The Hoax of the Three Days and Three Nights

[lucaspa]

Okay, no eyewitness, thank you. It means that the whole thing about the resurrection of Jesus is relegated into a matter of faith. Therefore, there is no such a thing as eyewitnesses to the risen Christ.

Two different things here. There were eyewitnesses to the risen Christ. That's how the resurrection was deduced. A dead Jesus, then a living, physical, walking, talking Jesus. That's exactly what you said. Therefore, you statement "To appear after one's suffering (on the cross) is not proof even that he died;" What you are trying to do is call into question whether Jesus was actually dead.

There is overwhelming evidence that this was the case. When the guards came around to break the legs of the prisoners -- so they would be dead in time to be buried before the sabbath -- they did not break the legs of Jesus. He was already dead.

However, if you want to argue that Jesus was only unconscious, there you have the problem of how people die from crucifixion. They die of suffocation. As a person hangs by the arms, this places extreme strain o the muscles of the chest. They spasm and the victim stops breathing. The reason crucifixion was so painful is that, to relieve the chest muscles, a person had to stand on the nailed feet. If the Romans wanted a victim to last longer, they put a small board behind their buttocks so the victim could partially rest their weight there.

So, breaking the legs means the victim can no longer put weight on his feet, thus triggering the muscle spasms and suffocation. If Jesus were unconscious, it also means that he couldn't put weight on the feet. Therefore, for crucifixion, unconsciousness is death.

If Jesus had temporarily stopped breathing, then he would have had to start breathing between the time they took him down, got him to the tomb, and wrapped him. If he were not breathing during all that time, then he was dead. If instead he gasped during that process (as he would have had to restart his breathing), then it would have been noticed and he never would have been put in the tomb.

So, Jesus was dead.

Second, no one is disputing that faith in the resurrection is faith. Faith does not mean "no evidence" or "contrary to evidence". Faith means "evidence that is not available to everyone under approximately the same circumstances". We have no evidence of the resurrection that has survived until the present. We believe the major points of the accounts. That does not mean that every detail has to be true. See below for my discussion of Matthew's 3 days and 3 nights. In fact, I would expect details of the 4 accounts to differ. If they did not, then I would be very suspicious that someone made the story up and everyone agreed to it. Look at how police and investigators consider the stories of eyewitnesses today. If the stories are identical, that is a sign of fabrication.

I believe that the only one who could provide the missing body was Joseph of Arimathea. But he was much more smart than that. He knew that Pilate would not only get Jesus back on the cross but also Joseph himself for having cheated on him. So, Joseph had to leave Israel with Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Don't forget that after those 40 days nothing was ever heard about these three people again.

1. Joseph provided the tomb. But more than one person placed Jesus in the tomb. Are you saying that Joseph took the body?

2. Instead, you think Jesus, Joseph, and Mary pulled a scam. What's the motive for Joseph and Mary? You have Mary being that good an actress? Remember, she was one of those that went to the tomb on Sunday. She fooled everyone that she was surprised?

3. That's a huge leap that nothing was ever heard of Joseph or Mary Magdalene ever again. What we have is that the gospels and Acts does not mention them. But neither are exhaustive histories! Both were written for theological purposes, not as histories as we understand the term. Therefore the axiom "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" applies here.

So, the major accusation is that the disciples stole the body. I recommend you to read my thread, "A Challenge to Our Intelligence" in this non-Christian area of the Forum.

That was the major accusation. Provide a link and I might look this up.

Actually, the third day would have started at sundown on Saturday. You seem to be nitpicking Matthew's choice of "3 days and 3 nights". Is that really critical? Do either Mark, Luke, or John insist on 3 nights? No. All the gospels were written for theological purposes. Matthew specifically was writing to Jews. Notice his birth narrative differs markedly from Luke's. Matthew constructs Jesus' birth and subsequent events to make Jesus into Moses for that generation. What happened to Moses tends to happen to Jesus. That is so his Jewish audience would have an easier time accepting Jesus as Messiah. I haven't researched the Jewish significance of "3 days and 3 nights" but I suspect there was one.

 

[lucaspa]

-----------------

I mean someone who actually saw the resurrection. An empty tomb is not proof of resurrection. You have witnesses who saw Jesus after his crucifixion, and this does not mean that he had resurrected. Why don't you take a look at Acts 1:3. Luke says that Jesus showed himself alive for 40 days "after his suffering," which obviously he meant the cross. To be seen alive after one's suffering or passion does not prove even that he died, let alone that he resurrected. Please, I am not making up anything, but working on evidences.

I submit that you are working on cherry-picking quotes out of context. Luke in the gospel of Luke is quite clear that Jesus was dead, isn't he? So what we have in Acts is poetic language.

We do not require direct observation in real time to "see" something. After all, no one "actually saw" humans evolve from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Before there were fossils discovered, Huxley and others "saw" this by looking at humans and chimps. You are talking about a "before" and "after", but even here we don't have to "actually see" the process to be able to deduce the process occurred and say we "saw" it. Let me give just one example (out of thousands), this one from undergraduate chemistry:
One experiment involved reacting organic acid with an alcohol to get an ester. Esters have distinctive odors that depend on the acid and alcohol used. My reaction produced an ester that smelled like bananas. My lab partner and I knew we had succeeded when we began smelling bananas. Did we ever "actually see" the 2 molecules actually come together to form an ester? No. We knew we had those 2 chemicals and that we got the reaction product. We DEDUCED the reaction took place, but never directly observed it. The reaction happened in the recent past.

This is exactly what the disciples and we are doing with the resurrection. There is a previous state -- a dead Jesus -- and a subsequent state: a physically living Jesus. The "resurrection" is the deduced process connecting those 2 states.

If you say we cannot do this, then you have to be prepared to throw out nearly all of science.

 

[Van]

Let's see, the puzzle has been explained - three days and three nights is a Jewish idiom for the day after tomorrow. Next, a NT reference to an eyewitness of the resurrection is said to not exist because no one is recorded as seeing Jesus leave the tomb. But since John saw Jesus die on the cross and saw the resurrected Jesus, that makes him an eyewitness to the resurrection. Using that meaning, then anyone who saw Jesus die on the cross and then saw the resurrected Jesus is an eyewitness to the resurrection. And we can expand it further, say someone like Paul had heard that Jesus had died on the cross, and then "saw" the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus, would that not make him an eyewitness to the resurrection? I think so.
Bottom line, the effort to claim there are no NT eyewitnesses to the resurrection is a hoax, an effort to disparage Christianity and spread confusion by the clever use of words. The issue is not whether someone saw Jesus leave the tomb, the issue is did folks see Christ's dead body put into the tomb, then subsequently saw and talked to the risen Christ? And the answer is yes.

 

[Standing Up]

-----------------

I mean someone who actually saw the resurrection.

You are right that no one was physically inside the tomb of Christ at the moment He was resurrected. That'd be very weird, right, for someone alive to live inside a tomb?

Anyway, the first example of eyewitnesses are the guards who felt the earthquake, saw the angel of the LORD descend, saw the tomb stone rolled back, saw the One who was dead come forth alive with a lightening like countenance dressed in whiter than white raiment, and then they (the guards) fall down as dead.

The guards witnessed the resurrection some, what, 8 seconds after it took place?

Some report and take the money. Some believe.

Another group are those at Mt. 27:52-53. Most Christians don't understand the reference, let alone unbelievers. But there it is.

The other witnesses (women, disciples) saw Christ hours after the resurrection.

An empty tomb is not proof of resurrection. You have witnesses who saw Jesus after his crucifixion, and this does not mean that he had resurrected. Why don't you take a look at Acts 1:3. Luke says that Jesus showed himself alive for 40 days "after his suffering," which obviously he meant the cross. To be seen alive after one's suffering or passion does not prove even that he died, let alone that he resurrected. Please, I am not making up anything, but working on evidences.
Ben

Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:


Luke 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

Clearly, the idea of suffering included His death.

As a matter of fact, if you understand that Christ always included His sufferings/betrayal when explaining His death, burial, and resurrection, like shown above at Luke 24:46, you will be well on your way to understanding His sign of 3 days and 3 nights. Sufferings to glory on the third day. Sufferings on the first day/night to resurrection on the third day. (Evening 1, day 1 (sufferings, crucifixion). Evening 2, day 2 (burial). Evening 3, day 3, (resurrection).

 

[ebia]

-----------------

I mean someone who actually saw the resurrection. An empty tomb is not proof of resurrection. You have witnesses who saw Jesus after his crucifixion, and this does not mean that he had resurrected. Why don't you take a look at Acts 1:3. Luke says that Jesus showed himself alive for 40 days "after his suffering," which obviously he meant the cross. To be seen alive after one's suffering or passion does not prove even that he died, let alone that he resurrected. Please, I am not making up anything, but working on evidences.
Ben

There were witnesses to his crucifixion, and historically the crucifixion is not in doubt, so lets no muddy the waters unnecessarily.

You are correct to say that nobody actually witnessed the moment of his resurrection. What they did witness was a empty tomb, and the risen Jesus saying he was resurrected which pretty much necessarly implies he was resurrected. if the body is gone and there is a risen Jesus he must have risen.

If you have witnesses who saw the car speeding down the road at 180km/h, and then further down the road witness the car smashed to bits next to a large tree, one reasonably infers that a crash happened between the two.

 

[Ben007]

You are correct to say that nobody actually witnessed the moment of his resurrection. What they did witness was a empty tomb, and the risen Jesus saying he was resurrected which pretty much necessarly implies he was resurrected. if the body is gone and there is a risen Jesus he must have risen.

--------------------
"And the risen Jesus saying he was resurrected!" Where is it written?

 

[Ben007]

Sufferings on the first day/night to resurrection on the third day. (Evening 1, day 1 (sufferings, crucifixion). Evening 2, day 2 (burial). Evening 3, day 3, (resurrection).

----------------

Evening 1, Friday night. Evening 2, Saturday night. Where is evening 3? Are you trying to make a full out of me?

 

[Van]

The actual hoax being perpetrated here, is the hoax of a supposed contradiction.

Three days and three nights is just a manner of speaking, a Jewish idiom for the day after tomorrow. Thus Sunday is "three days and three nights" from Friday. The hoax is to claim the author meant three daylight periods and three nighttime periods, when that is simply not so.

Let's see, the puzzle has been explained - three days and three nights is a Jewish idiom for the day after tomorrow. Next, a NT reference to an eyewitness of the resurrection is said to not exist because no one is recorded as seeing Jesus leave the tomb. But since John saw Jesus die on the cross and saw the resurrected Jesus, that makes him an eyewitness to the resurrection. Using that meaning, then anyone who saw Jesus die on the cross and then saw the resurrected Jesus is an eyewitness to the resurrection. And we can expand it further, say someone like Paul had heard that Jesus had died on the cross, and then "saw" the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus, would that not make him an eyewitness to the resurrection? I think so.
Bottom line, the effort to claim there are no NT eyewitnesses to the resurrection is a hoax, an effort to disparage Christianity and spread confusion by the clever use of words. The issue is not whether someone saw Jesus leave the tomb, the issue is did folks see Christ's dead body put into the tomb, then subsequently saw and talked to the risen Christ? And the answer is yes.

The puzzle has been solved and the hoax revealed.

 

[Standing Up]

----------------

Evening 1, Friday night. Evening 2, Saturday night. Where is evening 3? Are you trying to make a full out of me?

No. Not a fool. The problem is I agree with you, but from Scripture and Tradition, I know the truth of what happened.

Mentioned early on that the understanding of the sign of Jonah is different from tradition, we have to listen to Jesus.

It is true that at times, the Bible calls a part of a day "a day". It is also true that when it speaks of a "night/day", it is speaking of the whole.

Mt. 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Going into Jerusalem and suffering/betrayal is the starting time. He does not associate the 3 days/nights with "being killed". Never does He do this with disciples. He does say sign of Jonah to non-disciples, but to disciples He always explains it as sufferings to glory.

Lk. 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

So, 3 nights/3 days begins at sufferings and ends at resurrection. The question is when did sufferings begin and when did glory begin?

Fri-Sun, you are right, is not fulfillment of His prophecy about Himself.

Without going into detail, the other tradition that existed some 2000 years ago taught Passover to resurrection as the fulfillment of the sign of Jonah. Those who disagreed worked to change it. Obviously they did not want that to be known. I mean it is a decision. Here is Messiah who said 3 nights/3 days. Well Fri-Sun obviously doesn't fit the prophecy; therefore, rejection.

It didn't work that way. The apostles taught faithful men who taught the next generation.

They (and scripture) taught evening/sunset Passover begins on Thursday the 14th. Christ dies in the afternoon of the 14th. That's the "from sufferings". Night 1 and day 1.

He is buried after evening/sunset on Friday as it began from Thursday. Night 2 and day 2.

He is resurrected at the end of Sabbath as our perpetual rest (Heb. 4). Night 3 and day 3.

It's all there in Scripture and Tradition.

 

[ebia]

--------------------
"And the risen Jesus saying he was resurrected!" Where is it written?

How could you read the interaction with Thomas, say, as anything other than that? Or Luke 24:36f ? Or Matthew 28:8-9 given what was said in the previous paragraph?

What the heck do you think is going on in those narratives if they are not about resurrection?

 

[Ben007]

No. Not a fool. The problem is I agree with you, but from Scripture and Tradition, I know the truth of what happened.

Mentioned early on that the understanding of the sign of Jonah is different from tradition, we have to listen to Jesus.

It is true that at times, the Bible calls a part of a day "a day". It is also true that when it speaks of a "night/day", it is speaking of the whole.

Mt. 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Going into Jerusalem and suffering/betrayal is the starting time. He does not associate the 3 days/nights with "being killed". Never does He do this with disciples. He does say sign of Jonah to non-disciples, but to disciples He always explains it as sufferings to glory.

Lk. 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

So, 3 nights/3 days begins at sufferings and ends at resurrection. The question is when did sufferings begin and when did glory begin?

Fri-Sun, you are right, is not fulfillment of His prophecy about Himself.

Without going into detail, the other tradition that existed some 2000 years ago taught Passover to resurrection as the fulfillment of the sign of Jonah. Those who disagreed worked to change it. Obviously they did not want that to be known. I mean it is a decision. Here is Messiah who said 3 nights/3 days. Well Fri-Sun obviously doesn't fit the prophecy; therefore, rejection.

It didn't work that way. The apostles taught faithful men who taught the next generation.

They (and scripture) taught evening/sunset Passover begins on Thursday the 14th. Christ dies in the afternoon of the 14th. That's the "from sufferings". Night 1 and day 1.

He is buried after evening/sunset on Friday as it began from Thursday. Night 2 and day 2.

He is resurrected at the end of Sabbath as our perpetual rest (Heb. 4). Night 3 and day 3.

It's all there in Scripture and Tradition.

-------------

Sorry pal, but the Passover of that year fell on the Sabbath, which was the 14th of Nisan. If you don't want to take the Jewish position for granted, check on Matthew 27:62. That was the Preparation Day and the next day was the Sabbath. In Judaism the day of Preparation is always the sixth day of the week. If this is not enough, you can check on John 19:31. John calls that Sabbath a solemn or high Sabbath. Why? Because according to Judaism every time a festival falls on the regular Sabbath, it makes of that Sabbath a Shabbaton. I mean, a high or solemn Sabbath. So, there is no point for you to make of Thursday the 14th of Nisan to try to solve the riddle, because it was not.
Ben

 

[Ben007]

The puzzle has been solved and the hoax revealed.

---------------

No, it has not. If the man had said three days/nights or in three days, there would be no puzzle to be revealed. But he specified three days and three nights. Now, we have got to account for those three days and three nights or parts of them respectively. The riddle goes on.
Ben

 

[ebia]

----------------

Jesus was a Jewish man who lived according to his faith, which was Judaism. Bodily resurrection is against the Scriptures. ...to accept the Hellenistic Pauline doctrine of bodily resurrection

Quite the reverse is true, as shown by N.T. Wright in Resurrection of the Son of God. Bodily resurrection is a thoroughly Jewish idea and and one greek thought rejected completely.

You've sidestepped the question - what do you think the texts in question are talking about if not bodily resurrection - the N.T. texts could hardly be clearer on the topic.?

 

[Ben007]

Quite the reverse is true, as shown by N.T. Wright in Resurrection of the Son of God. Bodily resurrection is a thoroughly Jewish idea and and one greek thought rejected completely.

You've sidestepped the question - what do you think the texts in question are talking about if not bodily resurrection - the N.T. texts could hardly be clearer on the topic.?

---------------

The idea of resurrection in Judaism is forwarded by Ezekiel 37:12. That's when Jewish exiles are over and God opens the graves of the nations and brings the Jews back to Israel. When Isaiah says in 53:8,9 that when Jews go to exile, it is as if they were cut off from the Land of the living and graves are assigned to them among the Gentiles. Therefore, at the end of the exile, resurrection takes place but metaphorically. That's all. But bodily resurrection is not Jewish but Christian. Therefore, you cannot pick up a religious Jew and say that he resurrected. It doesn't make sense. That's a distortion of Judaism.
Ben

 

[ebia]

---------------

The idea of resurrection in Judaism is forwarded by Ezekiel 37:12. That's when Jewish exiles are over and God opens the graves of the nations and brings the Jews back to Israel. When Isaiah says in 53:8,9 that when Jews go to exile, it is as if they were cut off from the Land of the living and graves are assigned to them among the Gentiles. Therefore, at the end of the exile, resurrection takes place but metaphorically. That's all. But bodily resurrection is not Jewish but Christian. Therefore, you cannot pick up a religious Jew and say that he resurrected. It doesn't make sense. That's a distortion of Judaism.
Ben

Again I refer you to Resurrection of the Son of God - the work of historical scholarship on the subject that shows you to be incorrect.

I also remind you that Exploring Christianity is not for debating and you are abusing it.

 

[Ben007]

Again I refer you to Resurrection of the Son of God - the work of historical scholarship on the subject that shows you to be incorrect.

I also remind you that Exploring Christianity is not for debating and you are abusing it.

---------------

The insecurity of faith never ceases amazing me!

 

[ebia]

---------------

The insecurity of faith never ceases amazing me!

I don't mind having a debate in the right context, and quite happily engaged in them when CF had a forum for apologetic debate. But apologetic debate is not the purpose of Exploring Christianity and is against its rules for that reason.

 

[98cwitr]

Okay, no eyewitness, thank you. It means that the whole thing about the resurrection of Jesus is relegated into a matter of faith. Therefore, there is no such a thing as eyewitnesses to the risen Christ. There were eyewitnesses that Jesus was not dead but alive as he himself proved so through many convincing ways, behaving as any human being does by eating and drinking. And take to memory what Luke says that Jesus appeared to his disciples for 40 days after his sufferings or passion. (Acts 1:3) To appear after one's suffering (on the cross) is not proof even that he died; let alone that he resurrected. Sorry Lucaspa.

there are plenty of accounts in the NT for Jesus physically DYING on the cross...to see Him again alive thus solidifies the claim of resurrection.

 

[Ben007]

there are plenty of accounts in the NT for Jesus physically DYING on the cross...to see Him again alive thus solidifies the claim of resurrection.

----------------

No, it does not. Recovery after a period of suffering or passion proves only that one did not die. The claim of resurrection came about 30 years later with Paul. He himself said to Timothy in his second letter 2:8, that Jesus resurrected according to his gospel. Why the need to specify "his gospel?" Obviously, because Paul was pioneer with the news about the resurrection.
Ben

 

[ebia]

----------------

No, it does not. Recovery after a period of suffering or passion proves only that one did not die. The claim of resurrection came about 30 years later with Paul. He himself said to Timothy in his second letter 2:8, that Jesus resurrected according to his gospel. Why the need to specify "his gospel?" Obviously, because Paul was pioneer with the news about the resurrection.
Ben

Roman soldiers don't fail to kill people - they were very good at it (and their lives and empire depended upon getting it right).

The claim of resurrection comes with our earliest accounts - that is indeed Paul (but 20 years later, not 30), but remember this is earlier than the gospels (which also claim resurrection in their different ways). What we can conclude has to be worked back from there. You act as though there is some other earlier account which doesn't have resurrection and supports your view, but no such account exists.

The earliest texts we have about Jesus talk about resurrection, all the early texts talk about resurrection, the almost universal consensus of historians is that Jesus was killed, and there is no-where for the idea of Jesus' resurrection to have come from except from seeing him die, seeing an empty tomb, and seeing him risen.