3 days and 3 nights

[Jim W]

Wow, freeatlast, anybody that can copy and paste that much text at one time must have the truth! (a little humorous sarcasm)
So, is this the place where I should copy and paste a couple of books that hold another view?

If the writer of that piece thinks that any chronology of the crucifixion week can be put together and be called a "fact", then he either has a lot to learn, or he's being dishonest. I've studied many different chronologies of that week over the years, and most have their good points and bad points, but NONE of them can be dogmatically called a "fact". There simply isn't enough data supplied in the gospel record to nail it down with certainty. I've even read one that claimed there were two Triumphal entries! And, yes, I did read the piece above. And it's clear to me that me and the author is in disagreement as to what constitutes a "fact".

Here's a question for you, freeatlast, (since the article didn't address this, I'll let you) what are you going to do with Luke 24:13-27?

Jim

 

[freeatlast]

Originally posted by Jim W:
Wow, freeatlast, anybody that can copy and paste that much text at one time must have the truth! (a little humorous sarcasm)
So, is this the place where I should copy and paste a couple of books that hold another view?

If the writer of that piece thinks that any chronology of the crucifixion week can be put together and be called a "fact", then he either has a lot to learn, or he's being dishonest. I've studied many different chronologies of that week over the years, and most have their good points and bad points, but NONE of them can be dogmatically called a "fact". There simply isn't enough data supplied in the gospel record to nail it down with certainty. I've even read one that claimed there were two Triumphal entries! And, yes, I did read the piece above. And it's clear to me that me and the author is in disagreement as to what constitutes a "fact".

Here's a question for you, freeatlast, (since the article didn't address this, I'll let you) what are you going to do with Luke 24:13-27?

Jim

Jim, be more specific. What about the passage in Luke.

 

[Jim W]

Jim, be more specific. What about the passage in Luke.

O.K. Specifically verse 21.

Jim

 

[freeatlast]

Originally posted by Jim W:
Jim, be more specific. What about the passage in Luke.

O.K. Specifically verse 21.

Jim

Jim here is what it says;
Luk 24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.

Perhaps you could point out what you feel disagrees with what the authur of the post I gave stated.

 

[Jim W]

Aw, come on. You know how it disagrees, don't you?
Jesus is walking down the road with a couple of His disciples on SUNDAY. The passage says that that SUNDAY was the third day since Jesus had been handed over to the chief priest and crucified. If that is a fact, then the Wednesday crucifixion idea is as dead as two day old road kill.

Jim

 

[freeatlast]

Originally posted by Jim W:
Aw, come on. You know how it disagrees, don't you?
Jesus is walking down the road with a couple of His disciples on SUNDAY. The passage says that that SUNDAY was the third day since Jesus had been handed over to the chief priest and crucified. If that is a fact, then the Wednesday crucifixion idea is as dead as two day old road kill.

Jim

Jim,
I really do not think it disagrees with what this man has written. I think that he really did an excellent job in what he wrote. The men speaking in Luke may very well be speaking in terms in how they accounted the time line rather then trying to show exact times. I think that no matter how scripture is dealt with in this issue there is some room for discussion since it does not literally spell it all out in sequence. However as I said the explanation that this man gave is very good and well thought out. I do not believe that passage in Luke kills the understanding as you seem to suggest. I do agree that because of the Luke passage there needs to be some thought and ideas given, but not the discarding of what was said.

 

[wopik]

Jim W ---

Jesus is walking down the road with a couple of His disciples on SUNDAY. The passage says that that SUNDAY was the third day since Jesus had been handed over to the chief priest and crucified. If that is a fact, then the Wednesday crucifixion idea is as dead as two day old road kill.


"...and besides all this, today is the third day since these things were done" (Lk. 24:21).

"These things were done" included the sealing of the sepulchre and setting a watch at the tomb -- ordered by Pilate, a day after the crucifixion (Matt. 27: 62-66).

Sunday was the third day from Thursday, making a late Wednesday crucifixion possible.

 

[Jim W]

Hey, Wopik. I swear, I've searched Luke 24:13-27 over and over, and I can't find a reference to the setting of the seal and the establishing of the guard anywhere in that passage. I noticed that in all three cases that you make this claim, you cite Matt. 27. Is this- do you think - a proper method of Bible study? Do you think it wise to ignore the very specific answers to the question "what things" that are there in the text right before your eyes? And then go two whole books over, find an event not even remotely related to the very specific conversation between the risen Lord and two of His disciples, and claim that this is what the conversation is about?! You're kiddin', right?

Let me see if I can help you out...

Luk 24:18) And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?

Now, usually, when a person is going to use the old "setting of the seal and guard" argument, they'll say something like, "but we must ask, "what things"" To which I reply, "oh, no we don't", because Jesus already asked that question, right there in the text. And what's more, He got a very specific answer to His question. Look...

Luk 24:19 And he said unto them, What things?

See? I told you. We don't have to ask that question, after all, do we? Jesus already asked it for us. Now, does Jesus get an answer? Yep. Look...

Luk 24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death , and have crucified him .Luk 24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done .

Well, I'll be dog. There's your question. And your answer, right there in front of your eyes. The "these things" are the delivering of Him to be condemned, and the crucifixion. Says it plain as the nose on your face. So, you'll have to come up with another strategy. That one won't work.

"These things were done" included the sealing of the sepulchre and setting a watch at the tomb -- ordered by Pilate, a day after the crucifixion (Matt. 27: 62-66). Sunday was the third day from Thursday, making a late Wednesday crucifixion possible.

Ah, but we just saw from the text itself that the "these things" most definitely do not refer to the setting of the seal and guards, didn't we. Do you think that Sunday is the third day from Wednesday? I don't.

freeatlast says...

The men speaking in Luke may very well be speaking in terms in how they accounted the time line rather then trying to show exact times.

Ha! Yep, and Jesus may very well have been using a Hebrew idiom while talking to some Hebrews, too. In fact, I can take you to an historical source that can prove that just such an idiom was commonly used by the Jews at that time; a source that has no dog in the fight. Can you show me a historical source that says that the Jews commonly called Sunday the third day from Wednesday? I don't think you can. But, if you could, it would be significant. You wrote...

However as I said the explanation that this man gave is very good and well thought out.

Of course it's well thought out, and persuasive. I could show you some papers written that take the opposite view that are equally well written and thought out. I don't form my beliefs based on who was the most artistic in their form of persuasion. That's deadly. I try to form my beliefs by what the scripture actually says.

You said...

I do not believe that passage in Luke kills the understanding as you seem to suggest.

Well, I couldn't disagree more. If what that passage says is true, then the Wednesday crucifixion view is dead as a door nail.

By the way, Wopik and freeatlast, were you two aware that there is only ONE place in the entire Bible that places the event of the crucifixion in relation to a day of the week? Guess which passage? You got it, this one.
Do you two think there may be any significance to it that Matt. was written to a Jewish readership, while Luke was written to a Gentile readership? Hmmm.

Jim

 

[freeatlast]

jim,
I assume that you hold to a Thursday crucifixion?

 

[Jim W]

Originally posted by freeatlast:
jim,
I assume that you hold to a Thursday crucifixion?

Nope. I believe He was crucified on Friday. And I would assume that your next objection would be that Sunday is not the third day from Friday. ( If I'm wrong in that assumption just correct me.) And I'd say "sure, it is".

Let's get it out of the realm of the theoretical, and put it into everyday terms.
Let's say you went on vacation. Say, to Florida. Let's say you arrived on Friday, in the afternoon, unpacked and got settled in. Then you put on your swimming trunks and spent the rest of the day on the beach and swimming around in front of your hotel. Then, the next day, Saturday, you go on an all day fishing trip in the bay. Then Sunday your wife ( or husband, as the case may be; not being mean, just don't know what gender I'm communicating with )makes you spend all day shopping, following her/him around while she/he tries on clothes. That evening, you call a friend on the phone. He says, so tell me what all you've done since you've been there.
Do you know what you're going to tell him, freeatlast? Sure you do. You're going to say...

"Friday, the first day we were here, all we did was stay on the beach and swim in the gulf. Then Saturday, the second day we were here, we went on an all day fishing trip. This is the third day we've been here, (Sunday) and all we did was shop."

It's really not all that complicated; it's just normal everyday speech.
But you know what else, freeatlast? The "these things" in the passage in Luke were completed by 9:00 a.m. on Friday morning. There's no way you can discount the crucifixion day as being a "day".

Jim

 

[rstrats]

Jim W,

re: “There's no way you can discount the crucifixion day as being a ‘day’".


If I had gone to the dentist yesterday morning are you saying that I could have said in the afternoon that it had been one day SINCE I had gone to the dentist?

 

[Jim W]

Originally posted by rstrats:
Jim W,

re: “There's no way you can discount the crucifixion day as being a ‘day’".


If I had gone to the dentist yesterday morning are you saying that I could have said in the afternoon that it had been one day SINCE I had gone to the dentist?

rstrats, if you'd gotten your tooth filled at 9o a.m. on Friday morning, then on Sunday evening you could say that was the third day since you'd gotten your tooth filled.

If you want to play that game, compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Otherwise, you're setting up a false dichotomy.

Jim

 

[freeatlast]

Originally posted by Jim W:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by freeatlast:
jim,
I assume that you hold to a Thursday crucifixion?

Nope. I believe He was crucified on Friday. And I would assume that your next objection would be that Sunday is not the third day from Friday. ( If I'm wrong in that assumption just correct me.) And I'd say "sure, it is".

Let's get it out of the realm of the theoretical, and put it into everyday terms.
Let's say you went on vacation. Say, to Florida. Let's say you arrived on Friday, in the afternoon, unpacked and got settled in. Then you put on your swimming trunks and spent the rest of the day on the beach and swimming around in front of your hotel. Then, the next day, Saturday, you go on an all day fishing trip in the bay. Then Sunday your wife ( or husband, as the case may be; not being mean, just don't know what gender I'm communicating with )makes you spend all day shopping, following her/him around while she/he tries on clothes. That evening, you call a friend on the phone. He says, so tell me what all you've done since you've been there.
Do you know what you're going to tell him, freeatlast? Sure you do. You're going to say...

"Friday, the first day we were here, all we did was stay on the beach and swim in the gulf. Then Saturday, the second day we were here, we went on an all day fishing trip. This is the third day we've been here, (Sunday) and all we did was shop."

It's really not all that complicated; it's just normal everyday speech.
But you know what else, freeatlast? The "these things" in the passage in Luke were completed by 9:00 a.m. on Friday morning. There's no way you can discount the crucifixion day as being a "day".

Jim </font>[/QUOTE]Jim,
Let's not use any games here. Show me how Jesus was in the grave three days and three nights with a friday crucifixion. Spell it out like you did the vacation trip.

 

[rstrats]

Jim W,

re: “... if you'd gotten your tooth filled at 9o a.m. on Friday morning, then on Sunday evening you could say that was the third day since you'd gotten your tooth filled.”

That would be incorrect. If I had had a tooth filled on Friday morning then on Sunday evening I would have to say that it was the second day SINCE I had the tooth filled because Saturday would have been the first day SINCE I had it filled.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by rstrats:
Jim W,

re: “... if you'd gotten your tooth filled at 9o a.m. on Friday morning, then on Sunday evening you could say that was the third day since you'd gotten your tooth filled.”

That would be incorrect. If I had had a tooth filled on Friday morning then on Sunday evening I would have to say that it was the second day SINCE I had the tooth filled because Saturday would have been the first day SINCE I had it filled.

God in Genesis 1 defines day as morning and evening as being a day. Not midnight to midnight. With that being said, Friday morning to Friday evening would have been one (1) day, Saturday morning till Saturday evening would have been two (2) days, Sunday morning till Sunday evening would be the third (3) day.

 

[rstrats]

john6:63,

I'm afraid I don't see your point in so far as it applies to Luke 24:21. Could you please elaborate.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by rstrats:
john6:63,

I'm afraid I don't see your point in so far as it applies to Luke 24:21. Could you please elaborate.

I was replying that according to Genesis 1 definition of Day as being an evening and a morning, then that would make Jim W’s comment in regards to a trip to the dentist as in fact correct.

I haven’t reviewed the conversation concerning Luke 24:21. But from reading it, it seems to me that the disciple’s had somewhat of a misguided hope, in that they believed Jesus was going to redeem Israel, but really their hope was fulfilled in a much greater way, by Jesus conquering the grave and was resurrected on the third day. If I have time later I may add my .02 cents to the 3 days & 3 nights debate later.

 

[rstrats]

john6:63,

re: “I was replying that according to Genesis 1 definition of Day as being an evening and a morning, then that would make Jim W’s comment in regards to a trip to the dentist as in fact correct.”

I still don’t see why a day equaling an “evening and morning” makes Jim W’s comment correct. Luke 24:21 reads in part, “...it is now the third day since these things came to pass”. If Sunday was the third day SINCE these things came to pass, then Saturday was the second day SINCE these things came to pass. That would make Friday the first day SINCE these things came to pass. So what day did the last of these things come to pass? If the crucifixion occurred on Friday would you say on that Friday that it had been one day SINCE the crucifixion?

 

[wopik]

Show us how Jesus was in the grave three days and three nights (Matt 12:40) with a friday crucifixion.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by wopik:
Show us how Jesus was in the grave three days and three nights (Matt 12:40) with a friday crucifixion.

Matthew 12:40 never says grave, it says heart of the earth. Jesus uses the word grave twice in the gospels, but not in Matthew 12:40.

According to Strong’s the Greek for grave is mnemeion meaning grave, sepulchre or tomb.

The Greek for heart is kardia, similar to the English word cardia or cardiac. It means heart or center or middle. The Greek for Earth is qe. Which means soil OR the the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals.

See my reply to rstrats for a full explinantion.