10.01.2014 Views

Crucifixion Was Not on Friday (1968)_b.pdf - Herbert W. Armstrong

Crucifixion Was Not on Friday (1968)_b.pdf - Herbert W. Armstrong

Crucifixion Was Not on Friday (1968)_b.pdf - Herbert W. Armstrong

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

44 The <str<strong>on</strong>g>Crucifixi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Was</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Not</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>Friday</strong><br />

we can locate the Passover <strong>on</strong> which Jesus was crucified.<br />

We must now recall how much the Julian Calendar gains<br />

<strong>on</strong> the Hebrew Calendar in each 19-year cycle. The figure was<br />

1 hour, 26 minutes and 56% sec<strong>on</strong>ds. You have already proved<br />

that that is how much l<strong>on</strong>ger 19 Julian years are than a 19­<br />

year cycle of the Sacred Calendar.<br />

How many 19-year cycles elapsed between 31 A.D. and<br />

1931? The answer is exactly 100. Let's multiply this figure<br />

by 100:<br />

1h<br />

x100<br />

26m<br />

x100<br />

56%s<br />

x100<br />

144h<br />

54m<br />

(144h = 6 days)<br />

26%s<br />

This means that the Julian Calendar gains this much <strong>on</strong><br />

the Hebrew Calendar in those 1900 years. Now add this difference<br />

to the date of the new mo<strong>on</strong> which determined the seventh<br />

m<strong>on</strong>th in 1931:<br />

Sat., Aug. 30<br />

+6d<br />

10h<br />

+Oh<br />

13m<br />

+54m<br />

46%s<br />

-I-26%s<br />

Sept. 5<br />

11h<br />

8m<br />

13%s<br />

(This answer has the sec<strong>on</strong>ds changed into minutes, and<br />

minutes into hours.)<br />

This is the exact time of a new mo<strong>on</strong> in 31 A.D., 11 hours,<br />

8 minutes and 13lh sec<strong>on</strong>ds after midnight <strong>on</strong> September 5.<br />

But is this new mo<strong>on</strong> the <strong>on</strong>e which determined the seventh<br />

m<strong>on</strong>th in 31 A.D.? No. Here's why:<br />

The year 1931 was the 10th year of a cycle. Hence it did<br />

not have a thirteenth m<strong>on</strong>th. The year 31 A.D. was also the<br />

10th year of a cycle - because it was exactly 100 cycles earlier!<br />

But we find that before 142 A.D., the years in which a thirteenth<br />

m<strong>on</strong>th was added occurred <strong>on</strong>e year earlier in each cycle.<br />

See the Jewish Encyclopedia, article "Calendar," page 500, and<br />

Graetz's History of the Jews, Vol. 2, pp. 433, 443-444, regard-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!