Good Friday and Easter Sunday

[RachelBibleStudent]

an increasingly popular claim today is the notion that jesus did not actually die on a friday...most commonly it is suggested that jesus died on a wednesday...others have suggested that jesus died on a thursday or even a tuesday...a few people have even argued that jesus did not rise from the dead on a sunday!

however this view is mistaken...as i will show in this thread...jesus -did- die on a friday and he -did- rise on a sunday and there is absolutely no alternative that does not contradict scripture...


to begin with...much of the confusion comes from misconceptions about the timing and duration of the passover or feast of unleavened bread... many are under the mistaken impression that passover and the feast of unleavened bread are two separate festivals...with the feast of unleavened bread beginning twenty-four hours after the passover seder...

but scripture indicates that this idea is incorrect...and shows that the terms 'passover' and 'feast of unleavened bread' are actually interchangeable names for the same seven day feast...

ezekiel 45:21..."In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall have the Passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten."
luke 22:1..."Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching."

furthermore scripture shows that the passover seder marked the first day of the feast unleavened bread...

matthew 26:17..."Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, 'Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?'"
mark 14:12..."On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, His disciples *said to Him, 'Where do You want us to go and prepare for You to eat the Passover?'"
luke 22:7..."Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed."

so the passover seder corresponded with the first day of the feast of unleavened bread...the feast of unleaved bread did -not- begin a day later as many people have assumed...

the feast of unleavened bread began on a fixed date in the hebrew calendar each year...specifically the fifteenth day of the month of abib...

leviticus 23:6..."Then on the fifteenth day of the same month there is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread."
numbers 28:17..."On the fifteenth day of this month shall be a feast, unleavened bread shall be eaten for seven days."

so the passover and feast of unleavened bread went as follows...

abib 15...first day of the feast of unleavened bread...beginning with passover seder...sacred assembly held...
abib 16...second day of the feast of unleavened bread...
abib 17...third day of the feast...
abib 18...fourth day...
abib 19...fifth day...
abib 20...sixth day...
abib 21...seventh day of the feast of unleavened bread...sacred assembly held...

someone will probably object that scripture states that the passover seder was held on the evening of the -fourteenth- day...implying that it was the fourteenth day when the seder was held...with the feast of unleavened bread not beginning until one day later on the fifteenth day...

but this notion is based on another misconception...it turns out that when scripture speaks of the evening of a certain day...it is actually indicating the -end- of that day and the -beginning- of the next day... this convention is clear from the scripture on the day of atonement...

leviticus 23:27-32..."On exactly the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement; it shall be a holy convocation for you, and you shall humble your souls and present an offering by fire to the Lord. You shall not do any work on this same day, for it is a day of atonement, to make atonement on your behalf before the Lord your God. If there is any person who will not humble himself on this same day, he shall be cut off from his people. As for any person who does any work on this same day, that person I will destroy from among his people. You shall do no work at all. It is to be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places. It is to be a sabbath of complete rest to you, and you shall humble your souls; on the ninth of the month at evening, from evening until evening you shall keep your sabbath."

it is clear from this scripture that the evening of the ninth day was regarded as the -ending- of the ninth day and the -beginning- of the tenth day which was the day of atonement...with the ninth day not actually being part of the day of atonement...

so applying scripture's own convention to passover and the feast of unleavened bread...it is equally clear that the evening of the passover seder was the -end- of the fourteenth day of the month and the -beginning- of the fifteenth day of the month...the fourteenth day itself was not part of the passover observance or the feast of unleavened bread...


having established that...we can say that anything that took place in the daylight hours immediately following the night of the seder happened on what scripture would call the fifteenth day...

that is significant because jesus was crucified in the daylight hours immediately following the night of the seder he held with his disciples...that means jesus was crucified on the fifteenth day of the month...


someone may try to argue that jesus' last supper was not actually the passover seder...but that is disproved by mark 14:12...which i quoted above...it clearly shows that the passover lambs were killed on the evening of the same day jesus' disciples obtained the use of the upper room for his last supper...so there is no doubt that the last supper was a passover seder...


having established that jesus was crucified on the fifteenth day of the month of abib...we now look to the fact that the day following jesus' crucifixion was a sabbath...

mark 15:42..."When evening had already come, because it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath,"
john 19:31..."Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away."

the entire basis of all 'anti good friday' arguments is the notion that this sabbath could have been one of the days of assembly associated with the feast of unleavened bread...however we can now see that this is impossible...

given that jesus was crucified on the fifteenth day of abib...it is clear that the sabbath of the following day would have fallen on the sixteenth day of abib...however in the laws regarding the passover and feast of unleavened bread there is no provision for a sabbath on the sixteenth day of abib...but only on the fifteenth and twenty-first days of the month...

in fact it is apparent that the sabbatical assembly was actually held on the day of the crucifixion...which likely explains how the jews were so quickly assembled before pilate to observe the trial of jesus...they would have been assembling anyway...

this all means that this sabbath can -only- be the weekly saturday sabbath...and if the day after jesus' crucifixion was a saturday...then jesus was crucified on a friday...


having established that jesus was crucified on a friday...it is relatively easy to prove that jesus rose on a sunday...here are the relevant scriptures...

matthew 28:1..."Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave."
mark 16:2..."Very early on the first day of the week, they *came to the tomb when the sun had risen."
mark 16:9..."Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons."
luke 24:1..."But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared."
john 20:1..."Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene *came early to the tomb, while it *was still dark, and *saw the stone already taken away from the tomb."

the unanimous testimony of all four gospel writers is pretty much non debateable...jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week...a sunday...


so in conclusion i have proven from scripture that jesus could not have been crucified on any other day but a friday...and that he rose from the dead on a sunday...scripture simply does not allow any alternative such as a wednesday crucifixion...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

the main motivation for denying that jesus was crucified on a friday and rose on a sunday seems to be a concern over the 'three days and three nights' that he spent in the tomb...however these objections are likewise based on a misconception...

it is deeply ironic that those who are the most emphatic about the need for a proper understanding of hebraic conventions are the ones insisting on imposing modern timekeeping conventions on the biblical text...

nowhere does scripture state that jesus spent seventy-two hours in the tomb...this is merely an -assumption- based on a totally anachronistic understanding of the phrase 'three days and three nights'

the reality is that the hebrews simply did not reckon days the way we do nowdays...they counted partial days as days in their own right...

i will now prove this from scripture...namely the story of cornelius in acts 10...the passage is lengthy so i will only quote the verses involving the passage of time...

acts 10:3..."About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, 'Cornelius!'"
acts 10:9..."On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray."
acts 10:23-24..."So he invited them in and gave them lodging. And on the next day he got up and went away with them, and some of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him. On the following day he entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them and had called together his relatives and close friends."
acts 10:30..."Cornelius said, “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour; and behold, a man stood before me in shining garments,"

a total of seventy-two hours has elapsed between cornelius' vision in acts 10:3 and the arrival of peter and the servants in acts 10:30... from cornelius' vision at the ninth hour until about three hours after peter's vision at the sixth hour would have been the first twenty-four hours...from then until the ninth hour on the day of peter's departure from joppa would have been another twenty-four hours...and from then until the ninth hour of the day of peter's arrival in caesarea...the time of his meeting with cornelius...is another twenty-four hours...for a total of seventy-two hours...

yet this seventy-two hour period is called -four- days! clearly partial days are being counted as days in their own right...the remaining fifteen hours of the day of cornelius' vision is counted as the first day...the entire twenty-four hours of the day of peter's vision is the second day...the entire twenty-four hours of the day of peter's departure from joppa is the third day...and the first nine hours of the day of peter's arrival in caesarea and his meeting with cornelius is counted as the fourth day...


this proves beyond a doubt that partial days were numbered as days in their own right... in fact seventy-two hours is the -maximum- possible period that could be counted as three days...and it was possible for 'three days' to refer to something as short as a period only marginally longer than twenty-four hours!


so under scripture's own convention...the time jesus spent in the tomb from friday to sunday would have been regarded as three days...the remaining one or two hours of friday would have been counted as the first day...the entire twenty-four hours of saturday are the second day...and roughly the first ten or so hours of sunday would have been counted as the third day...

so there is no contradiction between a good friday to easter sunday period in the tomb and the 'sign of jonah' of three days in the tomb...-if- we let scripture set its own timekeeping conventions instead of trying to force our modern timekeeping conventions on scripture...

 

[ABMF]

the main motivation for denying that jesus was crucified on a friday and rose on a sunday seems to be a concern over the 'three days and three nights' that he spent in the tomb...however these objections are likewise based on a misconception...

it is deeply ironic that those who are the most emphatic about the need for a proper understanding of hebraic conventions are the ones insisting on imposing modern timekeeping conventions on the biblical text...

nowhere does scripture state that jesus spent seventy-two hours in the tomb...this is merely an -assumption- based on a totally anachronistic understanding of the phrase 'three days and three nights'

the reality is that the hebrews simply did not reckon days the way we do nowdays...they counted partial days as days in their own right...

i will now prove this from scripture...namely the story of cornelius in acts 10...the passage is lengthy so i will only quote the verses involving the passage of time...

acts 10:3..."About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, 'Cornelius!'"
acts 10:9..."On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray."
acts 10:23-24..."So he invited them in and gave them lodging. And on the next day he got up and went away with them, and some of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him. On the following day he entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them and had called together his relatives and close friends."
acts 10:30..."Cornelius said, “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour; and behold, a man stood before me in shining garments,"

a total of seventy-two hours has elapsed between cornelius' vision in acts 10:3 and the arrival of peter and the servants in acts 10:30... from cornelius' vision at the ninth hour until about three hours after peter's vision at the sixth hour would have been the first twenty-four hours...from then until the ninth hour on the day of peter's departure from joppa would have been another twenty-four hours...and from then until the ninth hour of the day of peter's arrival in caesarea...the time of his meeting with cornelius...is another twenty-four hours...for a total of seventy-two hours...

yet this seventy-two hour period is called -four- days! clearly partial days are being counted as days in their own right...the remaining fifteen hours of the day of cornelius' vision is counted as the first day...the entire twenty-four hours of the day of peter's vision is the second day...the entire twenty-four hours of the day of peter's departure from joppa is the third day...and the first nine hours of the day of peter's arrival in caesarea and his meeting with cornelius is counted as the fourth day...


this proves beyond a doubt that partial days were numbered as days in their own right... in fact seventy-two hours is the -maximum- possible period that could be counted as three days...and it was possible for 'three days' to refer to something as short as a period only marginally longer than twenty-four hours!


so under scripture's own convention...the time jesus spent in the tomb from friday to sunday would have been regarded as three days...the remaining one or two hours of friday would have been counted as the first day...the entire twenty-four hours of saturday are the second day...and roughly the first ten or so hours of sunday would have been counted as the third day...

so there is no contradiction between a good friday to easter sunday period in the tomb and the 'sign of jonah' of three days in the tomb...-if- we let scripture set its own timekeeping conventions instead of trying to force our modern timekeeping conventions on scripture...

Count three days and three nights for me with the day being 6am to 6pm and the night being 6pm to 6 am. What do you get? dead on friday? up on sunday? ='s?

 

[Zinzerio]

jJesus died on the april 14th http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...D65LpbTbXQ3zNDAHIIxZ_6A&bvm=bv.64542518,d.d2k


Theres no need to be confused we just celebrate the nearest Good Friday to that date. as you Know over time the days fall on differen months of the year. we just had a glass of pass it over red wine in remembrance, to morrow we will carry on in the name of Jesus.

 

[Zinzerio]

All though personaly i sensed it was last week

 

[Starcrash]

I noticed that you quoted John 20:1 for its rising day. Did you happen to notice that John has Jesus die on a different day of the week? In John, Jesus died the day before the passover... that's why the book of John is lacking the "last dinner" of the other 3 gospels (because that was from Jesus imbuing the passover meal with new meaning). Also, you listed the different references to the time of the Easter morning visit, but didn't notice that Mark 16:2 has the visit when "the sun had risen" but John 20:1 had the visit happen "while it was still dark"?

In fact, in looking at these gospels to try to make a single story out of it, did you notice the conflicting details between them? For example, Matthew 28:8 and Luke 24:8-9 had the women immediately telling the disciples about what had happened. Mark 16:8 specifically says they "said nothing to anyone". And John 20:2-3 had Peter and "the disciple that Jesus loved" go with the women to the tomb, which would probably not be followed by "telling this to the eleven" (Luke 24:9) since 2 of the eleven were supposedly witnesses.

Why would you even use these conflicting scriptures as evidence at all, especially since only 3 of the gospels give you 3 days because John's doesn't match?

 

[ob77]

Ok, lets set some things straight here, as your homework is only partially correct. The fact that "three days" is used by Hebrew idiom for any part of three days and three nights is not disputed: because that was the common way of reckoning, just as it was when used of years. Three or any number of years was used inclusively of any part of those years, as may be seen in the reckoning of the reigns of any of the Kings of Judah, or Israel.
But, when the number of "nights" is stated as well as the number of "days", then the expression ceases to be an idiom, and becomes a literal statement of fact.
Moreover, as the Hebrew day began at sunset, the day was reckoned from one sunset to another. The "twelve hours in the day" (John 11-9) being reckoned from sunrise, and the twelve hours of the night from sunset. An evening-morning was thus used for a whole day consisting of 24 hours, as in the first chapter of Genesis. Hence the expression "a night and a day".
So when Christ said He would be in the tomb for three days and three nights, as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish, He meant exactly what He said. Three days, three nights = 72 hours. Oh, FYI, the month is Nisan and the day was the fourteenth, a Wednesday. Christ was taken down before sunset and placed in the tomb. From Wednesday sunset to Thursday sunset was the first day, from Thursday sunset to Friday sunset, was the second, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset was the third. Christ rose at sunset on Saturday.

 

[danschance]

All though personaly i sensed it was last week

Do you always determine facts by "sensing"?

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Count three days and three nights for me with the day being 6am to 6pm and the night being 6pm to 6 am. What do you get? dead on friday? up on sunday? ='s?

the modernist interpretation of 'three days and three nights' you are insisting on is unworkable...in fact it is self contradictory...

here is what happens if we mark time as you require...

jesus is buried on a given evening...
6 PM to 6 AM...first night...
6 AM to 6 PM...first day...
6 PM to 6 AM...second night...
6 AM to 6 PM...second day...
6 PM to 6 AM...third night...
6 AM to 6 PM...third day...

after these 'three days and three nights' you still need to add -another- night to bring us up to the approximate hour of the resurrection...

6 PM to 6 AM...fourth night...

so your insistence on six twelve-hour periods is actually self contradictory...imposing that standard of timekeeping on scripture would require jesus to be in the tomb for three days and -four- nights...

and as i already showed in my first post...there is simply no room for the seventy-two hours you demand...since the day of the crucifixion is certainly friday and the day of the resurrection is certainly sunday...

 

[Zinzerio]

Do you always determine facts by "sensing"?

its depends on whether it makes sense or not

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

I noticed that you quoted John 20:1 for its rising day. Did you happen to notice that John has Jesus die on a different day of the week? In John, Jesus died the day before the passover... that's why the book of John is lacking the "last dinner" of the other 3 gospels (because that was from Jesus imbuing the passover meal with new meaning). Also, you listed the different references to the time of the Easter morning visit, but didn't notice that Mark 16:2 has the visit when "the sun had risen" but John 20:1 had the visit happen "while it was still dark"?

In fact, in looking at these gospels to try to make a single story out of it, did you notice the conflicting details between them? For example, Matthew 28:8 and Luke 24:8-9 had the women immediately telling the disciples about what had happened. Mark 16:8 specifically says they "said nothing to anyone". And John 20:2-3 had Peter and "the disciple that Jesus loved" go with the women to the tomb, which would probably not be followed by "telling this to the eleven" (Luke 24:9) since 2 of the eleven were supposedly witnesses.

Why would you even use these conflicting scriptures as evidence at all, especially since only 3 of the gospels give you 3 days because John's doesn't match?

your first objection is actually based on one of the naive misunderstandings i disproved in my first post...the term 'passover' frequently referred to the entire seven day feast of unleavened bread...observant jews had to remain ritually clean the entire time... so jesus died the day after the seder...but the feast would still continue for several more days...so that ritual cleanliness was still a concern for the jewish leaders as indicated in john...

your second objection is similarly naive...they could easily have left for the tomb before sunrise and arrived after the sun had come up...making both accounts accurate...

as for your third objection...at least four women were in the group that went to the tomb...some certainly went and told the disciples while others in the group kept quiet...different gospel writers were describing the actions of different members of the group...

 

[Starcrash]

so your insistence on six twelve-hour periods is actually self contradictory...imposing that standard of timekeeping on scripture would require jesus to be in the tomb for three days and -four- nights...

As an atheist, this whole exercise is hilarious to me. You guys are familiar with the tale of Jesus being in the desert for 40 days, right? Has anyone attempted to figure out how many "actual" days and nights that was? When God rested on the 7th "day", did Genesis mean to imply there that a week should really be half as long as it is now?

It seems to me that these arguments about how long a "day" or a "night" is only come about when apologetics are needed, but the bible's words are taken at face value when there's no need for re-interpretation.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Ok, lets set some things straight here, as your homework is only partially correct. The fact that "three days" is used by Hebrew idiom for any part of three days and three nights is not disputed: because that was the common way of reckoning, just as it was when used of years. Three or any number of years was used inclusively of any part of those years, as may be seen in the reckoning of the reigns of any of the Kings of Judah, or Israel.
But, when the number of "nights" is stated as well as the number of "days", then the expression ceases to be an idiom, and becomes a literal statement of fact.
Moreover, as the Hebrew day began at sunset, the day was reckoned from one sunset to another. The "twelve hours in the day" (John 11-9) being reckoned from sunrise, and the twelve hours of the night from sunset. An evening-morning was thus used for a whole day consisting of 24 hours, as in the first chapter of Genesis. Hence the expression "a night and a day".
So when Christ said He would be in the tomb for three days and three nights, as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish, He meant exactly what He said. Three days, three nights = 72 hours. Oh, FYI, the month is Nisan and the day was the fourteenth, a Wednesday. Christ was taken down before sunset and placed in the tomb. From Wednesday sunset to Thursday sunset was the first day, from Thursday sunset to Friday sunset, was the second, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset was the third. Christ rose at sunset on Saturday.

obviously you only read about a quarter of my first post...because if you had read it all then you would have seen that your objections were anticipated and refuted...

jesus died on the fifteenth day of the month...not the fourteenth...as i proved in my first post...

furthermore there are numerous scriptures establishing that jesus rose on the 'third day'...namely matthew 16:21...matthew 17:23...matthew 20:19...matthew 27:64...luke 9:22...luke 18:33...luke 24:7...luke 24:21...luke 24:46...acts 10:40...and 1 corinthians 15:4...none of these scriptures use the 'three days and three nights' formula that you naively insist must be seventy-two hours...

yet under the biblical convention of timekeeping that i proved in my second post...the unnecessary seventy-two hour scenario you propose would have jesus rising on the -fourth- day instead of the third...

but your scenario has an even bigger problem than that...because scripture clearly states that jesus rose on the first day of the week...

mark 16:9..."Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons."

so your insistence on modern unbiblical timekeeping conventions ultimately results in a scripture defying mess...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

As an atheist, this whole exercise is hilarious to me. You guys are familiar with the tale of Jesus being in the desert for 40 days, right? Has anyone attempted to figure out how many "actual" days and nights that was? When God rested on the 7th "day", did Genesis mean to imply there that a week should really be half as long as it is now?

It seems to me that these arguments about how long a "day" or a "night" is only come about when apologetics are needed, but the bible's words are taken at face value when there's no need for re-interpretation.

given the hebrew timekeeping convention i proved earlier in this thread...jesus would have been tempted in the desert for a maximum of 960 hours...

the seven days of creation week would have added up to exactly 168 hours because each numbered day in the narrative is explicitly followed by the next numbered day...in other words you can't start with a few hours of day one...and then skip over the rest of day one and jump to the middle of day two and take a few hours...and then on to day three and so on...

it is important to let the bible speak its own language...instead of enforcing a rigid and arbitrary hermeneutic...

 

[Starcrash]

your first objection is actually based on one of the naive misunderstandings i disproved in my first post...the term 'passover' frequently referred to the entire seven day feast of unleavened bread...observant jews had to remain ritually clean the entire time... so jesus died the day after the seder...but the feast would still continue for several more days...so that ritual cleanliness was still a concern for the jewish leaders as indicated in john...

your second objection is similarly naive...they could easily have left for the tomb before sunrise and arrived after the sun had come up...making both accounts accurate...

as for your third objection...at least four women were in the group that went to the tomb...some certainly went and told the disciples while others in the group kept quiet...different gospel writers were describing the actions of different members of the group...

Anything to make it fit, right? Would you accept these apologetics from a Muslim whose book contained so many discrepancies?

The other gospels outside of John, which I didn't quote because I had assumed you had looked at them, specifically mention that the ones who wanted to arrest Jesus said "not during the festival". This changes the narrative of the crucifixion day... in John, the "Jewish leaders" were trying to avoid ceremonial uncleanness because of the passover, so Pilate goes between them and Jesus in order to get both sides (because Jesus had plenty to say). In Matthew 27, the governor is present when Pilate questions Jesus (because he has no problem with ceremonial uncleanness) and Pilate marvels at Jesus' silence. Pilate asks if Jesus "hears the testimony" because his accusers (in order to make any kind of sense) are also in the same room -- no mention of ceremonial uncleanness or trips between the two groups.

The second objection is not "naive". Only one account has the women leaving and returning (John) but the others don't mention this second trip. Also, it's awfully clear from the context of Matthew that they arrive when the tomb opens and it was "beginning to dawn" then. How short of a trip are you suggesting that has them leaving and coming "at dawn"?

Third, you're still trying to fit all of these stories into a single narrative without asking yourself why it's so confusing. Matthew mentions only 2 women... why not the other 3+? Why does Mark feel the need to mention Salome if the other gospels don't think she's important enough for a mention? Why Joanna in Luke (making it 5 or more if there are "others" with the 3 women)? And would the disciples be among the "women" mentioned in the other gospels? Also, Luke specifically mentioned them going to the "eleven" disciples, but one wonders why the two that went back to the others didn't already inform them. Also, have you read the four stories following this resurrection narrative? They're all different with no overlap. Especially John, which has Jesus appearing directly to several of the disciples separately.

Finally, Mark 16:8 doesn't say even imply that only some women kept silent. It says "the women", meaning those who left the tomb, and verses 10 and 11 has Mary Magdelene going on to finally tell the disciples who "did not believe it" -- despite two of them supposedly witnessing it themselves, and totally contradicting John 20:8. In John, Mary confronts Jesus face-to-face at the tomb, a confrontation that doesn't happen in any other gospel. Seriously, you called me naive to think that these facts didn't fit?

 

[Starcrash]

given the hebrew timekeeping convention i proved earlier in this thread...jesus would have been tempted in the desert for a maximum of 960 hours...

the seven days of creation week would have added up to exactly 168 hours because each numbered day in the narrative is explicitly followed by the next numbered day...in other words you can't start with a few hours of day one...and then skip over the rest of day one and jump to the middle of day two and take a few hours...and then on to day three and so on...

it is important to let the bible speak its own language...instead of enforcing a rigid and arbitrary hermeneutic...

If you were trying "to let the bible speak its own language", then you wouldn't be trying to explain how Friday night to Sunday morning is 3 days. I can grant that there is an actual 3 days there -- it doesn't make a lot of sense for any gospel writer to contradict himself when he could just change his own story to make it fit -- but the bible is not clear in this respect. That should be obvious because you felt you had to explain it.

You're simply assuming things of the Old Testament. You say that the days are "numbered" as if that has anything to do with their length. Day 1 could be 100 hours long, as long as each other numbered "day" was the same length (and it would certainly make a lot more sense than an arbitrary 24-hour-period before the existence of celestial bodies to mark the time). There's nothing in that passage to give you a sense of how long a "day" is, and many Christians still debate it (in an effort to stretch out the length of time in that week so it fits with science, naturally). Your assertion is only that.

In the case of the temptation in the wilderness, you're again just asserting it. A "maximum of 960 hours" doesn't exactly suppose an entire 40 days, does it? Because you and I know that, by your timekeeping convention, Jesus could have started his journey into the wilderness on a Friday night and finished on a Tuesday at dawn rather than 960 hours later (Wednesday night). But to my original point about when Christians feel the need to do these calculations, can you find a source that tried to clarify this point about how long the 40 days might have been, or do you agree with me that no one felt the need because it didn't contradict anything?

 

[Vaudeville]

an increasingly popular claim today is the notion that jesus did not actually die on a friday...most commonly it is suggested that jesus died on a wednesday...others have suggested that jesus died on a thursday or even a tuesday...a few people have even argued that jesus did not rise from the dead on a sunday!

however this view is mistaken...as i will show in this thread...jesus -did- die on a friday and he -did- rise on a sunday and there is absolutely no alternative that does not contradict scripture...

this entire thread is excellent! good work!

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Anything to make it fit, right? Would you accept these apologetics from a Muslim whose book contained so many discrepancies?

The other gospels outside of John, which I didn't quote because I had assumed you had looked at them, specifically mention that the ones who wanted to arrest Jesus said "not during the festival". This changes the narrative of the crucifixion day... in John, the "Jewish leaders" were trying to avoid ceremonial uncleanness because of the passover, so Pilate goes between them and Jesus in order to get both sides (because Jesus had plenty to say). In Matthew 27, the governor is present when Pilate questions Jesus (because he has no problem with ceremonial uncleanness) and Pilate marvels at Jesus' silence. Pilate asks if Jesus "hears the testimony" because his accusers (in order to make any kind of sense) are also in the same room -- no mention of ceremonial uncleanness or trips between the two groups.

The second objection is not "naive". Only one account has the women leaving and returning (John) but the others don't mention this second trip. Also, it's awfully clear from the context of Matthew that they arrive when the tomb opens and it was "beginning to dawn" then. How short of a trip are you suggesting that has them leaving and coming "at dawn"?

Third, you're still trying to fit all of these stories into a single narrative without asking yourself why it's so confusing. Matthew mentions only 2 women... why not the other 3+? Why does Mark feel the need to mention Salome if the other gospels don't think she's important enough for a mention? Why Joanna in Luke (making it 5 or more if there are "others" with the 3 women)? And would the disciples be among the "women" mentioned in the other gospels? Also, Luke specifically mentioned them going to the "eleven" disciples, but one wonders why the two that went back to the others didn't already inform them. Also, have you read the four stories following this resurrection narrative? They're all different with no overlap. Especially John, which has Jesus appearing directly to several of the disciples separately.

Finally, Mark 16:8 doesn't say even imply that only some women kept silent. It says "the women", meaning those who left the tomb, and verses 10 and 11 has Mary Magdelene going on to finally tell the disciples who "did not believe it" -- despite two of them supposedly witnessing it themselves, and totally contradicting John 20:8. In John, Mary confronts Jesus face-to-face at the tomb, a confrontation that doesn't happen in any other gospel. Seriously, you called me naive to think that these facts didn't fit?

if i was discussing the quran with a muslim...i would be sure not to make my objections as amateurish as the ones you are presenting...

firstly in your eagerness to find so called 'contradictions' between the gospels...you failed to notice that you contradicted your own earlier assertion...two posts ago you incorrectly claimed that john put jesus' death before the passover...and insinuated that this contradicted the other gospels...now you equally incorrectly claim that the other gospels also put jesus' death before the passover...which would do away with the 'contradiction' you claimed to have found in the first place...oops!

now it is true that the priests and scribes didn't -want- to arrest jesus during the feast...but obviously it didn't turn out that way...your objection assumes that everything always goes according to plan...which is just plain silly...

you commit an incredibly amateurish error in your comment on matthew 27:11-14...pontius pilate -was- the governor!

you also naively assume that the accusations took place in a room inside the palace...when they just as easily could have taken place outside the palace...luke's account suggests that the chief priests were with the crowd the whole time... moreover you fail to notice that jesus actually appeared before pilate -twice-

i can't even figure out what you are trying to say in your confused defense of your second objection... in any case it is simple enough to suppose that the women left for the tomb while it was still dark and arrived at the tomb after sunrise...making both the 'while it was still dark' and 'when the sun had risen' descriptions correct...

regarding why different women are named by different gospel writers...it is common in ancient writings to name only the people whose actions you are focused on... anyway the lists of names are not logically contradictory because no list specifically -denies- the presence of anyone mentioned in another list...so you are wasting your time making an argument that has a fatal logical gap...

your argument about the women's silence continues to be remarkably naive...because for one thing we are never told how long the women remained silent...to hear your argument you would think that they never spoke about what they saw for the rest of their lives...when it could much more reasonably be that they just didn't speak to anyone along the way...

the different accounts of the resurrection actually fit together very well...just because -you- didn't make the effort to determine how they fit together doesn't mean that they don't fit together...

your entire argument against the gospel narratives is dependent on completely unnecessary and in many cases simply silly assumptions...so yes i call that naive...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

If you were trying "to let the bible speak its own language", then you wouldn't be trying to explain how Friday night to Sunday morning is 3 days. I can grant that there is an actual 3 days there -- it doesn't make a lot of sense for any gospel writer to contradict himself when he could just change his own story to make it fit -- but the bible is not clear in this respect. That should be obvious because you felt you had to explain it.

You're simply assuming things of the Old Testament. You say that the days are "numbered" as if that has anything to do with their length. Day 1 could be 100 hours long, as long as each other numbered "day" was the same length (and it would certainly make a lot more sense than an arbitrary 24-hour-period before the existence of celestial bodies to mark the time). There's nothing in that passage to give you a sense of how long a "day" is, and many Christians still debate it (in an effort to stretch out the length of time in that week so it fits with science, naturally). Your assertion is only that.

In the case of the temptation in the wilderness, you're again just asserting it. A "maximum of 960 hours" doesn't exactly suppose an entire 40 days, does it? Because you and I know that, by your timekeeping convention, Jesus could have started his journey into the wilderness on a Friday night and finished on a Tuesday at dawn rather than 960 hours later (Wednesday night). But to my original point about when Christians feel the need to do these calculations, can you find a source that tried to clarify this point about how long the 40 days might have been, or do you agree with me that no one felt the need because it didn't contradict anything?

when you allow the bible to speak its own language...friday to sunday -is- three days...that was the -entire point- of this thread...but you seem to have a gift for missing the obvious...

i proved in my second post in this thread that partial days are counted as days in their own right...in other words a period shorter than twenty-four hours can still be considered a 'day' in many cases... however that fact also has the direct consequence that periods -longer- than twenty-four hours -cannot- be considered a single day...so your suggestion of a 100 hour 'day' is an impossibility...

it is only the insistence on imposing modern timekeeping conventions on the biblical narrative that resulted in an apparent contradiction between the 'three days and three nights' and the established friday to sunday period of time that jesus was in the tomb... simply remove that anachronistic assumption and the 'contradiction' vanishes...

most likely the forty days jesus was in the desert has not been controversial because the narrative surrounding that period has far fewer time constraints...a person could get away with implicitly assuming modern timekeeping conventions there without creating a contradiction...and therefore nobody felt the need to controversially reinvent the entire narrative to get rid of their self inflicted confusion...

it is important to stress that neither narrative contains any inherent contradiction...it is only because of an anachronistic hermeneutic that anything in the crucifixion-resurrection narrative ever appeared even slightly contradictory in the first place...

 

[ThomistColin]

Rachel, this thread and your responses have been illuminating and beautiful. God bless.