Because he died before sunset. That means he was dead on Friday. His resurrection around sunrise means that he was dead on Sunday until that occurred. Therefore he was dead on Friday, dead on Saturday, and dead on Sunday, three days. How hard is this?
BTW, Winterlens where did you find that link? If Jesus rose from the dead but not exactly 72 hours later, he's an impostor? He just rose from the dead but that's irrelevant since the timing wasn't right. Apparently rising from the dead was something all the false messiahs did too but not after 72 hours!! Idiots. Monkeys flinging poo could do better than that.
Maybe the crucifixion was on Friday, and maybe it was on Thursday-however that's the irrelevant point. Again, it is important that he was irrefutably dead and rose.
The real crucifixtion day?
Because he was not buried untill early Sat morning. That is what you are not seeing.
I guess Jesus was wrong:
39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one[a] greater than Jonah is here.
The day of crucifixtion is important. Ignoring this is silly.
I guess Jesus was wrong:
39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one[a] greater than Jonah is here.
The day of crucifixtion is important. Ignoring this is silly.
0 x
-
charl
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 12:05 pm
- Location: Saskatchewan Canada
- x 1
- Contact:
Why does it matter when he was buried? I hope you aren't trying to refer to "in the heart of the earth" strictly as burial since Jesus was not strictly buried "in the heart of the earth" anyway. I guess he was wrong there too...? Unless he was simply referring to death. Your view of this one verse seems far too wooden.
The question I would ask is then where did the church get the Friday date from? Why did they choose Friday and why, as you can see from the Athanasius quote above, did they not see this as a contradiction as you do? If they were going to make it up why not make up a day that fit your notions of three days better, kind of like yours does? Generally mythology is clean and everything matches up perfectly simply because it's made up. Real life is messier. The scripture has always left these messy facts in and this attests to it's veracity.
Why is it important? I mean really I'll argue about anything because it's my favorite hobby, but I certainly don't see how my religion and practice of such has to change because we remember Jesus' death on one day or another as it would if he had not died and risen. Supposing he died on Thursday-okay so how does this effect our doctrine? I guess I should be getting stat pay on a different day, but that's it.
The question I would ask is then where did the church get the Friday date from? Why did they choose Friday and why, as you can see from the Athanasius quote above, did they not see this as a contradiction as you do? If they were going to make it up why not make up a day that fit your notions of three days better, kind of like yours does? Generally mythology is clean and everything matches up perfectly simply because it's made up. Real life is messier. The scripture has always left these messy facts in and this attests to it's veracity.
Why is it important? I mean really I'll argue about anything because it's my favorite hobby, but I certainly don't see how my religion and practice of such has to change because we remember Jesus' death on one day or another as it would if he had not died and risen. Supposing he died on Thursday-okay so how does this effect our doctrine? I guess I should be getting stat pay on a different day, but that's it.
0 x
[url=http://www.picturetrail.com/char000]CIP[/url] -slowly but steadily coming along... [img]http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/party/party0011.gif[/img]
-
winterlens
- Pethead
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:50 pm
- x 1
Google? I don't agree with the guy, and I think unbelievers quibbling about how the time is reckoned are obviously dodging the important questions.charl wrote:BTW, Winterlens where did you find that link? If Jesus rose from the dead but not exactly 72 hours later, he's an impostor?
0 x
DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU
-
calicowriter
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:22 am
- Location: Indianapolis
I gave 11 scripture references that said the third day, not 3 days. Seven of those were quotes from Jesus. It seems perfectly logical to me that either that one quote was mistranslated, or more likely, that back then any part of a day was counted as a day.
This is a perfect example why having a Church Magisterium is important.
This is a perfect example why having a Church Magisterium is important.
0 x
Bridget
"whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." Phillipians 4:8
"whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." Phillipians 4:8
-
calicowriter
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:22 am
- Location: Indianapolis
-
winterlens
- Pethead
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:50 pm
- x 1
Hey, let's argue about this instead. Because this thread is more an example of what Paul would probably call vain babbling than a real reason to have church authorities. This isn't an issue of doctrine as much as of history. It's not as though we're arguing that Jesus didn't actually rise and that it doesn't matter, or that he wasn't really dead, or what have you.calicowriter wrote:This is a perfect example why having a Church Magisterium is important.
I blame this all on Char.
0 x
DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU
-
calicowriter
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:22 am
- Location: Indianapolis
OK-
calicowriter
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:22 am
- Location: Indianapolis
Mike Licona covers this topic in his book Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian-Muslim Debate on the Resurrection on pages 88-89, in the following way
"...the phrase 'three days and three nights' is a Jewish idiom meaning a short period of time and does not necessarily have to include three days and three nights. Today we might speak of a long task taking 'forever.' We mean that it will take a long time. We do not mean that it will take an infinite amount of time and is incapable of being completed. Likewise, someone may say that something will take 'only a minute' This means a very short time, not sixty seconds. These are simply English idioms. Idioms exist in all langauges."
He then goes on to give an example from the book of Esther where this idiom is also used, when Esther states the following:
"Go, assmeble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way.. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish." (Esther 4:16 NASB)
Two verses later, however, we read:
"Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace in front of the king's rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace." (Esther 5:1 NASB)
Licona comments: "Esther did not wait a full three days and three nights. She went to the king on the third day. So that would be two days plus a number of hours."
Licona also points out that from the Gospel of Matthew itself, the same place where we read the prophecy of "three days and three nights", we see that three days and three nights is not meant to be taken literally. After Jesus's crucifixion, the Jewish leaders went to Pilate and said:
"Sir, we remember that while living that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise.' Therefore, order the grave to be secured until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him away and say to the people, 'He was raised from the dead,' and the last deceit will be worse than the first." (Matthew 27:63-34).
Licona comments: "Notice that they say that Jesus predicted he would rise after three days. So what do they do? They request that the grave be secured by guards until the third day. If the term 'after three days' is a Jewish idiom that does not mean a full seventy-two hours, this passage has no conflict. But if by it Jesus meant he would be dead at least seventy-two hours, then the Jewish leaders are foolish to request that the grave be secured 'until the third day' In other words, they intend to pull the guard just before Jesus said he would rise, which would leave nearly twenty-four hours for the disciples to steal his body. You see? Understanding 'three days' in a literal sense does not make sense. Therefore, when we consider two Jewish writings, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament, the terms 'after three days' and 'three days and three nights' seem to be a Jewish idiom that is not in conflict with the earliest Christian claims that Jesus was raised 'on the third day'.
And another explanation I found states:
It's very clear that in Jewish culture, the phrase "three days and three nights" was an expression that referred to any portion of three consecutive day. The Jewish legal principles held that any onah, or part of a day, qualified as an entire day itself. So there's absolutely no problem whatsoever to say that Jesus was in the tomb from Friday to Sunday. Now, I suppose it's possible that Jesus was not using the figure of speech or the principle of the onah, and so on the basis of His statement alone, it's possible that He really was in their three full days and three full nights.
But the Scripture says more than that. It also says that Jesus would rise "on the third day". (Per my previously stated references)
Furthermore, the Scripture reports after He had been risen that it was "on the third day" that He in fact was raised:
(Luk 24:21) But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened.
(Act 10:40) but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear,
(1Co 15:4) that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures
There's no evidence whatsoever that "the third day" is any Jewish expression of any sort. Even if there were, it wouldn't make any sense for St. Paul to use it when writing to the Greek city of Corinth, the people of which wouldn't understand it, or for St. Peter to use it when speaking to Cornelius, a Roman soldier.
So we are left with two possibilities here. We must accept that either Christ was raised on the third day since His Resurrection and that He was using the well established Jewish expression and legal principle of the onah when He said "three days and three nights," or we must accept that He was raised after three full days and three full nights and that the term "the third day" is a figure of speech in three different cultures for which we have no evidence whatsoever.
[/i]
"...the phrase 'three days and three nights' is a Jewish idiom meaning a short period of time and does not necessarily have to include three days and three nights. Today we might speak of a long task taking 'forever.' We mean that it will take a long time. We do not mean that it will take an infinite amount of time and is incapable of being completed. Likewise, someone may say that something will take 'only a minute' This means a very short time, not sixty seconds. These are simply English idioms. Idioms exist in all langauges."
He then goes on to give an example from the book of Esther where this idiom is also used, when Esther states the following:
"Go, assmeble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way.. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish." (Esther 4:16 NASB)
Two verses later, however, we read:
"Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace in front of the king's rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace." (Esther 5:1 NASB)
Licona comments: "Esther did not wait a full three days and three nights. She went to the king on the third day. So that would be two days plus a number of hours."
Licona also points out that from the Gospel of Matthew itself, the same place where we read the prophecy of "three days and three nights", we see that three days and three nights is not meant to be taken literally. After Jesus's crucifixion, the Jewish leaders went to Pilate and said:
"Sir, we remember that while living that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise.' Therefore, order the grave to be secured until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him away and say to the people, 'He was raised from the dead,' and the last deceit will be worse than the first." (Matthew 27:63-34).
Licona comments: "Notice that they say that Jesus predicted he would rise after three days. So what do they do? They request that the grave be secured by guards until the third day. If the term 'after three days' is a Jewish idiom that does not mean a full seventy-two hours, this passage has no conflict. But if by it Jesus meant he would be dead at least seventy-two hours, then the Jewish leaders are foolish to request that the grave be secured 'until the third day' In other words, they intend to pull the guard just before Jesus said he would rise, which would leave nearly twenty-four hours for the disciples to steal his body. You see? Understanding 'three days' in a literal sense does not make sense. Therefore, when we consider two Jewish writings, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament, the terms 'after three days' and 'three days and three nights' seem to be a Jewish idiom that is not in conflict with the earliest Christian claims that Jesus was raised 'on the third day'.
And another explanation I found states:
It's very clear that in Jewish culture, the phrase "three days and three nights" was an expression that referred to any portion of three consecutive day. The Jewish legal principles held that any onah, or part of a day, qualified as an entire day itself. So there's absolutely no problem whatsoever to say that Jesus was in the tomb from Friday to Sunday. Now, I suppose it's possible that Jesus was not using the figure of speech or the principle of the onah, and so on the basis of His statement alone, it's possible that He really was in their three full days and three full nights.
But the Scripture says more than that. It also says that Jesus would rise "on the third day". (Per my previously stated references)
Furthermore, the Scripture reports after He had been risen that it was "on the third day" that He in fact was raised:
(Luk 24:21) But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened.
(Act 10:40) but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear,
(1Co 15:4) that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures
There's no evidence whatsoever that "the third day" is any Jewish expression of any sort. Even if there were, it wouldn't make any sense for St. Paul to use it when writing to the Greek city of Corinth, the people of which wouldn't understand it, or for St. Peter to use it when speaking to Cornelius, a Roman soldier.
So we are left with two possibilities here. We must accept that either Christ was raised on the third day since His Resurrection and that He was using the well established Jewish expression and legal principle of the onah when He said "three days and three nights," or we must accept that He was raised after three full days and three full nights and that the term "the third day" is a figure of speech in three different cultures for which we have no evidence whatsoever.
[/i]
0 x
Bridget
"whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." Phillipians 4:8
"whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." Phillipians 4:8
-
charl
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 12:05 pm
- Location: Saskatchewan Canada
- x 1
- Contact:
Oo Sola Scriptura.
What can I say if there are battles to the death going on, I'm there. You all know it.
Indeed I think the Athanasius quote evidences this view that thee days meant the three days involved. Some say this was because Jews taught that after three days the spirit left and a person really was dead (same kind of idea as the wake I suppose-wait around awhile and see if they really are dead). I don't have primaries for that however and it may be hogwash.
What can I say if there are battles to the death going on, I'm there. You all know it.
Indeed I think the Athanasius quote evidences this view that thee days meant the three days involved. Some say this was because Jews taught that after three days the spirit left and a person really was dead (same kind of idea as the wake I suppose-wait around awhile and see if they really are dead). I don't have primaries for that however and it may be hogwash.
0 x
[url=http://www.picturetrail.com/char000]CIP[/url] -slowly but steadily coming along... [img]http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/party/party0011.gif[/img]
-
gman
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 1111
- Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:03 am
- Location: Used to be Grand Rapids, MI after leaving the beautiful beaches of NJ. Now it's PA.
- x 33
- Contact:
three days
perhaps my mind is just rambling, but I was thinking about the idea of only three days total being involved, as opposed to being crucified one day and then spending three additional days in the tomb. I was struck with the idea that maybe the writers of the gospels knew that only three days were involved, that there would be skepticism over Jesus actually being dead, and that is why they made sure their accounts contained details that provided evidence that he was really dead. The skepticism being that if he wasn't quite dead when they removed him from the cross, he could have hung on for that short amount of time. Perhaps there were those who thought that Lazarus, having been emtombed for four days, was only mostly dead; slightly alive. If he could hang on for four days, Jesus, even in a much worse condition, could have hung on for a day and a half.
Again, I'm not going real deep with that, just some rambling thoughts.
GMan
Again, I'm not going real deep with that, just some rambling thoughts.
GMan
0 x
-
separateunion
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 1297
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:20 pm
- Location: Char's House
- Contact:
-
separateunion
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 1297
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:20 pm
- Location: Char's House
- Contact:
-
charl
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 12:05 pm
- Location: Saskatchewan Canada
- x 1
- Contact:
What ho.
You can't deny Sola Scriptura and appeal to the bible as your only authority. And you definitely can't do so twice. You should say Sola Scriptura is wrong, ask the Magisterium. Or Sola Scriptura is wrong, ask the latter day prophets.
Unless of course you enjoy being self-refuting you foolish boy.
You can't deny Sola Scriptura and appeal to the bible as your only authority. And you definitely can't do so twice. You should say Sola Scriptura is wrong, ask the Magisterium. Or Sola Scriptura is wrong, ask the latter day prophets.
Unless of course you enjoy being self-refuting you foolish boy.
0 x
[url=http://www.picturetrail.com/char000]CIP[/url] -slowly but steadily coming along... [img]http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/party/party0011.gif[/img]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests