. - Day after Passover the women went to purchase the items for proper burial which took all day. Three — Sabbath day begins at sundown — no work allowed that day. Technically yes, three full 24 days in the tomb according to the custom and calendar used back then. Early on the third day would begin at sundown on third day all night and morning…

You go figure the rest…

Problem is human tradition's imposing on actual calendar dates and custom's of that time and era to make it 1.5 days instead of the actual three days and night just as Jesus said in Matthew 12:40, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” KJV

Who do you want to believe? What Jesus says or human tradition enslaved to ritual habit concerning the Sabbath at the expense of Passover and its effect on the Sabbath?
-
-
-

1. You are making an assumtion as to when the supposed crucifixion took place.

2. You are making an assumption about the Sabbaths of those assumed years.

The traditional story kills Jesus at noon Friday. He is in the tomb until early on the first day of the week, Sunday. That could have been anytime after sundown Saturday. Hard to spin that story if, in fact, Jesus was in the tomb 3 days and three nights.

Speaking of tradtions of men.

Easter Sunrise services are celebrated to mark the ressurection. That activity is in fact a pagan memorial. Why celebrate the rising of the sun? And make no mistake about it, that s the thrust of the service.

Xmas and Easter, as well as minor holidays such as Halloween are all pagan rituals having nothing to do with Biblical directives. I have no problem with anyone celebrating those. But to do it and try to claim it's all part of the great plan of Christianity is laughable. It's not possible to intergrate them into Christianity.

Yes, I recognize that this is not a popular view. Not my problem, my comments are factual.

[Canuckster1127]

1. You are making an assumtion as to when the supposed crucifixion took place.

In the absence of authority, you're making some assumptions of your own.

2. You are making an assumption about the Sabbaths of those assumed years.

Rather well-informed assumptions tied into the Biblical text and many corallary sources from the Jews.

The traditional story kills Jesus at noon Friday. He is in the tomb until early on the first day of the week, Sunday. That could have been anytime after sundown Saturday. Hard to spin that story if, in fact, Jesus was in the tomb 3 days and three nights.

Only if you assume 3 days to equate to 72 hourse which is contrary to the normal understanding of the culture and the language of the Jews which saw the beginning of a day at sunset and commonly referred to a portion of a day in such measures.

Easter Sunrise services are celebrated to mark the ressurection. That activity is in fact a pagan memorial. Why celebrate the rising of the sun? And make no mistake about it, that s the thrust of the service.

There certainly are pagan traditions which early on the Church in its persecuted state took advantage of to meld into the society and avoid notice and persecution. You appear to believe that this means there can be no change of meaning or application because of this which has always
been a curious opinion for me to observe as it usually comes from those simply seeking to criticize and tear down and not from any apparent conviction of their own that translates into a unique or reformed practise of their own.

Xmas and Easter, as well as minor holidays such as Halloween are all pagan rituals having nothing to do with Biblical directives. I have no problem with anyone celebrating those. But to do it and try to claim it's all part of the great plan of Christianity is laughable. It's not possible to intergrate them into Christianity.

Case in point.

Yes, I recognize that this is not a popular view. Not my problem, my comments are factual.

That's an interesting claim given there's a great deal of assumption on your part in many of your statements and you have yet to provide many positive statements and defences for what you believe.

Please feel free to positively assert your positions and the defences for the same. If your purpose is simply to attack the position of this board, I suggest you refer to the Board Purpose and Discussion Guidelines and govern yourself accordingly.

Bart

[hfd]

"... there's a great deal of assumption on your part in many of your statements and you have yet to provide many positive statements and defences for what you believe. "

Please explain to me what part of my assertions about paganism and Christianity are not factual. Am I to understand that unpopular views are causes for banning.

BTW, your time discussion is an old attempt to explain the three day and night problem. And yes I'm aware of the conjunctions of weekly and ceremonial Sabbaths. Further, I stand by my contention that to accept a literal ressurectin and yet to reject a literal Creation as described in Genesis is totally without logic.

BTW II: How would you reconcile your sig line with the idea of a ressurection?

[Canuckster1127]

Please explain to me what part of my assertions about paganism and Christianity are not factual.

Xmas and Easter, as well as minor holidays such as Halloween are all pagan rituals having nothing to do with Biblical directives. I have no problem with anyone celebrating those. But to do it and try to claim it's all part of the great plan of Christianity is laughable. It's not possible to intergrate them into Christianity.

Christmas and Easter certainly are not Biblically directed days in the sense of Old Testament feasts or festivals. It is one thing to make that observation, which is fact and it is another thing to extrapolate it into a statement of opinion, as you do, as to whether it is possible to integrate or appopriate them into Christianity as dates with Christian meaning. Your statement is not factual.

Am I to understand that unpopular views are causes for banning.

You are to understand the Discussion Board Guidelines. For your convenience here they are:

Discussion Guidelines

These discussion guidelines have been developed to outline the purpose of this board and expected conduct of those who participate. Administrators and moderators are responsible for enforcing the rules, and can moderate at their discretion to ensure that the desired spirit at these boards is maintained. Such moderation may include messages being edited or removed with or without warning, and/or posters being suspended or banned.

Board Purpose
Summary: This board is a part of Evidence for God from Science (G&S), a Christian website, which serves to provide a defense and persuasive case for Christianity as well as encouragement and instruction for Christian people and seekers.

It is important that everyone who participates on this board is aware to our board purpose. It can be read at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=2517

Language
The God and Science website is rated "family friendly" and for "all ages", so please keep your words clean. Some words considered inappropriate have been blocked, and attempts to get around a blocked word by inserting a space or character will not be tolerated.

Mannerism
Within discussions, please be civil and courteous and do not resort to personal attacks. If you feel inappropriately attacked, please bring such cases privately to a moderator who can then intervene as necessary. While these instructions are likely unnecessary for the vast majority of participants, here is some biblical advice to help serve as a guide for conversations:
Write in a manner that you would want others to write to you - "in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12).
"But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth." (Colossians 3:8 )
"Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person." (Colossians 4:6)
"In all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, in order that the opponent may be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us." (Titus 2:7-8 )
Constructive Discussions
To have a constructive discussion, there are at least four main requirements:

At Least Two People: This point should be obvious.

A Specific Topic: All conversations should have one specific topic, and as such should remain on that topic. Any new topic that forks out and is too far removed, should be started as a new thread or brought to a moderator's attention.

Knowledge: It is not expected that you should be thoroughly educated on an issue before commenting about it. At the same token, it is impossible for us to know everything. So if a topic is new to you or you don't know much about it, then it is good to spend some time researching to increase your knowledge before writing.

Self-control: Chances are you will disagree with someone, and it is at this point discussions can turn nasty. Please remember to be respectful to others and keep to the topic rather than resorting to personal attacks.

Plagiarism, References, and Misquoting
Plagiarism is not accepted here. Any information gotten from another source must be referenced in some way. In most cases, all that is expected is a single link along with who you quoted. All Bible quotes must also be cited.

The trustworthiness of sources and quality of references should also be determined, otherwise you might end up embarrassed. There are many ideas floating around on the Web, and the quality can generally be judged by where it came from. For example, you should be wary of sources that are predominately "opinionative", don't appear "educated" on the issue, or lack "professionalism". In addition, refrain from continually using references that have already been outrightly shown as false.

Misquoting is also frowned upon and will be cause for intervention by a moderator. It is best to quote an entire sentence, even paragraph if possible. However, quoting a few middle words where the authors intention clearly does not support your case is dishonest so will not be accepted.

Spam
Spam will not be accepted. By "spam" we mean links advertising commercial or inappropriate websites, posts only containing links, and/or massive amounts of quoted text uninspiring to discussions. Such posts will be moved into the "Garbage Bin" or deleted by a moderator at their discretion. Active posters wishing to place links to a personal or related website in their signature are welcome to do so.

Moderating
A moderator reserves the right to deal with any post they deem inappropriate, including for reasons not specifically mentioned here. If you feel unjustly dealt with, please contact the moderator in question directly and privately. If you have any questions on issues not covered here, please contact a moderator for advice. Comments regarding these rules of conduct are also welcome as long as they are constructive.

BTW, your time discussion is an old attempt to explain the three day and night problem. And yes I'm aware of the conjunctions of weekly and ceremonial Sabbaths. Further, I stand by my contention that to accept a literal ressurectin and yet to reject a literal Creation as described in Genesis is totally without logic.

You'll need to explain that in factual terms rather than simply making an unsupported assertion as fact which shows no interaction with the texts or appreciation of the differences in form, history and context of these two passages of Scripture.

Please refer back to the Discussion Guidelines and and purposes of this board and if you wish to continue, adhere to them.

Regards,

Bart

[hfd]

With all due respect, my assertions about Christmas and Easter and how they relate to Christianity are not assumptions. We are adminished not to follow the ways of the 'heathen'. The celebration of those two holidays as Christian are certainly against that admonishment.Jeremiah is quite explicit. Jeremiah is quite explicit of these things.

One needs to consider that Jesus relied on the Torah and the prophets in his teachings, not Paul. To completely clarify my position.

1. I am a Creationist because of evidence
2. I am ambiguous in my beliefs about Jesus.
3. I cannot in good conscience see a compatibility with the teachings of Jesus and those of Paul.
4. I do not accept, based on history and facts, various rituals within the 'Christian' churches.
5. I reject the idea, again based on historical fact, that Jesus is unique in religious philosopy and only Jesus is 'The Way.

I don't say these things to offend, but to clarify. In dealing with Judaism and Christianity I would refer to the Biblical narrative and not an astronomer from Canada. I belong to no denomination nor do I support any religious orgainization.

[Canuckster1127]

With all due respect, my assertions about Christmas and Easter and how they relate to Christianity are not assumptions. We are adminished not to follow the ways of the 'heathen'. The celebration of those two holidays as Christian are certainly against that admonishment.Jeremiah is quite explicit. Jeremiah is quite explicit of these things.

One needs to consider that Jesus relied on the Torah and the prophets in his teachings, not Paul. To completely clarify my position.

1. I am a Creationist because of evidence
2. I am ambiguous in my beliefs about Jesus.
3. I cannot in good conscience see a compatibility with the teachings of Jesus and those of Paul.
4. I do not accept, based on history and facts, various rituals within the 'Christian' churches.
5. I reject the idea, again based on historical fact, that Jesus is unique in religious philosopy and only Jesus is 'The Way.

I don't say these things to offend, but to clarify. In dealing with Judaism and Christianity I would refer to the Biblical narrative and not an astronomer from Canada. I belong to no denomination nor do I support any religious orgainization.

Thank you for clarifying.

I hope if you continue and as you continue to post that you will work to support your positions in the context of our board discussion guidelines and not seek simply to tear down others, the general purpose of this board or to assert your position as fact without supporting it to the same degree you request of others.

Here is our Board Purpose Statement which should help make clearer why I am addressing these issues with you

Board Purpose
This board is a part of Evidence for God from Science (G&S), a Christian website, which serves to provide a defense and persuasive case for Christianity as well as encouragement and instruction for Christian people and seekers.

Who is the message board intended for?
This message board is publicly open to anyone who wishes to register, and participate in discussions, however it is only intended for a specific audience. It is intended to serve as a place for:
Sincere seekers to inquire and ask questions;

Christians to give and receive encouragement and instruction; and

Non-Christians who are willing to "walk a thin line" and dialogue sensatively and respectfully.
This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs. As such, those who are Christian, have not made up their minds, or desire civil discussions about Christianity are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged and will be heavily moderated.

Why disallow debating from those who strongly disagree with Christian beliefs?
G&S originally provided an open discussion board where Christians and non-Christians could debate and voice their arguments for and against Christianity. In hindsight, it did not seem like this was the best approach to fulfill the G&S purpose as the board became a hub for a much more vocal non-Christian crowd, rather than being a place of fruitful exchanges amongst Christians and helping seekers. So after thoughtful consideration, it was decided to limit participation in discussions to a certain group of people--Christians and those open to Christian beliefs.

But I see so many distortions... I just want to enlighten others with my knowledge!
If you feel this strongly it is likely what you have to say will likely not be appreciated or accepted. So please respect the desire purpose of this message board. There are many other places on the Internet where one can enter into debate.

On an important note, some people do not like the "science" communicated by posters on the board. What posters write will even largely differ to what is advocated on the G&S website, for example, the Day-Age literal interpretation of Genesis 1 which accepts the science of the Earth being several billions years old, and a universe which has been expanding for about 14 billion years. Yet, as this is a Christian board, other Christian perspectives are welcome including Young-Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists. We will not accept a strictly Materialist-Evolution accounting of origins since this is in direct opposition with essential Christian beliefs.

To be clear, we will heavily moderate those who attempt to support a neo-Darwinian form of evolution, which is strictly Materialistic and Atheistic, and which rules out any possible influence or intervention from a divine being such as the Christian God within creation. There are many understandings of "Evolution", and a paper we recommend reading to clarify the different meanings is "The Meanings of Evolution" (PDF format) by Stephen Meyer and Michael Keas. The type of evolution not accepted here would come under the "Blind watchmaker thesis" in that paper:
Quote:
the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.


But, it does not seem fair...
If what has been said here is found distasteful or objectionable, then we encourage you to please be honest, respect our purpose, and not participate at this message board. This will save any ill feelings down the track if a moderator messages you or even bans you in order to uphold the board purpose. Upon being messaged or banned, many have objected that it is "unfair" or "intolerant". Yet, such a person really shows their own intolerance by not wanting to allow one Christian board out of the many on the Internet to function in accordance with its beliefs as a Christian board.

To use an illustration, imagine if a Christian person registered on forums that belonged to a Jewish website. This Christian began posting how the Jews persecuted the early Christian Church, and pointing out any faults they thought existed within the Jewish faith irrespective of whether it was backed or not. It becomes readily apparent that the administrator(s) of that board would have every right to ban that Christian and remove their posts. It is simply not a board for the Christian to propagate their beliefs nor tear into Judaism for it is a Jewish board.

To provide another illustration, imagine if a Muslim entered your home and hung up the Koran above your door (or if you are Muslim substitute someone of another religion entering your home and doing something similar). Such a seemingly unacceptable action highlights the point that it is not always true that divergent faiths and beliefs should be given the same privileges, freedom, and level of acceptance everywhere. To say it is always true would be not respect anothers personal domain. So just like a Muslim would have no right to hang their Koran in your home without permission, simply because the home becomes "virtual" doesn't change this principle.

This board is a Christian home, and so while very open to sincere and honest questions, it is "not" a place where others of differing beliefs can promote their opinions while throwing any argument and complaint they can find against Christianity. If you think this is still unfair, then you are quite welcome to find and join some of the many other message boards found on the Internet.

Bart

[hfd]

"I hope if you continue and as you continue to post that you will work to support your positions in the context of our board discussion guidelines and not seek simply to tear down others, the general purpose of this board or to assert your position as fact without supporting it to the same degree you request of others. "

It is not my intent to 'tear down' others. However, it is difficult as a rational thinking person to view the absurd notion that an astronomer from Canada holds the keys to Biblical meaning. Yet, so-called Christians on theis board do exactly that.

Among other things, Ross suggests that The Flood was local, not universal. That's fine. But to claim to be Christian when rejecting the Biblical narrative is simply not logical. The Bible is quite clear in it's presentation of the Deluge as it is in the Creation narrative. Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of these foums. I was under the impression that open dialogue, with supporting likage, was the focus.

[Canuckster1127]

It is not my intent to 'tear down' others. However, it is difficult as a rational thinking person to view the absurd notion that an astronomer from Canada holds the keys to Biblical meaning. Yet, so-called Christians on theis board do exactly that.

Aside from the fact that you are incorrect as to this board being associated or affiliated with Hugh Ross (his board site is Reasons to Believe, by the way), you again are promoting your opinion unsupported and wrongly characterizing this board and many of the people posting on it.

Among other things, Ross suggests that The Flood was local, not universal. That's fine. But to claim to be Christian when rejecting the Biblical narrative is simply not logical. The Bible is quite clear in it's presentation of the Deluge as it is in the Creation narrative. Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of these foums. I was under the impression that open dialogue, with supporting likage, was the focus.

Again, we are not affiliated with Hugh Ross. I happen to have a great deal of respect for Hugh Ross personally, as does the founder of this board, Rich Deem, but again you demonstrate to me that you are here to attack rather than discuss and seek to understand. I suggest you do some looking around and reading before trotting out statements like this which simply demonstrate a lack of attention to what is going on here and reinforces my concerns.

I strongly suggest you read the Board Purpose instead of simply assuming what we are and what the standards are. There are plenty of sites for open dialogue around the web. Our purpose statement makes clear what we are are and why.

Consider this a final warning. Another violation will result in your being banned.

Bart

[hfd]

Not to encourage the moderators' wrath, but, I have a question on the literal day issue in Genesis. How would those of you who reject that meaning interpret Ex 20:11? Am I to believe that the days spoken of (the same word is used as in Genesis) in Exodus are not literal? The same question arises for the following verse when it speaks of the 'thy days may be long...' Again the same word is used.

The flood speaks of forty days and forty night using the same word for day. Are these literal days? Are they ages? Or are they simply a designation of an unspecified amount of time.

Finally, in the NT Jesus is in the wilderness for forty days while being tempted by the devil (. Do you view those days as literal? And yes, I realize we re dealing with different languages.

[B. W.]

Are you a Christian? Do you accept the inspiration of all parts of scripture, including the Pauline letters?"

A strange question coming from one who seemingly picks and chooses what to support. For example, you've not answered my question bout Jesus in the tomb. Was he there for three literal days?

Why is it that you hate Paul's letters?

As for answering you about Jesus in the tomb for three literal days, I already have.

It is up to you to research the history of Calendar time - Lunar and Solar. Do you know what the ancient Hebrew cultural used to tell time? Do you know what Leviticus chapters 16, 23 - 25 teach about Sabbath and Passover in Numbers chapter 9? See this link for a better explanation as the writer did a superb yet humble job explaining this issue:

http://www.pointsoftruth.com/articles/threedays.html

Quote from Web Link: Jesus was crucified in 31 A.D. (I surmise) on Passover 14th Nissan, a WEDNESDAY that year (30 A.D. and 31 A.D. both had a Wednesday Passover according to the perpetual calendar) was buried just prior to sundown which would begin the next day,- THURSDAY, 15th Nissan a High Day. THREE DAYS and THREE NIGHTS later, near the end of the WEEKLY SABBATH (Saturday), He arose from the dead. Notice,- Luke 24:1-3,- "But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the Body of the Lord Jesus." End Quote

"1. You are making an assumption as to when the supposed crucifixion took place.

2. You are making an assumption about the Sabbaths of those assumed years.

The traditional story kills Jesus at noon Friday. He is in the tomb until early on the first day of the week, Sunday. That could have been anytime after sundown Saturday. Hard to spin that story if, in fact, Jesus was in the tomb 3 days and three nights.

Speaking of traditions of men.

3. Easter Sunrise services are celebrated to mark the resurrection. That activity is in fact a pagan memorial. Why celebrate the rising of the sun? And make no mistake about it, that s the thrust of the service.

Xmas and Easter, as well as minor holidays such as Halloween are all pagan rituals having nothing to do with Biblical directives. I have no problem with anyone celebrating those. But to do it and try to claim it's all part of the great plan of Christianity is laughable. It's not possible to integrate them into Christianity.

Yes, I recognize that this is not a popular view. Not my problem, my comments are factual.

As for [1 and 2] — No I am not. Now better more mathematically minded souls have collaborated the old Hebrew calendar to our modern solar calendar and you can find the year based on understanding the Passover and Sabbath. Which has about 11 months in the year — Lunar or Solar calendar?

As for [3] you were answered this on another thread — you do not understand that Jesus was the Passover Lamb…

Nor do you know what Christ's work on the cross is about or did.

Also, your attempt to use the literal 3 day verse the 1.5 day debate Christians have amongst themselves is a poor attempt to disprove the bible. It has been tried before and failed. It will again.
-
-
-