Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Possible Error in Peshitta 1Co. 5:8? - Leavened Bread
#16
Very enjoyable conversation, all Smile Thank you so much for your insights.

Shlama,
Thomas
Reply
#17
Dear Thomas,

In all humility, and in the love of Mshikha, the conclusion you have come to, is mistaken, as you haven't looked at everything in The Holy Scriptures, carefully. And based on some of your comments above, it looks like some other things are as well, regarding The Church, and its doctrines.

The Bread that was eaten that night, before the start of Passover, which was to begin the next evening at sundown, as The Scriptures show, and after Mshikha had been slain, was "Lakhma", and that is the regular Aramaic term used for bread, not the term used for "unleavened bread".

Mshikha IS Himself The Passover Lamb, and that night, they ate Lakhma, which Mshikha called His Body... He being The true Passover Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. He is the leaven that came down from heaven, and which we are to have in us, but not the leaven of the Pharisees, or of that of wickedness. Mshikha makes us a new lump, and the new lump is not like the old lump...thanks be to Alaha.

If you partake of unleavened bread once a year during The Feast of Unleavened Bread, and eat a roasted lamb according to all the prescriptions on Passover, then I do not say you should stop, but I assume you know that by doing so does not make you any more redeemed than Mshikha has made you, once and for all with His one time sacrifice.
 
I could further elaborate on this truth, but, this isn't the place to discuss all this, in detail, and I know that all things will be sorted out soon enough, by Mshikha. Keep your trust in Him!

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#18
Dear Chuck,

Thanks for the response, and I apologize for the delay. I'm just seeing your message tonight. Hope you are well.

"In all humility, and in the love of Mshikha, the conclusion you have come to, is mistaken, as you haven't looked at everything in The Holy Scriptures, carefully."

Well I'm definitely open to be corrected. And I certainly "haven't looked at everything in the The Holy Scriptures, carefully." I just pray that MarYah will allow me to continue studying them. But I assume that you are using this as your basis to disagree with me...

"The Bread that was eaten that night... was "Lakhma", and that is the regular Aramaic term used for bread, not the term used for "unleavened bread"."

I believe that I've heard this argument before, but you didn't provide me with any evidence. Feel free to let me know if you disagree, as we are brothers; but please come with chapter and verse if you are going to tell me that I'm mistaken. Let me know if you find any flaws in my reasoning, as iron sharpens iron:

Peshitta "NT" uses "lakhma" 98 times or so, and after searching every single occurrence, it seems that without some sort of context, there is no way to know if "lakhma" refers to leavened or unleavened bread. It just means "bread," and therefore--even at this point--there is no basis for claiming that Meshikha ate "leavened" bread.

Now, Aramaic "lakhma" seems to be the equivalent of Hebrew "lechem" (cf. Joh 6:31, Exo 16:15). Both words are generic words for "bread" and need qualifiers, or adjectives to describe what kind of bread. In Hebrew the adjectives are "matsa" (unleavened) and "chametz" (leavened); and in Aramaic they are "patira" (unleavened) and "khemira" (leaven). These are adjectives but are actually used as nouns 99% of the time.

There are a couple of rare instances that prove my point, though. In Exo 29:2, the Hebrew reads "lechem matsot" (unleavened bread), using the word "matsa" to modify "lechem" (bread) so that we know it is specifically "unleavened bread." The Peshitta Tanakh translates it as "lakhma patira," showing the same exact thing.

There is also another place (Lev 7:13) where we find, in Hebrew, "lechem chametz" (leavened bread). Here the Peshitta Tanakh translates it as "lakhma khmya." So we have two passages of Scripture (Exo 29:2 and Lev 7:13) that prove that "lechem / lakhma" simply are generic terms for "bread." In almost every other place, the terms "matsa / patira" are used as nouns for "unleavened bread" (e.g. Exo 12:8 ff., Lev 2:4-5).

Now, read the 98 occurrences of "lakhma" in the Peshitta "NT", and tell me if you find one single place where the context requires us to understand that the "bread" was leavened or unleavened. None exist that I'm aware of, and "lakhma" just means "bread."

Now what I find ironic is that Matthew used the specific term for "unleavened" to describe the very event that you are claiming had "leaven." Matthew calls it "Unleavened Bread" (דפטירא - Mat 26:17), and my previous post demonstrated that all three synoptic Gospels plainly state that it was the Passover (Mat 26:19-21, Mar 14:16-18, Luk 22:7-8). John's Gospel agrees when understanding the historical context, as I even showed from two Christian expositors.

Therefore, 4 out of 4 Gospels--100% of the evidence shows that Yeshua kept the Torah-based Passover. Granted, I wasn't there to see what type of "bread" it was, but it should be obvious in light of the fact that it was "Passover," which Matthew metonymically referred to as פטירא - "UNleavened bread."

And unless you want to put a stain on Meshikha, claiming that he violated the Torah by eating leaven during Passover, then I recommend reevaluating the evidence carefully. "Lakhma" is just a generic term for "bread," and there was no need for Matthew to call it "unleavened bread" redundantly anymore than I would ask someone to "Pass me the "unleavened" bread," while sitting at a Passover meal where only unleavened bread is eaten.

As to Gregory's previous comment...

"as well as having Yeshua die after the Passover lambs were killed, not at the same time, if Yeshua did indeed eat the slaughtered Passover lamb the night before."

I see no reason to believe that he had to die at an exact moment, per se, as thousands of lambs being killed would have taken a few hours at least. And according to the Talmud, I believe it is, a tradition may have even begun where lambs were killed over a much larger timeframe--a dozen hours or more.

It is historically inaccurate to assume that Yeshua had to die when one particular lamb was slaughtered. I'm not aware of any command, or statement in Scripture that indicated that Yeshua must die exactly at a certain time. He never said "The son of man will die exactly when the 1,000th Passover lamb is slaughtered," though we know he is likened to the Passover lamb.

Of course, I'm open to correction, but I would like it to be from Scripture, or from good historical sources that provide context to Scripture--but not just church tradition. You want me to put my trust in Meshikha. Well then, "Jeshu answered, and said to them, Why also do ye transgress the commandment of Aloha for the sake of your tradition?" (Mat 15:3)

Shlama,
Thomas
Reply
#19
Brother Thomas,

I don't have any problem with you eating lakhma patira on the evening of the 14th of Nissan this coming spring. But, if you say that it was during the start of the 14th day of the 1st month that spring when Mshikha and His Talmide ate together, then you would be mistaken of course.

You said that you hadn't looked at everything in The Scriptures carefully, so, please do a closer study of The Scriptures on this matter, Brother, and hopefully you will see that it was not during the end of the 14th and start of the 15th day, but rather, the evening before, at the start of the 14th day, when Mshikha blessed and broke the lakhma. It was the end of the 13th day of the month, and start of the 14th day, during that evening/morning, not the next evening/morning 14th/15th, when The Passover meal was commanded to be eaten, as prescribed by the Law of Moses.

They ate no paschal lamb that evening of the 13th, and start of the 14th day. The lambs were not killed on the 13th day, which were to be slaughtered the next day, the 14th day, leading up to the 15th day, the evening/twilight of the 14th day, when they were to eat the paschal lambs.

It seems you want to be careful, and not just hold to the traditions of men, so please, study this matter out closer, and I pray that you can see the truth of it all.

And I know that you need to see it for yourself, and not just be told what the truth of the matter is, so here are just a few clues for you to look at, and you can go from there. You seem to be a studious person, so, put all the pieces together, and don't leave anything out, and hopefully you will be able to see it.

Please read John 18:28, 19:14, 19:31 and Matthew 26:3-5. Also, please read Exodus 12:15, 18, Leviticus 23:6 and Numbers 28:17 and notice when the 7 days of unleavened bread were to begin.

Notice all the wording carefully, Brother, then perhaps you can see what day/evening it was when they reclined and ate that night; when Mshikha broke the lakhma, and called it His Body.

Shlama
Reply
#20
Thanks brother,

You are always so gracious with your responses and the amount of information that you share. And your Scripture references made for an absolutely awesome study. Honestly, it was a total blessing.

At this point, though, I don't know what exactly you were seeking to prove from the Scripture references. I read them all carefully, studying for about four hours. I could presume what you might be thinking, but of course, I don't know for sure.

What I can say is that you definitely pointed to issues ("preparation day" and "great day of the Sabbath") that I hadn't addressed in this post previously, so kudos for that. I learned something that I didn't know. However, much seems to come down to interpretation, and I admit that this issue is a very tricky one.

But I also want to say that--as I stated previously a couple posts ago--studying the Scriptures in their original historic and linguistic context makes all the difference. In many places, the difference may not be so dramatic, but in this issue it makes a difference.

When I researched the passages that you posted above, I found nothing that would suggest otherwise to my previous conclusion that Yeshua ate the Torah-based Passover, on the 14th of Abib, which he would have done with "unleavened bread" (see my previous post).

Again, I don't know what your intentions were by posting those particular verses, but they were educational. I still see no reason to suggest that Yeshua ate anything other than the Torah-based Passover, which would have been with unleavened bread (Exo 12:18). Let me know if I'm missing your specific points.

Thanks brother,
Thomas
Reply
#21
I personally have heard of the understanding that says that Yeshua broke lakhma during what is called 'the last supper', saying that lakhma is not unleavened bread; patira being the specific word for unleavened (bread). On two occasions after his resurrection, during the days of unleavened bread, he is said to break lakhma then as well. (Luke 24:30; John 21:13). To some this shows that lakhma can also refer to bread that is unleavened, because if it is leavened bread, then we have Yeshua breaking leavened bread (lakhma) during the days of unleavened bread.

Ronen
Reply
#22
Thomas,

Perhaps 4 hours were not enough time? It took me much longer than 4 hours. Smile I'll try to help you see what is certainly shown in The Scriptures.

Read the passages again, carefully, and pay special attention to the fact that there was only one Paschal Feast to be eaten at sundown on the 14th day, and start of the 15th day.

When reading those passages again, please notice these things.

The religious leaders were instructed not to take Mshikha during the Feast, and they didn't.

The religious leaders wanted to make sure that Mshikha was taken off the Cross before the start of the Feast, and He was.

The meal that Mshikha and His Talmide partook of on that night, before the Paskha Feast was to begin, was not the Paschal meal, which was to be eaten the next evening.

It was the end of the 13th day of the 1st month, and start of the 14th day, when they ate the meal that night, reclining at the table. It could not have been the Passover meal they partook of. That would occur the next evening at sundown, when Mshikha's body was laying in the tomb.

It was a High Day Sabbath that year, because the start of the Passover Feast fell on the start of the weekly Sabbath, thus making it a special Sabbath. Mshikha was crucified on the preparation day of that special Sabbath, not on the Sabbath day itself, which was to begin after He was entombed.

Mshikha was not hanging on the Cross during the Feast, but rather, the day before the Feast began. While the sacrificial lambs were being slaughtered, Mshikha, The Lamb of Alaha, who takes away the sin of the world, was being slaughtered on the Cross.

I could add more, but, this will have to suffice for now.


Shlama
Reply
#23
Ronen,

In context lakhma (bread) can be either leavened or un-leavened. Certainly in context of the day of the calendar when Mshikha and His Talmide had that last meal together, before He was offered up, was not the un-leavened bread which was to be eaten beginning the next evening during the Feast. The Feast had yet to begin that night they ate their meal before Mshikha was arrested.

Shlama
Reply
#24
Dear Ronen and Chuck,

Ronen: "Regarding the meaning of "lakhma," I believe that it simply means bread--neither leavened nor unleavened; and I gave a fairly detailed linguistic argument to demonstrate this in my post from Saturday, December 5th, 2015, 02:49.

Chuck: "The Feast had yet to begin that night they ate their meal before Mshikha was arrested."

Which is completely contradicted by Mat 26:17 and Luk 22:7-8, since these both say that the disciples were preparing the Passover on the "first day of unleavened bread" (Mat 26:17) or just "day of unleavened bread... came" (Luk). They hadn't yet eaten the Passover, and it was already the 14th of Abib.

As I demonstrated from the Torah in a previous post, the phrase "first day of unleavened bread" can mean either the 14th of Abib (Exo 12:15) or the 15th (Exo 12:16)--but never the 13th. Therefore, it is completly impossible that they ate the meal on the 13th, plain and simple. (Now I go through your statements point by point in chronological order).

Chuck: "Perhaps 4 hours were not enough time?"

I'm enjoying the privilege of studying God's Word in the beautiful Peshitta. Why rush?

"... there was only one Paschal Feast to be eaten at sundown on the 14th day, and start of the 15th day."

Agreed.

"The religious leaders were instructed not to take Mshikha during the Feast, and they didn't."

Actually, let's see the text: "Matthew 26:5 And they said, Let it not be on the festival, lest there be a tumult among the people." (Eth) But I humbly suggest that your argument is "non sequitur"--that is to say, your conclusion cannot possibly follow from the premise, or presumed prooftext.

All we see in Mat 26:5 is the plotting of Christ's enemies, but not what actually happened. Christ's enemies plotted and failed many times before (Mat 22:18, Luk 20:23, Joh 8:59, Joh 10:31), so what makes you think that their intentions were carried out this time? Certainly, the text doesn't say so, although you append the words "they didn't" as though the text itself read that way.

Now what I also find ironic is that you're putting more trust in the accuracy of the (intentions) of Christ's worst enemies, than in Christ's own intentions: "Luke 22:15 And he said to them: I have greatly desired to eat this passover with you, before I suffer." (Mrd) So you would take the intent of Christ's worst enemies over Christ's own intent?

Now, to Luk 22:15, add Mat 26:17, Mar 14:12, Mar 14:14. These are four passages that all say Christ wanted, or prepared to eat the "Passover." Would you care to comment on these four passages that all say that it was the "Passover"?

I already addressed Joh 18:28 in a previous post where numerous commentators agree that John was referring to the "chagigah" on the 15th of Abib, but let's revisit this in even more detail. And if the following explanations weren't sufficient, though they more than are, then John's Gospel would still be left outnumbered four to one by the synoptics. But thankfully this isn't really the case, as we'll get to.

Now, even if you wanted to turn the tables around and claim that the four passages above were referring to the "chagigah" instead of John's account, then you would be putting Christ's "Last Supper" on the 15th of Abib, since that was when this "chagigah" was eaten, and you would be contradicting your own argument that the rulers didn't want to kill him "during the feast" (Mat 26:5).

Again, would you care to shed some light on the meaning of Christ desiring, and preparing to eat the "Passover" in four different passages (Luk 22:15, Mat 26:17, Mar 14:12, Mar 14:14)?

"The religious leaders wanted to make sure that Mshikha was taken off the Cross before the start of the Feast, and He was."

The text says: "John 19:31 The Jihudoyee, because it was the preparation, said, Let not these bodies remain-all-night upon the cross, because the shabath has lighted: for a great day was the day of that shabath. And they besought of Pilatos that they should break the legs of those (who had been) crucified, and take them down." (Eth)

Peshitta: "for a great day was the day of that Shabath" (רבא יומא דשׁבתא). Presumably, the Sabbath that was drawing near was the one that John calls the "great day of the Sabbath." According to some commentators, this term is simply used to denote that the feast of first-fruits (16th of Abib) happened to fall on the weekly Sabbath that year. I know that many disagree, but check these out:

John Gill @ Joh 19:31 - "it was not only a sabbath, and a sabbath in the passover week, but it was the day in which all the people appeared and presented themselves before the Lord in the temple, and the sheaf of the first fruits was offered up; all which solemnities meeting together made it a very celebrated day: it is in the original text, "it was the great day of the sabbath"; which is the language of the Talmudists, and who say [Piske Tosephot Sabbat, art. 314.] נקרא שבת הגדול "is called the great sabbath", on account of the miracle or sign of the passover; and in the Jewish Liturgy [Seder Tephillot, fol. 183. 2. &c. Ed. Basil.] there is a collect for the "great sabbath."'"

Joseph Benson @ Joh 19:31 - "... especially as that sabbath was a day of peculiar solemnity, being the second day of the feast of unleavened bread, (from whence they reckoned the weeks to pentecost,) and also the day for presenting and offering the sheaf of new corn"

Thomas Coke @ Joh 19:31 - "It was not only a sabbath, but the second day of the feast of unleavened bread, from whence they reckoned the weeks to Pentecost, and also the day for presenting and offering the sheaf of new corn; so that it was indeed a treble solemnity. The Jews style a feast, or the day of solemn assembly in any feast, a high, or great day."

Again, I'm perfectly aware that plenty of other commentators disagree with the above interpretation. But my view is supported just as well as yours. At best, we would have to call Joh 19:31 a draw. If a number of occassions could all be legitimately referred to as "great day of the Sabbath" (רבא יומא דשׁבתא), then there is no use arguing over Joh 19:31.

"The meal that Mshikha and His Talmide partook of on that night, before the Paskha Feast was to begin, was not the Paschal meal, which was to be eaten the next evening."

Citation needed. Luk 22:15, Mat 26:17, Mar 14:12, Mar 14:14 all disagree with you.

"It was the end of the 13th day of the 1st month, and start of the 14th day, when they ate the meal that night, reclining at the table. It could not have been the Passover meal they partook of. That would occur the next evening at sundown, when Mshikha's body was laying in the tomb."

Ibid.

"It was a High Day Sabbath that year, because the start of the Passover Feast fell on the start of the weekly Sabbath..."

Which is only one possible interpretation, as I pointed out above. The three commentators (and there are more) disagree with you. They say that it was the feast of first-fruits (16th of Abib) that coincided with the weekly sabbath that year, making it a "great Sabbath," and meaning that Yeshua died on the 15th.

But again, Luk 22:15, Mat 26:17, Mar 14:12, Mar 14:14 all say that it was the "Passover," and if we adjust John's use of "Passover" in Joh 18:28 to mean the "chagigah" on the 15th (Gill, Henry, Bynæus, Lightfoot, Reland, Olshausen, Hengstenberg, Luthardt, Hofmann, Riggenbach, Ebrard, Bäumlein, Robinson, Lange, Edersheim, Roth), then all accounts are in total agreement. I also like the way Albert Barnes spells it out:

"The very day of keeping the ordinance was specified in the law of Moses, and it is not probable that the Saviour departed from the commandment. All the circumstances, also, lead us to suppose that he observed it at the usual time and manner, Mat_26:17, Mat_26:19. The only passage which has led to a contrary opinion is this in John; but here the word passover does not, of necessity, mean the paschal lamb. It probably refers to the Feast which followed the sacrifice of the lamb, and which continued seven days. Compare Num_28:16-17. The whole feast was called the Passover, and they were unwilling to defile themselves, even though the paschal lamb had been killed, because it would disqualify them for participating in the remainder of the ceremonies (Lightfoot)."

Barnes doesn't even call it the "chagigah," specifically, but he opens the door for yet another explanation that would easily, and legitimately reconcile Joh 18:28 with Luk 22:15, Mat 26:17, Mar 14:12, Mar 14:14. Consider the following from Adam Clarke on Joh 18:28:

"Bishop Pearce supposes that it was lawful for the Jews to eat the paschal lamb any time between the evening of Thursday and that of Friday. He conjectures too that this permission was necessary on account of the immense number of lambs which were to be killed for that purpose. When Cestius desired to know the number of the Jews, he asked the priests how he might accomplish his wish? They informed him that this might be known by the number of the lambs slain at the passover, as never less than ten partook of one lamb, though twenty might feast on it. On this mode of computation he found the lambs to be 256,500; εικοσι πεντε μυριαδας ηριθμησαν, προς δε ἑξακισχιλια και πεντακοσια. See Josephus, War, b. vi. c. 9. s. 3..."

"Mshikha was not hanging on the Cross during the Feast, but rather, the day before the Feast began. While the sacrificial lambs were being slaughtered, Mshikha, The Lamb of Alaha, who takes away the sin of the world, was being slaughtered on the Cross."

And so you would say that he ate the "Passover" on the 13th of Abib, which must now be irreconcilably refuted (besides all I've said before) by this lone factor:

Deu 16:5-6: "Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover-offering within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee; but at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to cause His name to dwell in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover- offering at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt." (JPS)

There were no priests sacrificing Passover lambs at the temple on the 13th of Abib, as would be necessary for your interpretation. And we know that Passover lambs were killed (Luk 22:7, Mar 14:12); so it is simply not tenable that Christ kept a "Passover" on the 13th. The Passover lamb would have had to been slaughtered at the temple (per Deu 16:5-6), but this wasn't done until the 14th, which puts your idea that they kept an early "Passover" out of commission.

Besides which, Luk 22:7-8 reads: "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which it was the custom to slay the petscha. And Jeshu sent Kipha and Juchanon, and said to them, Go prepare for us the petscha, that we may eat." (Eth)

Luke says that they were preparing to eat the Passover on the "day of unleavened bread" (cf. Mat 26:17). As I covered in a previous post, the "first of unleavened bread" can refer to either the 14th of Abib (cf. Exo 12:15) or the 15th of Abib (Exo 12:16)--but never the 13th of Abib, and this is where your argument ultimately fails.

Yeshua and his disciples were still preparing to eat the Passover on the "first day of unleavened bread," which could be no earlier than the 14th of Abib. Again: the first day of unleavened bread can never be the 13th of Abib, and yet Christ hadn't yet eaten the meal. It follows from this that they ate the Passover on the evening of the 14th (Mat 26:17-20), in this case called "the first of unleavened bread," and then he died the very next day (15th of Abib).

I submit to you that Yeshua and his disciples must have eaten a Torah-based Passover (with a sacrificed lamb and unleavened bread) on the 14th of Abib, and then Yeshua died the very next day, the 15th of Abib.

Shlama,
Thomas
Reply
#25
Dear Brother Thomas,

1st of all, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I said it was the 13th day. I said it was the end of the 13th day, and the start of the 14th day. This day {14th} was the time of the preparation for the Passover.

You said "I submit to you that Yeshua and his disciples must have eaten a Torah-based Passover (with a sacrificed lamb and unleavened bread) on the 14th of Abib, and then Yeshua died the very next day, the 15th of Abib."

But, Thomas, that theory just won't work, no matter how hard you might try to prove it.

Why? Because it won't stand the test of what is written in The Scriptures. You can appeal all you want to the opinions of men and their uninspired commentaries, but, I am going to stick with The Inspired Scriptures. You said you didn't want to hear my opinions, and then you appeal to many other men's opinions to help prove your own opinion.

Interesting....

Now, lets look at The Scriptures.

Both Matthew's and John's Gospel, in Matthew 27:62 and John 19:14 respectively, show that the conclusion you are holding to, can not be correct.

Both of the inspired Apostles show us that Mshikha was crucified on The Preparation of The Passover, not the next day after The Passover took place, as you say, but rather, during the time of its preparation, it thus could not have been as your conclusion maintains.

This time of preparation is also spoken of in Matthew 26:17, 19. Where the Talmide asked Mshikha where He had planned to eat The Passover, so they could prepare to eat it.

Now, this last point for now...

You say that The Passover Feast had already taken place before Mshikha was crucified, but, have you not read this verse of Scripture?

John 18:28 "Then they brought Eshu {Yeshua} from the presence of Qayapa {Caiaphas} into the Praetorium {i.e. The Judgment Hall}, and it was daybreak, and they didn’t enter into the Praetorium, so that, they might not be defiled before they ate The Peskha {The Passover}.

Note: This was the passage I was thinking of in the previous post, not the one about taking Mshikha down from the Cross.

But,

What???? Two Passovers?

Interesting...

You see there Thomas... this was in the morning, after they arrested Mshikha in the garden late the previous night! 

Mshikha and His Talmide had departed to the garden, after they ate their supper together, during which He instituted The New Covenant in His blood, as they reclined, when Mshikha, Our Passover, The Lamb of Alaha who takes away the sin of the world, blessed and broke the lakhma {Bread} and said it was His Body, and blessed the Hamra {Wine} and said it was His blood.

So, this time of trial at the Praetorium was still the 14th day, still being The Preparation of The Passover. It was now daybreak, in the morning time, the sun coming up, and He was being lead to Pilate to be judged and condemned to death.

The religious leaders didn't want to defile themselves before they ate The Passover, which was to be eaten at twilight, at the end of 14th day.

You see...they had arrested Mshikha before The Feast began, as they had determined to do, and it was during The Preparation of The Passover, not after it took place, as you are trying so hard to say. 

So....Now that this has been settled by The Scriptures.

What was this "Passover" that was eaten that previous evening, before they departed to the garden to pray, which took place at the start of the 14th day (during The Preparation of The Passover Feast), which Feast was to occur as The Law of Moses says, at twilight at the end of the 14th day, not the beginning of it?

I know. Smile

.
Reply
#26
Dear Brother,

I am so grateful for this discussion, and what you have shared. You pointed me to areas that I hadn't yet considered, and so I'm truly thankful. It truly has been "iron sharpening iron," and a blessing.

I believe, however, that we've reached the extent of productive dialogue on this topic, since your last post didn't seem to contain any new information that wasn't already covered. Rather, it shows that in some places you haven't even considered what I wrote, or else you are ignoring it and just repeating yourself.

I don't want to repeat myself, other than to say, "Thank you once again for sharing your insights." I've learned much, and if, for the sake of others who may read this, I can leave any one thought, let it be this:

This topic of the crucifixion-resurrection timeline demonstrates to me, as much as any other topic that I've yet studied in Scripture, the dire importance of studying Scripture in its original (historical, linguistic, etc.) context to arrive at proper conclusions.

There are certainly many parts of Scripture that can legitimately be interpreted in various ways, and applied in various fashions, but topics that deal with historical events and facts, such as this one, may only have one correct interpretation. In such a case, a failure or refusal to apply the proper Hebraic lens will often lead to wrong conclusions.

I don't mean this as a slam to anyone, but rather as an invitation to an awesome and exciting journey for all who would seek to know Meshikha further--as he really was--as a Torah-observant Judean who taught his followers that the Torah is the permanent standard for mankind.

This is one of the primary reasons that I was drawn to the Peshitta in the first place, because my current conclusion is that the Peshitta provides the earliest, most accurate, and authoritative witness to what the (Judean) followers of Yeshua wrote. But the Peshitta is just one of several components that I've come to believe must be applied to one's study in order to get the most original, accurate understanding of the Scriptures. And this issue of the crucifixion-resurrection timeline highlights the importance of studying this way more than almost any other topic.

If anyone would like to supply other angles on this topic that haven't yet been discussed, and especially if you can show my interpretations of Luk 22:15, Mat 26:17, Mar 14:12, Mar 14:14, Joh 18:28, Joh 19:14 to be misguided or wrong, then I'm sincerely grateful. But if you are unable or unwilling to counter me point-for-point, Scripture by Scripture--and with interpretation free of anti-Semitism or replacement theology--then I believe that all which can be accomplished here has been accomplished.

That is why I conclude, at least for now, that Yeshua ate a Torah-based Passover at the end of the 14th / start of the 15th, and he was executed and laid in the tomb on the 15th of Abib, just before the start of the weekly Sabbath (the 16th, which also happened to be the Feast of First Fruits that year). He then rose late Saturday night / early Sunday morning on the 17th of Abib.

But finally, not to forget the original purpose of this thread, as much as I love the Peshitta, unless we are to take Ronen's suggestion on Sunday, October 18th, 2015, 04:20 am regarding Paul's statement in 1Co 5:7-8, then I believe that the Peshitta has an error, or at least an inferior reading the Greek MSS. for 1Co 5:8 (see my previous posts). I mention Ronen's idea because I like his suggestion, and it is the only reasoning that I've seen thus far that could potentially rescue the Peshitta from having an inferior reading to the Greek. Nevertheless, it seems that the Greek may have a superior reading regarding "unleavened bread" in 1Co 5:8.

Shlama amkun,
Thomas
Reply
#27
Brother Thomas,

You said: "That is why I conclude, at least for now, that Yeshua ate a Torah-based Passover at the end of the 14th / start of the 15th, and he was executed and laid in the tomb on the 15th of Abib, just before the start of the weekly Sabbath (the 16th, which also happened to be the Feast of First Fruits that year)."

As I said above, that theory doesn't hold up to the test of Scripture.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions on the matter, though, as I pointed out, your theory shows that there were two Passover meals eaten. There indeed was, but there is a very important reason for that, one it seems you don't want to hear about.

You see, The Scriptures show us that there was a Passover eaten, both BEFORE the arrest of Mshikha in the garden, when He and His Talmide had their meal earlier, and one AFTER He was condemned and crucified and entombed, which the religious leaders spoke of in The Scripture I provided there.

I didn't ignore your points, I simply showed you in The Scriptures were your theory breaks down, and fails to work. it's kind of like an invention that is claimed to work, but, when you test it a bit more, it proves it doesn't really work at all.

I know you think that you are right, at the moment, both in your opinion and interpretation, but, you are mistaken Brother.

Also, sadly, you dropped the "anti-Semitism" bomb, and seem to think that this is about "replacement theology", but, that would be a false judgment and totally unwarranted here. You might want to spin it that way, for some reason, but it is not at all true. There was nothing that has been said which could at all be construed to be so.

I am a child of Abraham, and have never taught that The Church Mshikha and His Talmide established, replaces anything. He came to fulfill all things and make all things new.

No, The Aramaic Scriptures/The Peshitta does not have an error in 1 Cor 5:7-8. And once you truly know what The Passover is all about, the Spiritual reality and fulfillment of The Passover, which is Mshikha, Our Passover Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, He, who is The Bread of Life, The Bread that came down from Heaven, you will know what The Apostle is speaking of there when He mentions The Feast/The Passover, who is Mshikha Himself, The Lamb of God whom we are to consume.

I pray that The Holy Spirit leads you into all His truth, Thomas.

ܕܟܘ ܡܢܟܘܢ ܚܡܝܪܐ ܥܬܝܩܐ ܕܬܗܘܘܢ ܓܒܝܠܬܐ ܚܕܬܐ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܐܝܬܝܟܘܢ ܦܛܝܪܐ ܦܨܚܐ ܓܝܪ ܕܝܠܢ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܗܘ ܕܐܬܢܟܣ ܚܠܦܝܢ ܀
7 Purge from you the old leaven, so that, you are made a new lump, in such a way that you become unleavened, for Our Pesha {Passover} is M'shikha {The Anointed One}; He who was slain for us.

ܡܛܠ ܗܢܐ ܢܥܒܕ ܥܕܥܕܐ ܠܐ ܒܚܡܝܪܐ ܥܬܝܩܐ ܘܠܐ ܒܚܡܝܪܐ ܕܒܝܫܘܬܐ ܘܕܡܪܝܪܘܬܐ ܐܠܐ ܒܚܡܝܪܐ ܕܕܟܝܘܬܐ ܘܕܩܕܝܫܘܬܐ ܀
8 On account of this; perform The Festival: Not with the old leaven, and not with the leaven of wickedness, and of bitterness, but rather, with the leaven that is of purity, and of holiness.


May it be so.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#28
Thomas, what year are you looking at, and what source are you using? HEBCAL?

You said: "just before the start of the weekly Sabbath (the 16th, which also happened to be the Feast of First Fruits that year)"

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#29
Dear Brother,

I'm happy to respond, but first...

"the "anti-Semitism" bomb, and seem to think that this is about "replacement theology""

This wasn't aimed at you--not even as a hint. It was addressed, politely, to anyone else who (I was inviting) who would come with that perspective. Only as my way of saying, "please don't." But I'm not accusing or hinting that you are such.

"what year are you looking at, and what source are you using? HEBCAL?"

I'm not looking at the year at all--only Scripture, and commentaries that seem to provide legitimate or plausible historic, linguistic context for exegesis. This is another point that I want to make now, which I wasn't going to make before, because I was done with this discussion...

I didn't cite commentaries to mount an "argumentum ad populum," but because they provide *exegesis* of the text. Based on how you responded to me a couple posts ago, it seems evident that you didn't really read what I wrote. And I say that because you didn't address my points at all; you skipped right over them in your last barrage.

Here are the two explanations for Joh 18:28 which I believe would easily reconcile them with the message I take from the synoptics (which I also explained to some level or another, but would be happy to give greater detail). These are two explanations that take into account the historic and linguistic context, which is important for proper, accurate exegesis (i.e. "correctly proclaiming the word of truth)"

1) The so-called "Passover" that the rulers didn't want to get defiled for was the "chagigah"--which nearly a dozen expositors of the text--almost all Christians mind you--explain (from legitimate sources like Talmud, etc.) was on the *15th of Abib,* and followed the true "Passover" on the 14th of Abib. This "chagigah" celebration means that Yeshua was executed the day after the true Passover, that is to say, on the 15th of Abib.

2) Explanation number two, which I also provided above, was that some sources speculate that because of the thousands of lambs that had to be slaughtered, a tradition had evolved whereby the priests would slaughter lambs over both the 14th to the evening of the 15th. Therefore, the rulers may have not eaten their lamb on the 15th, when Yeshua was being tried, but they intended to do so before sundown.

Personally brother, I don't know which answer is correct, but either one of them easily bring Joh 18:28 in line with Luk 22:15, Mat 26:17-20, Mar 14:12-14, and these all indicate (to me) that it was the Torah-based Passover--viz., the one on the 14th of Abib. And by the way, I asked you to give your interpretation of these passages in a previous post, and you never did give them. Why not start there?

So, to your question, I'm not looking at calendars or years. Why would I do that? The Scripture is the authority, and it needs to be properly interpreted. I made allowance for the fact that both I, and the commentators that I cited, could be wrong. But ironically, you have demeaned them by calling their work "uninspired," which suggests that your interpretation is the "inspired" one. I would caution against that attitude.

What I've done is to present an exegetical argument from the Scripture, which I believe to be sound. I could be wrong, but your tactics of responding by repeating opinions and phrases like "the inspired Scriptures say you're wrong" (or something to that effect) don't really help me. And believe, me, I would like you to help me. You blessed me with sharing some Scripture passages, but I don't believe that your conclusion follows the evidence of *all* the passages. And I can say this, especially because you never responded to me in regards to Luk 22:15, Mat 26:17-20, Mar 14:12-14.

But if you desire to continue, I will ask that you *don't respond* until you have gone back and carefully read what I wrote in the previous posts on this issue. I know that the temptation is there to want to shoot off a quick reply, but it reallly shows that you just want to be right, and not explore the issue from an appropriate angle. It is rather obvious that you didn't read my arguments, or viewpoints regarding Joh 18:28 and Joh 19:14. Why would I want to continue with you if you aren't even reading what I wrote?

Now, Yeshua himself indicated that the Scriptures must be *both* known and then interpreted properly. "What is written in the Torah? How do you read it?" (Luk 10:26). "If he called them 'alahey,' to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be loosened," (Joh 10:35) ""You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." (Mat 22:29).

So if you'd like to continue, please do so with minimal verbiage. Please just quote the Scripture verse, in whatever translation you want, or the Peshitta itself that you so love, and then give your interpretation of it. Say something like, "This passage shows that it must have been before or after..." and so on. But honestly, I put a considerable amount of time and effort in addressing you that exact way in my previous posts.

I'm not interesting in getting the last word, or being right. I'm interesting in attaining the truth. If you find fault with my argument, after you reread it carefully, then please respond in the fashion above. Otherwise, I just don't think it will be helpful for me. But if you just want the last word, please go ahead and have it.

Shlama,
Thomas
Reply
#30
Brother Thomas,

Take a chill pill...and know that I am not upset with you personally.

The anti-Semitism and Replacement Theology thing was unwarranted, whatever your motives were. I have been on this board since 2005 or so, and I have seen no such thing.

Are you anti-Christian and anti-Church? I hope not. I am certainly not anti-Semitic, nor do I believe in what some teach in their "replacement theology" teachings.

Before I get to the subject again, which we are discussing, I want to make a few things clear first.

Thomas....You are not conversing with Mr. Rogers, or with Barney the purple dinosaur. Or with yourself! Smile

And you assume way too much there in your post.

If you don't want to hear what I have to say below...then stop reading now!








Still reading?

Ok,

If what I say below is the last word on the matter, it is because you didn't like what I said, and or, how I said it. But, that would be fine with me, and it's your choice, not mine.

I am not confused about the matter, as you show me you are, and am telling you the truth, as is shown in The Scripture. I am not going to deal with everything at once, but a few points at a time. We can get to the other points as we go.

If you want to keep your opinions though, you are free to do so, but, it wont line up with what The Scripture says, as again I will show, adding more to what I said before.

I have read all your statements, and your opinions, and your interpretations. Not skipping or ignoring them, but choosing what to focus on at the moment.

And I showed you from The Scriptures how your theory simply does not work.

Also, I don't think, or act, or write things up as you do, because I am not you. I am my own person and do as I do, not as you do, or think I should do.

Just think if the world were full of people just like you, Thomas.

I like the diversity our Creator causes to be, and I like being the me that He created me to be. I don't desire to please you, by being like you want me to be, or to respond to you, like you want me to respond to you. I certainly will never ask you to do that for me.

I found it odd though that you said you didn't want my personal opinions or interpretations, just what The Scriptures say on the matter, and then go and appeal to a bunch of other men's uninspired opinions and interpretations.

Thomas, you have appealed to uninspired commentators, who only give their opinions and interpretations! And so you, following some of them in your interpretation, come up with this "chagigah", which The Scriptures says nothing about regarding this.

That theory has nothing to do with proper exegeses, Brother. That type of thing is called eisegesis.

Thomas, it was indeed The Passover meal that the religious leaders were speaking of, which The Scriptures records properly as such. You don't seem to want to accept that, as it wont fit with your theory.

I'm going with what The Scripture says.

And it says it was The Passover that the religious leaders were planning on eating that evening. And that evening was the evening of the 14th day, which The Scriptures say is the time to eat The Passover according to the Law of Moses.

But, Mshikha knew that He was going to die before twilight on the 14th day, and Mshikha knew that He was going to fulfill The Passover in Himself, He being the Lamb of Alaha, Our Passover, and that the religious leaders had determined to take Him BEFORE The Feast. They did so, as The Scriptures show, and they did so upon the Preparation of the Passover, the day everything was prepared for the Passover Feast the following evening of that 14th day.

They did as they planned to do, and He was crucified during The Preparation of The Passover, when the lambs were being prepared for the evening Passover meal, which was to take place on the 14th day at twilight. Leviticus 23:5

Mshikha is clearly shown by The Scriptures to be arrested, judged, condemned, crucified, and buried all during The Preparation of The Passover, NOT AFTER The Passover, as you are trying to make fly. It won't Thomas. It has no wings.

That Passover that year began upon the weekly Sabbath at twilight/sundown at the end of the 14th day, and so, it was a High Sabbath, being both a weekly and an annual Feast day Sabbath.

Mshikha rose from the dead upon The Feast of The First Fruits, that year falling on the 1st day of the week. You say here below that Mshikha died and was buried right before The Feast of First Fruits, and rose from the dead just after it concluded!

You said: "That is why I conclude, at least for now, that Yeshua ate a Torah-based Passover at the end of the 14th / start of the 15th, and he was executed and laid in the tomb on the 15th of Abib, just before the start of the weekly Sabbath (the 16th, which also happened to be the Feast of First Fruits that year). He then rose late Saturday night / early Sunday morning on the 17th of Abib."

Thomas, for good reasons Mshikha is called both "Our Passover" and "The First Fruits", both these Feasts He fulfilled with His death and resurrection.

Shlama,
Chuck



.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)