Maybe, "three nights and three days" ?

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

I would say we agree on most points other than the dating (my timeline is 14th -16th while yours is 15th-17th), when and what the last supper actually was (mine is the Pesakh Seudah HaMefsekhet of the 14th while yours is the Pesakh meal of the 15th) and the actual sacrifice (mine is the actual Pesakh lamb of the 14th while yours is the Chagigah of the 15th). My problem with the Chagigah was, among other things, that it could be cut up and bones broken which IMO would discount it as actually fulfilling prophecy. I understand you believe that since Yeshua's bones were not broken, having nothing to do with the Pesakh lamb, but still fulfills that prophecy in His death on the 15th in your timeline. We also both agree regarding synecdoche and inclusive count of the time period.

Click to expand...

I agree that we agree on most everything. We even agree on the theology of it all. Where we're actually differing is that you're figuring your chronology according to your theology. I'm figuring my chronology exclusive of the theology, relying wholly on the scriptures of chronology ... come what may.

For you, because the passover is slain on the 14th, Jesus had to have been slain on the 14th.
For me, because Jesus ate the last supper on the 14th, per the scripture, Jesus had to have been slain on the 15th.

You draw your conclusion eisegetically, according to what you believe it should be, regardless of the scripture demonstrating something to the contrary.
I draw my conclusion exgetically, according to the information actually available, and accept that the physical chronology doesn't match the desired perfect theological position.

The scripture is explicit, conspicuous, and unambiguous. The first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, the disciples went and prepared the passover. Jesus arrived in the evening at the appointed hour. The last supper transpired. He was arrested later in the night. He was then crucified the next morning.

That's the fact of scripture. And although I consider you a friend at this point after so many threads together, we will always disagree until you acknowledge the truth of scripture. The house has to be built upon a rock.

AFrazier said:

I'll get you the references when I get home from work. But just to ask ... are you doubting me after all these posts and all the substantiation I've already given? Do you believe I'm making it up? Or are you just trying to learn and expand your own knowledge base?

Click to expand...

I like to verify everything before accepting anything. People sometimes misinterpret Scripture as well as extra-Biblical writings. I also want to learn and expand my knowledge base.

AFrazier said:

I agree that we agree on most everything. We even agree on the theology of it all. Where we're actually differing is that you're figuring your chronology according to your theology. I'm figuring my chronology exclusive of the theology, relying wholly on the scriptures of chronology ... come what may.

For you, because the passover is slain on the 14th, Jesus had to have been slain on the 14th.
For me, because Jesus ate the last supper on the 14th, per the scripture, Jesus had to have been slain on the 15th.

You draw your conclusion eisegetically, according to what you believe it should be, regardless of the scripture demonstrating something to the contrary.
I draw my conclusion exgetically, according to the information actually available, and accept that the physical chronology doesn't match the desired perfect theological position.

The scripture is explicit, conspicuous, and unambiguous. The first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, the disciples went and prepared the passover. Jesus arrived in the evening at the appointed hour. The last supper transpired. He was arrested later in the night. He was then crucified the next morning.

That's the fact of scripture. And although I consider you a friend at this point after so many threads together, we will always disagree until you acknowledge the truth of scripture. The house has to be built upon a rock.

Click to expand...

Actually no, my theology just happens to fit my chronology, not the other way around, although it works that way too I feel it is the truth as it fits all the prophecies and then some! My point to you would be that it was the beginning of the 14th in that passage and not the end of the 14th as you believe. Shalom

AFrazier said:

And yet ... he was still in the grave Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. So I guess you're going to have to find a way to reconcile the reality of the chronology with your interpretation, because he didn't die on Wednesday or Thursday.

Click to expand...

friday night in the grave
saturday night in the grave
and you are saying sunday night in the grave... really!!!

.

visionary said:

friday night in the grave
saturday night in the grave
and you are saying sunday night in the grave... really!!!

Click to expand...

Nope. Not saying Sunday night in the grave. I'm saying that it is three inclusive days, and some of you folks are blowing things out of proportion by taking a figure of speech and trying to make a literal 72-hour prophecy of it. He died on the day of the preparation. He rose early on the first day of the week. That's what the scriptures say. Make of it what you will.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Actually no, my chronology fits my theology, not the other way around

Click to expand...

That's what I said. You base your chronology on your theology. Ergo, your chronology fits your theology. Because the passover is killed on the 14th, you have concluded that Jesus had to die on the 14th. All of your logic derives from this foundation.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

My point to you would be that it was the beginning of the 14th in that passage and not the end of the 14th as you believe. Shalom

Click to expand...

So Jesus sent two disciples to skulk around Jerusalem at night and follow someone into his house. That's not creepy at all.

But seriously ... I'll point again to the scriptures. They say in no uncertain terms that they [the disciples] "made ready the passover."

I understand what you think and why you think it. But I assume, given your position on the matter, that it's never occurred to you just how inconsistent it is that a single passage in John saying "they desired to eat the passover" is enough to set in stone that it was the 14th (despite other possible understandings), and yet, a half dozen mentions of the passover in the other three gospels doesn't make a dent. They asked where he wanted them to prepare the passover. He told them to go and prepare the passover. He said that he would keep the passover at the man's house. He said he would keep the passover with his disciples. The disciples made ready the passover. How many direct statements do you need in order to accept that it was the passover? Do you realize the enormity of the scriptural content you are ignoring and negating? It's not like I'm standing on a simple passage that can be understood multiple ways.

If the disciples "made ready the passover," then it was the afternoon of the 14th. They couldn't have done it at any other time. It would have been illegal.

AFrazier said:

Nope. Not saying Sunday night in the grave. I'm saying that it is three inclusive days, and some of you folks are blowing things out of proportion by taking a figure of speech and trying to make a literal 72-hour prophecy of it. He died on the day of the preparation. He rose early on the first day of the week. That's what the scriptures say. Make of it what you will.

Click to expand...

He died on Passover and was resurrected in time for First Fruits...He fulfilled the Spring Feasts... not days of the week.

visionary said:

He died on Passover and was resurrected in time for First Fruits...He fulfilled the Spring Feasts... not days of the week.

Click to expand...

Another theo-chronologist.

Theology doesn't dictate chronology. You can't make it up as you go along. Just because you want things to fall on certain days and dates, that doesn't mean they did. They happened when the scriptures say they happened. And what they say doesn't match what you advocate.

AFrazier said:

Another theo-chronologist.

Theology doesn't dictate chronology. You can't make it up as you go along. Just because you want things to fall on certain days and dates, that doesn't mean they did. They happened when the scriptures say they happened. And what they say doesn't match what you advocate.

Click to expand...

He can't be called the Passover "Lamb of God" or the "First Fruits" as the scriptures say then according to you.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. ... 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

You just poo poo a lot of scripture...
John 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. .....36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

Revelation 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and ofthe four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Revelation 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

Revelation 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

Revelation 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. 23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Revelation 22:1
And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. ... 3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

AFrazier said:

That's what I said. You base your chronology on your theology. Ergo, your chronology fits your theology. Because the passover is killed on the 14th, you have concluded that Jesus had to die on the 14th. All of your logic derives from this foundation.

So Jesus sent two disciples to skulk around Jerusalem at night and follow someone into his house. That's not creepy at all.

But seriously ... I'll point again to the scriptures. They say in no uncertain terms that they [the disciples] "made ready the passover."

I understand what you think and why you think it. But I assume, given your position on the matter, that it's never occurred to you just how inconsistent it is that a single passage in John saying "they desired to eat the passover" is enough to set in stone that it was the 14th (despite other possible understandings), and yet, a half dozen mentions of the passover in the other three gospels doesn't make a dent. They asked where he wanted them to prepare the passover. He told them to go and prepare the passover. He said that he would keep the passover at the man's house. He said he would keep the passover with his disciples. The disciples made ready the passover. How many direct statements do you need in order to accept that it was the passover? Do you realize the enormity of the scriptural content you are ignoring and negating? It's not like I'm standing on a simple passage that can be understood multiple ways.

If the disciples "made ready the passover," then it was the afternoon of the 14th. They couldn't have done it at any other time. It would have been illegal.

Click to expand...

Sorry I meant that I base my theology on the chronology, just so happens that it works the other way too. I fully understand what you are trying to say, I just disagree with it for the many reasons we discussed. I do find it strange that IF it were an actual Pesakh meal (like a Seder), there is no mention of lamb, no mention of even sacrificing one and no women or children present, etc. THAT, in and of itself, makes me question it. However, if it was a Pesakh Seudah HaMefsekhet (which literally means the last supper before the fast...of the firstborn in this case), it DOES make sense. From then on, everything else falls into perfect alignment and prophetic fulfillment in every way.

And to Vis, I actually looked deeply into the Wednesday and Thursday crucifixion scenarios and the 3 day/night scripture and started to believe it might be the case...until I actually fully researched all the aspects surrounding them. It sounded good on paper but in the end, I could not prove it true. Shalom

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Sorry I meant that I base my theology on the chronology, just so happens that it works the other way too. I fully understand what you are trying to say, I just disagree with it for the many reasons we discussed. I do find it strange that IF it were an actual Pesakh meal (like a Seder), there is no mention of lamb, no mention of even sacrificing one and no women or children present, etc. THAT, in and of itself, makes me question it. However, if it was a Pesakh Seudah HaMefsekhet (which literally means the last supper before the fast...of the firstborn in this case), it DOES make sense. From then on, everything else falls into perfect alignment and prophetic fulfillment in every way.

And to Vis, I actually looked deeply into the Wednesday and Thursday crucifixion scenarios and the 3 day/night scripture and started to believe it might be the case...until I actually fully researched all the aspects surrounding them. It sounded good on paper but in the end, I could not prove it true. Shalom

Click to expand...

No mention of lamb is necessary. It would be considered self evident that it was lamb or goat if they were eating the passover.
They did mention the sacrifice in a roundabout way. Peter and John were sent to make ready the passover. The preparation and roasting of the lamb/goat wasn't done by the whole party. One or two people would take care of that aspect, acting on behalf of the registered party. The fact that two disciples were sent is very picture-perfect of how the whole passover ritual was handled.
Women and children were kept separate from the men during the eating of the passover.

I'm at work right now. It'll take some time to look up the references for these things. I didn't have time to look them up yesterday. I'll do the best I can to get them for you guys tonight when I get home.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

However, if it was a Pesakh Seudah HaMefsekhet (which literally means the last supper before the fast...of the firstborn in this case), it DOES make sense.

Click to expand...

All except for that part where the gospels say that Peter and John made ready "the passover."

AFrazier said:

No mention of lamb is necessary. It would be considered self evident that it was lamb or goat if they were eating the passover.
They did mention the sacrifice in a roundabout way. Peter and John were sent to make ready the passover. The preparation and roasting of the lamb/goat wasn't done by the whole party. One or two people would take care of that aspect, acting on behalf of the registered party. The fact that two disciples were sent is very picture-perfect of how the whole passover ritual was handled.
Women and children were kept separate from the men during the eating of the passover.

I'm at work right now. It'll take some time to look up the references for these things. I didn't have time to look them up yesterday. I'll do the best I can to get them for you guys tonight when I get home.


All except for that part where the gospels say that Peter and John made ready "the passover."

Click to expand...

I still think it strange, since lamb of God terminology and mention of bread and wine and etc, but no lamb. I do not believe that the woman and children were separate from the men (as in a completely different location). Would like to have a citation on this.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

I still think it strange, since lamb of God terminology and mention of bread and wine and etc, but no lamb. I do not believe that the woman and children were separate from the men (as in a completely different location). Would like to have a citation on this.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the bread and wine were done after supper. They were already done eating. So the wine is mentioned because he gave them wine to drink. And the bread is mentioned because he gave them bread to eat. But the lamb isn't mentioned because it was already eaten. That's my two cents on that.

On the other, I'll get you the quote. It's one of those things I read in the Talmud, but that I didn't make a note of. I know it's there, but I have to find it. It goes into a lot of particulars, such as using a partition if the house wasn't big enough for the women to be in a separate room; how two families under one roof would divide the house so that there would be no legal confusion between two registered parties, etc.

But I have to find it. I read a lot of stuff. I absorb a lot of stuff. But I don't always jot stuff like that down. I just remember it. And then I pull my hair out trying to find it again when I need it.

[Staff edit].

1 Corinthians 5:6-8 King James Version (KJV)
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

AbbaLove said:

​

Apparently our gentile guest isn't even yet up-to-speed on the Feast of Unleavened Bread making it necessary for gadar perets to educate our guest thinker ...
It is not unusual for non-Jewish Christians to misinterpret scriptures in both the Hebrew Tanakh and the Apostolic writings of the Jewish Ketuvei HaShalichim. Thus their confusion as to the actual Jewish Day of Yeshua HaMashiach's Crucifixion being the perfect Lamb of Yahweh sacrificed as an atonement for the iniquity of mankind.

Click to expand...

Goading goes both ways. Knock it off.

visionary said:

1 Corinthians 5:6-8 King James Version (KJV)
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Click to expand...

None of this says that Jesus was crucified on the 14th, whereas Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7 both say that he ate the last supper on the 14th.

Like I said, you're letting your theology dictate the chronology, and the scriptures don't agree with you.