Three Days and Three Nights

[WolfInOxHide]

Are you saying He celebrated the Last Supper on Wednesday?

Yes. To the best of my reckoning, because:
Wed: day before passover.
Thr: first day of passover (8 day span), preparation day, the day the lambs are killed and eaten, chamatz removed, unleavened bread baked (and eaten)
Fri: first day of feast of unleavened bread. (7 day span, 1st and 7th are special sabbaths)

The obvious argument against this is that English bibles say they ate on the first day of passover.
But in the greek, "de" which was combined in translation to the word next to it, has a "to happen next" connotation. It can just as easily say "next came the first day of passover" rather than "on the first day of passover"

Note that Jesus gave his disciples instructions on explaining to the man, why they were preparing for passover. Had it been on first day of passover, this explanation would not have been needed. He also explained to them that he would celebrate passover with them, after they asked Him where. So why?
Because they were talking about tomorrow and He was talking about tonight. And if you've ever made unleavened bread (coarse flour, water and oil, that's all), it's like a brick the next day, so none would have been made on Wed.

There are probably dozens of arguments in all kinds of directions but the primary points here are:
1. On the surface, scripture appears to contradict itself in at least 3 ways on the issue.
2. Whether or not one believes He was there for 3 days and 3 nights.

I believe He was there 3 days and 3 nights. The only way to count and barely get that duration is as I described, meaning Thursday crucifixion, and contradicting other scripture unless you study the word "de" deeply. (deeply meaning: beyond strongs haphazard "references")

I'll tell you one thing for sure, you're going to need to get a pen and paper and start drawing "days" and "nights" to get anywhere with it, because it's a trainwreck unless you just believe friday evening to sunday dawn is 3 days and nights, when it is really 1 day and 2 nights. You can squeeze a 2nd day out of that by counting in advance, but you still get thrown back to thursday if you want more than 2.

And if you want to get really deep, you can count things up and show that His ministry was 490 days instead of 3 years, and that Judas screwed up the peace halfway through the last week (3.5 days, wed. night at the last supper). Per Daniel.

Just drivel for those of us who want to know, otherwise, just take up the stick and follow.

Peace.

 

[rstrats]

Colbus,

Do you have any information with regard to the request in the OP?

 

[Cobus]

Rstrats here in South Africa there was a rumour about an ugly verse... people that claim there was a verse that suggests that it was better to sleep with a whore than to masterbate..... And there is no such verse. Both is wrong, and God will not promte one sin over another.

So here goes about the time and days and years... God says in Genesis 1 that the day and the night should be devided! That they should be signs and for seasons, and for days and years. This makes it clear, that God intended a day to have and evening preseing the day, and they should be counted as such. If we count parts of days as days, we will mix up the seasons and years.

I have no proof that Israel did mix it up, but for the proof that they did not eat that last Supper as Jesus did. They were one day later. So i guess they did mix it up!

I think even if Israel does whatever they do, God's advice stands, and I count a day as an evening and a day! Also about Daniel and his timeline, with God's advice we get close if not spot on!

I hope this helps.

 

[WolfInOxHide]

Sorry OP, I thought the previous Genesis quote was enough to give an example of counting days in advance.

"the evening and the morning were the first day"

Noting that the evening 12 hrs have been counted in retrospect
And
Noting that the daytime 12 hrs have been counted in advance, by means of using the word "morning", even though the 12 hours of daylight have yet to occur.
"Morning" is enough to complete "day one", rather than saying "the next evening"
The count was a finished deal, while the day was not.

Other than that, it's just observation of non-western societies that they count this way, and others.
For example, Vietnamese traditionally count your approximate date of conception as your birthday, even though on paper they count it like we do. This reference comes from my modern Vietnamese family members in reference to my half-vietnamese daughter. I know this is not an applicable reference, just an example of how everyone doesn't count like we currently do. I have no "paper" references for you except the logic in Genesis.

 

[Laodicea]

[FONT=&quot]2 Chronicles 10:5[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
(5) and he said unto them, come again unto me [/FONT][FONT=&quot]after three days.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] And the people departed.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2 Chronicles 10:12[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
(12) so jeroboam and all the people came to rehoboam on the third day, as the king bade, saying, come again to me [/FONT][FONT=&quot]on the third day.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Esther 4:16[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
(16) go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink [/FONT][FONT=&quot]three days, night or day[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: i also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will i go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if i perish, i perish.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Esther 5:1[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
(1) now it came to pass [/FONT][FONT=&quot]on the third day[/FONT][FONT=&quot], that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king's house, over against the king's house: and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the gate of the house.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Genesis 42:17-18[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
(17) and he put them all together into ward [/FONT][FONT=&quot]three days.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
(18) and Joseph said unto them [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the third day, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]this do, and live; for I fear God:
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Matthew 27:62-64[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
(62) now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
(63) saying, sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]after three days[/FONT][FONT=&quot] I will rise again.
(64) Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the third day, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, he is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]In these texts after 3 days meant on the third day[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[/FONT]

 

[WolfInOxHide]

I have no "paper" references for you except the logic in Genesis.

Fortunately, Laodicea wasn't too lazy to dig them up. After=On.

 

[kenisyes]

Yes. To the best of my reckoning, because:
Wed: day before passover.
Thr: first day of passover (8 day span), preparation day, the day the lambs are killed and eaten, chamatz removed, unleavened bread baked (and eaten)
Fri: first day of feast of unleavened bread. (7 day span, 1st and 7th are special sabbaths)

The obvious argument against this is that English bibles say they ate on the first day of passover.
But in the greek, "de" which was combined in translation to the word next to it, has a "to happen next" connotation. It can just as easily say "next came the first day of passover" rather than "on the first day of passover"

Note that Jesus gave his disciples instructions on explaining to the man, why they were preparing for passover. Had it been on first day of passover, this explanation would not have been needed. He also explained to them that he would celebrate passover with them, after they asked Him where. So why?
Because they were talking about tomorrow and He was talking about tonight. And if you've ever made unleavened bread (coarse flour, water and oil, that's all), it's like a brick the next day, so none would have been made on Wed.

There are probably dozens of arguments in all kinds of directions but the primary points here are:
1. On the surface, scripture appears to contradict itself in at least 3 ways on the issue.
2. Whether or not one believes He was there for 3 days and 3 nights.

I believe He was there 3 days and 3 nights. The only way to count and barely get that duration is as I described, meaning Thursday crucifixion, and contradicting other scripture unless you study the word "de" deeply. (deeply meaning: beyond strongs haphazard "references")

I'll tell you one thing for sure, you're going to need to get a pen and paper and start drawing "days" and "nights" to get anywhere with it, because it's a trainwreck unless you just believe friday evening to sunday dawn is 3 days and nights, when it is really 1 day and 2 nights. You can squeeze a 2nd day out of that by counting in advance, but you still get thrown back to thursday if you want more than 2.

And if you want to get really deep, you can count things up and show that His ministry was 490 days instead of 3 years, and that Judas screwed up the peace halfway through the last week (3.5 days, wed. night at the last supper). Per Daniel.

Just drivel for those of us who want to know, otherwise, just take up the stick and follow.

Peace.

Simply mentioning that Wednesday evening was Thursday (you're right of course) solves so many problems, it's unbelievable. First, I have been trying to locate the year forever But there is no Thursday with a full moon anywhere in the range between 25 and 34 AD, the only possible years for Jesus to have been age 30 and dying 2-3 years later, even counting 7BC as a possible birthdate. But when I looked again, based on Wednesday night being Thursday, there it was, right at 27AD. (This uses the astro-calendar in the Online Bible Program. This fixes Jesus' birthdate at 7 or 6 BC, depending on whether the ministry was 2 or 3 years, in exact agreement with whether your 490 days is right. Finally a chronology that matches the astronomy that explains what could have been the star!

If one goes by Zechariah's temple service (based on the Chronicles order of service), Jesus was born at Tabernacles, give or take a few days. There are those who feel the Temple calendar is wrong, and the Dead Sea Scrolls calendar scroll is the one God intends. Their system places His birth at Passover. If your 490 days is correct, then suddenly Jesus was about 30 yr. old when He started, because, just after He celebrated Tabernacles 25AD for the last time as a "carpenter", He celebrated His birthday, got baptized by John, and spent 40 days in the desert. That starts His ministry on almost exactly the first of Kislev, and that's (if there was no intercalary month) 490 days. That chronology proves their whole system wrong, as I have suspected for quite some time. That just feels like the Jesus I know. He fulfilled every prophecy, so there could be no doubt about who He was.

Paul was martyred in 64, that's now 37 years after Jesus died. And now we can account for Paul's life better, as it took several years for him to get to the point where he would be known as a persecutor of Jews. I've always felt we needed about 5 more years than the traditions gave us.

But that means that every church tradition is wrong. Actually. I'm not surprised.

The trick with unleavened bread is rolling it out flat and punching holes in it.

 

[kenisyes]

(Was it a special Sabbath or the regular Sabbath?)

The first day of passover was reckoned as a Sabbath.

 

[WolfInOxHide]

But when I looked again, based on Wednesday night being Thursday, there it was, right at 27AD.

Yeah I saw that too once, one also in 32AD if I remember. And there's some way to show date of birth in like 3 or 4 BC by using outside historical docs which would make Him like 30 to 31 or so in 27AD.
I don't remember the details on that one though, except it is centered around the time that the census was taken and then showing death of Herod matching a lunar eclipse in 1 BC instead of 4 BC.

 

[Laodicea]

Luke 23:54-56
(54) and that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on.
(55) And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
(56) and they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment.
Luke 24:1
(1) now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.



[FONT=&quot]Notice that these texts have 3 days , preparation, Sabbath and the first day.

[/FONT]

 

[kenisyes]

Yeah I saw that too once, one also in 32AD if I remember. And there's some way to show date of birth in like 3 or 4 BC by using outside historical docs which would make Him like 30 to 31 or so in 27AD.
I don't remember the details on that one though, except it is centered around the time that the census was taken and then showing death of Herod matching a lunar eclipse in 1 BC instead of 4 BC.

Another confirmation is the "we have seen his star in the east", by their culture was a conjunction of three planets, I think Jupiter, Saturn and one other. The symbols of the planets meant new beginning, king and Israel. Our computers calculate that phenomenon to 7-6 BC, or some say 4BC. It could have taken the wise men a year to figure out they should make the trip. All sources agree this way, with the one minor change.

I checked 32, next possibility is 35 AD, way too late.

 

[kenisyes]

Yes. To the best of my reckoning, because:
Wed: day before passover.
Thr: first day of passover (8 day span), preparation day, the day the lambs are killed and eaten, chamatz removed, unleavened bread baked (and eaten)
Fri: first day of feast of unleavened bread. (7 day span, 1st and 7th are special sabbaths)

The obvious argument against this is that English bibles say they ate on the first day of passover.
But in the greek, "de" which was combined in translation to the word next to it, has a "to happen next" connotation. It can just as easily say "next came the first day of passover" rather than "on the first day of passover"

Note that Jesus gave his disciples instructions on explaining to the man, why they were preparing for passover. Had it been on first day of passover, this explanation would not have been needed. He also explained to them that he would celebrate passover with them, after they asked Him where. So why?
Because they were talking about tomorrow and He was talking about tonight. And if you've ever made unleavened bread (coarse flour, water and oil, that's all), it's like a brick the next day, so none would have been made on Wed.

There are probably dozens of arguments in all kinds of directions but the primary points here are:
1. On the surface, scripture appears to contradict itself in at least 3 ways on the issue.
2. Whether or not one believes He was there for 3 days and 3 nights.

I believe He was there 3 days and 3 nights. The only way to count and barely get that duration is as I described, meaning Thursday crucifixion, and contradicting other scripture unless you study the word "de" deeply. (deeply meaning: beyond strongs haphazard "references")

I'll tell you one thing for sure, you're going to need to get a pen and paper and start drawing "days" and "nights" to get anywhere with it, because it's a trainwreck unless you just believe friday evening to sunday dawn is 3 days and nights, when it is really 1 day and 2 nights. You can squeeze a 2nd day out of that by counting in advance, but you still get thrown back to thursday if you want more than 2.

And if you want to get really deep, you can count things up and show that His ministry was 490 days instead of 3 years, and that Judas screwed up the peace halfway through the last week (3.5 days, wed. night at the last supper). Per Daniel.

Just drivel for those of us who want to know, otherwise, just take up the stick and follow.

Peace.

I'm bringing this thread back, because I was just doing a study on Hannukah, and I note that John's Gospel seems to list 4 passovers in Jesus' ministry time: 2:13; 6:4; 11:55; and of course the last at which He was crucified. Can this be reconciled with the 490 days?

 

[WolfInOxHide]

I'm bringing this thread back, because I was just doing a study on Hannukah, and I note that John's Gospel seems to list 4 passovers in Jesus' ministry time: 2:13; 6:4; 11:55; and of course the last at which He was crucified. Can this be reconciled with the 490 days?

Here's how I read it.
John 2:13 Passover #1
John 4:35 Early days of counting of omer, 4+ months until fall harvest
John 5:1 "Auxiliary Passover" Pesach Sheni, one month after normal passover
John 6:4 "Auxiliary Passover" Pesach Sheni, from 5:1 has now "drawn nigh"
John 7:2 Feast of Tabernacles
John 10:22 Feast of dedication in winter (became Hanukah)
John 11:55+ Passover #2, same one as crucifixion

Chapter 6 feeds the multitude...
They can't eat new barley bread until the first fruits of it are offered on passover.
There would not have been enough left from last year to go and buy for a multitude, which was offered as a solution. Therefore, not a "passover draws nigh" condition.
Jesus broke barley loaves and fish. The loaves and the option to buy a lot of it would only be readily available after a normal passover, but quickly, during the omer counting 7 week harvest season.
It would have been available for "make up" passover a month after passover.
I also wonder if sitting in much grass on a mountain has a clue about the time of year for the multitude feeding, but I don't know enough about that area's agriculture and climate.

I don't think the Pharisees could have put up with Jesus for more than a year without dying from stress induced heart attack lol.

So there's a one year period, the rest of the missing 490 days being spread on either side of it to include Jesus pre-passover ministry and post resurrection ministry.

There's also the theory that 6:4 did not exist in older sources and was added. This could peg the 2 unidentified feasts a little differently, and actually fill in the summer and fall smoother than "pesach sheni".

 

[loveme1]

Luke 2

Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. 42And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. 43And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. 44But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. 45And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. 46And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. 47And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. 48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? 50And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. 51And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

52And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

This is so humbling.

 

[kenisyes]

There's also the theory that 6:4 did not exist in older sources and was added. This could peg the 2 unidentified feasts a little differently, and actually fill in the summer and fall smoother than "pesach sheni".

I knew you'd know the answer. Thanks. It does not matter if 6:4 was added; the additional mention of passover is clearly there to explain why Jesus thought about multiplying the loaves. Pesach Sheni was there to catch the people who missed it the first time (Num. 9:11). That's what Jesus was doing, first He caught those who missed the healing waters, then the people who missed lunch.

 

[WolfInOxHide]

That's what Jesus was doing, first He caught those who missed the healing waters, then the people who missed lunch.

Nice. I like that.

 

[rstrats]

WolfInOxHide Offline,

re: "Sorry OP, I thought the previous Genesis quote was enough to give an example of counting days in advance."


I guess I'm just not smart enough to see how your Genesis example is in anyway responsive to my question in the OP.


Perhaps someone new looking in will have some documentation.

 

[rstrats]

Laodicea,

None of your references use the phrase "x" days and "x" nights. But even if they did, nothing in them precludes at least parts of "x" nighttime and at least parts of "x" daytime periods.

 

[rstrats]

Maybe a rewording of the OP will make my request a little clearer: Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a "discussion" with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently suggest that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutely doesn't/can't include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?

 

[rstrats]

Since it has again been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of some writing.