Donibm

Good Friday (Lords Crucifixion) ... or not?

37 posts in this topic

I think both the day of Jesus' death and His subsequent resurrection is clearly stated to us in Scripture if we are paying attention to the details there.  I've always found there's much more in the Bible than we initially realize.

  1. He was crucified on preparation day, which was the day before the Passover.  (John 19:31,42; Luke 23:54; Mark 15:42; Matthew 27:62); We also have an early church father, Ignatius, circa AD107, in his letter to Trallians chapter 9, who also states, "The day of preparation then comprises the passion, the Sabbath embraces the burial and the Lords Day contains the resurrection".
  2. He was in tomb 3 nights and days, as Christ prophesied this about Himself; according to the sign of Jonah  (Matthew 12:40); also according to the symbolism that of bread of life being unavailable for 3 days before it would miraculously feed us all (Matthew 15:32 & Mark 8:2) Also according to the symbolism of the Son being lost for 3 days and found in the temple (Luke 2:46); According to the prophesy He was, Himself, the temple that would be rebuilt in 3 days (John 2:19-20; also see Matthew 26:61, 27:40, 63, Mark 15:29; According to what He told His disciples (Mark 8:31) - there's probably more.
  3. He arose on the first day of the week - Sunday the Lord's Day.  (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1,19)
  4. If we then take Jesus at His Word then 3 days, working back from Sunday at Dawn, would be: Day 3 - Saturday Evening to Sunday Dawn; Day 2 - Friday Evening to Saturday Dawn to Sunset; Day 1 - Thursday Evening thru Friday dawn to Sunset.  Jesus died just prior to the start of Passover a Sabbath Day, which according to Jewish tradition begins in the evening - therefore the rush to get Him into the tomb beforehand.  We are told He died in the 9th hour, (about 6 PM - Matthew 27:45-46). This is about as close to the real beginning of Passover as one can get.  
  5. We know that the women who followed Jesus were prevented from bringing the spices and fragrant oils they had prepared because of the Sabbath.  (Luke 23:56)   But if the Sabbath were only one day, wouldn't they have brought them after Passover was over? (i.e. if Passover was on a Wednesday (Tuesday night to Sunset Wednesday) then they could have brought them at dawn on Thursday;  If Passover was on Thursday (Wednesday night to Sunset Thursday) then they could have brought them at dawn on Friday morning.  Instead they brought them on Sunday at dawn.  This implies that their honoring of the Sabbath was over two days, the Passover Sabbath which began on Thursday Evening and ended at sunset Friday, and the normal 7th day Sabbath, which began at Sunset Friday and ended at Sunset Saturday night.  Sunday dawn then, with respect to the Sabbath, fulfills their honoring of the Sabbath and setting out before dawn to bring the oils and spices to the tomb of Jesus.
  • So I believe we are looking at a Thursday Crucifixion on preparation day.
  • We can refine our boundaries as to the year both by Scripture and  historical sources as we know Pontius Pilate reign in AD26 (Josephus 18), the year prior to the genesis of John the Baptist's ministry [Luke 3:1-6].  It ended in AD 36 prior to the visit of Vitellius in AD 36. So we have a boundary of 10 years in which to find a Passover beginning on a Thursday evening followed by a 7th day Sabbath beginning Friday Evening and ending Saturday Evening, which both fulfills the 3 nights and days Jesus stated he would spend in the tomb as well as the honoring by the Ladies of the Sabbath and their journey out to the tomb just before dawn Sunday morning.
  • Passover occurs at the full moon.  Using both the calculated Jewish Calender ( http://www.cgsf.org/dbeattie/calendar ) and the Actual Lunar cycle from that time period http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/moonphases.html?year-30&n=0 we come up with two dates where Passover would have started on a Thursday night, where it follows preparation day being Nissan 14 from Sunset to sunset Nissan 15. 
  • That being the Roman year of AD30, which fits more cleanly with Jesus 3 year ministry beginning after John began baptizing in AD27 and Saint Paul becoming a Christian in AD34/35.  We also get a hit on AD34 but that would appear to late to fit in with the chronology we find in Acts with regard to Stephen and Paul.
  • Jesus would have on the night of preparation day Nissan 14 been brought before the Sanhedrin and at dawn the following morning, still by Hebrew standards Nissan 14, to Pilate. In the sixth hour, or around noon time, He was crucified and by the ninth hour he had expired on the cross (about 3 PM).  Passover, Nissan 15 officially began with the full moon at 9:37 that evening.  That gives Joseph time to ask Pilate and with Nicodemus hurredly able to place Jesus' body in the tomb before it before breaking the Sabbath. 
  • The Passover Sabbath ran from Thursday 9:37 PM to sunset or even later Friday, and then became the Sabbath
  • The 7th day Sabbath then began Friday Evening and lasted to Saturday evening
  • Jesus arose the next day Sunday Nissan 17 at about Dawn after being dead before the end of Nissan 14, the whole day of Nissan 15 (Passover), the 7th day Sabbath honoring the rest of the Lord (Nissan 16).
  • Praise to the Sabbath rest of Passover, by which the curse was passed over, and the 7th day Sabbath where God rested His work it being completely accomplished on the 7th day.  On the 8th day, or the first day of our weekly cycle, He then arose in fullness and Glory.

 

In Christ, Patrick

Edited by Macs Son
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt Christ was born on december 25 either but I know because I know because I know, that its special to Him when you celebrate on december 25. I do find all of the information posted interesting because I am not so good with dates and numbers. Very helpful, thanks all.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, dating Christ's birth can be somewhat complex because there is nothing explicit given to us to date it exactly.  Even the cycle of Abijiah leaves us with select dates and not a date.  However, there is a route to a December birth as well. It is possible only given the following interpretation of clues we are given:

Luke 1:24 and 36 could be both Elizabeth's 6th month of pregnancy and the sixth month of the Jewish calendar.

"In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to Nazareth, Galilee.

"Now indeed Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son and this is now the sixth month."

If it was the sixth Jewish month according to the Jewish Calendar we can calculate the month. Tishri would be the first Jewish month, Rosh Hashana - the Jewish New Year(which falls in either Sept/Oct) the sixth month is Adar, which falls in February or March. 9 months later brings us to November/December.

We also know that the course of Abijiah was the 8th priestly course, and he would have served in late Iyyar and early Kislev during ordinary time. But the priestly courses are not only during ordinary time but also during the Jewish feasts, when all are called on to serve. He therefore would have served during Nisan, Tishrei and Sivan as well. So nothing is ruled out concerning a date in November or December.

Hippolytus, a 2nd century historian and John Chrysotom (AD347-407) were also both proponents of the December 25th date. However this is not a strong argument, only one which is possible.

I myself am a proponent of John the Baptist's conception being in 4BC, which places it near September 22nd.

Elizabeth would have completed her sixth month possibly by March 22nd of 3BC. Mary conceiving Jesus via the Holy Spirit, which overshadowed her,in Elizabeth's 6th month then does not put Christmas day 3 BC out of the question. But we cannot rule out other possible dates or the fact that Luke may only be stating both times the context of Elizabeth's 6th month of pregnancy rather than the 6th Jewish month and her 6th month of pregnancy.

In Christ, Patrick

Edited by Macs Son
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt Christ was born on december 25 either but I know because I know because I know, that its special to Him when you celebrate on december 25. I do find all of the information posted interesting because I am not so good with dates and numbers. Very helpful, thanks all.

BTW

The dating of Herod's death was miscalculated by a Biblical scholar, Emil Schurer (1844–1910), even though later research has proven him wrong the history channel and present day Biblical scholars still repeat the miscalculation of Herod's death being in 4BC. More recent scholarship however has affixed Herod's death to 1 BC, specifically before April of that year. Josephus, a Jewish historian, stated that Herod died after a Jewish fast in the 37th year of his reign. He also tells us the 192 Olympiad was in the 28th year of his reign so the 37th year of his reign would have to be between April of 2BC and April of 1 BC.

11 BC End of the 192nd Olympiad (June -11) in his 28th year of reign. XVI:136

04 BC Augustus approves establishing a kingship for Herod's sons before dismissing the legation of Varus, which ran from 6BC to 4 BC.

April of 02BC Was the beginning of his 37 year reign as described in Josephus

January 26th 1 BC is when the latest scholarship affixes Herod death.

This would have preceded the completion of his 37th year as King.

This also fits the narrative of his sending his soldiers out to kill male boys under the age of 2 at Bethlehem. Jesus would have been about 13 months old then and Herod, not knowing exactly when the child was born but only when the wise men came, would have wanted a wide enough margin to ensure the foretold king and messiah would not escape his net. Choosing +/- 1 year would seem to fit the narrative if Christ was indeed born somewhere in December of 3BC. If so it would have been Herod's last vicious act in this world since he did not survive long afterwards.

In Christ, Pat

Edited by Macs Son
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where the friction is coming from, but I'm multicultural.  Lived in difference countries, and EVERYWHERE I've lived either celebrates or acknowledges GOOD FRIDAY.  Uh, that would have been THIS Friday just passed BTW.

 

I mean, some countries make hot CROSS buns (to commemorate the Cross of Jesus) and fishcakes.

 

My sons school was even closed for Good FRIDAY.  His wasn't the only one either, and it's not a "Christian" school.  LOL

 

Some countries celebrate Good FRIDAY with a day off from work (not all American holidays are observed, just like some holidays are bigger overseas than what they are here).  It's an actual holiday.

 

Some counties even have men making their own kites to fly.  Traditionally in the shape of the cross, but have since evolved to more elaborate patterns.  And they fly them on Good FRIDAY.

 

I'm 40 years old.  Raised by devout Christians.  Probably been to more Churches in more countries than you've been to nightclubs.  I've NEVER heard a preacher preach a Thursday crucifixion.  Never.  And if I have, I was too disinterested to care or compute it to memory.  It has ALWAYS been the Friday night crucifixion and Sunday morning resurrection.

 

In fact, my Church held a special afternoon service on FRIDAY.

 

 

 

So ... I'm not sure how you can't understand that FRIDAY is the TRADITION view.  I mean really?  The world JUST CELEBRATED GOOD FRIDAY. Didn't it?  I mean, did I miss something? 

 

Ever heard of "good Thursday"?  Interestingly enough, neither have I. 

 

Google it.  Bing search it.  Ya-hoo til your hearts content.  When you find such a thing called "good Thursday", let us know.  Until then, well, ....

 

 

No friend, there is no invention of a straw man in my world.  And as typical, there is always one who misses the intention of created threads.   And do I really need "data" for this obvious things?  I mean ... really?  Anyone not living under a rock should know these things.  This is not an academic issue (and I am at the Post-Graduate [Doctorate] level).  It has nothing to do with that.  This is just ... common knowledge - knowledge we acquire just by LIVING in the world.

 

 

The TRADITIONAL view is, because of its sheer history and application and observance, a Friday crucifixion.

 

The BIBLICAL views, is a Thursday crucifixion.

 

 

We agree on the DAY He was crucified, but I'm not sure how you get Thursday as the traditional view.  Even the secular world says He was crucified on the Friday.

I have heard of maudy Thursday. This is a renenactment of the last supper washing of the apostles feet.

From wikki

Thursday (also known as Holy Thursday, Covenant Thursday, Great and Holy Thursday, Sheer Thursday and Thursday of Mysteries) is the Christian holy day, falling on the Thursday before Easter. It commemorates the Maundy and Last Supper of Jesus Christ with the Apostles as described in the Canonical gospels.[1] It is the fifth day of Holy Week, and is preceded by Holy Wednesday and followed by Good Friday

Edited by Joline
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, dating Christ's birth can be somewhat complex because there is nothing explicit given to us to date it exactly.  Even the cycle of Abijiah leaves us with select dates and not a date.  However, there is a route to a December birth as well. It is possible only given the following interpretation of clues we are given:

Luke 1:24 and 36 could be both Elizabeth's 6th month of pregnancy and the sixth month of the Jewish calendar.

"In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to Nazareth, Galilee.

"Now indeed Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son and this is now the sixth month."

If it was the sixth Jewish month according to the Jewish Calendar we can calculate the month. Tishri would be the first Jewish month, Rosh Hashana - the Jewish New Year(which falls in either Sept/Oct) the sixth month is Adar, which falls in February or March. 9 months later brings us to November/December.

We also know that the course of Abijiah was the 8th priestly course, and he would have served in late Iyyar and early Kislev during ordinary time. But the priestly courses are not only during ordinary time but also during the Jewish feasts, when all are called on to serve. He therefore would have served during Nisan, Tishrei and Sivan as well. So nothing is ruled out concerning a date in November or December.

Hippolytus, a 2nd century historian and John Chrysotom (AD347-407) were also both proponents of the December 25th date. However this is not a strong argument, only one which is possible.

I myself am a proponent of John the Baptist's conception being in 4BC, which places it near September 22nd.

Elizabeth would have completed her sixth month possibly by March 22nd of 3BC. Mary conceiving Jesus via the Holy Spirit, which overshadowed her,in Elizabeth's 6th month then does not put Christmas day 3 BC out of the question. But we cannot rule out other possible dates or the fact that Luke may only be stating both times the context of Elizabeth's 6th month of pregnancy rather than the 6th Jewish month and her 6th month of pregnancy.

In Christ, Patrick

You might find this interesting. This is a post which I asked and received permisson to copy and use. It was in response to a poster which brought up the courses of the priesthood. I hope you enjoy. This poster indeed mentions knowing a fixed date which I bolded below

 

"This is the single most common mistake of students who attempt to date the birth of Jesus based on the service of the priestly courses.

There were 24 courses of priests who served in the Temple, each serving one week until all 24 courses had served and then the rotation began again. The problem arises at the end of the year. 24 courses serving two weeks each gives a total of 48 weeks of service. However, the Jewish year is 50 weeks plus 4 days long. So on the 49th week, the rotation would begin again and the 1st course would serve the 49th week, the 2nd course the 50th week, and the 3rd course the 4 days plus three days of the next year. That would mean the 4th course would then serve the first full week of the new year, the 5th course the second week, the 6th course the third week, etc. Go ahead and get out a pencil and figure this out for yourself, you don't need to go to some website to see what someone else has to say about it, do your own calculations. It is simply not possible for the first course to serve the first week every year without violating the order in which they served.

And to prove that what I'm saying is accurate, according to Mr. Hargis' calculations, when the Temple was destroyed on the 9th Ab, the 19th course of Pethahiah should have been on duty. But according to both the Talmudic tractate Taanith (On Feasting and Fast Days, 29A) and well as Josephus who was an eyewitness to the destruction, (Wars, VI:4, 1, 5) it wasn't the 19th course as Mr. Hargi's calculations would have it but it was in fact the 1st course, that of Jehoirib that was on duty, which proves the 1st course/1st week, 2nd course/2nd week calculations are incorrect. The Jewish year consists of 6 months of 29 days and 6 months of 30 days for a total of 354 days. But 24 courses serving two weeks each would only total 48 weeks, short of filling the year by 2 weeks and 4 days. And then when an extra whole month was added to correct the calendar, it throws off the caculations even further because the priestly courses had to continue their ordering of service even during these extra weeks.

Now, having a fixed date that we know with certainty what course was serving on the 9th Ab of 70 C.E., and if we caculate backwards to the year before Jesus' birth, which is 6 B.C., we find that in fact the priestly course of Abijah was on duty from the 2nd to the 9th of October, the 23rd Elul to the 1st Tishri, or concluding on the feast of Trumpets and the beginning of the New Year.

Now bring forward all your calculations and you'll find Elizabeth's sixth month to fall between the middle of March and the middle of April (since ancient times March 25 has been observed for the annunication to Mary). Then count forward three more months and John would have been born around the middle of June (the ancient date for the feast of John's nativity is June 24). Then count forward another six months and you come to December 25 for the birth of Jesus.

So once again, the actual evidence supports the December dating. "

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, dating Christ's birth can be somewhat complex because there is nothing explicit given to us to date it exactly.  Even the cycle of Abijiah leaves us with select dates and not a date.  However, there is a route to a December birth as well. It is possible only given the following interpretation of clues we are given:

Luke 1:24 and 36 could be both Elizabeth's 6th month of pregnancy and the sixth month of the Jewish calendar.

"In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to Nazareth, Galilee.

"Now indeed Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son and this is now the sixth month."

If it was the sixth Jewish month according to the Jewish Calendar we can calculate the month. Tishri would be the first Jewish month, Rosh Hashana - the Jewish New Year(which falls in either Sept/Oct) the sixth month is Adar, which falls in February or March. 9 months later brings us to November/December.

We also know that the course of Abijiah was the 8th priestly course, and he would have served in late Iyyar and early Kislev during ordinary time. But the priestly courses are not only during ordinary time but also during the Jewish feasts, when all are called on to serve. He therefore would have served during Nisan, Tishrei and Sivan as well. So nothing is ruled out concerning a date in November or December.

Hippolytus, a 2nd century historian and John Chrysotom (AD347-407) were also both proponents of the December 25th date. However this is not a strong argument, only one which is possible.

I myself am a proponent of John the Baptist's conception being in 4BC, which places it near September 22nd.

Elizabeth would have completed her sixth month possibly by March 22nd of 3BC. Mary conceiving Jesus via the Holy Spirit, which overshadowed her,in Elizabeth's 6th month then does not put Christmas day 3 BC out of the question. But we cannot rule out other possible dates or the fact that Luke may only be stating both times the context of Elizabeth's 6th month of pregnancy rather than the 6th Jewish month and her 6th month of pregnancy.

In Christ, Patrick

You might find this interesting. This is a post which I asked and received permisson to copy and use. It was in response to a poster which brought up the courses of the priesthood. I hope you enjoy. This poster indeed mentions knowing a fixed date which I bolded below

 

"This is the single most common mistake of students who attempt to date the birth of Jesus based on the service of the priestly courses.

There were 24 courses of priests who served in the Temple, each serving one week until all 24 courses had served and then the rotation began again. The problem arises at the end of the year. 24 courses serving two weeks each gives a total of 48 weeks of service. However, the Jewish year is 50 weeks plus 4 days long. So on the 49th week, the rotation would begin again and the 1st course would serve the 49th week, the 2nd course the 50th week, and the 3rd course the 4 days plus three days of the next year. That would mean the 4th course would then serve the first full week of the new year, the 5th course the second week, the 6th course the third week, etc. Go ahead and get out a pencil and figure this out for yourself, you don't need to go to some website to see what someone else has to say about it, do your own calculations. It is simply not possible for the first course to serve the first week every year without violating the order in which they served.

And to prove that what I'm saying is accurate, according to Mr. Hargis' calculations, when the Temple was destroyed on the 9th Ab, the 19th course of Pethahiah should have been on duty. But according to both the Talmudic tractate Taanith (On Feasting and Fast Days, 29A) and well as Josephus who was an eyewitness to the destruction, (Wars, VI:4, 1, 5) it wasn't the 19th course as Mr. Hargi's calculations would have it but it was in fact the 1st course, that of Jehoirib that was on duty, which proves the 1st course/1st week, 2nd course/2nd week calculations are incorrect. The Jewish year consists of 6 months of 29 days and 6 months of 30 days for a total of 354 days. But 24 courses serving two weeks each would only total 48 weeks, short of filling the year by 2 weeks and 4 days. And then when an extra whole month was added to correct the calendar, it throws off the caculations even further because the priestly courses had to continue their ordering of service even during these extra weeks.

Now, having a fixed date that we know with certainty what course was serving on the 9th Ab of 70 C.E., and if we caculate backwards to the year before Jesus' birth, which is 6 B.C., we find that in fact the priestly course of Abijah was on duty from the 2nd to the 9th of October, the 23rd Elul to the 1st Tishri, or concluding on the feast of Trumpets and the beginning of the New Year.

Now bring forward all your calculations and you'll find Elizabeth's sixth month to fall between the middle of March and the middle of April (since ancient times March 25 has been observed for the annunication to Mary). Then count forward three more months and John would have been born around the middle of June (the ancient date for the feast of John's nativity is June 24). Then count forward another six months and you come to December 25 for the birth of Jesus.

So once again, the actual evidence supports the December dating. "

Hi Joline,

Thank you for your post but actually I was stating that you can only eliminate dates by the course of Abijiah and not pinpoint an exact date, since he would have served twice during the year during the ordinary cycle plus also during the feast days. Now I'm not sure if the poster you are quoting took the feast days into account or not in his postings but certainly their fixing a date of 6BC is a great leap of faith to take without any documentation of how he actually arrived there.

if we caculate backwards to the year before Jesus' birth, which is 6 B.C.

In a previous post I stated the reasons why a year of 4-3 BC is a pretty good fit for the birth of our Lord - alsa fits Luke pretty well. This of course if you follow John's account of a 2 and 1/2 year ministry of Jesus, which began in AD 27 and ended in AD 30.

Luke 3:23

Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Also most earlier datings on the year of the Lord's birth are based on a faulty premise of Herod's death occurring in 4 BC.

The dating of Herod's death was miscalculated by a Biblical scholar, Emil Schurer (1844–1910), even though later research has proven him wrong the history channel and present day Biblical scholars still repeat the miscalculation of Herod's death being in 4BC. More recent scholarship however has affixed Herod's death to 1 BC, specifically before April of that year. Josephus, a Jewish historian, stated that Herod died after a Jewish fast in the 37th year of his reign. He also tells us the 192 Olympiad was in the 28th year of his reign so the 37th year of his reign would have to be between April of 2BC and April of 1 BC.

11 BC End of the 192nd Olympiad (June -11) in his 28th year of reign. XVI:136

04 BC Augustus approves establishing a kingship for Herod's sons before dismissing the legation of Varus, which ran from 6BC to 4 BC.

April of 02BC Was the beginning of his 37 year reign as described in Josephus

January 26th 1 BC is when the latest scholarship affixes Herod death.

This would have preceded the completion of his 37th year as King.

This also fits the narrative of his sending his soldiers out to kill male boys under the age of 2 at Bethlehem. Jesus would have been about 13 months old then and Herod, not knowing exactly when the child was born but only when the wise men came, would have wanted a wide enough margin to ensure the foretold king and messiah would not escape his net. Choosing +/- 1 year would seem to fit the narrative if Christ was indeed born somewhere in December of 3BC. If so it would have been Herod's last vicious act in this world since he did not survive long afterwards.

In Christ, Pat

While I believe Luke's reference to the sixth month may indeed be the sixth month of the Jewish calendar many would disagree with me. It does indeed line of with the Biblical priestly courses and the holidays in which Zacharias

could have served and does get us to a December birth, which some of the early church fathers also indicated to us. That said this is not an exact science but circumstantial but I'm still a proponent of a December date based on the early evidence.

May the Lord Bless, Pat

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand he died wednesday and rose saturday.  On Sunday he was revealed.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand he died wednesday and rose saturday.  On Sunday he was revealed.

Hi Wildstar,

Not sure where you received that particular understanding but it is not according to Scripture.

Matthew 28:1-3

Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.

Mark 16:2-5

Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they said among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.

Mark 16:9-10

Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept.

Luke 24:1-7

Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. Then they went in and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. And it happened, as they were greatly perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. Then, as they were afraid and bowed their faces to the earth, they said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.' "

John 20:1-9

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”

Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb. So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in.Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed.For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.

May the Lord Bless, Pat

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scripture says, THREE days and THREE nights.

 

It does matter, because it's the Word of God.

 

The Church, and the whole world has taught us, TWO days and TWO nights.

 

Well, it would have to be two if Jesus was crucified on Friday night and rose Sunday morning.

 

 

So, the core question is, WHO TOLD US THAT IT WAS FRIDAY EVENING?

 

Truth is, no one told us that it was Friday.  The world has ASSUMED that it was Friday by, because the Scriptures say that they rushed Jesus' body down to prepare FOR THE SABBATH.  Apparently, we all saw "Sabbath" and instantly thought of Saturday.  So, we were all told something, and hardly anyone attempted to validate - not scholar nor priest nor pastor nor academic.

 

So, what I'm about to type to you will shake the very foundation of what you've been told.

 

 

PASSOVER.

 

In Leviticus 23, we see that the PASSOVER also is a Sabbath, commonly called the HIGH SABBATH.

 

Jesus and His 12 were preparing for ... the PASSOVER.

 

So, the Sabbath that they were trying to stay ahead of, wasn't the Saturday Sabbath, but instead the PASSOVER SABBATH, which would have fallen on the Friday, which means Jesus had to have been crucified ON THE THURSDAY.

 

OK, I know that just words to most of you.  So, don't take my word for it, instead take JOHNS word for it.

 

In John 19:31 John mentions the Sabbath, but he also makes it clear as to WHAT TYPE OF SABBATH.  He calls this Sabbath the "HIGH DAY", meaning, it was not the Saturday Sabbath that we all think it was, but instead it is the HIGH SABBATH OF THE PASSOVER.

 

All these centuries.  All the times we have collectively read that ... and we didn't even notice.

 

JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED ON THURSDAY, NOT FRIDAY.

 

 

Summary

1) Leviticus 23 gives us the root that the Passover is a Sabbath

2) John clearly shows us that it was the "high day", which is the Passover Sabbath, not the common Saturday Sabbath

3) The Greek word for Sabbath is also PLURAL (you can find "Sabbaths" in the English Old Testament, but "Sabbaths" does not exist in the NT, only "Sabbath days")

4) The Scripture about the women at the tomb of Jesus should be properly rendered as "Sabbaths" or "Sabbath days", not "Sabbath".  Why?  Because the Passover Sabbath was on FRIDAY and the regular Sabbath was on Saturday.  There were TWO SABBATHS.

 

That is how we have gotten it wrong for all these centuries.  We simply ASSUMED that the "Sabbath" meant Saturday, but we completely overlooked the PASSOVER SABBATH, which would have fallen ON the Friday ... meaning Jesus had to have been crucified ON the Thursday.

 

 

BOTTOM LINE:

 

This is how Jesus could have been in the earth for THREE days and THREE nights.  The traditional teaching that we have suggest TWO days and TWO nights ... and it's wrong.

 

It does matter, because it's the Word of God.

 

 

Now, of course it's too commercial and worldly, so don't expect it to change.  But, know the truth and share the truth with your pastors, teachers, friends, coworkers, and family.

This is such a common error that I am surprised more people cannot adequately respond to it. It is the error of not comparing scripture with scripture but rather focusing upon one passage and ignoring others and investing that one passage with your own a priori assumptions. The sign of Jonah must only mean 72 literal hours if that is, in fact, how long Jonah was in the belly of the fish - however if the timing for Jonah was only approximate, ie parts of days counted as whole days then it is possible for it mean the same in regards to the Lord's burial. 

 

The scripture are clear that the Lord Jesus Christ did not rise after 3 days and 3 nights - but rather on the third day! 

 

For example, in Luke 24:21 when Jesus is talking to Cleopas and his companion on the road to Emmaus we read this, "But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened." As this was the first day of the week (Sunday) that means the crucifixion had to have been on the Friday. If Jesus Christ had been in the tomb for 72 hours it would have been the fourth day.  

 

1 Corinthians is the earliest written account of the resurrection (pre-dating the gospel records) and this is what Paul has to say, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, (1Co 15:4 NKJ). 

 

This is what the word of God says as well - so unless the word of God contradicts itself (or unless Jesus was wrong) there has to be a way to reconcile the sign of Jonah with the clear biblical evidence that the resurrection happened on the third day. Happily for us there is a way to do so, and begins by understanding that one should never insert our modern western precision into our interpretation of the text - especially when there is evidence that the writers did not always speak in such precise terms, there is actually a very similar incident in the book of Esther. Again it is there days and three nights and the third day, compare: 

 

Esther 4:16 "Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!"

 

And 

 

Esther 5:1 Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace, across from the king's house, while the king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, facing the entrance of the house

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites