What day of the week was the crucifiction?

I'll not take the time here to expound on this. If you'd like to PM me, I'll will spell it all out, as to that. I think I do know what is being said here, including the colloquial usage that was common in the gospels. That usage is not identical with the specifics in the OT, nor do any of the gospels actually mention the 14th (or fifteenth) of anything.

But it does take some time. Let me add here, rstrats, that you are already on the right track here, as to Luke 24:21. That same day and that passage that rules out Friday, also rules out Wednesday, if you merely take it for what it says.

Ed

 

Answers respectively are -
1.) No- since the Law does not speak re- healing, He only broke an 'assumed by the Pharisees tradition', not the Mosaic Law.
2.) Yes, He did 'justify' the Apostle, for the Apostle was not 'reaping', in the sense of what was spelled out in the Mosaic Law, but again, an added 'legalistic' tradition.
3.) Is our Lord to be restrained? Only by Himself, so to speak, as I read Scripture.
4.) While I do not know, specifically, I would assume it was probably from the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. But Scripture does not say explicitly, that I am aware of. However I believe that the Mount of Olives is said or at least is claimed by some to be a "Sabbath Day's Journey" from Jerusalem. [Where in Jerusalem, I don't know. I was not aware that Jerusalem had a 'city hall' in those days, and assumed correctly or incorrectly that the 'Temple Mount (Third Temple, for the benefit of those who love to speak of 'Second Temple Judaism', somehow missing that there had been three temples, as 'Solomon's' had been 'rebuilt' as 'Zerubabbel's' then again as 'Herod's', but I digress!) would be considered the city's center, regardless of the specific boundaries of the city walls.] If this is correct, and I have no reason to doubt this, (Someone else might.) as to this distance, Bethany is/was about twice as far away from Jerusalem as is the Mount of Olives, hence obviously at a greater distance than a "Sabbath Day's Journey". One can look at about any 'standard' (whatever that may mean) outline of the life of the Lord Jesus Christ, such as The Harmony of the Gospels by A. T. Robertson for a fair outline of the events of that time. From the supposed entry, that I believe did in fact occur on what is called Palm Sunday, through the Crucifixion on Passover, i.e. 14 Nisan, through the Resurrection, I find little to disagree with, save for a supposed Day of Silence or Day of Meditation, manufactured IMO without a single verse of Scriptural support and only to fit a pre-conceived 'Good Friday' day for the Crucifixion. Remove that non-existent day from any outline, and one will find that the chronology presented throughtout the Gospels, in bits and pieces granted, makes perfect sense. Or at least, that is what I found. When I was first confronted with any of this nearly 40 years ago, I had merely assumed without question, that the Crucifixion was in fact, on a 'Friday'. It took about twelve seconds or so of deep concentrated thought (Please hold down the derison here. It ain't "perlite"!) to see that as rstats wrote in post # 5, it could not have occurred any earlier than Thursday. For while one could, I guess, come up with a way to justify Fri., Sat., Sun. as the third day, one could under no scenario, that I could figure out, justify Sun. afternoon as "The third day since these things happened (the taking of, condemnation, and crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ). I could, as I said, maybe see this as "the third day", but not as "the third day since these things happened". Ergo, I came close, if not entirely ruling out a Friday date. (Realize, I am speaking as we reckon time, in all this.) As the book I was reading, (that I still have, incidentally) was arguing for the crucifixion occuring on Wednesday, under the idea that there is no way to come up with three days and three nights, from Friday (I fully agree, here.) and I, who like most can sing the song of "What he feed me I will swallow!" I changed my position (again,with little real thought) to an acceptance of a Wednesday crucifixion, and held that for a few years. I came to my current position of a Thursday date, after actually reading a fairly scholarly work A Guide to the Gospels by W. Graham Scroggie, who incidentally also believed in a Wednesday date, but was honest enough to say that there was some things that could be said for a Thursday date, although he did not list any. It was only after looking at this on my own, in detail, and reading what the texts were actually saying, as opposed to what was being claimed they said, that I came to this conclusion, which also answers your next question.

 

The date would be (if Thursday is 14 Nisan) 9 Nisan. That day, as a Jew, Jesus would have rested, and not been the day He traveled from Bethany to enter the temple, in accordance with the Law. On 10 Nisan, He entered Jerusalem, and the Temple, in accordance with the beginning of the process of the 'taking' of the Lamb, and the subsequent examination, and the 'keeping' of the Lamb until 14 Nisan, when it (He) was slain, "between the evenings".

While I don't agree with your analysis of all of this, (but do on some) and somehow you missed (or probably have not been made aware, since I am not all that big into questioning someone's motives) that the phrase in Matt. 28:1 reads "οψε δε σαββατων..." is plural, or more than one consecutive, which if not in view, leaves the verse making no linguistic or grammatical sense, hence with the force of "at the close of the Sabbaths" and where Thayer goes out of his way to say

Thayer further adds that "[...attempts by some to "relieve the passage differently" by adopting the Vulg. "vespere sabbati, on the evening of the sabbath"] (are) "without success." [(Cites.)]"
("...τη επιφωσκουση εις μιαν σαββατων ηλθεν" happens to be the next phrase in the verse beyond the opening three words, and are I presume, the words from which Thayer has above abbreviated.) Finally, I don't think one can legitimately read, by implication, that Matt. 28:1 is "at sundown", or minutes thereafter, and leave the other three gospels seeming to refer to the following morning, when clearly all, even at a casual readig, are referring to the same event, i.e., the Empty Tomb. There is no real suggestion that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary' came back early in the A.M. to do a double-check. Rather, I get that while all the writers were talking about one general time, they were not using specific minutes on the clock. And especially since I don't think that wristwatches were around then, either. Most of us have spoken of arising at daylight, or "getting up with the chickens", in our normal conversation. And most of us know what we mean, whether we are the speakers or hearers. I suggest this is no different.

When studying this, I also came to realize that from a Wednesday crucifixion and burial, to the Sunday afternoon encounter with the Emmaus road disciples would make this time now "the fourth day since these things happened". Hence, my conclusion of Wednesday is too soon, Friday is too late. As to the phrase three days and three nights, I don't doubt that at all, either. As one well put "The part is as the whole, in Jewish thinking. I agree.
Also I came to realize that what was being "read into this" was simply not what Jesus said, as well. He never said that "His body would be in the heart of the earth", nor did He say, His body would be entombed in a tomb/grave for three days and three nights, nor did He say His body would be 10' inside a tomb in a hill, nor did He say anything, in Matt. 12:39-40 about 72 hours. All that has been read into His words - added to, if you will. He said "...the Son of Man would be three days and three nights in the heart/middle (Gk. kardia) of the earth." Overlooked in the desire to prove the point is the reversal of the usual Hebrew sense of telling time, at least in Scripture, as - evening precedes morning. And while I have heard several times (or rather seen written several times) that the use of the phrase 'days and nights' removes this from the usual accepted Hebrew practice of "The part is as the whole", to demand a 24 hour time period, I have yet to see any documentation of this, from anyone. Given this, I would have to reconsider. Absent this, I consider it eisegesis, and blindly spouting off someone else's 'canonized rhetoric'. That I don't do. or at least try and not do.

My own posts in this thread #s 4, 7, 8, 13 - where I attempt to 'debunk' the 'claimed' so-called Jewish Incluvisist Rule, 15, 19, 25, 33, humerous post # 35, 37, 48, and 59 have more collectively in them than I am able to write here. To pick one, If I had to, would be to pick # 37. I apologize for seeming to "toot my own horn", here, but do not intend to, and this is solely for informational purposes. As is the fact, that I have reckoned time as we in the 21st century would, not as the Hebrews would, as to days of the week.

Above all, don't take what I or anyone else says about Scripture over the words themselves. Study it for yourself. It'll work wonders, I do believe.

In His grace,

Ed

 

EdSutton,

re: "...to see that as rstrats wrote in post # 5, it could not have occurred any earlier than Thursday."

Actually, I wrote that it couldn’t have occurred any "later" than Thursday.

 

You did, and that is what I meant in the mention of your post in context, but with my fingers running far slower than my brain, (which runs slow, in the first place) I wrote it wrong. So I do apologize for the incorrect quote. Thanks for the correction, lest someone else get confused about what I was attempting to say. I apologize again for misquoting you.

Ed

 

Smoky let me ask you the same question. Which verses should we believe in the Bible? From your view is Matthew in error, or is John? Would you say these verses are in conflict? Most of us here continually say, "there are no contradictions in His Word". I do not believe God contradicts Himself. There is so much that we can understand, and some things we can't. But men everywhere have thrown up their arms, and say we can't understand this, yet the world understands and says Friday is the Day Jesus Christ was crucified, and Jesus arose at "sunrise" about 6:00A.M.

I just cannot believe what the "world" says, and refuse to believe the Holy Spirit will allow contradiction in what He allowed to be written here.

Our God is a God of division. We see this in the very first verse of the Bible. It continues in verse 3, as light is brought upon the earth, and it was good when God divided the light from the darkness. There was "darkness" first and then there was light, and they were equally divided. It is God that tells us what involves a "twenty four hour" day. The "evening" of 12 hours begins the day which is called night, and the next 12 hours is called "morning", then upon the completion of the last 12 hours, another day begins at sunset.

We know the Jewish day begins and ends at "sunset" for this is what their God says. Our Lord is the "beginning and the end", the Alpha and Omega, the Almighty.

To arrive at the truth, I believe we must start at the beginning, believing the facts (principles) given to us by God. God's timing is perfect and we see that Jesus had to be put into the earth on the "preparation day", at the closing of that Wednesday, for He could not remain on the "tree" entering the next day, Thursday, for it was "a High Sabbath Day". He could not have been put in the sepulcher before the breaking of the new day for His arising would then be on a Saturday and nothing New could be presented, for the Sabbath (Saturday) is under the Old Covenant God made with Israel. Jesus said while on earth He only came for His own. This meant all the rest of humanity could go to -- the lake of fire. But that was not God's purpose. He hid His purpose, and it is the Cross, reconciling all who "believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved". This is His "dispensational" Gospel to us today.

Now believing we must be Berean let's check to make sure we understand what Scripture "rightly divided" has to say to us.

Matthew 28:1, "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." Matthew is not ambiguous here, showing Saturday is ending, and Sunday is beginning, and these two women were going to see. They did not have any sweet spices to anoint Him (Mark 16:1, and Luke 24:1). The two women at "sunset" went to "see" the burial place. At that time (as the clock was just ending it's last "chime", there was an "earthquake". I've never experienced this but I know if I do, the first thing I'll do is check on my loved ones, and my house. I'm sure that is what these two ladies did.

In verse 2 we see at this very moment, the women were coming to the burial place of Jesus, the angel of the Lord came and rolled back the stone, and sat on it. We are told in verse 3 "His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow". At this point we are to ask, "how do we know the angel came and rolled back the stone, sat on it At That Time, and had we been there He would have looked like "lightning, and his wardrobe was white as snow. How do we know this is true? Do any of the women tell us about this? How could they? None of them were there when it happened.

Can we actually believe this is what happened for there seems to be none of the "crowd" that ran around with Jesus there. We have but two choices to believe that this did happen.
1 - we can believe verse 3, "And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men", i.e. they most likely fainted. When they revived what did they do? Matthew 28:11-13, "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.
12. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
13. Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept."

And/or we can also believe that Jesus gives this information to Matthew, or the Holy Spirit by revelation. In any event we know none but the guards witnessed what happened. If the women were there at His burial place, they either don't remember it, or they were not there. Evidently they were not there for they make no reference of the guards fainting, and the guards were gone when they arrived. The guards revived and we have the account of their report to the "chief priests", all the things that happened.

So we can see what Matthew is doing in his reporting this matter. He is telling us chronologically events as they occurred.

Verse 1 the two women came to see the sepulcher as the Sabbath was closing and the first day of the week was beginning. They didn't get to see what happened for later we see all the women came with spices, and thought the stone was still in place, and the sun was coming up. As previously say there were two trips to the grave site that Sunday, and one was evidently aborted due to an "act of God".

Verse 2 shows the "act of God".

Verse 3 gives detail of the angel.

Verse 4 tells what happened to those that witnessed the happening.

Verse 5 speaks to the women when they later arrive to not fear for he knows they seek Jesus that was crucified.

What about John? All the other books had been written some years before John is allowed to write His. So I believe he makes a quick pass knowing the believers know what happened. So he shows on Sunday when she left (with the other women, it was dark, and when she (they) arrived, the sun was coming up and the stone had been taken away, and this was one thing that concerned the women, of how they could anoint Him for they didn't know the stone had been removed.

All four of the writers of the Gospel have their own personalities, and they all express themselves differently, and give their view point as the Holy Ghost permits. I'm sure you have studied the seemly discrepancies of the last hours of the Cross. This is to give a view from all angles such as looking at a house. We find different "views" and see different things" (and hear different things) from the "front view", the "back view", and the "sides". They are different, yet the different views help us to understand what we have seen.

I find His Word to be in complete harmony in this matter and others hard to understand.

See I have some others that need a response but way, way past my bedtime

 

But it seems to me that a better reconcilliation of the scriptures could be made by recognizing that the greek word for “at the end” of the Sabbath “opse”, can also mean simply “after” as it is translated in NASB and other modern translations. One definition is “long after”. Saying that the women showed up after the sabbath simply means it had just ended the evening before. It doesn’t have to mean they were still in the Sabbath and the first day was approaching. The expression “as it began to dawn” toward the first day of the week indicates that the morning or daylight part of the first day was approaching, The definition of “dawn” is the breaking in of daylight or the morning.

NASB Greek-Hebrew Dictionary:
Greek Word: ojyeÈRoot: from the same as 3693;
Definition: long after, late:--

Stongs:
opse, from the same as Greek 3694 (opiso) (through the idea of backwardness); (adverb) late in the day; by extension after the close of the day :- (at) even, in the end.

 

You are correct for you understand His Word.

 

The High Sabbath can also fall on the seventh day Sabbath. On this occasion however the High Sabbath fell on a Thursday.

 

Ben W, I had not addressed your post previously, but you are (and must be, since you are perfectly in accordance with Scripture), absolutely correct, here. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Ed

 

True, and Jesus broke "tradition" of man.

True, and Jesus broke "tradition" of man.

True, as Jesus breaks "tradition" of man.

Begin in Luke 19:29. Then Luke 21:37. Finish off with Acts 1:12, "Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is nigh unto Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey off."

It was known as the Temple

Another debatable issue, as only two Temples can actually be accounted for. The "first" Temple of course is HaBeit HaRishon that Solomon built circa 966 B.C. This Temple was destroyed in 586 B.C. by the Babylonians.

The "second" Temple is HaBeit HaSheni, and the foundation of the earlier structure was used, this happening about 516 B.C. Those old that remembered the former Temple wept at this unembellished small replacement. This same Temple was upgraded or made to be close to equal in size and beauty by King Herod. We notice Jesus' disciples were very impressed with this Temple.

Then the "third" Temple Habeit HaShlishi will be built during the first half of the "tribulation period" to come.

The next and last to be built on earth is the "fourth" Temple Habeit HaRevi'I during the millennium by Messiah, King of the Jews. We can bet it will be greater than King Solomon's Temple.

But what do you think of my presentation, of which you have never before seen? Put any of "tradition that you have seen", and they will fall far short of His Word. Do you not say so yourself?

You did good my friend to not believe what some believed 40 years ago, and more now, as even Baptist are saying "Good Friday", and now we can enter into "Lent" with the Mother Church, and sing Hallelujah and Amen, and let's go marching into that "kingdom" if we can make it through the "great tribulation". One of these days some more will wake up and say "wait just a minute". I thought we believed we would be raptured before the "tribulation", and that "kingdom that will come".

You are an honest man, and I respect that for your admit you can change your mind. I also changed mine from a Thursday, for when I put it to scripture, there is no way that it will work. There is no One Day that will work. I found His Word is true, and not any tradition of man. I trust the "source" and there is only one source, and that is His Word. There is one possible way to know the truth, and that is to believe God split asunder in probably less than a nanosecond, His servants putting Jesus into the earth and rolling the stone before the beginning of the New Day, and then His arising three days later in that nanosecond as Saturday ended, and Sunday began.

Exodus 16:29 gives us precedence for a two day understanding. We are given the "New Testament" from the "Old Testament". We now have the "bread and the wine", when we moved from that "Old Sabbath" into the New world of "the grace of God, through faith, without works. No longer is it by faith of that "old cloth", but the "new cloth" that will never grow old.

Ephesians 1:20-23, "which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21. far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22. and he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, 23. which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
We in His Body are no longer subject to that "old covenant" Israel was under, (and we could become proselytes), but because of Him closing out the "old Sabbath Day" with the "New Day of Grace" obtain entrance into His Body Church, and will await (with Christ) those that arrive in the "Kingdom Church".

 

ituttut said:

But we have Word of the Bible to guide us.

The two words of the Bible in particular that I was dealing with are the usual words for Friday, a fact of language that you seem to ignore.

The Word will not support the writing you put forth. I believe you speak to the 7th day Sabbath. There are other Sabbaths.

You are arguing in circles. You present no evidence that paraskeue and prosabbaton aren't being used by Mark in their normal sense. Instead, all you do is bring your own theological assumptions to the table and claim that the words can't possibly mean what they normally mean.

You can have your theological assumptions. I'll take your own advice, and believe what the Word of the Bible actually says.

 

Ransom,

re: "...the linguistic evidence is that Mark was using the normal words for Friday when talking about the day Jesus was crucified."

How do you reconcile that with Luke 24:21?

Also, the term "preparation day " did not always have to mean the day before the 7th day Sabbath which is attested to by Rabbi Samuel Lacks who states: "The day of preparation (Greek ‘paraskeue’) equals Friday OR the day before a holiday" - [A Rabbinic Commentary of the New Testament].

 

This discussion for some reason brings to mind something that I heard from one of my teachers, the Dean of Men, at the Bible College I attended.
("Obviously Ed is using the term 'discussion' somewhat loosely!" Language Cop)
I'll ignore Language Cop, and his insolence, to continue. Dean Stanford often said,
"The Bible sheds a lot of light on the commentaries!" I agree with that.
One the statements I use is.
"We must temper Scripture with Scripture!"
That is probably not original with me, even though I don't recall having heard it elsewhere, but would be surprised to find I didn't, since it does not seem to be something I would normally come up with on my own. My point is, (and I may be gulity of doing the same, since most of us do seem to find it easier to spot the speck of dust in another's eyeball, and miss the two by four sticking out of our own - "Nowuhutahmean Vern?".) that much of this 'discussion' ahs tended to center on one or two verses, while basically ignoring what other verses seem to say, even at a casual reading. There are over a dozen verses that specifically refer to this 'three-day span'. [I listed at least thirteen of them in Post #37. ("'Toot! Toot!' " - Language Cop)] Fully half of John is concerned with the last couple of weeks of Jesus' earthly life and subsequent events and teachings; over one third of Mark (6 out of 16 chapters); over a fourth of Matthew (8 of 28); a fourth of Luke (6 of 24). It seems to me to be poorly handling the written Word of God in a manner that seems to focus on one verse, whether by conviction, concern or design, and sort of slide over others. The same Holy Spirit that had Matthew record Matt. 12:39-40, something that would be significant to the Jews with Jonah, and consistent with the view that Matthew was written primarily for and to the Jews, presenting Jesus as the "Royal Branch", the Sovereign, Son of David, the King of the Jews, did have Mark, Luke, and John, record this, consistent with the other presentations primarily for and to (1.) the Romans, as "My Servant, the Branch" - the suffering Servant; (2.) the Greeks, as "the Man whose name is The Branch" - the Son of Man who was "the perfect man", or (3.) the world and/or the Christian church, "The Branch of the Lord", the eternal Son of God, respectively.

Nor do I think that it is proper to atempt to allow one verse to 'trump' any other. "All Scripture is God-breathed-out, and is profitable for doctrine, etc."
One verse or passage can and sometimes does 'stand on its own', so to speak. as for examples, Matthew's account in Chapter 13 of the similies of 'the hidden treasure in the field', and 'the pearl of great price', or John's account of Jesus' 'high priest' prayer.

Some verses do not 'stand alone', as what we are talking of here, namely the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord, for there is proportionally far more about this than any other thing of Jesus' life and work.

But let us all be open minded with what Scripture is actually saying. As an example, rstrats has three times (I believe this number is correct) brought up Luke 24:21, usually as suggesting that a Friday crucifixion date is not possible in view of this verse. It's been ingored by all save ituttut, who was not advocating a Friday date at all. My own arguments for Thursday have basically been ignored by advocates of Friday or Wednesday, save for the same individual. (I did see a somewhat venomous response from one, but he merely advocated again.) I tend to pick my battles where I am willing to "fall out", as we say here in KY. This is not one to "fall out" over. But it is worthy of discussion, IMO. So I shall attempt to keep on comparing Scripture with Scripture, :thumbsup: and hope I am never seen as using Scripture vs. Scripture. :BangHead:

Ed

 

How do you reconcile that with Luke 24:21?

There is nothing in Luke 24:21 that needs to be reconciled.

Also, the term "preparation day " did not always have to mean the day before the 7th day Sabbath

"It could mean something different, therefore it does" is not an argument.

Furthermore, I am not aware of any day being called the "Sabbath" in the Law, other than the seventh day of the week, the Day of Atonement, and the seventh year in which the land lay fallow. In addition, John says of the day after Jesus was crucified: "that Sabbath was a high day" (John 19:31). In other words, he says there was something special about the Sabbath that fell on the next day, not that the next day was an additional, mid-week Sabbath.

 

Ed, I believe it was Thursday !

 

Continued above to EdSutton

 

Continued - finished

The soldiers were there when it happened. The soldiers were not there when the women arrived. Go figure. I did, and we know why the women did not see the soldiers for Jesus had risen before the women arrived. They arrived with their spices at sunrise, not at sunset for the "two" women went to see the sepulcher. They at that time did not go with the spices, even though they were evidently the ones in posession of same. Also the other women were not with them - according to scripture.


I believe you will find those that study the heavens will disagree that it is a hit and miss proposition. In the olden days people had to know, just as today how to get from "here to there". They used the sun, the moon and the stars, and if they knew their beans, they never missed their destination by more than a few hundred yards. The same with "time" but it was more accurate for the "time keepers" scanned the sky, and at the appearance of the "stars", they knew it was the dawning of the first hour of their day. So also with first rays of the Sun, and understand the appearance of the "North Star" announced the "morning hour".

The "shadow clock" (sun-dial) was used by Egypt in antiquity, but during the time Jesus was on earth, the "sands of time" was in use, the "hour glass". It is very, very accurate. They knew the "evening from the day", and when each began.

Jesus was in the "heart of the earth", as He was in the earth that became Paradise when He arrived in Abraham's bosom.

We know their "evening precedes morning". He was in the heart of the earth for "three days, and three nights. As pointed out He had to be put into the earth between 6A.M., and 6P.M., and that is "their day as the evening was beginning". And He then arose in "their evening (night)Sunday as the day Sabbath closed. He arose on the "third day".

But my friend, please read what you have just said. If you cannot see eisegesis in what you say, then who is blind? You carry tradition of man way too far. You refuse to believe scripture. One more time I quote what God says, not what ituttut says.

Genesis 1:5, "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." This is Sunday, and Sunday is made up of 24 hours.

Verse 8, "And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." This is Monday, and Monday is made up of 24 hours.

Verse 13, "And the evening and the morning were the third day." This is Tuesday, and Tuesday is made up of 24 hours.

Verse 19, "And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." This is Wednesday, and Wednesday is made up of 24 hours.

Verse 23, "And the evening and the morning were the fifth day." This is Thursday, and Thursday is made up of 24 hours.

Verse 31, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. This is Friday, and Friday is made up of 24 hours.

Genesis 2:1-4, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 4. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." If we believe God He said on the seventh day He rested, i.e. that evening and the next day for 24 hours. He worked right up to 6PM, and at 6PM said that is enough. At 6PM I close out, the sixth day as it ends and will begin my rest at the beginning of the seventh day. He worked for 144 hours, and then rested for 24 hours. That was a week in the beginning, and 168 hours still equals a week in our day.

There are words that will change His Word, but they are not His Word.

Please see mine on page three for it also has our time. Using our time will produce the same results. But if you believe differently, please post so we can take a gander at it.


Neither will I toot my horn. It is His Word, not yours or mine, that pays dividends.

If you will look very closely we agree on the day "Thursday" He arose, and is in harmony with that of Emmaus road, but you seem to be about 24 hours off.

 

Smoky you say "It doesn’t have to mean they were still in the Sabbath and the first day was approaching." But it "must" otherwise we fall into the trap of "willingly changing His Word". If we believe otherwise, we "must" believe Jesus was buried at Sunrise. Scripture will not allow this.

Dawn is the "beginning" as is understood in the English language. Dawn here is used as a "type", as a "beginning" as shown in Genesis 1:5, "……… And the evening and the morning were the first day." That day was brought into existence. It is now firmly set in place. As days after that, according to God will always be the same "beginning" in the evening progressing to the morning, each half having 12 hours each, and in seven of these days, God said He rested on the seventh day, which was a Saturday. But when Christ arose it was at the dawning of a New Day just as Matthew says in 28:1, "In the end of the Sabbath…".

I notice you didn't directly answer my question, but continue to take issue with Matthew, so I assume you believe the Word does contradict.

The Romanized "epiphosko" dawn means to us (so as to keep harmony of scripture) the "beginning" as we use in statements such as "dawn of recorded history" which denotes a day of "beginning". If Matthew had used "orthros", as in John 8:2 I would buy into your continued and sustained argument of semantics, leaving out what we cannot do. We cannot allow "contradictions" into His Word. Matthew does not contradict John, for he knew what he was talking about and was careful to not use a word that can only mean one thing. "Orthros" means dawn at sunrise. "Epiphosko" in Matthew does not denote "radiance", but a day that will bring the "sunrise" for as sure as "morning" will follow the "evening", the sun will rise.

I find an incorrect rendering of this "word" puts at odds with when Jesus Christ arose, and when the New Day, according to God, begins. It does not begin at 6A.M with the rising of the "sun". The "SON" cannot arise before the "day" begins which is at 6P.M.

Scott I believe if you put your understanding of His arising, into practice you will have to change the hour that Jesus died, and when His body was put into his burial chamber in the earth. Even if you believe He was crucified on a Friday, how can you put Him into the sepulcher on a Sabbath Day, at 6A.M. as the sun is rising? It is going to be tough to do if we believe scripture. "And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
39. And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
40. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
41. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
42. There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand", John 19:38-42.