Wednesday Crucifixion?

Page 5 of 6 (109 items) « First ... < Previous 2 3 4 5 6 Next >
This post has 108 Replies | 9 Followers

Posts 4761
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2019 11:25 AM

Jerome Smith:
I have found this book to be a fascinating, meticulously detailed, convincing study of the issues reflected in this thread's discussion.

I think I have this book, although I couldn't find it. People can support whatever floats their boat, but Wednesday is the day supported by prophecy. The primary reason "Good Friday" was enshrined as the day of crucifixion is because the gospels say Yeishuua` died on a preparation day. Unfortunately, the Gentile fathers were "determining" doctrines about the same time they were "sanitizing" the church of all things Jewish. They were familiar with the concept of the day of preparation as the sixth day before the seventh day Sabbath (Exo. 16:22, 23, 24, 25), the day to accomplish all necessary work so the Sabbath rest could be peacefully observed. What the so-called fathers clearly didn't understand is that there are seven yearly Sabbaths that occur during the yearly seasonal cycle, and each of those Sabbaths also has an accompanying preparation day which precedes it. Christians have historically been ignorant of this fact, or else they have intentionally ignored it. Nevertheless, the primary reason there is NO Biblical reason to confidently assert that "Good Friday" was the day of crucifixion is because Passover, the day Yeishuua` died, is ALWAYS a preparation day, no matter what day of the week it falls on. Pessahh occurs on the 14th of 'Aabhiybh , which is the day of preparation for the first yearly Sabbath (the First Day of Unleavened Bread), that occurs on the 15th day.

The fact that clinches this is what John says in Jn. 19:31 NASB: that "day of preparation" was for "a high day" Sabbath (i.e. a yearly Sabbath). Because Yeishuua`, the Passover Lamb, died on Pessahh, He HAD to die on a preparation day regardless of which day of the week He died. This fact alone doesn't rule out a Friday crucifixion, but it does eliminate all supposed Biblical evidence "requiring" a Friday death. The prophetic evidence supporting the mid-week Wednesday crucifixion is found spread throughout Tanakh.

Posts 26245
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2019 1:55 PM

Unfortunately, I don't have a time machine. All I get is documents, archaeological sites, and corporate memory ... all of which point to the fact that some in this thread fail to distinguish two very different issues (1) the astronomical position of the heavenly bodies determining the calendar of the time of Christ's death and its translation into our contemporary calendar i.e. when did the historical event occur and (2) when does the Church celebrate that event in the annual celebration of the life of Jesus - an eternity compressed into 365/366 days. To indicate that it is a "mistake" that 2 does not correspond to 1, is to fail to understand the nature of worship including Jewish worship with its own historical celebrations. Yes, the forums have made me grumpy today ... Anyone want to argue about the actual dates of the feasts that occur on the equinoxes?

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 2
Fred A Kuypers | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2019 6:47 PM

Hi David;

I am asking a few questions that I have not been able to find anywhere on this topic not even with the internet. I have listened to all sides of a Wednesday, Thursday or Friday crucifixion and have several questions. As it stands right now no one has given any explanation to my question about Esther and her description of three days and three nights. I believe she fasted for 3 24hr. days the way she described the fast that she and the others were taking. In chapter 5 God clearly says "the third day".  I

David Paul:

Jerome Smith:
I have found this book to be a fascinating, meticulously detailed, convincing study of the issues reflected in this thread's discussion.

I think I have this book, although I couldn't find it. People can support whatever floats their boat, but Wednesday is the day supported by prophecy. The primary reason "Good Friday" was enshrined as the day of crucifixion is because the gospels say Yeishuua` died on a preparation day. Unfortunately, the Gentile fathers were "determining" doctrines about the same time they were "sanitizing" the church of all things Jewish. They were familiar with the concept of the day of preparation as the sixth day before the seventh day Sabbath (Exo. 16:22, 23, 24, 25), the day to accomplish all necessary work so the Sabbath rest could be peacefully observed. What the so-called fathers clearly didn't understand is that there are seven yearly Sabbaths that occur during the yearly seasonal cycle, and each of those Sabbaths also has an accompanying preparation day which precedes it. Christians have historically been ignorant of this fact, or else they have intentionally ignored it. Nevertheless, the primary reason there is NO Biblical reason to confidently assert that "Good Friday" was the day of crucifixion is because Passover, the day Yeishuua` died, is ALWAYS a preparation day, no matter what day of the week it falls on. Pessahh occurs on the 14th of 'Aabhiybh , which is the day of preparation for the first yearly Sabbath (the First Day of Unleavened Bread), that occurs on the 15th day.

The fact that clinches this is what John says in Jn. 19:31 NASB: that "day of preparation" was for "a high day" Sabbath (i.e. a yearly Sabbath). Because Yeishuua`, the Passover Lamb, died on Pessahh, He HAD to die on a preparation day regardless of which day of the week He died. This fact alone doesn't rule out a Friday crucifixion, but it does eliminate all supposed Biblical evidence "requiring" a Friday death. The prophetic evidence supporting the mid-week Wednesday crucifixion is found spread throughout Tanakh.

s this a way of saying after 3 full days?

I have another question perhaps someone has an answer. 

When did the priests seal the stone?? 

This would be hard physical labor. I know because I am a cement mason. This would be hard work and would take most of a day to mortar up or chisel in a stone large enough to seal the opening to a tomb. The verse clearly says they went and did it:

Mathew 27:65¶ Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

66So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

If the crucifixion was on a friday at 3pm there was not enough time for the priests to go to Pilate and ask for the right to seal the stone. They certainly could not do this on Saturday the Sabbath in view of everyone else watching them.

If the crucifixion is on a Thursday at 3pm The high Sabbath of the first day of unleavened bread would begin at 6pm that night and Friday would begin. They could not seal the stone with physical labor and Friday would be immediately followed by the Saturday sabbath at 6pm again no servile work. So when could the priests and scribes do this hard physical labor? With the stone rolled away while it was yet dark on the first day of the week, there would not be enough daylight after 6pm Saturday night which is when the first day of the week would begin. Any thoughts here??

Fred

Posts 4761
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 28 2019 9:14 AM

Fred A Kuypers:
I am asking a few questions that I have not been able to find anywhere on this topic not even with the internet. I have listened to all sides of a Wednesday, Thursday or Friday crucifixion and have several questions. As it stands right now no one has given any explanation to my question about Esther and her description of three days and three nights. I believe she fasted for 3 24hr. days the way she described the fast that she and the others were taking. In chapter 5 God clearly says "the third day".

Sounds like you are referring to Est. 4:16 & Est. 5:1. 

Fred A Kuypers:
Is this a way of saying after 3 full days?

I would say "yes"...although I don't see the need here for absolute specificity. The phrase "on the third day" (or just "the third day") is one that can be taken as either "inclusive" or "non-inclusive". A lot depends on when the phrase gets used. Again, is the person including the day they are speaking (starting from 1)? Or are they intending something like "tomorrow at about this time one day will have passed" (starting from 0). To beat a dead horse, no society has a hard and fast rule that requires them to use only one or the other method; it is a choice based on what makes sense in the specific scenario. The ancient Jews didn't "always" use inclusive reckoning. In this Esther case, the day on which she spoke to Mordecai seems to have been day zero, leaving time for him to go announce the coming fast to the Jews of Susa, with the "clock" starting at sundown (at least for Esther herself). That said, she probably didn't eat anything from the moment she spoke, which means that when she later appeared before the king, she would probably have been fasting 72 hours. So, it would have been the following day after she spoke that counted as day one, the next day would be two, and the following day would be "the third day". This would have been as follows:

Day Zero: Esther makes the vow to fast for three nights and days; she likely doesn't eat from the moment of the vow; Mordecai alerts the Jews.
Day One: Days begin at even (dusk, i.e. sundown), so the Jews who had been alerted would begin fasting then.
Day Two: Begins the following day at sundown.
Day Three: Begins the following day at sundown. This is the fourth "calendar" day from the conversation she had with Mordecai. To make this somewhat clearer, let's say their conversation was at 3pm local time on Day Zero. At some point on Day Three, in all likelihood AFTER 3pm, she appears before the king. That means she has fasted for 72 hours at least, and yet she is also appearing "on the third day". To be clear, the Jews would still be fasting for her, because there is no necessity for her "clock" and theirs to be concurrent. In fact, if some Jews didn't hear about the fast until a day or two after the original conversation, those people might still be fasting for a day or two after Esther breaks her fast. The key thing to remember is that conceptual rigidity and "lock-step-ism" isn't a requisite for these scenarios. Just plain common sense.

To be clear, there are some places in the Bible which do appear to use inclusive reckoning. These typically refer to simple "passage of time". When a scenario requires more specificity and precision, such as the one above where a vow is being kept, precision is "included" in the vow by phrasing such as is found in Est. 4:16..."three days, night or day" or Jon. 1:17 "three days and three nights". Such phrasing effectively requires (just as the phrasing appears to describe) a period that is 72 hours long.

I would like to point out that Est. 4:16 gives a perfect example of how the Hebrew word yohm ("day") can be used to refer to both daylight and a 24-hr. period including both day and night. In other words, yohm is used pretty much just like we use "day" today. Some people try to insist that yohm can only refer to daylight, victimizing themselves with a foolishly rigid and unnecessarily exclusive interpretation of Yeishuua`'s words in Jn. 11:9.

Fred A Kuypers:
When did the priests seal the stone??

In this case, I think you are misunderstanding what "seal" is intended to mean. What you describe isn't required, i.e. the need to entirely fill-in the edges with cement. Remember, the women expect someone to be able to roll away the stone. Second, "the priests" are not the ones who are doing this work. Notice again what Pilate says: "You have a watch...". He is giving the Jews a contingent of Romans to do whatever is necessary to "get the job done". This includes guards as well as those who would "seal" the stone. This alleviates the need for Jews to profane the Sabbath. In this case, the seal in all likelihood wasn't a total hermetic seal that might prevent air passing through cracks. It was more likely something akin to the seal one would put on a letter that indicated that no one had opened the letter prior to its intended recipient...though in this case it would undoubtedly be larger. In other words, the seal probably had a Roman imprimatur upon it, with the understanding being that anyone who broke the seal would have the weight of Rome's wrath upon them. I have heard some people say that Pilate's words, "You have a watch..." means he was throwing responsibility for guarding the tomb back on the Jewish leaders (i.e. "You have your own people who can take care of that"), but that is not what his words mean.

Posts 2392
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 28 2019 1:25 PM

David Paul:

 I have heard some people say that Pilate's words, "You have a watch..." means he was throwing responsibility for guarding the tomb back on the Jewish leaders (i.e. "You have your own people who can take care of that"), but that is not what his words mean.

   [[Please list the source that PROVES what the words mean please]]

My research makes me one of those that believes that they were Jewish temple guards at the tomb not Roman. 

In my Logos library the earliest resource that mentions Romans at the tomb is the Gospel of Peter. But one can not pick and choose what parts of a book you accept. It is all or nothing. If you accept the part of the Gospel of Peter that says that there were Roman soldiers at the tomb then you also must accept that the Cross walked out of the tomb and talked.  If the Cross walked out of the tomb and talked then there were Roman soldiers at the tomb.  If the Cross did not walk out of the tomb and talk then the Gospel of Peter can not be used as a witness that there were Roman soldiers at the tomb nor any source that quotes as its source the Gospel of Peter.  

I agree with you on the placing of the seal just not who put it there nor what it was stamped with.  

Posts 2392
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 28 2019 1:51 PM

David Paul:

[ I have heard some people say that Pilate's words, "You have a watch..." means he was throwing responsibility for guarding the tomb back on the Jewish leaders (i.e. "You have your own people who can take care of that"), but that is not what his words mean.

1. koustodia (κουστωδία, 2892); “a guard,” (Latin, custodia, Eng., “custodian”), is used of the soldiers who “guarded” Christ’s sepulchre, Matt. 27:65, 66 and 28:11, and is translated “(ye have) a guard,” “the guard (being with them),” and “(some of) the guard,” rv, kjv, “… a watch,” “(setting a) watch,” and “… the watch.” This was the Temple guard, stationed under a Roman officer in the tower of Antonia, and having charge of the high priestly vestments. Hence the significance of Pilate’s words “Ye have a guard.” See watch. 

Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words

[[Not a salvation issue as far as I can see]]

Posts 4761
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 28 2019 2:19 PM

Going on your perspective, the Jews could have attended to such activities without having bothered Pilate...but they went to him for a reason. He pretty clearly understood the powder keg situation that this whole event entailed, so I doubt he would have cavalierly punted. They asked, and his reply "you have..." was his response, which at the time meant the asker was receiving what was requested of the askie. Understand...Pilate's ENTIRE purpose for being in Jerusalem was to keep the Jewish powder keg from igniting. Judea was notorious as one of the more, if not the most, troublesome districts in Rome's "care". If the Jews said they needed help keeping things "under wraps", I'm sure he obliged.

Regardless, though, I think at the very least one can safely assume it was the Roman seal that the Jewish authorities were after, and Romans would have been the one's to affix the seal, whatever it entailed. This resolves the "but it was work the Jews wouldn't do on Sabbath" argument.

EDIT: i just want to make (remake?) a point. The response (You have...) doesn't necessarily have the same contextual meaning we tend to assign today in English. Saying "you have" does not (especially given the historical context) mean the same thing as "you ALREADY have". When a request of a sovereign-type individual was made, if the response was positive, saying "You have..." is the equivalent of saying "I HAVE granted your petition..." to whatever extent the petition was fulfilled.

It was the intimidation factor that the Roman imprimatur held that the Jewish leaders were after, and there is no reason to assume he wouldn't provide it since his entire reputation depended on continuing "smooth sailing".

Posts 10107
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 28 2019 3:45 PM

David Ames:

David Paul:

[ I have heard some people say that Pilate's words, "You have a watch..." means he was throwing responsibility for guarding the tomb back on the Jewish leaders (i.e. "You have your own people who can take care of that"), but that is not what his words mean.

1. koustodia (κουστωδία, 2892); “a guard,” (Latin, custodia, Eng., “custodian”), is used of the soldiers who “guarded” Christ’s sepulchre, Matt. 27:65, 66 and 28:11, and is translated “(ye have) a guard,” “the guard (being with them),” and “(some of) the guard,” rv, kjv, “… a watch,” “(setting a) watch,” and “… the watch.” This was the Temple guard, stationed under a Roman officer in the tower of Antonia, and having charge of the high priestly vestments. Hence the significance of Pilate’s words “Ye have a guard.” See watch. 

Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words

[[Not a salvation issue as far as I can see]]

David, you may want to consult David, regarding the guards. How time passes in Logosland.

https://community.logos.com/forums/t/49224.aspx 


Posts 4761
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 28 2019 10:48 PM

Denise:

David, you may want to consult David, regarding the guards. How time passes in Logosland.

https://community.logos.com/forums/t/49224.aspx 

Yeah, Dave is probably the one I heard the "temple guard" idea from. I will admit there is no inherent clarity on this issue, but the Jewish authorities requesting support from Pilate has always caused me to "see" the guard as Roman. Could it have been a "twofer" affair, where both shared some role?. Sure, maybe. But I can't imagine Pilate not doing whatever he could to "keep a wrap" on this. His reaction to the Jewish authorities publicly declaring that he "wasn't a Friend of Caesar" if he didn't "deal" with Yeishuua` shows how spooked he already was. "Friend of Caesar" was a coveted title that had great political benefit, so he had tons of motivation to squelch this matter and avoid further controversy.

It also bears remembering that the Jewish law required death for blasphemers, the sin which they charged Yeishuua` with. If not for the Roman presence in Jerusalem, Pilate would never have been consulted...the leadership would have simply had him stoned to death. However, the Romans had outlawed the death sentence in Judea unless it was explicitly condoned and carried out by the Roman authorities. This is why He died by crucifixion rather than stoning. Point is...the Romans pretty much had to be involved in the entire process or the Jewish authorities may have had charges of breaking Roman law brought against them. This is why they consulted Pilate about a guard for the tomb, and it is also why he almost certainly provided their request.

Posts 2392
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 29 2019 5:32 AM

Denise:

David, you may want to consult David, regarding the guards. How time passes in Logosland.

https://community.logos.com/forums/t/49224.aspx 

I did. I reviewed all 236 pages of notes that he made on his study on the temple guards.  

A search of his library returned 1606 hits in 789 resources and yes, he did look at every one.  

He was left with another question: Was the tomb guarded the first night?  That is did the priests go to Pilate just after dark or wait until daylight?

Posts 2392
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 29 2019 10:29 AM

David Paul:

EDIT: i just want to make (remake?) a point. The response (You have...) doesn't necessarily have the same contextual meaning we tend to assign today in English. Saying "you have" does not (especially given the historical context) mean the same thing as "you ALREADY have". When a request of a sovereign-type individual was made, if the response was positive, saying "You have..." is the equivalent of saying "I HAVE granted your petition..." to whatever extent the petition was fulfilled.

Resources that discuss this point of view please.   If I own one I missed that point.  

Also IF they were to use temple guards how would it have been worded?

Another subject that needs to be researched on this.  What was the relationship between the temple guards, who were known to carry sharp things like spears or swords, and the Roman authorities? That is what were the rules that the temple guards had to follow when operating outside of the temple? Did they need to get permission first?  Or could they report the what and why after the event? Did they need to get permission to go out to arrest Jesus or did they just have to report that they did the next day?  Today the US forces in Germany and Japan have rules they have to follow.  What rules did the Romans make the temple guards follow when they were outside of the temple?  [[Any suggested resources?]]

IF temple guards were going to be active outside of the temple for three days did they need prior permission? 

Posts 10107
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 29 2019 2:45 PM

David Ames:
He was left with another question: Was the tomb guarded the first night?  That is did the priests go to Pilate just after dark or wait until daylight?

This is one of Matthew's many instances demonstrating his sense of humor ... miscounting generations, describing disbelieving disciples as they watch Jesus power up to heaven, and here, waiting until after the body can be stolen, before assigning the guards.

But ignoring his humor, my guess is that resurrection was not uncommon (of course, claims). The 3rd day prophesy was the apocalyptic sign.  


Posts 2328
Ronald Quick | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 29 2019 6:35 PM

I haven't read this, but so I do not know how good it is, but someone else may be able to comment on it.

https://www.logos.com/product/164055/the-eucharistic-words-of-jesus

Posts 4761
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 30 2019 12:28 AM

My question, before replying to yours, is...what are the underlying reasons you are so invested in this question? What do you think "changes" if the guard was Romans vs. temple guards (apart from the concern about profaning Sabbath--or is that the main issue)?

David Ames:

David Paul:

EDIT: i just want to make (remake?) a point. The response (You have...) doesn't necessarily have the same contextual meaning we tend to assign today in English. Saying "you have" does not (especially given the historical context) mean the same thing as "you ALREADY have". When a request of a sovereign-type individual was made, if the response was positive, saying "You have..." is the equivalent of saying "I HAVE granted your petition..." to whatever extent the petition was fulfilled.

Resources that discuss this point of view please.   If I own one I missed that point.  

My resources are not religious so much as historical. If you are sufficiently motivated on this point, I would try to contact someone who is familiar with ancient speech patterns (that is, with ancient plays and historical documents that record "royal" and high-class authoritative speech). I don't have any particular resource in mind; I'm just aware that those with the kind of social power that permitted them to grant petitions to those of lower classes would (as in "could") respond to a petition by saying "you have (that which you requested)". It's akin to "you asked; I've answered affirmatively". It's phraseology designed to convey extraordinary authoritative power. The response "You have..." indicates the power broker's tremendous ability to affect change by will and word.

David Ames:
Also IF they were to use temple guards how would it have been worded?

If they intended from the outset to use temple guards, they wouldn't have approached Pilate. Also, since Pilate would have no reason to suspect a dead man would ever rise to life again, there would be no reason for the Romans to give Yeishuua`'s body or his grave a second thought, so the Jews probably could have posted a guard on their own without Roman oversight. BUT THEY WANTED ROMAN OVERSIGHT...and once the concern of the body being taken was broached, I seriously doubt Pilate would have rebuffed them, for reasons I've given above.

David Ames:

Another subject that needs to be researched on this.  What was the relationship between the temple guards, who were known to carry sharp things like spears or swords, and the Roman authorities? That is what were the rules that the temple guards had to follow when operating outside of the temple? Did they need to get permission first?  Or could they report the what and why after the event? Did they need to get permission to go out to arrest Jesus or did they just have to report that they did the next day?  Today the US forces in Germany and Japan have rules they have to follow.  What rules did the Romans make the temple guards follow when they were outside of the temple?  [[Any suggested resources?]]

IF temple guards were going to be active outside of the temple for three days did they need prior permission?

I think that to some degree the questions you are asking are deeply entrenched in the "ultimately unknowable" category; there are too many variables that are not enunciated in the Bible and probably not enough extant extra-Biblical discussions of the various issues to draw anything like firm conclusions.

Again, why the need for such specificity?

Posts 2392
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 30 2019 4:59 AM

David Paul:

If they intended from the outset to use temple guards, they wouldn't have approached Pilate. Also, since Pilate would have no reason to suspect a dead man would ever rise to life again, there would be no reason for the Romans to give Yeishuua`'s body or his grave a second thought, so the Jews probably could have posted a guard on their own without Roman oversight. BUT THEY WANTED ROMAN OVERSIGHT...and once the concern of the body being taken was broached, I seriously doubt Pilate would have rebuffed them, for reasons I've given above.

Have read ALL of your posts and thank you for responding.  Might respond deeper latter but we have covered most of the ground on this subject However:

As to why they approached Pilate even if they intended from the outset to use temple guards goes back to my thoughts on the relationship between the temple guards, who were known to carry sharp things like spears or swords, and the Roman authorities.  Did they need the Roman OK to operate outside of the temple?  I have not (yet) found resources that cover that that topic.  

David Paul:
 Again, why the need for such specificity?  
   I have a problem with preachers that assume that something is proven and then take that 'fact' to prove something else.  There is enough in Scripture that is proven. We do not need use that which is not proven.

Like, in my opinion, talking about the 100 Roman soldiers at the tomb.

Posts 4761
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 30 2019 8:10 AM

David Ames:
As to why they approached Pilate even if they intended from the outset to use temple guards goes back to my thoughts on the relationship between the temple guards, who were known to carry sharp things like spears or swords, and the Roman authorities.  Did they need the Roman OK to operate outside of the temple?  I have not (yet) found resources that cover that that topic.

A couple of the synoptics  (Mt. & Mk.) describe the crowd that arrested Yeishuua` as carrying clubs and swords. John 18:3 adds the detail that a cohort (assumedly a Roman one; Gk. speira) was part of this crowd. This is Strong's entry:

Conceivably it was the Romans with the swords and the temple guard with the clubs. As far as the guard needing Roman approval to operate outside the temple, I doubt that can be determined. My guess would be that they could move about freely but their actions were limited in certain ways by Roman decree (particularly with regard to carrying out death sentences).

Notice that Jn. 18:3 NASB says that "Judas had "received" a cohort and temple guards. This calls to mind what Pilate later says, "You have...". Granted, none of this is explicit.

David Ames:
I have a problem with preachers that assume that something is proven and then take that 'fact' to prove something else.  There is enough in Scripture that is proven. We do not need use that which is not proven.

Agreed. This happens often and it can ultimately undermine rather than buttress the points and arguments being made.

Posts 2392
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 30 2019 4:36 PM

David Paul:

My question, before replying to yours, is...

 

David Ames:

   

David Paul:

EDIT: i just want to make (remake?) a point. The response (You have...) doesn't necessarily have the same contextual meaning we tend to assign today in English. Saying "you have" does not (especially given the historical context) mean the same thing as "you ALREADY have". When a request of a sovereign-type individual was made, if the response was positive, saying "You have..." is the equivalent of saying "I HAVE granted your petition..." to whatever extent the petition was fulfilled.

   

Resources that discuss this point of view please.   If I own one I missed that point.  

 

 

 As you found, it can mean "2b any band, company, or detachment, of soldiers" as found in Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon that you quoted. 

[[I think that we have gone as far as the others will allow us to go on that topic.  But to make this a legitimate Logos discussion I spent some time reviewing your reply and found 3 dictionaries on the word and got four different answers.   Here you picked  2 and I picked 2b from Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon.  Just looking up the word may not help.  [In English there are 10 definitions to the word 'deep']  ]]

So we need to dig deeper into the context of the speech.  So to do that I am still looking for Resources that discuss your point of view please.   

The one that backs your statement of ""The response "You have..." indicates the power broker's tremendous ability to affect change by will and word."" 

Posts 4761
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 31 2019 1:27 AM

David Ames:
I am still looking for Resources that discuss your point of view please.

I suppose this subject matter may be discussed in some Biblical commentary addressing this specific passage, but I'm not sure. This is a very specialized language scenario. It's possible that in English something similar could be found in Shakespeare or the like, since he frequently wrote about royalty. You might consider contacting professors of literature who specialize in time periods where appeals to royalty and quasi-equivalent power brokers (wealthy patrons, for example) were more common...they might be able to suggest something off the top of their heads.

Although it doesn't have the specific phraseology we are discussing from Matthew, the exchange that occurs in Neh. 2:1-8 is the sort of conversation I am suggesting where such language could occur. There are some similar royal decrees found in Ezra, however, in order to encounter the precise language we have been discussing, the power broker needs to be responding directly to the petitioner (second person).

I'll keep my eyes open for something, but it's not just a needle in a haystack situation. It's the fact that I rarely encounter haystacks to begin with (whether actual hay or this particular kind of scenario).

Posts 2392
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 31 2019 5:47 PM

I may be arguing against myself (Or showing that, with proof, I will examine accepting your arguments) but in Daniel 2:5 that says in the KJV “The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.” 

Most interpret the words “The thing is gone from me” to mean that he forgot the dream.  But my research (That I am not sure that I could repeat.  I.E. I too might not be able to find the resources that I used back then) found that those words “The thing is gone from me” meant that the next thing he says is a royal decree. That is the thing gone is not the dream but the command “ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.”

But that was some 625 years before (or so) and in the Prussian empire.  

[[Another place where I am in the minority. He remembered the dream and if they could not tell him the dream how could he accept their interpretation?]] 

Posts 10107
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 31 2019 8:08 PM

David Ames:
But that was some 625 years before (or so) and in the Prussian empire.  

The KJV 'gone from me' is a Prussian loan word in the aramaic centering around decree or officially announce. Interestingly, the english followed 'gone from me' until the early 1900s.

BTW David, given your interests, moving from Strongs to hebrew, aramaic, or greek is not that big a step. You'd enjoy it.


Page 5 of 6 (109 items) « First ... < Previous 2 3 4 5 6 Next > | RSS