WHICH are THE, "three days"?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Gerhard Ebersoehn, Aug 31, 2011.

  1. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3


    GE:

    WHICH are THE, "three days"?

    The question here, is, NOT 'when' were the three days or three days and three nights? It is not to be discussed which days of the week THE, "three days" spoken about in Scriptures like 1Corinthians 15:3-4, Mark 8:31 and Matthew 12:40 were; but of which PROPHETIC significance and category, strictly, they, "ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES", BELONGED?!

    Here is an example of the kind of irrelevant 'argument' I courteously ask will not be raised here.

    Dr Walter:

    "Your position violates every precondition you demand. You corrupt the scriptures to suit your own theory.

    Take any "third day" scenario you like and your Saturday resurrection falls flat on its face as false and I have shown that in the last post. You ignored the last post because you cannot answer it - just that simple.
    "

    Because I do not want to know about the week-days they might have fallen on with Jesus' last passover, but WHAT PROPHECY AND TYPOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, THEY FULFILLED.

     
  2. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Too many contextual factors contradict your interpretation and application of Old Testament types. Here are five contextual factors that plainly contradict your SPECULATIVE theory.

    1. The guards are at the tomb when the women came in Matthew 24:4 and the some of them are returning to the city in verse 11 as the women are going to tell the disciples back in the city. All gospel accounts agree that the women went to tell the disciples in the morning on the first day of the week (Lk. 24:1-10; Mark 16:2-8).

    You either have to conclude that the women and the guards stayed the whole night together at the tomb and then went to the city Sunday morning OR your interpretation of Matthew 28:1 is wrong and the resurrection occurred Sunday morning.

    Matthew 28:4 the guards are at the tomb:

    4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

    Matthew 28:11

    11 ¶ Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.


    2. It is legitimate to interpret "dawn toward" in Matthew 28:1 to mean "growing of light" as in sunrise and thus completely in harmony with all other accounts:

    Luke 24:1 ¶ 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.

    Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.


    3. All the accounts speak of plural women coming to the tomb including Matthew 28:1. Matthew gives two of the names of the women. Mark gives three of the names (Mary Magdalen, Mary mother of James and Salome) while Luke gives an additional name (Joanna) [Luke 24:10] not mentioned by Mark. Hence, NONE of the gospel accounts provide all the names of the women.

    To argue that Matthew's account must different because only two names are listed while Mark gives three names makes about as much sense as arguing that Mark's account must be of another visit because he mentions a name that neither Luke or Matthew mention!!!


    4. In the Matthew 28 account the stone was either already removed before they arrive or was removed as they arrived:

    1 ¶ In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
    2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
    3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
    4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
    5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.


    In Luke's account which occurs SUNDAY MORNING the stone had not yet been removed as they were coming to the grave as they were contemplating about how they could remove that stone. It is the SAME two Mary's present in both Matthew 28:1-5 as in Luke 24:1-3:

    1 ¶ And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
    2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
    3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
    4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

    Either both Mary's had amnesia and forgot they saw the stone removed on Saturday or Matthew 28:1-11 is the very same account as Luke 24:1-3 and both occurrred on Sunday morning.


    The contextual evidence is clear! The new translations are correct!!! Your Sabbath theory falls to peices.

    5. Moreover, Jesus said that he would be in the grave three DAYS and three NIGHTS and there is no possible way that THREE days and nights occur between Thursday when he was buried and Saturday before 6 pm! CAN YOU COUNT???? I don't think you can so I will help you as we count forward from Thursday between 3-6pm:

    1. Thursday DAY one - 3-6pm
    2. Friday NIGHT one - 6pm to 6am
    3. Friday DAY two - 6am to 6pm
    4. Saturday NIGHT two - 6pm to 6am
    5. Saturday DAY three - 6am to 6pm

    You have only TWO nights not THREE!

    Now let us see if Sunday fits perfectly:

    1. Thursday DAY one - 3-6pm
    2. Friday NIGHT one - 6pm to 6am
    3. Friday DAY two - 6am to 6pm
    4. Saturday NIGHT two - 6pm to 6am
    5. Saturday DAY three - 6am to 6pm
    6. Sunday NIGHT - 6pm to 6am

    Wow? Perfect harmony with Christ's Words that he would be "three DAYS and three NIGHTS" in the grave.

    What about harmony with Sunday and the words "THIS IS the third day since" the trial and crucifixion by the rulers which was said Sunday AFTERNOON in Luke 24:21? Let us count backward from the time such words were spoken:

    1. Sunday DAY - 6pm to 6am Sunday morning - spoken in afternoon
    2. Sunday NIGHT - 6am to 6pm on Saturday evening -
    3. Saturday DAY - 6pm. to 6am on Saturday morning -
    4. Saturday NIGHT - 6am to 6pm on Friday evening -
    5. Friday DAY - 6pm to 6am on Frday morning -
    6. Friday NIGHT - 6am to 6pm on Thursday evening
    7. "APO" away from; exterior to Thursday crucifixion 6am to 6pm

    What about harmony with Sunday and the words "the Third day" spoken early Sunday morning before 6am in Luke 24:7 in reference to how long he would be in the grave - buried Thursday between 3-6 pm:

    1. Sunday NIGHT - 6am to 6pm on Saturday evening
    2. Saturday DAY - 6pm to 6am on Saturday morning
    3. Saturday NIGHT - 6am to 6pm on Friday evening
    4. Friday DAY - 6pm to 6am on Friday morning
    5. Friday NIGHT - 6am to 6pm on Thursday eveving
    6. Thursday DAY - 6pm to 6am on Thursday morning

    However, neither a Saturday resurrection or a Wednesday crucifixion fit any of these time frames of "this is the third day" or "on the third day".

    All you have done is manipulate scriptures to suit your false doctrine.
     
  3. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    So this explains it all - hundreds of pages of unnecessary bickering --- to summarize,

    The "three days" are not the "interpretation and application of Old Testament types." To maintain they were the Christ-fulfilled "three days" of ALL the Word of God both Old and New Testaments - in fact that they are the Passover of Yahweh- "three days" through the Anointed "Lamb of God", "our Passover" -, is, "SPECULATIVE theory".

    Humpty Dumpty .... Thanks for your SUBSTANTIAL contribution.

    If this were the Topix forum, my language and behaviour certainly would be VERY DIFFERENT!


     
  4. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    One thing is for absulutely SURE, that one by the pseudonymn of Dr Walter, will get his doctorate .... Hear me, GE, act prophet.
     
  5. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    No! It simply overthrows YOUR INTERPRETATION of Old Testament types!
     
  6. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    GE:


    Re: Dr Walter, above, “You are wrong in your drawn implication. Sunday is not the fourth day "from" (apo) from the Crucifixion as that would demand that "apo" includes the day of crucifixion but the very root idea of apo is from the exterior not the interior of that day. You are wrong that "apo" allows "INCLUDING, the day of Crucifixion" - You are simply just wrong and too proud to admit it.”

    Dr Walter, LONG before YOU appeared on Baptist Board, I raised this very argument of, ‘…the third day SINCE…’ to prove exactly what you want to prove with it, that Sunday was “the third day since” Thursday the day of the Crucifixion. Then I raised this argument ‘against’ you while I still did not know that you maintained the SAME conclusion from Luke 24:21 as I do. And I was the one of us who first discovered and stressed the agreement between us and asked, why then for heaven’s sake, do we disagree? But here you rant on after all as if I reject the straight forward meaning of Luke’s remark that it – “the First Day of the week” 24:1 – was “the third day since …” the Crucifixion 24:20-21.

    Yes, “Sunday is not the fourth day "from" (apo) from the Crucifixion as that would demand that "apo" includes the day of crucifixion.” Therefore, if I were “wrong in (my) drawn implication”, then so were you, Dr Walter, because my “drawn implication” is exactly the same as your “drawn implication”.

    Nevertheless, that “the very root idea of apo is from the exterior not the interior”, is not the whole truth. As Dana and Mantey say, the very root idea of ‘apo’, is, “in the midst”. HOWEVER, I NEVER maintained “… that "apo" allows "INCLUDING, the day of Crucifixion"” in Luke 24:21!

    And also – which YOU never even noticed with your shallow style of pseudo-exegesis, but which I have noticed and mentioned – is that Luke 24:21b does not use the Preposition ‘apo’ just like that! Luke uses these words, “aph’ hou” which combination of use even more stresses the root idea of ‘apo’, namely, “in the midst” so that the possibility is even stronger that Luke meant that the Crucifixion-day – ‘Thursday’ – is included and not excluded.

    But I –again, DESPITE – stuck to the FACTS “in ALL the Scriptures” and “according to” “Moses and ALL the Prophets THE THINGS CONCERNING HIMSELF”, that the Fifth Day of the week was the actual, promised and prophesied and through Christ FULFILLED “first day that they removed leaven and had to always kill the passover on” Mark 14:12,17 Matthew 26::17,20 Luke 22:7,14 John 13:1,30; 19:14 = Exodus 12:14,15.

    I do not – like you – make of Luke 24:21b the sole and exclusive Scripture upon which I base my conviction of Jesus’ Fifth Day of the week Crucifixion. But you hammer on “the very root idea of apo is from the exterior not the interior” as if the Bible has NOTHING ELSE to say about the “three days”, “on the third day” of which “Christ according to the Scriptures rose from the dead again”. Yes, you depart from and end with your main principle of Bible-interpretation, that “The "three days" are not the "interpretation and application of Old Testament types”, but “all” it is to ‘interpret and apply’ the "three days" according to and in the Light of the Word of God of the "Old Testament types”, is to “manipulate scriptures to suit (my) false doctrine”. But thus is your obtuse modus operandi of deceit.

    I repeat what I did say, that “IF” ‘apo’ were to mean “in the midst” of the day of the Crucifixion – in other words, INCLUDED the day of the Crucifixion –, it WOULD imply that Sunday since and including the day of the Crucifixion was the fourth-in-sequence-day. That was simply my acknowledging the linguistic implications, which Dr Walter pays no attention to, just as he pays no attention to my actual conclusion on the meaning of “today is the third day since …”, that it EXCLUDES the day of the Crucifixion. If he paid attention, Dr Walter could not have accused me so falsely.

    I courteously asked,
    “The question here, is, NOT 'when' were the three days or three days and three nights … but of which PROPHETIC significance and category, strictly, they, "ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES", BELONGED?!”

    Dr Walter insolently retorted with 1124 words, explaining 'when' and on which days of the week the three days or three days and three nights in Jesus’ last passover, fell.

    Says he,
    “Too many contextual factors contradict your interpretation and application of Old Testament types. Here are five contextual factors that plainly contradict your SPECULATIVE theory” …

    … says he WHILE I GAVE NO “interpretation”, or “application” or “theory”, but ASKED for OTHERS’ “interpretation”, “application” or “theory”.

    Dr Walter only in principle REJECTS ANY “interpretation and application of Old Testament types”. Dr Walter makes of the “three days” recalled by Cleopas in Luke 24:21, MERE three days of succession— which has been _MY_ ‘argument’ ever since this discussion started, but which Dr Walter vehemently has tried to counter. Now he claims what I in fact have been claiming all along, namely, that the “three days since” recalled by Cleopas in Luke 24:21, MERELY were three days of succession ‘since’ and “excluding” the day of the Crucifixion and that they were NOT, THE, “three days” of the Prophecies, Promises and Law of the Old Testament— that they were not THE “three days” I opened this new discussion about and asked for people’s explanation after the similitude of the Prophecies, Promises and Law of the Old Testament!

    Therewith Dr Walter against his intentions, does give us here an idea of WHAT and WHICH ‘days’, the “three days” or “three days and three nights” are— they are no ordinary, simply any three consecutive “three days” or “three days and three nights” … they are the specific “three days” of Bible Prophecy— specifically of the passover-prophetic “three days”, namely, of the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth days of the First Month of the Israeli year-reckoning … which has NOTHING to do with the week days they might fall on or coincide with.

    But of course, Dr Walter never even realised he helped us to this conclusion. Otherwise he would have been much more cautious and clever.

    Nevertheless, thank you very much, Dr Walter.

     
    #6 Gerhard Ebersoehn, Sep 6, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2011
  7. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0


    Alright! I understand your argument but I don't think it is a good argument. Luke could have used "ek" and that would have settled the matter in your favor but HE DID NOT. Furthermore, I don't see how the pronoun "hou" helps your case at all. It can merely mean "from which" these things were done!

    Must be sacrificed (εδει θυεσθαι). This was Nisan 14 which began at sunset. Luke is a Gentile and this fact must be borne in mind. - A.T. Roberson

    Ver. 17. The first day, etc. The feast continued eight days, including the day on which the paschal lamb was killed and eaten, #Ex 12:15. That was the fourteenth day of the month Abib, answering to parts of our March and April. - Albert Barnes


    You know this is false! I have repeatedly given you a detailed list of reasons. Many of which you don't even try to respond to. You like to imagine that Luke 21:24 is the only basis for my position but you know that is absolutely false.
     
  8. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    GE:

    "The pronoun "hou"", DOES NOT "help" my "case at all"! YET I keep to accepting the exclusive implication of "SINCE these thing (the crucifixion and death) happened."
    _DESPITE_ I think I said.
    Why, despite?
    You said it,
    "... It [aph' hou] can merely mean "from which" these things were done..." "which" referring to the crucifixion and death, in other words, "which things INCLUDING were done."
    I STILL repeat, I accept simply as the English meaning of the word 'since' shows, exclusively.

    The difference here between us is, that I ACKNOWLEDGE difficulties encountered in the TEXT for my / OUR assumption of an exclusive meaning; while you do not.




    GE:

    100% agreement!
    "This ... Nisan 14" being THE "VERY day ye shall REMOVE leaven ..." and "... KILL the passover" Exodus 12:6, 15a.


    GE:

    Again, 100% agreement!

    BUT: Mark Barnes' reference to _Ex 12:15_. Reference to verse 14 would have served his purpose even better! The point is IN EXODUS 12:1 to 14, the date of the FOURTEENTH INCLUDES BOTH DAYS of

    1) killing / removing of life / leaven,
    2) EATING / FEASTING,
    IN CONTRAST to ALL subsequent Scriptures that either imply and or mention the "FEAST" or "EAT"-day of the passover on the FIFTEENTH day of the First Month.

    NEVER again after Exodus 12:14 is 14th Abib called or viewed as "FEAST-DAY", but PURELY as "the Passover" = "passover KILLED"!

    So it's leaven removed and passover killed IN PREPARATION FOR AND OF THE FEAST DAY on the 15th Abib. And that's why John 19:14 and 13:1 call the FOURTEENTH Abib, "The Preparation of the Passover" and the day "BEFORE THE FEAST-DAY" in contradistinction to the "FEAST of Unleavened Bread (eaten)" in John 19:31 identified as "great day of sabbath (of passover)".

    Therefore Barnes is correct in so far as he speaks about Exodus 12 NO FURTHER THAN verse 14. Verse 15 already implies TWO first days; in fact, MENTIONS TWO, 'first' days, the 14th and the 15th days of the month, "the very first day ye shall REMOVE / KILL LEAVEN / LIFE", and "the first day ye shall eat no leavened bread" : the first of "seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread".

    The seven together with the "head-first-day" give the eight days of the Passover Season or Feast.
    Read 12:6,14 and 18 next to another, eight days - one day for the removal of leaven and the killing of the lamb and seven for eating unleavened bread - must bring the last date onto "the first and twentieth day". But the passover is nowhere in the Scriptures called a feast of eight days. And the "head first day" "on the fourteenth day of the First Month" is only in Exodus 12:14 called and viewed as the "Feast-Day" of the passover --- NEVER AGAIN! EVERY time after, it is called and or viewed / appreciated / applied “ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY” without exception, including the New Testament.

    It is the fourteenth day and the fourteenth day ONLY that BEGINS, here: Mark 14:12,17 Matthew 26:17,20 Luke 22:7,14 John 13:1,30 1Corinthians 11:23 …
    … AND HAD ENDED, here: Mark 15:42 Matthew 27:57 John 19:31,38 Luke 23:50
    … BECAUSE here: Mark 15:42 Matthew 27:57 John 19:31,38 Luke 23:50, the day “ye shall take out … (and) burn THAT WHICH REMAINETH” of the passover sacrifice – “BONE-DAY” – “HAD HAD BEGUN ALREADY” English Past Perfect for Ingressive Aorist ‘ehn’ / ‘genomenehs’.
     
    #8 Gerhard Ebersoehn, Sep 12, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2011
  9. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    APOLOGY!

    ... for my absolute BLUNDER, here, quoting myself,

    "Nevertheless, that “the very root idea of apo is from the exterior not the interior”, is not the whole truth. As Dana and Mantey say, the very root idea of ‘apo’, is, “in the midst”. HOWEVER, I NEVER maintained “… that "apo" allows "INCLUDING, the day of Crucifixion"” in Luke 24:21!".

    I have no explanation for it. As I lay on my bed to sleep, something in the back of my mind told me, But what have you said there, and is it the only instance you must have been confused unconsciously by 'meta'?!

    So I came straight to my computer to check up, and there you are!!!

    Sorry! I must have been fast asleep in front of the keyboard while I wrote that!

    'The whole truth' of course is that 'apo' isn't used ALONE, but is used in combination with 'hou' : 'aph' hou' > 'aph' hehs'; about which Blass and Debrunner 241,2 say, "so bald als, nachdem, ebenda" = "as soon as", reference to Acts 24:11, 2Peter 3:4.


    Therefore, please REPLACE my post 6 on this thread, http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1727473#post1727473,

    with:

    Re: Dr Walter, above, “You are wrong in your drawn implication. Sunday is not the fourth day "from" (apo) from the Crucifixion as that would demand that "apo" includes the day of crucifixion but the very root idea of apo is from the exterior not the interior of that day. You are wrong that "apo" allows "INCLUDING, the day of Crucifixion" - You are simply just wrong and too proud to admit it.”

    Dr Walter, LONG before YOU appeared on Baptist Board, I raised this very argument of, ‘…the third day SINCE…’ to prove exactly what you want to prove with it, that Sunday was “the third day since” Thursday the day of the Crucifixion. Then I raised this argument ‘against’ you while I still did not know that you maintained the SAME conclusion from Luke 24:21 as I do. And I was the one of us who first discovered and stressed the agreement between us and asked, why then for heaven’s sake, do we disagree? But here you rant on after all as if I reject the straight forward meaning of Luke’s remark that it – “the First Day of the week” 24:1 – was “the third day since …” the Crucifixion 24:20-21.

    Yes, “Sunday is not the fourth day "from" (apo) from the Crucifixion as that would demand that "apo" includes the day of crucifixion.” Therefore, if I were “wrong in (my) drawn implication”, then so were you, Dr Walter, because my “drawn implication” is exactly the same as your “drawn implication”.

    Nevertheless, that “the very root idea of apo is from the exterior not the interior”, is not the whole truth. 'The whole truth' of course is that 'apo' isn't used ALONE, but is used in combination with 'hou' : 'aph' hou' > 'aph' hehs'; about which Blass and Debrunner 241,2 say, "so bald als, nachdem, ebenda" = "as soon as", reference to Acts 24:11, 2Peter 3:4 … which YOU never even noticed with your shallow style of pseudo-exegesis, but which I have noticed and mentioned. Yes, Luke 24:21b does not use the Preposition ‘apo’ just like that! He uses the combination which may suggest that Luke meant the Crucifixion-day – ‘Thursday’ – is included and not excluded. But then Sunday could not have been “the THIRD day since”, so ANY INCLUSIVE meaning is actually, excluded!

    But I –again, DESPITE – stuck to the FACTS “in ALL the Scriptures” and “according to” “Moses and ALL the Prophets THE THINGS CONCERNING HIMSELF”, that the Fifth Day of the week was the actual, promised and prophesied and through Christ FULFILLED “first day that they removed leaven and had to always kill the passover on” Mark 14:12,17 Matthew 26::17,20 Luke 22:7,14 John 13:1,30; 19:14 = Exodus 12:14,15.

    I do not – like you – make of Luke 24:21b the sole and exclusive Scripture upon which I base my conviction of Jesus’ Fifth Day of the week Crucifixion. But you hammer on “the very root idea of apo is from the exterior not the interior” as if the Bible has NOTHING ELSE to say about the “three days”, “on the third day” of which “Christ according to the Scriptures rose from the dead again”. Yes, you depart from and end with your main principle of Bible-interpretation, that “The "three days" are not the "interpretation and application of Old Testament types”, but “all” it is to ‘interpret and apply’ the "three days" according to and in the Light of the Word of God of the "Old Testament types”, is to “manipulate scriptures to suit (my) false doctrine”. But thus is your obtuse modus operandi of deceit.

    Sunday was the third-in-sequence-day “since” the day “He was condemned to be crucified” and was crucified and died. THEREFORE, Sunday was the fourth day of and in the passover-days BECAUSE the day of Jesus’ crucifixion and death was the first of the passover-days “when they always had to kill the passover” and had to “remove leaven from the land / from your houses”.

    I courteously asked,
    “The question here, is, NOT 'when' were the three days or three days and three nights … but of which PROPHETIC significance and category, strictly, they, "ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES", BELONGED?!”

    Dr Walter insolently retorted with 1124 words, explaining 'when' and on which days of the week the three days or three days and three nights in Jesus’ last passover, fell.

    Says he,
    “Too many contextual factors contradict your interpretation and application of Old Testament types. Here are five contextual factors that plainly contradict your SPECULATIVE theory” …

    … says he WHILE I GAVE NO “interpretation”, or “application” or “theory”, but ASKED for OTHERS’ “interpretation”, “application” or “theory”.

    Dr Walter only in principle REJECTS ANY “interpretation and application of Old Testament types”. Dr Walter makes of the “three days” recalled by Cleopas in Luke 24:21, MERE three days of succession— which has been _MY_ ‘argument’ ever since this discussion started, but which Dr Walter vehemently has tried to counter. Now he claims what I in fact have been claiming all along, namely, that the “three days since” recalled by Cleopas in Luke 24:21, MERELY were three days of succession ‘since’ and “excluding” the day of the Crucifixion and that they were NOT, THE, “three days” of the Prophecies, Promises and Law of the Old Testament— that they were not THE “three days” I opened this new discussion about and asked for people’s explanation after the similitude of the Prophecies, Promises and Law of the Old Testament!

    Therewith Dr Walter against his intentions, does give us here an idea of WHAT and WHICH ‘days’, the “three days” or “three days and three nights” are— they are no ordinary, simply any three consecutive “three days” or “three days and three nights” … they are the specific “three days” of Bible Prophecy— specifically of the passover-prophetic “three days”, namely, of the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth days of the First Month of the Israeli year-reckoning … which has NOTHING to do with the week days they might fall on or coincide with.

    But of course, Dr Walter never even realised he helped us to this conclusion. Otherwise he would have been much more cautious and clever.

    Nevertheless, thank you very much, Dr Walter.

     
    #9 Gerhard Ebersoehn, Sep 13, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 13, 2011
  10. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    You again misundertand what I have said. It makes no difference as neither Luke 24:7 and Luke 24:21 support your Saturday resurrection theory.

    Luke 24:7 is verbalized on the same day as Luke 24:21 is verbalized. The only difference is that Luke 24:7 refers directly to the prophesy and begins its count on the "morning" part of Thursday (6am-6pm) when Christ was buried and thus gives the time period between his burial and resurrection:

    First moring - 6am to 6pm Thursday
    First evening - 6pm to 6am Friday
    Second morning - 6am to 6 pm Friday
    Second evening - 6pm to 6am Saturday
    Third morning - 6am to 6pm Saturday
    Third evening - 6pm to 6am Sunday

    So your Saturday theory falls flat as there is no three days and three nights in your theory.
     
  11. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3

    GE:


    You FALSELY bring into one context verses 7 and 21. Verse 7 has no relevance to the context and time-slot to which verses 20 and 21 belong AND vice versa.

    Verse 7 is JESUS' words of way back when, LONG BEFORE the event in verses 20,21 of CLEOPAS’ REMEMBERING.

    Verse 21 refers back to verse 20 and the contemporary event at the instigation of the RULERS AND HIGH PRIESTS. Verse 21 is about Cleopas’ remembering “today is the third day since …” the rulers and priests “delivered Jesus to be crucified”.

    Verse 21 is about Cleopas’ remembering “today is the third day” SINCE” and EXCLUDING the first _OF THE_ “three days” OF THE PROPHETS.

    In verses 44-46 the same PROPHETIC meaning of "the third day" AS IN verse 7 is the subject — NOT like in verse 21 "the third day" in the reminiscence of Cleopas; NOT "the third day SINCE" “the first day” of the PROPHETIC "three days" — In verses 44-46 and 7 the PROPHETIC "third day" is the subject “on the first day” _OF WHICH_, "IT BEHOVED THE CHRIST TO SUFFER" and “on the third day” _OF WHICH_ “according to the Scriptures”, “IT BEHOVED THE CHRIST TO RISE FROM THE DEAD”.

    “On the First Day of the week” it was “the third day _SINCE_” and EXCLUDING “the first day” on which "IT BEHOVED THE CHRIST TO SUFFER"; “the third day _SINCE_” and EXCLUDING the first of the “three days” FORETOLD in the Prophets and Law of Moses (44-46) AS BY JESUS (7).

    Therefore saying “Luke 24:7 is verbalized on the same day as Luke 24:21 is verbalized” is false.

    Therefore saying “Luke 24:7 … begins its count on the "morning" part of Thursday (6am-6pm)” as if by exclusion of its fore-going night-part the daylight-part of fourteenth Abib could be joined with the night-part of the fifteenth day of Abib into one and the same day, is wrong and false!

    Therefore saying “Thursday when Christ was buried …” is factually wrong and Scripturally defiantly false.

    Therefore speaking about loose, unconnected, irrelevant, arbitrary “mornings” and “evenings” when Jesus spoke of THE “three days and three nights” OF THE “three days” according to the Law and Prophets as well as his own reference TO THE PASSOVER OF YAHWEH and the “three days” BY DATE the 14th, 15th and 16th days of the First Month, is irresponsible and confirmed DISREGARD for the KIND of ‘days’ the “three days”, “on the third day” of which “Christ according to the Scriptures rose from the dead, again”, were.

    Dr Walter simply RELAPSED into his hackneyed, DISTORTED, old and only 'argument' from Luke 24:21; He does not know nor acknowledges the vast unexplored riches of "ALL the Scriptures" regarding the "three days" "on the third day" of which "it behoved the Christ to rise" - quote: "In the Sabbath's FULLNESS OF BEING DAYLIGHT as it began to incline towards the First Day of the week". Matthew 28:1.
     
    #11 Gerhard Ebersoehn, Sep 15, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2011
  12. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never said they are the same! Verse 7 represents your prophecy argument in opposition to my use of verse 21. What I shewed was it does not matter when it comes to counting as both conclude upon Sunday and not Saturday.

    I am consistent in my reckoning of morning and evening with both. Neither will support your Saturday theory as both require more time than your Saturday theory permits.

    My point is that the termination point must at minimum require three days as well as three nights by some kind of reckoning and there is no possible way that Thursday burial can be counted as three nights if the resurrection occurs Saturday afternoon.

    Your theory is wrong and unscriptural and there is no possible way to even put PART of a third night in your theory and the prophetic texts do not simply say "three DAYS" but "three days AND THREE nights"



     
  13. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3



    GE:

    “… the termination point …” of the “three days” of “three days and three nights” in fullness and wholeness, “must at minimum require” that they should be THE “three days” of “three days and three nights” in fullness and wholeness OF THE PROPHETS AND LAW AND JESUS’ OWN pronouncement— the PASSOVER’S first “three days”; the “three days thick darkness” of “the PLAGUE (that) was upon HIM”— days 14, 15 and 16 “of the First Month … ye shall keep passover”!

    But no! for Dr Walter it EVER REMAINS, _his_, arbitray, “termination point” that “at minimum require(s) three days as well as three nights by some kind of reckoning …” Just fancy “…by some kind of reckoning”! That’s why I said, Dr Walter’s ARBITRARY “termination point”!

    But who is speaking about “burial can be counted as three nights”?!
    NOT THE SCRIPTURES! Only Dr Walter.
    Scriptures please, for, “burial … counted as three nights”???
    YOUR theory of course!

    So, If “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”, where is “burial … counted as three …” DAYS?! There is no angle from which your cut and polished diamond, Dr Walter, is not in several places, flawed. But you ask the price of a flawless diamond for it. No, I recline the offer, thanks. You’re an opportunist.

    Dr Walter:
    “... there is no possible way that Thursday burial can be counted as three nights if the resurrection occurs Saturday afternoon.”

    GE:
    1) Fifth Day Abib 14: “… the very first day ye shall remove leaven / kill the passover” Exodus 12:15,6 Mark 14:12,17 Matthew 26:17,20 Luke 22:7,14 John 13:1,30 1Corinthians 11:23

    2) Sixth Day Abib 15: … burial … “That which remaineth take out … burn … BONE-day”—
    “HAVING JUST BEGUN”:
    Mark 15:42 Matthew 27:57 John 13:1,30 Luke 23:50;
    “INCLINING TOWARDS the Sabbath Day”:
    John 19:42 Luke 23:54-56a.

    3) Seventh Day Abib 16: “First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD” = Resurrection = “Sanctuary finished cleansed!”
    EVENING:
    “They BEGAN to rest the Sabbath according to the (Fourth) Commandment” Luke 23:56b.
    “MID-AFTERNOON SABBATH’S BEING IN THE VERY DAYLIGHT STARTING INCLINING TOWARDS the First Day of the week … suddenly there was a great earthquake …” Matthew 28:1.

    4) “After the Sabbath (they) bought sweet spices so that when they would go (Luke 24:1,10), they might anoint him.” Mark 16:1


     
  14. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0


    Jesus is the one that gave the prophetic sign of "three nights" in addition to "three days" if you will remember! Tell him it was arbritrary and unreasonable for him to make that statement!


    Your problem is obvious, Christ observed the Supper on the evening of the 14th was judged during the evening of the 14th and then was crucified and buried on the morning/day of the 14th as Christ is "our passover" (1 Cor. 5:8).

    Thursday = 14th
    Friday = 15th
    Saturday = 16th
    Sunday = 17th
     

Share This Page

Loading...