Crucifixion was Friday, 3 days and nights were literal

[Calminian]

That's my view.

With Easter approaching, this debate has been completely resolved, in my mind. The crucifixion was Friday and the 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth were literal. The problem is solved when you correctly define the phrase "heart of the earth."

While everyone's arguing about whether the days and nights are literal, nobody's trying to understand this phrase. I don't believe it's a reference to the tomb. It's rather a reference to Christ submitting to earthly authorities for judgment.

This article describes the view in depth: What did Jesus mean by 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth?

Think about it. Jesus compared the "heart of the earth" to Jonah in the "belly of the whale" where he remained captive, but not dead. The phrase "heart of the earth, is not found anywhere else in the Bible. There's nothing in it to suggest it's a reference to the grave.

But if the phase refers to Christ's captivity to earthly authorities, the timeline works out perfectly. Taken captive Thursday night, raised Sunday morning. Exactly 3 nights and 3 days.

Also, the Apostles always reference the incarceration of Jesus in the Crucifixion Resurrection timeline.

Luke 24:20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place.​

Let me know your thoughts and arguments.

 

[Dkh587]

Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is 2 nights.

The Messiah said 3 days and 3 nights.

Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is not a literal 3 days and 3 nights.

The timeline of Friday to Sunday is not compatible with what the Messiah said.

There is no reason to think the Messiah meant anything other than what he said: he would be dead and in the grave for 3 days & 3 nights.

 

[HTacianas]

That's my view.

With Easter approaching, this debate has been completely resolved, in my mind. The crucifixion was Friday and the 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth were literal. The problem is solved when you correctly define the phrase "heart of the earth."

While everyone's arguing about whether the days and nights are literal, nobody's trying to understand this phrase. I don't believe it's a reference to the tomb. It's rather a reference to Christ submitting to earthly authorities for judgment.

This article describes the view in depth: What did Jesus mean by 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth?

Think about it. Jesus compared the "heart of the earth" to Jonah in the "belly of the whale" where he remained captive, but not dead. The phrase "heart of the earth, is not found anywhere else in the Bible. There's nothing in it to suggest it's a reference to the grave.

But if the phase refers to Christ's captivity to earthly authorities, the timeline works out perfectly. Taken captive Thursday night, raised Sunday morning. Exactly 3 nights and 3 days.

Also, the Apostles always reference the incarceration of Jesus in the Crucifixion Resurrection timeline.

Luke 24:20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place.​

Let me know your thoughts and arguments.

Jesus is believed to have been crucified on Friday. By Jewish reckoning any part of a day is considered a day. Sundown on Friday would have been the beginning of Saturday, "and the evening and the morning were the second day". On Saturday, he "preached to the spirits in prison", as the day of Jewish preaching was Saturday. "And the evening and the morning were the third day", the third day being Sunday, any time after sundown on Saturday.

The "three days and three nights" is an emendation to the text that likely was altered from "three days" only. The original was most likely simply "as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish so shall the son of man be in the heart of the earth".

Jesus was dead Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

 

[Der Alte]

Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is 2 nights.
The Messiah said 3 days and 3 nights.
Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is not a literal 3 days and 3 nights.
The timeline of Friday to Sunday is not compatible with what the Messiah said.
There is no reason to think the Messiah meant anything other than what he said: he would be dead and in the grave for 3 days & 3 nights.

But for the fact that all 4 gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on "Preparation," which is translated from the Greek work "parasceve", which does mean "preparation" but "parasceve" was and is the Greek name for the day we know as "Friday."
.....The day that Jesus was crucified is also identified as the day before the Sabbath. John 19:31, Luke 23:54, Mark 15:42, Note "the Sabbath" not "one of the Sabbaths." There was only one Sabbath in passion week just as there is and can be only one Sabbath in Passover week.

 

[Der Alte]

Duplicate

 

[Calminian]

Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is 2 nights.

The Messiah said 3 days and 3 nights.

Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is not a literal 3 days and 3 nights.

The timeline of Friday to Sunday is not compatible with what the Messiah said.

There is no reason to think the Messiah meant anything other than what he said: he would be dead and in the grave for 3 days & 3 nights.

Well this guy didn't read the post.

 

[Calminian]

But for the fact that all 4 gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on "Preparation," which is translated from the Greek work "parasceve", which does mean "preparation" but "parasceve" was and is the Greek name for the day we know as "Friday."
.....The day that Jesus was crucified is also identified as the day before the Sabbath. John 19:31, Luke 23:54, Mark 15:42, Note "the Sabbath" not "one of the Sabbaths." There was only one Sabbath in passion week just as there is and can be only one Sabbath in Passover week.

That Jesus was crucified Friday is undeniable. That Sunday is the third day is undeniable. The only snag is Jesus usage of the phrase "heart of the earth." What does that phrase mean, and does it refer to the grave? If it doesn't, and includes all the events of the Passion, starting Thursday night, the 3 days and nights are literal.

 

[Calminian]

Jesus is believed to have been crucified on Friday. By Jewish reckoning any part of a day is considered a day. Sundown on Friday would have been the beginning of Saturday, "and the evening and the morning were the second day". On Saturday, he "preached to the spirits in prison", as the day of Jewish preaching was Saturday. "And the evening and the morning were the third day", the third day being Sunday, any time after sundown on Saturday.

The "three days and three nights" is an emendation to the text that likely was altered from "three days" only. The original was most likely simply "as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish so shall the son of man be in the heart of the earth".

Jesus was dead Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

You're right that any part of the day is considered a day. But Jesus mentioned nights also, and gave a specific number to the nights. Any part of the night would also be considered a night, but from Friday to Sunday morning, you're missing that third night.

 

[HTacianas]

You're right that any part of the day is considered a day. But Jesus mentioned nights also, and gave a specific number to the nights. Any part of the night would also be considered a night, but from Friday to Sunday morning, you're missing that third night.

As I said above, "three nights" is an emendation. It was added to the text later. Jesus never said "three nights" and it's doubtful that he said "three days".

 

[Calminian]

As I said above, "three nights" is an emendation. It was added to the text later. Jesus never said "three nights" and it's doubtful that he said "three days".

Malarky. Conspiracy tinfoil hat nonsense.

 

[HTacianas]

Malarky. Conspiracy tinfoil hat nonsense.

No, it's from a simple study of the bible. There are any number of emendations and changes that were made to the texts early on. So much so that Origen, who lived circa 200 AD, said of them "The differences among the manuscripts have become great...". See Origen, Commentary on the gospel of Matthew.

 

[Calminian]

No, it's from a simple study of the bible. There are any number of emendations and changes that were made to the texts early on. So much so that Origen, who lived circa 200 AD, said of them "The differences among the manuscripts have become great...". See Origen, Commentary on the gospel of Matthew.

How is quoting Origen a "simple study of the bible"? LOL!

So from that general statement, you concluded Jesus never said 3 days? Did Origen say Jesus never said that? You have nothing. You made an insane statement and you're too proud to walk it back.

 

[HTacianas]

How is quoting Origen a "simple study of the bible"? LOL!

So from that general statement, you concluded Jesus never said 3 days? Did Origen say Jesus never said that? You have nothing. You made an insane statement and you're too proud to walk it back.

I made a statement consistent with the evidence. Now, if Jesus said he would be in the earth three days and three nights but he was not in the earth for three days and three nights does that make Jesus a liar, or does it make him wrong? Or is it possible that it is simply a later emendation just like the rest of the emendations in the new testament?

And just so you know, a study of the bible does not mean merely reading it. Even reading it over and over again. It includes asking where it came from, who wrote it, who determined what should be in it and what should be left out.

 

[prodromos]

You're right that any part of the day is considered a day. But Jesus mentioned nights also, and gave a specific number to the nights. Any part of the night would also be considered a night, but from Friday to Sunday morning, you're missing that third night.

The expression "three days and three nights" is an example of synecdoche.

A synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something refers to the whole of something or vice versa. A synecdoche is a class of metonymy, often by means of either mentioning a part for the whole or conversely the whole for one of its parts.​

In this case the whole (day and night) represents the part (Friday evening, all of Saturday, Sunday morning).

We use synecdoche all the time, "can you give me a hand?", " I bought 5 head of cattle", "20 souls were lost at sea", although it is most commonly the part referring to the whole.

 

[Der Alte]

That Jesus was crucified Friday is undeniable. That Sunday is the third day is undeniable. The only snag is Jesus usage of the phrase "heart of the earth." What does that phrase mean, and does it refer to the grave? If it doesn't, and includes all the events of the Passion, starting Thursday night, the 3 days and nights are literal.

That is a plausible interpretation. But there is another night where Jesus was in the heart of the earth. Mark 15:1,

 

[Calminian]

The expression "three days and three nights" is an example of synecdoche.

A synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something refers to the whole of something or vice versa. A synecdoche is a class of metonymy, often by means of either mentioning a part for the whole or conversely the whole for one of its parts.​

In this case the whole (day and night) represents the part (Friday evening, all of Saturday, Sunday morning).

We use synecdoche all the time, "can you give me a hand?", " I bought 5 head of cattle", "20 souls were lost at sea", although it is most commonly the part referring to the whole.

Yes, it could be part of 3 days and part of 3 nights. But it can't mean that 2 nights equals 3 nights. And you're wrong, we do not commonly say, today, things like 2 nights = 3 nights. That's why this issue is so confusing to us.

Keep in mind, God makes a distinction between day and night, in the beginning. Night has a distinct meaning from day. If Jesus assigned a specific number to nights, we can't ignore that.

But here's the interesting part. No is is trying to figure out the true meaning of "heart of the earth." The reason you're stumbling on this is because you've assumed it refers to Jesus' time in the grave. If heart of the earth has a different or broader meaning, there might be no need to appeal to a theoretical Jewish idiom.

 

[Calminian]

I made a statement consistent with the evidence. Now, if Jesus said he would be in the earth three days and three nights but he was not in the earth for three days and three nights does that make Jesus a liar, or does it make him wrong? Or is it possible that it is simply a later emendation just like the rest of the emendations in the new testament?

And just so you know, a study of the bible does not mean merely reading it. Even reading it over and over again. It includes asking where it came from, who wrote it, who determined what should be in it and what should be left out.

You're repeating my arguments. You're not following the conversation. Not sure what else to tell you expect read the OP and read the attached article. Then you can possibly give some intelligent input.

 

[Calminian]

That is a plausible interpretation. But there is another night where Jesus was in the heart of the earth. Mark 15:1,

Agree.

 

[prodromos]

Yes, it could be part of 3 days and part of 3 nights. But it can't mean that 2 nights equals 3 nights. And you're wrong, we do not commonly say, today, things like 2 nights = 3 nights. That's why this issue is so confusing to us.

"3 days and 3 nights" is three whole "days and nights", the "whole" part of the synecdoche. It is not saying 2 nights = 3 nights.

Keep in mind, God makes a distinction between day and night, in the beginning. Night has a distinct meaning from day. If Jesus assigned a specific number to nights, we can't ignore that.

You are missing the trees for the forest. "3 days and 3 nights" isn't part synecdoche and part not synecdoche, it either is or it isn't

But here's the interesting part. No is is trying to figure out the true meaning of "heart of the earth." The reason you're stumbling on this is because you've assumed it refers to Jesus' time in the grave. If heart of the earth has a different or broader meaning, there might be no need to appeal to a theoretical Jewish idiom.

"heart of the earth" = "Hades". It does not mean what you are claiming.

 

[Calminian]

"3 days and 3 nights" is three whole "days and nights", the "whole" part of the synecdoche. It is not saying 2 nights = 3 nights.

I know the argument. It's been made for centuries. It's a back against the wall argument. There's never any corroboration for it. Nothing from Jewish tradition about it. It's a doesn't hold water.

You can say part of a day means day and part of night means night, but to go further and insist that 3 days and 3 nights means 3 days and 2 nights has no foundation. There is no idiomatic precedent for it. It's made up.

"heart of the earth" = "Hades". It does not mean what you are claiming.

Prove it. I see no evidence from the OT or from jewish tradition this is a reference to the grave. "Under the earth" is a reference to burial, widely used, but "heart of the earth" is never used in this sense. In fact, in a pure literal sense, it's speaking of the geographic center of a land, much like we understand the term, heartland. If you think different, show me.

Not only that, heart of the earth is akin to belly of the whale, also not a reference to the grave.