Who witnessed the crucifixion/resurection?

[Drich]

How so?

Because he was talking about Jews that witnessed and didn't believe. They are still called Jews. But you took it as if he was talking about Jews that witnessed and did believe, hence your response:

Actually the "Jews" who witnessed and converted were no longer referred to as Jews.

...hence the strawman.

I simply stated the obvious, as it did not seem like it was considered when the question was asked.

Those who knew Christ or saw what He did were no longer Jews, because they were deemed unclean by the ruling class, and were 'excommunicated' or the jewish version of that.

Those who remain were those who were vested/had alot to loose by converting to Christianity or They did not know Christ, and choose to worship the religion of their fathers rather than what was being done and taught in the first century church.. Also know that the Vast majority of the Jews in that Area were killed by the Romans in or around 70 AD when they looted and destroyed the temple. Meaning few if any who saw what Christ did, and denyed Him lived beyond that point.

[FallentoReason]

I simply stated the obvious

Which was altogether unrelated to Jews that didn't believe. It's all good though, I was just being a little picky...

[max-greece]

Bit of editing required:

"Those who knew Christ or saw what He did and were convinced were no longer Jews, because they were deemed unclean by the ruling class, and were 'excommunicated' or the jewish version of that There isn't one..

The rest, including it appears most of his brothers and sisters and those that knew him in his village as a carpenter, remained Jewish.

Those who remain were those who were not convinced[/] ot had alot to loose by converting to Christianity or They did not know Christ, and choose to worship the religion of their fathers rather than what was being done and taught in the first century church. [i]One wonders what they had vested that was more important than life everlasting, a personal relationship with God and getting all your sins paid for. Jesus can't have been that good of a salesman if they put their existing lives above all that. Also know that the many of the Jews in that Area were killed by the Romans in or around 70 AD when they looted and destroyed the temple. Meaning few if any who saw what Christ did, and denyed Him lived beyond that point.

Then again - in those days life expectancy wasn't much higher than 30 years anyway.

Its also worth bearing in mind that many of the period references to the followers of Christ still referred to them as Jews 100 years or more later.

[Minimalist]

The first Easter according to whom?

You. What year do you think your godboy died. Then we can see how that fits in with the historical evidence and then with the gospel nonsense.

[Drich]

The first Easter according to whom?

You. What year do you think your godboy died. Then we can see how that fits in with the historical evidence and then with the gospel nonsense.

We dont know for sure. The best guess is either 30 ad or 33 ad as Nisan 15 falls on a friday those years.

[Minimalist]

Okay. Let's try to keep this reasonable....for as long as we can.

Either of those dates are consistent with Pontius Pilate's term of office - 26 to 36 AD, as Praefect of Judaea.

Here's where you run into a problem.

17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her.

18 For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.

19 Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not: Mark 6

3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife.

4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.

5 And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. Matthew 14

19 But to Herod the ruler, he said, “It was wrong for you to take Herodias, your brother’s wife.” John also said that Herod had done many other bad things. 20 Finally, Herod put John in jail, and this was the worst thing he had done. Luke 3

I can't be bothered wading through Gjohn but I think you get the hint. The synoptic gospels all indicate that the reason for John's arrest was the denunciation of a marriage between Herod Antipas and Herodias.
Jesus picks up the flag after john's arrest and carries on. This is your story.

Now, fortunately (or not...depending on p-o-v) this marriage was a historical event.

In Book XVIII Chapter 5 of Antiquities of the Jews,

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm

Josephus lays out the political machinations which formed the basis of Antipas' divorce of the daughter of King Aretas of Nabatea and the marriage to Herodias. He also notes that Aretas attacked Antipas in retaliation and defeated him.

Now, all this is laid out in the citation above and you can read it if you like. At no point does Josephus mention anything about the marriage in terms of the reason for executing JtheB, but right now that is irrelevant. I do want to point out this line.

So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who being very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.

Let me introduce you to Lucius Vitellius Veteris.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Vitellius_the_Elder

Lucius Vitellius the Elder (before 5 BC - 51) was the youngest of four sons of quaestor Publius Vitellius and the only one that did not die through politics. Under Emperor Tiberius, he was Consul in 34 and Governor of Syria in 35. He deposed Pontius Pilate in 36 after complaints from the people in Samaria.

The bolded parts are vital. Roman provincial administration during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius required that the commanders of certain, militarily sensitive positions, be ex-consuls. As you can see,

http://www.unrv.com/government/consul-1-ad.php

we have a solid record of the men who held the consulship in the first century AD and there, under 34, is Vitellius listed with his colleague, Paullus Fabius Persicus.

But it gets worse. Vitellius would have completed his term of consul on Dec. 31, 34 and his appointment as governor of Syria would have begun as soon as Tiberius signed the order. He would then have made his way to Syria to assume his command. There would have been need for some haste. For 11 years, 22-33, the Imperial Legate ( the actual title given to what we call "Governor" and Josephus calls "president") had been Lucius Aelius Lamia a man who never left Rome and governed the province via surrogates. Apparently, it was a time of peace and stability! At any rate Vitellius was going to be busy asserting imperial control of the province and its 4 legions and equivalent auxilliaries.
However from what Josephus writes, we can tell that Vitellius was already in Antioch when he received the directive to go after Aretas. Given the efficiencies of the Roman cursus publicus ( military mail ) and the awful reality that attacking a Roman ally was never a wise idea it is simply impossible to reconcile the gospel accounts with known history.

JtheB could not have been denouncing a marriage which had not taken place. So, unless the gospel writers are wrong.... a possibility which I believe you would never admit...then the very earliest for his arrest would have been sometime in 34, probably late in 34 because the divorce of his daughter and subsequent attack by Aretas must be placed in 35 when Vitellius is already in Syria.

Vitellius did remove Pilate ( no need to discuss that now) in 36 and this analysis

http://www.bible-history.com/Herod_Antip...d_Rome.htm

(bible-thumpers, btw!) suggests that 36 is the more accurate date and they have a point because on his way south Vitellius did stop off in Jerusalem and remove Pilate from office... as well as Caiaphas. He then proceeded after Aretas but stopped in 37 when Tiberius died and he needed new instructions from Caligula. Aretas got off the hook but was dead 3 years later anyway.

I'm not arguing for or against the 36 date (even though I think the bible-thumpers make a good point.) I'm not worrying about the terminus ad quem (latest date) but the terminus a quo (earliest date.)
That date seems to be 35 since that is when Vitellius assumed the governorship of Syria and would have been in position to attack Aretas.
Since Aretas' attack was based on the divorce of his daughter we are at late 34/early 35.

But, without the divorce and re-marriage of Herod Antipas, JtheB had nothing to denounce and therefore no reason for Antipas to arrest him as insisted upon in your own books.

OK. Ball's in your court.

[Minimalist]

Drippy?

[Drich]

Drippy?

Sorry, bout that. I do have a regular job to tend to from time to time.

All of what you wrote is very nice and I am sure is very well informed/accurate. However I did not bother to check for one simple reason: 15 Nisan landed on a friday more than 2 times in the first century. Simply because church tradition says 30 or 33 AD does not mean the bible says 30 or 33AD.

All your 'facts' mean is that church tradition maybe wrong.

To which I ask, so what? Just pick another 15 Nisan that lands on a friday, that coinsides with your cock and bull, and boom! you have the year that your looking for.

[Minimalist]

Well...it cannot be after 36 because by then Pilate is dismissed as Praefect which narrows things down to 35 or 36.

I wonder if there is a calculator out there on the web which would identify the day for those 2 years?

If I get time, I'll go looking.

[Drich]

That is why I originally said the Friday before the first Easter. Too many variables that ultimately hing on a pieced together historical record or one that is based in tradition that can be bent anyway you want to bend it. In the end no one remembers month day and year, why? Because biblical christianity is not based on holy days believe it or not. Yes we have them but in biblical christianity it is not a mandate to keep any day more holy than another. So days like Jesus birth and death have been rightfully forgotten, force us to learn to worship God, rather than worship the day of worship.

Col2:

16 So don’t let anyone make rules for you about eating and drinking or about Jewish customs (festivals, New Moon celebrations, or Sabbath days). 17 In the past these things were like a shadow that showed what was coming. But the new things that were coming are found in Christ. 18 Some people enjoy acting as if they are humble and love to worship angels.[b] They always talk about the visions they have seen. Don’t listen to them when they say you are wrong because you don’t do these things. It is so foolish for them to feel such pride, because it is all based on their own human ideas. 19 They don’t keep themselves under the control of the head. Christ is the head, and the whole body depends on him. Because of Christ all the parts of the body care for each other and help each other. So the body is made stronger and held together as God causes it to grow.