Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You have been given plausible explanations. You offer NO refutation, you just ignore them because you want to. You think that makes you right?Any explanation does not make it right explanation. Do you agree?
Grace and peace to you.I hear what your saying, the church is a living witness, since the Scriptures were in the custody of living communities their entire history. The same could be said of traditions, perhaps not all but many times the traditional view reflects a consensus among believers. Overwhelmingly the majority view has been that Jesus was crucified on Friday, and if he died in 33 AD I don't see a problem. Most scholars will tell you that the range of possibilities if from 30-33 AD, history isn't always an exact science. For me it's kind of like creation week, if the creation of the heavens and the earth was simply 'in the beginning' that means the age of the earth and cosmos is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation. If on the forth day God is just adjusting the atmosphere to make the sun, moon and stars more visible it fits the Scriptures and it opens the passage up to an alternative reading, nothing more.
I find nothing all that compelling to dismiss the traditional view, but I do entertain an alternate year Christ was crucified based on astronomy because it never hurt to explore something like that. It renders the argument that the Scriptures explicitly say three days and nights moot, whether the actual year traditionally held is exact or not.
Grace and peace,
Mark
I find it unlikely you could offend me, I was just explaining that sometimes in apologetics exploring an alternative view or, reading of the text, is helpful. You know, just for the sake of argument. Actually it wasn't the OP that drew my attention to this, one Easter my daughter brought this up, just from her reading of the text. I told her any part of the day was considered a day and some scholars have suggested it might have been Wednesday or Thursday. She's going to El Salvador this summer after her annual summer camp counselor deal she does ever year. I enjoy unraveling a question like this, it's more like a puzzle then anything to me.Grace and peace to you.
I hesitated for a long time over posting a message like that. It's not about "being right" (if I am it has nothing to do with me but only the witness of Christianity - none of us were there so none can take credit for what we think we know), but I do start to worry when suppositions become too central to how people think about theology. That post definitely wasn't directed to any particular person though. It was mostly for the OP. That's why I put the post I actually replied to at the end. I hope I haven't offended.
God be with you.
Thank you, I understand. And you are very kind.I find it unlikely you could offend me, I was just explaining that sometimes in apologetics exploring an alternative view or, reading of the text, is helpful. You know, just for the sake of argument. Actually it wasn't the OP that drew my attention to this, one Easter my daughter brought this up, just from her reading of the text. I told her any part of the day was considered a day and some scholars have suggested it might have been Wednesday or Thursday. She's going to El Salvador this summer after her annual summer camp counselor deal she does ever year. I enjoy unraveling a question like this, it's more like a puzzle then anything to me.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Yea I remember that your a teacher, Bethany is studying education herself. It was one of those things I thought had an easy answer but as I looked into it thought there might be alternatives.Thank you, I understand. And you are very kind.
Children often point out the most extraordinary things in our faith. I taught early elementary ages in Church this year. They needed someone to teach teens next year, and I relate a bit better with older ones so I volunteered, since the younger ones can be covered. I'm sure teens will have their own insights. But I've always enjoyed the sometimes profound questions of little ones.
I pray your daughter has a safe and fruitful trip.
God be with you.
You still have not answered the question which I asked multiple times. Was he in the tomb Thursday night?You have been given plausible explanations. You offer NO refutation, you just ignore them because you want to. You think that makes you right?
I HAVE answered it. You're either not reading it at all, or ignoring it, or simply can't comprehend it.You still have not answered the question which I asked multiple times. Was he in the tomb Thursday night?
I don't know, would maybe be a wrong answer, because that's what I'm getting from the subject matter.I HAVE answered it. You're either not reading it at all, or ignoring it, or simply can't comprehend it.
No normal person can comprehend the logic/reason that's been presentedI HAVE answered it. You're either not reading it at all, or ignoring it, or simply can't comprehend it.
Yeah, right. As I figured, you're just going to reject whatever anyone says because you just need Christianity to be wrong.No normal person can comprehend the logic/reason that's been presented
It is definitely idiomatic. The thing is, "three days and nights" is used and can mean any part of three days (it can even mean "the day after tomorrow" since you would count today) and it can also mean any part of three days and nights. Point is, it is less specific. However, once you include "and nights" (i.e. three days AND nights) it remains idiomatic as it is not speaking of 72 literal hours, but it does encompass the need to have a part in both three consecutive days and three consecutive nights.Additionally, Mark 8:31 says, "And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again." Yet, 1 Cor. 15:4 says, "and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." Also, Luke 24:5-7, "and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, 'Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.'" Here we can see that "after three days" is equivalent to mean "on the third day."
Therefore, we can see that because of the Jewish usage of counting any part of a day as the whole of the day, the term "three days and nights" is idiomatic and not literal.
How long was Jesus dead in the tomb? | CARM.org
The problem is, we don't know for certain what year this was... he might have been born in 2BC (I tend to lean here) but it may have been 4 or even 6BC (I have heard good arguments for each). And, because this is before the advent of the Hebrew Calendar (4th century, Hillel 2) we know it was done purely by sighting the luminaries and no records remain as they were destroyed with the Temple in 70AD. So, we really can't nail this down 100% one way or the other. I will tag you in my next post once I find the article I wrote on counting from the prior Sunday.More and more I'm liking the idea we got the date wrong, if its 31AD he is crucified on Passover Wednesday, Thursday would be a Sabbath then Friday the women get a chance to get the burial spices together, following the weekly Sabbath to go to the tomb.
The problem is, we don't know for certain what year this was... he might have been born in 2BC (I tend to lean here) but it may have been 4 or even 6BC (I have heard good arguments for each). And, because this is before the advent of the Hebrew Calendar (4th century, Hillel 2) we know it was done purely by sighting the luminaries and no records remain as they were destroyed with the Temple in 70AD. So, we really can't nail this down 100% one way or the other. I will tag you in my next post once I find the article I wrote on counting from the prior Sunday.
That is my point... we don't know what year and since Passover (the 14th of Nisan) isn't a Sabbath but when it comes to an end, the 15th is... then him having to be taken down before sundown (this the beginning of Sabbath) by no means has to be a weekly Sabbath (i.e. Friday night/Saturday) but rather can be any day because the first day of Unleavened Bread (the 15th of Nisan) is a high Sabbath.The census may be a called off one, and not recorded properly. So it can be any year from 6BC to AD. And whenever Passover is concerned, there could be Sabbaths which are not necessarily a Saturday. I believe that a Thursday crucifixion is possible. Thus Friday is the 1st day after His crucifixion, Saturday is the 2nd day, Sunday is the third day after His crucifixion on which He was raised.
The 3 nights are Thursday night, Friday night and Saturday night. The 3 days are Friday morning, Saturday morning and Sunday morning.
Something tells me that will save me some time in the future, since these question do come up. What I find most compelling about the 33AD Crucifixion is that, that's what the church has always taught, they had their reasons for that. I look forward to reading the article.The problem is, we don't know for certain what year this was... he might have been born in 2BC (I tend to lean here) but it may have been 4 or even 6BC (I have heard good arguments for each). And, because this is before the advent of the Hebrew Calendar (4th century, Hillel 2) we know it was done purely by sighting the luminaries and no records remain as they were destroyed with the Temple in 70AD. So, we really can't nail this down 100% one way or the other. I will tag you in my next post once I find the article I wrote on counting from the prior Sunday.
I don't fault people long gone, but there are some traditions that are clearly not correct. The big that jumps out is the location of Mt. Sinai. If you look at where the Israelites were while in Egypt, and then have them cross the Red Sea and then go to that mountain... one has to just scratch his head wondering why anyone listened to Helena when she declared Sinai to be on the west side (the wrong side) of the Red Sea.Something tells me that will save me some time in the future, since these question do come up. What I find most compelling about the 33AD Crucifixion is that, that's what the church has always taught, they had their reasons for that. I look forward to reading the article.
Grace and peace,
Mark
The thing with the crossing of the Red Sea, is it's popular to call it the sea of Reeds and dismiss it that way. The thing with the resurrection is that if it's 31 AD or 34 AD, the problem goes away, and there's plenty of room for that. The traditional view that any part of the day was considered a day, makes a lot of sense, since that's a time tested literature feature of the ancient Hebrews. These possibilities are not mutually exclusive but the challenge becomes how you connect the dots. Getting three days and nights isn't a question of getting it to come out to 72 hours, it simply doesn't work that way. The bigger question as you have pointed out, is how we connect the crucifixion to the rest of the timeline of the New Testament.I don't fault people long gone, but there are some traditions that are clearly not correct. The big that jumps out is the location of Mt. Sinai. If you look at where the Israelites were while in Egypt, and then have them cross the Red Sea and then go to that mountain... one has to just scratch his head wondering why anyone listened to Helena when she declared Sinai to be on the west side (the wrong side) of the Red Sea.I see the same reasoning, or lack of it, with a Friday crucifixion. Because he was resurrected before sunrise on Sunday, then we just can't get to three days and nights no matter how we stretch. I can make it work if he didn't include "and nights," but since he did, we have to factor that in.
Anyway... I have been busy today but will post later. Blessings.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?