Jesus was crucified on Thursday

[Der Alte]

These do not conflict. I have already mentioned this type of usage elsewhere in this thread. "In seven days" and "AFTER seven days" do not necessarily contradict. Take Mark 8:31 and 9:31 and you will see the inspired writer uses "after three days". Then, grab yourself a Harmony of the Gospels and check the parallel accounts in Matthew and Luke and you will see that "after three days" and "the third day" are interchangeable. That's because with Jewish inclusive reckoning part of a day would be counted in a number of days. Imagine I was thrown into jail on a Monday morning and released on a Wednesday afternoon. It would not be improper to say. "after three days in jail I was released". The expression "after x days" does not always mean "x + 1" as in the fourth day instead of the third day. The scriptures are very flexible when it comes to expressing a number of days in a count. So, "yet seven days" and "after seven days" do not confflict, they are supplemental.
This poses no problem, because three days is interchangeable with "after three days". In Jewish reckoning a part of a day can be counted as a whole day. So, if Joseph put his brothers into the ward three days then on the third day they would be released. If he put them into ward on Sunday, the first day of the week and kept them in there for three days then Monday would be the second day and Tuesday would be on the third day. After spending a few hours in ward on Tuesday the partial day could be counted as three days, not two and a half.
Once again, read the Jewish Encyclopedia entry for the word "Day".

DAY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

Just read this and you will see the truth. We agree, just not that "three days and three nights" is an idiom that means "two days and two nights".
Thanks for reading.

You are a majority of one. The same Jesus also said "the third day" Mat 17:23, Mat 20:19, Mar 9:31, Mar 10:34, Luk 9:22, Luk 13:32, Luk 18:33, Luk 24:46, third day and "in three days" Joh 2:19 in three days.

 

[Der Alte]

These do not conflict. I have already mentioned this type of usage elsewhere in this thread. "In seven days" and "AFTER seven days" do not necessarily contradict. Take Mark 8:31 and 9:31 and you will see the inspired writer uses "after three days". Then, grab yourself a Harmony of the Gospels and check the parallel accounts in Matthew and Luke and you will see that "after three days" and "the third day" are interchangeable. That's because with Jewish inclusive reckoning part of a day would be counted in a number of days. Imagine I was thrown into jail on a Monday morning and released on a Wednesday afternoon. It would not be improper to say. "after three days in jail I was released". The expression "after x days" does not always mean "x + 1" as in the fourth day instead of the third day. The scriptures are very flexible when it comes to expressing a number of days in a count. So, "yet seven days" and "after seven days" do not confflict, they are supplemental.

This poses no problem, because three days is interchangeable with "after three days". In Jewish reckoning a part of a day can be counted as a whole day. So, if Joseph put his brothers into the ward three days then on the third day they would be released. If he put them into ward on Sunday, the first day of the week and kept them in there for three days then Monday would be the second day and Tuesday would be on the third day. After spending a few hours in ward on Tuesday the partial day could be counted as three days, not two and a half.

Once again, read the Jewish Encyclopedia entry for the word "Day".

DAY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

Just read this and you will see the truth. We agree, just not that "three days and three nights" is an idiom that means "two days and two nights".

Thanks for reading.

I read that article 20 years ago. It in no ways proves "three [literal] days and three nights." Nothing you can say or quote shows that Jesus was not crucified on Parasceue, i.e. Friday shortly before sundown..

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

You are a majority of one. The same Jesus also said "the third day" Mat 17:23, Mat 20:19, Mar 9:31, Mar 10:34, Luk 9:22, Luk 13:32, Luk 18:33, Luk 24:46, third day and "in three days" Joh 2:19 in three days.

What is wrong with you? Do you even read what I have posted? I'll say it again, I AGREE with you. Jesus died on a Friday and was resurrected on Sunday morning. Sheesh. You don't even read what I post. That is what trolls do. I don't like to be trolled. Change your tactics are I am ignoring you.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

I read that article 20 years ago. It in no ways proves "three [literal] days and three nights." Nothing you can say or quote shows that Jesus was not crucified on Parasceue, i.e. Friday shortly before sundown..

Again, you don't even read what I post. You are very disrespectful. When someone takes the time to write a response to your posts, if you are respectful you will give that person the courtesy of answering his posts. You don't even bother to read mine. I have stated repeatedly I agree with you and you keep arguing with yourself. I am disappointed. After reading some of your posts a few days ago I thought it would be a productive time to discuss topics with you but I was wrong. You are terribly confused because you are actually arguing with yourself.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

These do not conflict. I have already mentioned this type of usage elsewhere in this thread. "In seven days" and "AFTER seven days" do not necessarily contradict. Take Mark 8:31 and 9:31 and you will see the inspired writer uses "after three days". Then, grab yourself a Harmony of the Gospels and check the parallel accounts in Matthew and Luke and you will see that "after three days" and "the third day" are interchangeable. That's because with Jewish inclusive reckoning part of a day would be counted in a number of days. Imagine I was thrown into jail on a Monday morning and released on a Wednesday afternoon. It would not be improper to say. "after three days in jail I was released". The expression "after x days" does not always mean "x + 1" as in the fourth day instead of the third day. The scriptures are very flexible when it comes to expressing a number of days in a count. So, "yet seven days" and "after seven days" do not confflict, they are supplemental.

This poses no problem, because three days is interchangeable with "after three days". In Jewish reckoning a part of a day can be counted as a whole day. So, if Joseph put his brothers into the ward three days then on the third day they would be released. If he put them into ward on Sunday, the first day of the week and kept them in there for three days then Monday would be the second day and Tuesday would be on the third day. After spending a few hours in ward on Tuesday the partial day could be counted as three days, not two and a half.

Once again, read the Jewish Encyclopedia entry for the word "Day".

DAY - JewishEncyclopedia.com ​

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

Just read this and you will see the truth. We agree, just not that "three days and three nights" is an idiom that means "two days and two nights".

Thanks for reading.

 

[Der Alte]

These do not conflict. I have already mentioned this type of usage elsewhere in this thread. "In seven days" and "AFTER seven days" do not necessarily contradict. Take Mark 8:31 and 9:31 and you will see the inspired writer uses "after three days". Then, grab yourself a Harmony of the Gospels and check the parallel accounts in Matthew and Luke and you will see that "after three days" and "the third day" are interchangeable. That's because with Jewish inclusive reckoning part of a day would be counted in a number of days. Imagine I was thrown into jail on a Monday morning and released on a Wednesday afternoon. It would not be improper to say. "after three days in jail I was released". The expression "after x days" does not always mean "x + 1" as in the fourth day instead of the third day. The scriptures are very flexible when it comes to expressing a number of days in a count. So, "yet seven days" and "after seven days" do not confflict, they are supplemental.

This poses no problem, because three days is interchangeable with "after three days". In Jewish reckoning a part of a day can be counted as a whole day. So, if Joseph put his brothers into the ward three days then on the third day they would be released. If he put them into ward on Sunday, the first day of the week and kept them in there for three days then Monday would be the second day and Tuesday would be on the third day. After spending a few hours in ward on Tuesday the partial day could be counted as three days, not two and a half.

Once again, read the Jewish Encyclopedia entry for the word "Day".

DAY - JewishEncyclopedia.com​

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

Just read this and you will see the truth. We agree, just not that "three days and three nights" is an idiom that means "two days and two nights".

Thanks for reading.

I have never claimed that "three days and three nights is a idiom that means two days and two nights!' Now who is not reading?

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

I have never claimed that "three days and three nights is a idiom that means two days and two nights!' Now who is not reading?

Then why are you arguing against me? You keep arguing with me even though I have stated that three days and three nights is not an idiom. Just so you know, the majority that claim that three days and three nights is an idiom claim that Jesus was crucified on a Friday and rose from the dead on Sunday morning pre-dawn. I am a rare exception because even though I believe that Jesus died on a Friday and rose from the dead on a Sunday I do not have an answer for the three days and three nights is an idiom. In lining up with my Friday - Sunday belief. I can refute the arguments that claim to support the idea that three days and three nights is an idiom. IF you do believe three days and three nights is an idiom I would like to see your information. Those that claim three days and three nights claim that any part of a day can be reckoned as a full day and full night and any part of a night can be reckoned as a whole day and night. This is simply not true.

 

[Der Alte]

Then why are you arguing against me? You keep arguing with me even though I have stated that three days and three nights is not an idiom. Just so you know, the majority that claim that three days and three nights is an idiom claim that Jesus was crucified on a Friday and rose from the dead on Sunday morning pre-dawn. I am a rare exception because even though I believe that Jesus died on a Friday and rose from the dead on a Sunday I do not have an answer for the three days and three nights is an idiom. In lining up with my Friday - Sunday belief. I can refute the arguments that claim to support the idea that three days and three nights is an idiom. IF you do believe three days and three nights is an idiom I would like to see your information. Those that claim three days and three nights claim that any part of a day can be reckoned as a full day and full night and any part of a night can be reckoned as a whole day and night. This is simply not true.

In this context as I understand idiom "three days and three nights" does not mean necessarily mean a 72 hour period three literal days and nights but can mean any part of three contiguous days and nights. Which all the other references support.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

In this context as I understand idiom "three days and three nights" does not mean necessarily mean a 72 hour period three literal days and night but can mean any part of three contiguous days and nights. Which all the other references support.

Three days and three nights does NOT mean it has to be three full days and three full nights. There are those who claim it can be only 72 hours, no more or no less. Seventy-two hours, period. This is incorrect. It can be less because the Jews counted part of a day as a full day. If a male child was born just minutes before sunset, that day would be counted as day one. It would be known as "the first day". So, it is not true that three days and three nights had to be 72 hours. Those that count three days and three nights from late Wednesday afternoon to late Saturday afternoon are counting according to Western reckoning of time. In America, we can count three days from Wednesday noon to Saturday noon. Not in ancient Israel however. The day Jesus died, would be the first day. That means those that hold to a Saturday afternoon resurrection are incorrect because Saturday afternoon would be "the fourth day" and not the third.

I agree that any part of a day can be counted as a full day for counting purposes and any part of a night can be counted as a full night for counting purposes. However, I disagree that any part of a day can be counted as BOTH a full day and a full night. I also disagree that any part of a night can be counted as a full night and a full day for counting purposes. Those that claim the "three days and three nights" is an idiom claim Jesus was buried just before sunset on late Friday afternoon and raised from the dead Sunday morning before sunrise and they quote John 20:1 for support. Now, if that is true, then the last few minutes of daytime Friday would be one day, all night and the next day would be the Sabbath, which makes the total two days and one night, then night time, sometimes between sunset Saturday night and sunrise Sunday morning would be a total of two days and two nights. They expect me to believe that three days and three nights could really mean two days and two nights. I find that ridiculous. There is no evidence that a part of a day could be counted as both a day and a night.

You claim that all other references support this. What references support this claim? Can you provide me these references? Maybe three or four of them? Let's see if all the other references support this.

 

[Der Alte]

Three days and three nights does NOT mean it has to be three full days and three full nights. There are those who claim it can be only 72 hours, no more or no less. Seventy-two hours, period. This is incorrect. It can be less because the Jews counted part of a day as a full day. If a male child was born just minutes before sunset, that day would be counted as day one. It would be known as "the first day". So, it is not true that three days and three nights had to be 72 hours. Those that count three days and three nights from late Wednesday afternoon to late Saturday afternoon are counting according to Western reckoning of time. In America, we can count three days from Wednesday noon to Saturday noon. Not in ancient Israel however. The day Jesus died, would be the first day. That means those that hold to a Saturday afternoon resurrection are incorrect because Saturday afternoon would be "the fourth day" and not the third.
I agree that any part of a day can be counted as a full day for counting purposes and any part of a night can be counted as a full night for counting purposes. However, I disagree that any part of a day can be counted as BOTH a full day and a full night. I also disagree that any part of a night can be counted as a full night and a full night for counting purposes. Those that claim the "three days and three nights" is an idiom claim Jesus was buried just before sunset on late Friday afternoon and raised from the dead Sunday morning before sunrise and they quote John 20:1 for support. Now, if that is true, then the last few minutes of daytime Friday would be one day, all night and the next day would be the Sabbath, which makes the total two days and one night, then night time, sometimes between sunset Saturday night and sunrise Sunday morning would be a total of two days and two nights. They expect me to believe that three days and three nights could really mean two days and two nights. I find that ridiculous. There is no evidence that a part of a day could be counted as both a day and a night.
You claim that all other references support this. What references support this claim? Can you provide me these references? Maybe three or four of them? Let's see if all the other references support this.

We apparently are in agreement.
'Yom" day in Judaism can refer to the period of daylight , sunrise - sunset or it can refer to the 24 hour period sunset one day to to sunset the following day.
In 3 days: Mar 15:29, Joh 2:19, Joh 2:20, Mat 26:61, Mat 27:40, Mat 27:63
Within 3 days: Mar 14:58
After 3 days: Mat 27:63
Third day: Mat 16:21, Mat 17:23, Mat 20:19, Mar 9:31, Mar 10:34, Luk 9:22, Luk 13:32, Luk 18:33, Luk 24:7, Luk 24:46, Act 10:40, 1Co 15:4

 

[prodromos]

I agree that any part of a day can be counted as a full day for counting purposes and any part of a night can be counted as a full night for counting purposes. However, I disagree that any part of a day can be counted as BOTH a full day and a full night. I also disagree that any part of a night can be counted as a full night and a full night for counting purposes.

It is pretty obvious to me that "a day and a night" is the "whole" of the synecdoche, representing any "part" thereof. I can understand your problem if you focus on the "day" as a whole and the "night" as another whole, but I think that is a misunderstanding. It could be claimed that if it is synecdoche, then it should have been written as "three day and nights", but it is a bit problematic grammatically as it is not clear that "day and night" is in plural and not day in singular and night in plural. You could then write it as "three days and nights", but that still has grammatical issues whereas "three days and three nights" preserves the "whole" of the synecdoche.
It also sounds better poetically.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

It is pretty obvious to me that "a day and a night" is the "whole" of the synecdoche, representing any "part" thereof. I can understand your problem if you focus on the "day" as a whole and the "night" as another whole, but I think that is a misunderstanding. It could be claimed that if it is synecdoche, then it should have been written as "three day and nights", but it is a bit problematic grammatically as it is not clear that "day and night" is in plural and not day in singular and night in plural. You could then write it as "three days and nights", but that still has grammatical issues whereas "three days and three nights" preserves the "whole" of the synecdoche.
It also sounds better poetically.

Prodromos
It is pretty obvious to me that "a day and a night" is the "whole" of the synecdoche, representing any "part" thereof.

SABER TRUTH TIGER
What “a day and a night” are you referring to? I would need to see “a day and a night” in context to determine whether it a complete day or night or something less. I need context.

Prodromos
I can understand your problem if you focus on the "day" as a whole and the "night" as another whole, but I think that is a misunderstanding.

SABER TRUTH TIGER
Before I focus on “a day and a night” I need to see it in context. You say you think it is a misunderstanding to see “a day and a night” as a whole but what is the context? I need context.

Prodomos
It could be claimed that if it is synecdoche, then it should have been written as "three day and nights",

SABER TRUTH TIGER
Before I claim “a day and a night” is a synechode I would have to see the context. You claim it should have been written as “three day and nights” if it was a synecdoche but where is your proof?

Prodomos
but it is a bit problematic grammatically as it is not clear that "day and night" is in plural and not day in singular and night in plural.

SABER TRUTH TIGER
What exactly are you referring to? You say it is “not clear” that “day and night” is in plural. What phrase are you referring to? Where is it nor clear that “day and night” is in plural? Are you talking about a verse in the Bible? If so, could you show me where in the Bible you are referring to? Where in the Bible is there a phrase where day is in the singular and night in the plural?

Prodromos
You could then write it as "three days and nights", but that still has grammatical issues…

SABER TRUTH TIGER
Why does “three days and nights” has grammatical issues? Can you show me where that is the case? Is that in the Bible? If not, so what?

PRODROMOS
whereas "three days and three nights" preserves the "whole" of the synecdoche.

SABER TRUTH TIGER
Three days and three nights is self explanatory. It means three days and three nights. It need not mean three full days and three full nights. But if someone claims it means two days and two nights then the burden of poof is on them to show their “synecdoche” interpretation is correct.

synecdoche
: a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (such as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (such as society for high society), the species for the genus (such as cutthroat for assassin), the genus for the species (such as a creature for a man), or the name of the material for the thing made (such as boards for stage)

I continued this discussion on a different thread in Christian Forums. The thread is titled The Crucifixion Not Friday:

The Crucifixion Not Friday

According to the Hebrew Scriptures (Masoretic Text), Nisan 15 was never designated as a Sabbath. There were three types of Sabbaths: 1) the weekly Sabbath, 2) the land Sabbath where the land had to lay unused every seventh year 3) the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), an annual Sabbath that fell in...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

You are a majority of one. The same Jesus also said "the third day" Mat 17:23, Mat 20:19, Mar 9:31, Mar 10:34, Luk 9:22, Luk 13:32, Luk 18:33, Luk 24:46, third day and "in three days" Joh 2:19 in three days.

Hi Der Alte, I really enjoyed your posts on this thread. According to your photo and comment. you are well into your 80s and I just wanted to know if you are still with us. If so, let me know.

 

[d taylor]

Hi Der Alte, I really enjoyed your posts on this thread. According to your photo and comment. you are well into your 80s and I just wanted to know if you are still with us. If so, let me know.

-
​

His profile states - Last seen Wednesday at 5:29 PM

 

[PatrickTate]

Looks like a possibility.

Personally I believe in a Wednesday crucifixion. Just after dying Jesus gives the thief on the cross near him a tour of Paradise. Then at Wednesday at sunset Jesus goes to hell and is resurrected Sabbath at sunset and is already risen Sunday morning. The first day of Unleavened Bread was on a Thursday in thirty one A. D.

Near death experiencer Kevin Zadai was shown about those three days in hell before Jesus' resurrection.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Personally I believe in a Wednesday crucifixion. Just after dying Jesus gives the thief on the cross near him a tour of Paradise. Then at Wednesday at sunset Jesus goes to hell and is resurrected Sabbath at sunset and is already risen Sunday morning. The first day of Unleavened Bread was on a Thursday in thirty one A. D.

Near death experiencer Kevin Zadai was shown about those three days in hell before Jesus' resurrection.

Except the Gospels tell us that the Lord was crucified on the Day of Preparation (Friday), and rose on on the first day of the week (Sunday). The Gospels give us a clear timeline of Jesus being crucified on Friday before sundown, and rising on Sunday before sunrise.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Der Alte]

Personally I believe in a Wednesday crucifixion. Just after dying Jesus gives the thief on the cross near him a tour of Paradise. Then at Wednesday at sunset Jesus goes to hell and is resurrected Sabbath at sunset and is already risen Sunday morning. The first day of Unleavened Bread was on a Thursday in thirty one A. D.

Near death experiencer Kevin Zadai was shown about those three days in hell before Jesus' resurrection.

Well what you "believe" contradicts scripture. All three gospels agree that Jesus was crucified shortly before sundown on "παρασκευήν"/parasceue' i.e. "Preparation," the day before the Sabbath. Parascue was, and is to this day, the Greek name of the day we call Friday, the day before the Sabbath.

 

[PatrickTate]

Well what you "believe" contradicts scripture. All three gospels agree that Jesus was crucified shortly before sundown on "παρασκευήν"/parasceue' i.e. "Preparation," the day before the Sabbath. Parascue was, and is to this day, the Greek name of the day we call Friday, the day before the Sabbath.

In Ad 31 the first day of Unleavened Bread was on a Thursday. A Wednesday crucifixion fits with the women preparing the spices for the burial of Jesus on Friday and then resting on the weekly Sabbath and going to the tomb on Sunday morning, [the first day of the week], but Jesus was already risen.

If He was in the tomb for seventy two hours it would mean a Saturday around sunset resurrection as the Sabbath would end. I assume Jesus died several hours before sunset on Wednesday and gave the thief on the cross next to him a tour of heaven for an hour or so before he went into hell itself for three days and three nights.

 

[Der Alte]

In Ad 31 the first day of Unleavened Bread was on a Thursday. A Wednesday crucifixion fits with the women preparing the spices for the burial of Jesus on Friday and then resting on the weekly Sabbath and going to the tomb on Sunday morning, [the first day of the week], but Jesus was already risen.

If He was in the tomb for seventy two hours it would mean a Saturday around sunset resurrection as the Sabbath would end. I assume Jesus died several hours before sunset on Wednesday and gave the thief on the cross next to him a tour of heaven for an hour or so before he went into hell itself for three days and three nights.

I started learning to speak Greek in Germany in '59, long story, then studied it at the graduate level in the '80s, it was much easier than Hebrew. Nothing you can post or quote from any scholar can change the fact that ALL 3 gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on "παρασκευήν"/"Parascue," which means "preparation" in Greek and was at the time of Jesus and is to this day the name of the day we call Friday the day before the Sabbath/the day we call Saturday. If you can't read Greek get an interlinear and check you will see that I am correct.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

In Ad 31 the first day of Unleavened Bread was on a Thursday. A Wednesday crucifixion fits with the women preparing the spices for the burial of Jesus on Friday and then resting on the weekly Sabbath and going to the tomb on Sunday morning, [the first day of the week], but Jesus was already risen.

If He was in the tomb for seventy two hours it would mean a Saturday around sunset resurrection as the Sabbath would end. I assume Jesus died several hours before sunset on Wednesday and gave the thief on the cross next to him a tour of heaven for an hour or so before he went into hell itself for three days and three nights.

There is a large number of Bible scholars and Christians who believe Jesus was crucified in 33 AD and not 31 AD. The first day of Unleavened Bread likely fell on a Saturday in 33 AD if these scholars are right. It is a non-essential belief for salvation, though. Jesus died on the Preparation, and in Jesus' day, Preparation was often used for Friday. Pro-Sabbaton (the day before the Sabbath) in Mark 15:42 was also used for Friday in the Greek world in the days of Jesus. In several places in the synoptic gospels, it says Jesus would rise on the third day, not the fourth. If Jesus died on a Wednesday, then Friday would be the third day because the Jews counted days inclusively. Saturday would be the fourth day.

I believe the "three days and three nights" is either a scribal gloss or emendation because "three days and three nights" would entail Jesus would rise from the dead on the fourth day and not the third. This would create contradictions everywhere where the "third day" is mentioned. It makes more problems than it solves.

Here is a link to a website that discusses how the Jews and others used inclusive counting.

What is Inclusive Reckoning?

Here is a link to how Jews reckoned days, from the Jewish Encyclopedia

DAY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

Here is a link to another thread (post # 81) that discusses whether the first day of Unleavened Bread was Thursday, Friday, or Saturday.

The Crucifixion Not Friday

According to the Hebrew Scriptures (Masoretic Text), Nisan 15 was never designated as a Sabbath. There were three types of Sabbaths: 1) the weekly Sabbath, 2) the land Sabbath where the land had to lay unused every seventh year 3) the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), an annual Sabbath that fell in...

www.christianforums.com

More on Preparation and Prosabbaton:

Prosabbaton and Preparation Day is Friday

Concerning the word “preparation” in the KJV there were two preparation days in the time of Jesus. There was the weekly preparation for the Sabbath and the annual preparation for the Passover. The …

tinyurl.com