What day of the week was the crucifiction?

[Hope of Glory]

My wife and I had this argument recently, and it was not in reference to this subject. I argued that if you say "it's been 10 days since I ate chocolate" that you don't count the last day that you did eat chocolate. She says that you do count it. So, this argument seems to be opinion, unless there is some standard that decides it.

 

[ituttut]

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.

I don’t think anyone is “willingly trying to change His Word”.

It was not my intent to offend, but to warn of falling into the "trap" of Jesus being buried at any other time. Any other time than the fusing of Wed/Thurs will not allow Him to arise at the beginning of the New Day Sunday. Try it your way and see if you can work it out, to comply with His Word.

Quote:
The verse “at the end of the Sabbath” can just as readily be translated “after the Sabbath” as it is in ESV and NASB : Matthew 28:1 :
Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.
It was “after the Sabbath”, It was “still dark” John 21:1, and it was “dawning” toward the first day of the week. One meaning of “dawn” is “beginning to grow light” : epiphosko,a form of Greek 2017 (epiphauo); to begin to grow light :- begin to dawn, × draw on. (Strongs)
So to reconcile the fact that it was “still dark” and it was “dawning” toward the first day of the week, it seems to me like this should be the meaning of “dawn” in this context. I don’t think scripture says Jesus would have to be in the tomb a full 72 hours as long as He was there on three days and three nights. You have to use a little common since about things like this.

But Smoky, is our common sense good enough. Let's combine our "common sense" with our "analytical mind", and the wisdom God gives to us, and see what we can come up with.

First if God can be believed there are 12 hours of DAYlight, and 12 hours of eveningDARK - John 11:9-10, "Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. 10. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him". Then look at Esther 4:16; 5:1, and I Samuel 30:12-13. Shouldn't we use this wisdom the Word furnishes us? To dismiss 72 hours, we must reject His Word. The Moon and the Sun give us our time, i.e. the 24-hour day. This is not lunacy, but only "common sense".

We find further help in this matter in Genesis 1:4-5, ”And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

The Catholic church has convinced the world that "Good Friday" is the preparation day, the day Jesus was crucified. I'm not saying many here believe this, but even many Baptists in the pulpit, classrooms, and publications are putting their faith in what the Catholic tells them to believe. Scripture will not support a "Good Friday" to be the day Jesus was crucified. And His Word will not support any but a fusing of "Wed/Thurs" - Sat/Sun internment, and arising. That is unless we do away with the "three full days", which contain three 12 hour evenings, and three 12 hour mornings.

So all is well now with the world. All we have to do is count Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, and we have the "three day" requirement. And from this view this allows Jesus to arise on the third day at "sunrise". If 24 hours is not needed then we can make our own rules and just count the days and have Him arise in the middle of the third (3rd) day. Using this method is fool proof, for it will not allow for a day such as Thursday to qualify, for that would have Jesus arising on the "fourth" (4th) day. Over the years I have discussed this with Baptist's and other's in (and out) of various denominations, and this is how many answer His arising on the "third day". They have never even thought about it, beyond being told what tradition wishes them to believe. Unbelievable.

Quote:
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.


From all you’ve said so far, I would not assume you believe the Word contradicts, and I would not think you are taking issue with John by failing to explain how it could be “still dark” if it was Saturday evening and dark was just approaching.

I have reconciled, but I don't believe you have. Your contention still doesn't work even after embracing word changing to "Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave." We must still adhere to when the Jewish day begins. The rest of the sentence is toward the first day of the week. It doesn't say "toward the "rising of the sun", but "toward the beginning of the first day of the week. We know a day can only begin as the sun sets, and when it does, a new day will begin.

In a sense, it is unusual for the uncommon to arise, but it happens when we use a "half-day" to figure time as a whole.

 

[ituttut]

Just the BB's way of collectively saying, "Welcome back! :wavey: :tonofbricks:

And we love you and missed you!" :BangHead: :laugh:

Ed

A gentleman always, with scholarly attributes, putting many to shame.

Thanks for the lift.

 

[ituttut]

My wife and I had this argument recently, and it was not in reference to this subject. I argued that if you say "it's been 10 days since I ate chocolate" that you don't count the last day that you did eat chocolate. She says that you do count it. So, this argument seems to be opinion, unless there is some standard that decides it.

You can tell your wife, well, what ever y'all decide.

If at 7PM we eat chocolate, this becomes the day we did eat on that first day at a certain "time". If we don't know the beginning time, we cannot know when to quit counting to determine the number of days. When we say 10 days ago, we know the day we began, but if the time that we ate on that day is not known, we cannot be sure if it has actually be 10 days when we make the statement.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 = 10 days. But does it?

7PM 1st day to 7PM 2nd day = One day. 7PM to 3rd day = day Two; 7PM to 4th day = day Three; 7PM to 5th day = day Four; 7PM to 6th day = day Five; 7PM to 7th day = day Six; 7PM to 8th day = day Seven; 7PM to 9th day = day Eight; 7PM to 10th day = day 9.

Have fun figuring this out. I'll not get in between you and your lovely. I'm going to bed.

 

[rstrats]

Ransom,

re: "No one says ‘the first day since’ It's not natural speech. You would probably have said something like ‘today’ or ‘yesterday.’"

Nice try, but no cigar. If you can say "third day since" you can say "first day since".


re: "In any case, talk about jumping through a bunch of hoops just to deny what the Bible says: that Jesus was crucified on Preparation Day, a normal name for Friday.

I repeat Rabbi Samuel Lacks’ quote: "The day of preparation (Greek ‘paraskeue’) equals Friday OR the day before a holiday" - [A Rabbinic Commentary of the New Testament]. Therefore, the preparation day mentioned in your references did not have to be referring to a Friday.


re: "You present no evidence that paraskeue and prosabbaton aren't being used by Mark in their normal sense."

Matthew 12:40 should be evidence enough. You simply cannot get at least parts of three days AND at least parts of three nights from a Friday crucifixion. Therefore , Mark must be using it in the day before a holiday sense.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Have fun figuring this out. I'll not get in between you and your lovely. I'm going to bed.

I came up with 22 days...

Yes, in English, if it happened yesterday, we'd say "yesterday". However, "third day since" is somewhat subjective, and the context would probably be best to determine it, instead of using it to determine context. In using the example I posted, if she had not eaten any chocolate since yesterday, the concept would be, "I haven't had any chocolate in a day". But, in the longer range, the last day that she had it would not be counted. So, on day 10, it would have been 9 days. Did the new millennium begin in 2000 or 2001?

 

[EdSutton]

I came up with 22 days...

Yes, in English, if it happened yesterday, we'd say "yesterday". However, "third day since" is somewhat subjective, and the context would probably be best to determine it, instead of using it to determine context. In using the example I posted, if she had not eaten any chocolate since yesterday, the concept would be, "I haven't had any chocolate in a day". But, in the longer range, the last day that she had it would not be counted. So, on day 10, it would have been 9 days. Did the new millennium begin in 2000 or 2001?

The "new millenium"? It actually began in Jan. 2001, according to the calender. Don't let Whine2K - 'er I mean Y2K, confuse anyone, here. As there is no year 0, in our calenders, a century is from years 1 to 100, inclusive, strictly speaking, either BC or AD.

Uh- one simple question- Is there any scenario that you can come up with that allows from Wednesday afternoon up to 6 P.M., as we reckon time, to fairly late in the afternoon on the following Sunday for that Sunday to be "the third day since" Wednesday? Not as I learned math, and understand common English. From Wednesday to Sunday would make Sunday "the fourth day since" Wednesday. Likewise, is there any scenario that anyone can come up with that would allow from late in the afternoon on Friday until Sunday afternoon, two days later (and actually a few hours less than a full 48 hrs) to be "the third day since" Friday? We would probably speak of such time as "the day before yesterday" and under no circumstances I can think of, call this the thrid day in any fashion. How in the world can someone possibly miss this? Sunday afternoon from Friday afternoon is "two days since" Friday in any remotely normal manner of figuring.

To use an example, a pro baseball player played major league baseball for the years 1989 thru 2001, a total of thirteen years. He played thirteen years in three decades, he did not play pro ball for three decades, i.e. thirty years. Common sense, and normal language.

"Somewhat subjective"? Hmmm! Don't think so. It's in the indicative mood, which it seen to be very 'unsubjective" and more a statement of fact, from the perspective of the speaker.

BTW, the word used by the Emmaus disciple is "απο" or "apo", 'out from' or 'away from', literally. Hence that afternoon on Sunday, or "the first day of the week", was 'three days removed' from the crucifixion and burial of the Lord Jesus, and that very morning was when the women arrived early. When was this day? Guess what, folks - three days since - hold your breath - Thursday!

Ed

 

[Smoky]

ITTUT, I think it is indisputable that the women we are talking about, that is Mary Magdelene, Mary mother of James, and Salome, arrived at the tomb of Jesus very early in the morning about the time the sun was rising. It was very early on the first day of the week and the sun had risen: “Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen”. Mark 16:2 (NASB-U), But it was still dark: “ Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.” John 20:1 (NASB-U) It was after the Sabbath: Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. : Matthew 28:1 (NASB-U) All these scriptures declare unequivocally, that “the sun was just starting to come up” although it was “still dark” and the “Sabbath had passed” and it was “on the first day of the week” The meaning of Matthew's satement that it "began to dawn" that we have been discussing is made amply clear by the parrallel pasages in Mark and Luke. But tell me, if you believe that the Lord was buried on Wednesday evening and arose on Saturday evening, how does the fact that the women were there at the tomb on Sunday morning interfere with your theory. He could have been risen Saturday evening and made His appearance to the women on Sunday morning. These scriptures only say that these women found the Lord already risen when they got there when the angle rolled the stone away. The resurrection could have occurred anytime during the night or perhaps the previous evening. Doesn’t this make sense?







:

 

[ituttut]

There can be no other day that Jesus was laid in His grave than a Wednesday. I have proved it, and will again prove it. I don't know if hardly any read what I put forth, but the ones that do have yet to disprove His Wednesday internment as the bible presents. The words are not mine, but His.

Peek into this post, and see if the way is not lighted for understanding in this matter.

Uh- one simple question- Is there any scenario that you can come up with that allows from Wednesday afternoon up to 6 P.M., as we reckon time, to fairly late in the afternoon on the following Sunday for that Sunday to be "the third day since" Wednesday? Not as I learned math, and understand common English. From Wednesday to Sunday would make Sunday "the fourth day since" Wednesday. Likewise, is there any scenario that anyone can come up with that would allow from late in the afternoon on Friday until Sunday afternoon, two days later (and actually a few hours less than a full 48 hrs) to be "the third day since" Friday? We would probably speak of such time as "the day before yesterday" and under no circumstances I can think of, call this the thrid day in any fashion. How in the world can someone possibly miss this? Sunday afternoon from Friday afternoon is "two days since" Friday in any remotely normal manner of figuring.

It happened just as the two days Wed/Thurs met.

To use an example, a pro baseball player played major league baseball for the years 1989 thru 2001, a total of thirteen years. He played thirteen years in three decades, he did not play pro ball for three decades, i.e. thirty years. Common sense, and normal language.

Makes sense, but we notice the player started in one decade, played in another, then ended in the third decade. 1+1+1=3 decades. I'll bet this player played in at least one game that was a "tie" game. It was impossible to tell "which team (substitute day) won out. It could not be determined which team won, so both were counted in the tie. One was named Wednesday, and the other was named Thursday.

"Somewhat subjective"? Hmmm! Don't think so. It's in the indicative mood, which it seen to be very 'unsubjective" and more a statement of fact, from the perspective of the speaker.

Yes as we can see. But did Jesus know what He was talking about? We cannot get away from the fact that the player ended in the third decade, not half way through the 2nd.

BTW, the word used by the Emmaus disciple is "απο" or "apo", 'out from' or 'away from', literally. Hence that afternoon on Sunday, or "the first day of the week", was 'three days removed' from the crucifixion and burial of the Lord Jesus, and that very morning was when the women arrived early. When was this day? Guess what, folks - three days since - hold your breath - Thursday!

Whoops! They didn't make it in time. They worked on that High Day Sabbath that precludes such things.

I keep presenting the facts, and there are few who accept the Word in this matter. Let's take a look at one more truth you may not have taken into account. Let's look at John 19:42, "There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand." This tells us they laid Jesus in the earth on what day? What day is the "preparation day" that was just ending? You say it is Thursday. But can this possibly be so? This would have Him arising on Sunday just as the day of Monday was dawning. A Thursday is impossible, just as is a Friday.

The only possible day must be Wednesday as it comes to a close, as we know Joseph would not dare to work on a Holy High Sabbath Day. It was forbidden to roll a stone into place on a Sabbath day. As he finished his work at the closing, most likely his hands remained on the stone as Thursday began, as he caressed it, perhaps weeping. We are not told other than Jesus had to be in the earth on the preparation day. John says that was accomplished.

 

[ituttut]

Smoky, you have my 6 day daily break down, beginning in John 12:1 leading to Wednesday, Nisan 14, "preparation day". Taking a couple or so hours in His Word to try and explain why Wednesday is the only possible day of His internment, with most directed toward the "women" (still working on that). Doing research in the past about the "women", I never found anything concrete. I'm giving it my best shot, hoping you have time to digest, and critique is welcome.

Smoky this may sound like preaching to you, but I am trying to teach, and not preach. Don't know how much of my stuff you've read, but I can see our God is a God of "division", which was plainly shown me by Pastor Sadler of the Berean Bible Society in one of His books. What follows has nothing to do with that organization, other than opening my eyes to better understand scripture.

Why does the world see chaos in His Word? Why do they disbelieve Him? They know contradiction when they see it; they see and hear the disharmony of the churches, and they know each church wishes to divert them to the contradiction's they see in the churches, and in His Word. They have "faith" in their own knowledge and wisdom, which continues to blind them.

His Word is scattered to confuse the confused. Even though we can use the computer doesn't make us a "programmer", or a "chip maker", understanding how it all works together, bringing together hardware and software. Even if we walked with Jesus would that make us understand? Did His Apostles know what Jesus was talking about? Witness John 20:9, " For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." And in another place the women "remembered what He said". They had faith in Him, but didn't understand what He said. They were not stupid, and neither is Satan for he didn't understand what Jesus said either. They were confused for they did not have the Spirit to explain to them. Today we have His word to spell it out to us. So the Holy Ghost came to them to explain. They were "babes" of Jesus. They believed, but the world did not. They were both (them and the world) in confusion, but by faith in their God some Jews believed, and by faith in themselves all the rest of Israel did not believe their God.

His Word must be brought together. If not, it contradicts, and who can believe in that which contradicts at almost every turn as long as it stays divided? We continuously hear "we can't know now what that verse, or those verses mean, but we will know then. We can know now much more than we think, with the exception of what is not told. I teach what we can know now what He says we can know. We are to bring His Word together that He has divided. I see you are one ascribing to this method, as you endeavor to "understand" His Word.

To your question:

ITTUT, I think it is indisputable that the women we are talking about, that is Mary Magdelene, Mary mother of James, and Salome, arrived at the tomb of Jesus very early in the morning about the time the sun was rising. It was very early on the first day of the week and the sun had risen: “Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen”. Mark 16:2 (NASB-U), But it was still dark: “ Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.” John 20:1 (NASB-U) It was after the Sabbath: Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. : Matthew 28:1 (NASB-U) All these scriptures declare unequivocally, that “the sun was just starting to come up” although it was “still dark” and the “Sabbath had passed” and it was “on the first day of the week” The meaning of Matthew's satement that it "began to dawn" that we have been discussing is made amply clear by the parrallel pasages in Mark and Luke. But tell me, if you believe that the Lord was buried on Wednesday evening and arose on Saturday evening, how does the fact that the women were there at the tomb on Sunday morning interfere with your theory. He could have been risen Saturday evening and made His appearance to the women on Sunday morning. These scriptures only say that these women found the Lord already risen when they got there when the angle rolled the stone away. The resurrection could have occurred anytime during the night or perhaps the previous evening. Doesn’t this make sense?

I agree with you to an extent on the women. If we take Luke 24, we see he doesn't delve deeply into the details. He speaks of "they" until verse 10, mentioning of course Mary Magdalene, and a new one (Joanna), and then other unnamed women, all of whom must have been at the tomb early in the morning, at sunrise on Sunday bringing their spices. So yes this makes sense if everyone will accept only this account. It sounds good to me. But it doesn't help us to understand how it is that Jesus could be in the earth for "three (3) days, and three (3) nights. I believe by ignoring Matthews account, or try making it fit the other Gospels, it is easier to take the word of man of half days, or choose another day (that cannot apply) as we don't seem to be able to figure out the "72 hours", and come up with the "rising of the sun".
Page 1

 

[ituttut]

Part 2 ituttut to Smoky
Can we accept Luke 24 "overall summation" of the account? Yes we can, however as with most of scripture when we study to make ourselves approved, we see scripture can seem to contradict itself, which I believe it does not. We attempt to correlate when discrepancy/s is found.

This is the reason I will stand firm on what Matthew says, as well as Mark, Luke, and John. If we cannot depend on Matthew, then we would have an impossible task of proving what Jesus said, viz. "But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40. For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", Matthew 12:39-40. For the life of me I cannot understand why people do not believe Jesus, and you also show you do "believe Him" in that "false" Friday "Passover".

If we cannot depend on Matthew we reject the "day" is just ending" as the darkness of the next day appears.

If we cannot depend on Matthew we know nothing of the earthquake as Wednesday and Thursday being fused (or come together), and yet torn apart. The Old is connected with the New, yet they must be separated.

If we cannot depend on Matthew we don't know who broke the seal, rolling away the stone.

As we study we must find a way to prove Jesus knew what He was talking about. Jesus was very "candid, and harsh", to get His point across. He is not ambiguous as He speaks. And when He says something I believe we need to "sit up and pay special attention" and try to make sense out of what He tells us, at the time He tells us. He was in the earth (Soul, and Spirit first divided from His Body) for three (3) days, and three (3) nights, and this terminology is also easily explained in keeping with their 24-hour day beginning at "night". We notice Jesus did not come to win a popularity contest, nor does Peter or Paul care one wit what or how they say when they are in His Word. As you say, we need to use some common sense, but we need to "till to get to cultivation".

Scripture says He arose on the "first" day of the week, so an outright , complete, arising on a Saturday will refute other scripture. Scripture is not theory or theology to be misunderstood. Matthew 28:1 and 2 tells us as the Sabbath was ending, and Sunday was beginning, the earthquake occurred. We know what it was. I believe His Soul and Spirit broke from the upper chamber in the earth, breaking those "bars" during that Sabbath day, which was still daytime, and He came forth bodily as the new day Sunday evening dark began. This is an earth-shaking event. We cannot try to make Matthew to read as the others. He has a different story to tell us. Each story is true, just as is scripture depicting His death on the Cross. They all do not say the same thing. They are all true in each case, and each writer of their gospel book is given from how they remembered, and from their location of sight and sound (hearing). The Holy Spirit will see that the truth is told, but He lets man tell it from their perspective, of what actually happened. One aspect of the Holy Spirit is that of "proof reader" of the Bible.

Do the Catholics believe He was in the earth for seventy-two (72) hours? Do those Baptist that take up the call of the Catholic church and many now reverencing "Good Friday", really care about what Jesus says? Harsh Words? I don't believe so, for the question is legitimate pointing out the belief is false. In Matthew 28:11-15 (and 27, verses 62-64 below), we see the Rulers of Israel that rejected Him, and had Him "killed", believed that Jonah was in the fish for seventy two (72) hours, and was taking no chances His followers would steal away His body. They wanted Him guarded night and day for three full days for that is how long He said He would be in the earth.

A "Good Friday" will not even give us a day and a half. It will give us only slightly over 24 hours, if we will believe Matthew. Chapter 27, verses 62-64, "Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
63. Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
64. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
65. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
66. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch."

Why is it the "unbelievers" did believe scripture, and the churches today do not. Why does man believe the little "goodies" the Catholic church wishes the "world to believe".

Continue sometime tomorrow (this afternoon that is), God willing.

 

[ituttut]

Part 3 ituttut to Smoky - Finish.

As to the women, I believe I've mentioned here before the two Mary's were at the gate when it was opened. Were there more than the two? Here, I must say I believe Matthew is certainly being controlled by the Holy Spirit, for some things said would have to be "hearsay-gossip-rumor". Things are just too specifically stated. Who were the only ones to see the "angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it"? And in verse 3 who saw "His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow" at that particular time? Did Matthew get this information from those in verse 4? "And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men." The men "fainted", and were gone when the women later arrived. I believe Matthew would like some collaboration before writing down something of that nature, and I don't believe his information came from these guards.

Could the collaboration be the "women" in verse 5? This will not mesh with the rest of scripture, for scripture shows the women were wondering who would roll back the "stone". Those women are coming when it was "dark" turning to "light".

But Matthew says their day was just beginning at 6P.M. Evidently their plans were changed by the "earthquake".

We can see by the words of Matthew just at sundown and at the changing to the next day, is the time of the earthquake. The women had to be "all shook up". We don't have the details, but these two women were not at that time in an entourage to the tomb - it was just the two of them. This is a separate occurrence for these two women. When we get to Mark, and John I believe they help sort out the problem.

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 puts us on the road to understanding. Matthew is saying they "came forth from their city to see. They knew the "stone" was in place. He does not place them at the sepulcher. It is the only verse that allows for the burial and the resurrection to agree with all of scripture, His being in the earth for three days, and three nights, arising on the third day just as it closes.

He had to be put in the earth on a Wednesday for Thursday was a "high Sabbath Day, when no servile work could be done. If "preparation day" was on Thursday He has to be in the earth between 3 and 6 P.M., and that will not fit with the two going to Emmaus on Sunday, and this scenario has Him arising just before the beginning of Monday. We notice Matthew says nothing about there being any "morning light" for such a statement would negate the fact that day was turning into night when the earthquake occurred.

So we must leave Matthew 28 intact. Next we see Mark 16:1 says the Sabbath is over and they are fully into Sunday and another woman has been added, Salome, and they come to the sepulcher at the "rising of the sun, per verse 2. With "spices" they come, and before arriving wonder about the "stone". These things tell us the Mary's hadn't actually gone at "sunset", for they would have talked to the angel, and known the stone had been rolled away. When they get there the stone has been rolled away, and they had no previous knowledge of this. "At the rising of the sun" would mean the darkness is receding for the sunrays were just beginning. Mark is repeating what those he trusted relayed to him, and what he thought was important, with the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

We notice, which looks to be an after thought (prodding of the Holy Ghost) in verse 9 we find early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene. I believe John will confirm this for he has "first hand knowledge" the day it happened, and it came from Mary Magdalene. We must notice Mary Magdalene or any of the women don't say they saw the angel descend from heaven and roll away the stone. They were not there, but only those that " became as dead men. Not one woman among them.

Of course many will say Mark is to cut-off in chapter 16 at verse 8. The "higher critics", the intelligentsias, who ever they are, are trying to "kill two birds with one stone". What comes after messes up their thinking process as to the "resurrection", and to the "great commission" gospel. Removing either means the Holy Spirit has allowed "error" into His Word. I don't believe that for one minute.

Luke 24 tells us it is early morning at the rising of the sun when they got to the sepulcher with their spices. Luke says the women entered the tomb. Notice Luke makes no reference other than "they" in referring to the women. Luke confirms, but adds no new information, as I don't believe he was there, and will not spread misinformation." He reports exactly what the Spirit will allow.

John 20 is more specific about Mary Magdalene, and confirm's Mark (take all of Marks account away, and we really have a hard time believing even John). I believe John tells us Mary Magdalene was actually the first to arrive, by herself, before the others while it was still dark, before the rays of the sun appeared. Matthew tells us the same thing, but she has a companion at that time, and there was an earthquake. The women's plans were changed in an instant, and they then had other priorities.

The Holy Ghost has Mark include "He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, for she is the only one that arrives before the sun began to rise, telling us He arose in the "dark". Genesis tells us from the dark came the light. God doesn't miss a beat, does He. His Word does not deviate from the beginning as He works His will and His purpose. I believe we can use every "scrap of evidence that His Word gives us".

I believe she is the first there, by herself this time, sees the stone has been rolled away (she doesn't look inside), leaves and tells the Apostles, then returns again. This is then her second trip, and she is disheartened. Something has happened to Jesus, and nobody cares (except John) but he doesn't know what to make of it, and has his own troubled mind trying to short this out. But, I believe John is the first to accept, but cannot explain it. So she lingers, then gathers her courage and "peeks" into the tomb.

She did not see Him as she first arrived in the "dark", and is like John arriving first, but does not enter first. This is the way John remembers the event. I will take him at his word, as I do the others. The message of them all is Jesus Christ arose from the dead.

So I can partly agree with your "These scriptures only say that these women found the Lord already risen when they got there when the angel rolled the stone away. The resurrection could have occurred anytime during the night or perhaps the previous evening. Doesn’t this make sense?"But we must make His arising on the "third" day, and also His coming forth on the "forth" day, a Sunday. A conundrum to be sure, but I believe it has now been solved.

Who was the first to see our risen Lord? It was Mary, and now the sun was up, but she did not see Him in the dark of that day, but the stone was rolled away, and that happened at the turning of the days.

Put into the tomb just nanoseconds (or minutes) on that "high Sabbath day", and arose on the "third day" the weekly Sabbath day, coming forth early the first day of the week. There just is not any other way that it could have happened. The Sabbath had to release Him to the first day of the week, appearing in human form sometime after 6A.M.

 

[EdSutton]

Part 3 ituttut to Smoky - Finish.

As to the women, I believe I've mentioned here before the two Mary's were at the gate when it was opened. Were there more than the two? Here, I must say I believe Matthew is certainly being controlled by the Holy Spirit, for some things said would have to be "hearsay-gossip-rumor". Things are just too specifically stated. Who were the only ones to see the "angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it"? And in verse 3 who saw "His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow" at that particular time? Did Matthew get this information from those in verse 4? "And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men." The men "fainted", and were gone when the women later arrived. I believe Matthew would like some collaboration before writing down something of that nature, and I don't believe his information came from these guards.

Could the collaboration be the "women" in verse 5? This will not mesh with the rest of scripture, for scripture shows the women were wondering who would roll back the "stone". Those women are coming when it was "dark" turning to "light".

But Matthew says their day was just beginning at 6P.M. Evidently their plans were changed by the "earthquake".

We can see by the words of Matthew just at sundown and at the changing to the next day, is the time of the earthquake. The women had to be "all shook up". We don't have the details, but these two women were not at that time in an entourage to the tomb - it was just the two of them. This is a separate occurrence for these two women. When we get to Mark, and John I believe they help sort out the problem.

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 puts us on the road to understanding. Matthew is saying they "came forth from their city to see. They knew the "stone" was in place. He does not place them at the sepulcher. It is the only verse that allows for the burial and the resurrection to agree with all of scripture, His being in the earth for three days, and three nights, arising on the third day just as it closes.

He had to be put in the earth on a Wednesday for Thursday was a "high Sabbath Day, when no servile work could be done. If "preparation day" was on Thursday He has to be in the earth between 3 and 6 P.M., and that will not fit with the two going to Emmaus on Sunday, and this scenario has Him arising just before the beginning of Monday. We notice Matthew says nothing about there being any "morning light" for such a statement would negate the fact that day was turning into night when the earthquake occurred.

<snip>
"At the rising of the sun" would mean the darkness is receding for the sunrays were just beginning. Mark is repeating what those he trusted relayed to him, and what he thought was important, with the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

We notice, which looks to be an after thought (prodding of the Holy Ghost) in verse 9 we find early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene. I believe John will confirm this for he has "first hand knowledge" the day it happened, and it came from Mary Magdalene. We must notice Mary Magdalene or any of the women don't say they saw the angel descend from heaven and roll away the stone. They were not there, but only those that " became as dead men. Not one woman among them.

Of course many will say Mark is to cut-off in chapter 16 at verse 8. The "higher critics", the intelligentsias, who ever they are, are trying to "kill two birds with one stone". What comes after messes up their thinking process as to the "resurrection", and to the "great commission" gospel. Removing either means the Holy Spirit has allowed "error" into His Word. I don't believe that for one minute.

Luke 24 tells us it is early morning at the rising of the sun when they got to the sepulcher with their spices. Luke says the women entered the tomb. Notice Luke makes no reference other than "they" in referring to the women. Luke confirms, but adds no new information, as I don't believe he was there, and will not spread misinformation." He reports exactly what the Spirit will allow.

John 20 is more specific about Mary Magdalene, and confirm's Mark (take all of Marks account away, and we really have a hard time believing even John). I believe John tells us Mary Magdalene was actually the first to arrive, by herself, before the others while it was still dark, before the rays of the sun appeared. Matthew tells us the same thing, but she has a companion at that time, and there was an earthquake. The women's plans were changed in an instant, and they then had other priorities.

The Holy Ghost has Mark include "He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, for she is the only one that arrives before the sun began to rise, telling us He arose in the "dark". Genesis tells us from the dark came the light. God doesn't miss a beat, does He. His Word does not deviate from the beginning as He works His will and His purpose. I believe we can use every "scrap of evidence that His Word gives us".

<Snipped for length>

So I can partly agree with your "These scriptures only say that these women found the Lord already risen when they got there when the angel rolled the stone away. The resurrection could have occurred anytime during the night or perhaps the previous evening. Doesn’t this make sense?"But we must make His arising on the "third" day, and also His coming forth on the "forth" day, a Sunday. A conundrum to be sure, but I believe it has now been solved.

<Snip>

Put into the tomb just nanoseconds (or minutes) on that "high Sabbath day", and arose on the "third day" the weekly Sabbath day, coming forth early the first day of the week. There just is not any other way that it could have happened. The Sabbath had to release Him to the first day of the week, appearing in human form sometime after 6A.M.

Repeating some quoted words of the post, "...I believe it has now been solved."

Yeah, I do agree as to the "solved" part, and it's a whole lot simpler to 'solve' without all the gnashing of teeth, gyrations, and mental gymnastics required in the solution proffered.

Merely accept a 'Thursday' crucifixion, and the 'normal' Jewish reckoning of a part of a day (and hence a night) as usually used - that being "the part is as the whole" - without inventions cut from whole cloth, such as "nanoseconds", "just minutes", "the (so-called) Jewish Inclusivist Rule" (and why it is or is not valid and applicable, in one instance vs. another), "our Lord speaking of "three days and three nights" when He really meant exactly 72 hours but chose to say it in this manner, to 'make it more indistinguishable to some of His listeners, apparently' , dancing through the hoops necessary to find a "forth (sic - I presume you mean fourth) day", a phrase that nowhere appears in the NT, let alone in the context of the crucifixion and resurrection. (Although it is not a bad phrase for "the third day", the day that actually was the 'forth day', i.e., the day the Lord raised and came 'forth' from the tomb, which was found empty.)

One may add to the above, a sub-silento 'ranking' of the levels of which writer is more "certainly being controlled by the Holy Spirit" in one gospel vis-a`-vis another, speculation about where Matthew 'got his information' (BTW, to my knowledge, Luke and John are the two that make some specific claim about their testimony, in their gospels; I am not aware if either Mathew or Mark make similar claims, altough it could be.), and on and on we can go, ad nausea. (The 'nausea' comes from getting dizzy, trying to keep up with the circular logic I see here. :tongue3: )

In short, I see no reason (and no difference) between postulating a day in this week, of which Scripture seems to know nothing, be it a "Silent Wednesday" (to prop up a Friday Crucifixion) or a "Silent Friday" (to prop up a Wednesday Crucifixion), both of which actually require the Lord to 'travel' a distance beyond a "Sabbath Day's journey" (with a severe blow to both of these props), on the Sabbath before the triumphal entry- one coming to Bethany, and one from Bethany to Jerusalem. Likewise the statement in Luke 23 by the Emmaus disciples hits the props from the other end of this time period, as well. Do the math, carefully, from both ends, and get back to me on this one, guys and gals!
FTR, which 'ending' one accepts for Mark's gospel (I do not agree with the so-called 'short ending' of 8 verses for Mark 16, BTW) has absolutely zero bearing on when the crucifixion and resurrection occurred, although it does have additional details and subsequent events in the verses after verse eight.

So, hang in there Smoky! By and large, I believe you've got it right!

But I do happen to agree with one thing here posted- about some things that are sometimes said, are of the "hearsay-gossip-rumor" variety. And I can offer that I believe that any such would never be found on the BB. And may I add that I also believe in low-priced lawyers, honest politicians, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy, as well. :laugh:

Ed

 

[rstrats]

EdSutton,

re: "FTR, which 'ending' one accepts for Mark's gospel ... has absolutely zero bearing on when the crucifixion and resurrection occurred..."

What am I missing? Doesn’t verse 9, as it is translated in the KJV, say that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week?

 

[EdSutton]

EdSutton,

re: "FTR, which 'ending' one accepts for Mark's gospel ... has absolutely zero bearing on when the crucifixion and resurrection occurred..."

What am I missing? Doesn’t verse 9, as it is translated in the KJV, say that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week?

It took me a a while to get this, having to re-read most of the thread, after over a year, to jog my memory to have any idea of what I was trying to convey, here. But I'll try to answer. Yes, v. 9 says words to that effect that "the resurrection took place on "the first day of the week". And as also does Mk. 16:1-2 say, in essence, the same thing. Here is the passage we are talking about.

1 Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2 Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 And they said among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?” 4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”
8 So they went out quickly[a] and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.Mary Magdalene Sees the Risen Lord

9 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. (Mk. 16:1-9 - NKJV)

Does the last part that I have underlined and embolded alter what the first three underlined and embolded seem to say. somehow? And whether or not the verses 9-20 are accepted as 'genuine', will not alter that.

I can't be sure, as of now, but that seems to be what I was referring to. Hope that helps.

Ed

 

[rstrats]

EdSutton,

re: "Does the last part that I have underlined and embolded alter what the first three underlined and embolded seem to say. somehow? And whether or not the verses 9-20 are accepted as 'genuine', will not alter that."

Except that verses 1, 2 and 6 do not say when the resurrection actually took place. Only verse 9, as it is included in the KJV, places the resurrection on the first day of the week. No where else in the New Testament is the specific day of resurrection identified. Thus your contention that the different endings of Mark 16 are not important with regard to the resurrection would seem to be in error.

 

[Pilgrimer]

Pardon me for not reading all these notes but there are far too many.

"And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath . . ." Mark 15.42

This would be the regular weekly sabbath which began Friday evening.

Jesus partook of the Passover (Matthew 26:18)which was sacrificed and eaten on Nisan 14 (Leviticus 23:5). That night he was arrested. The next day, Nisan 15, the day on which Jesus was crucified, was the first day of Unleavened Bread and was a festival sabbath (Leviticus 23:6-8). The next day, which was Nisan 16 and began at sundown, was the second day of Unleavened Bread which was not a festival sabbath so there would have been no need to make preparations for a sabbath unless it was the regular weekly sabbath, which always began on Friday evening (Leviticus 23:3).

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[rstrats]

Pilgrimer,

re: "The next day, Nisan 15, the day on which Jesus was crucified, was the first day of Unleavened Bread..."

Actually, the crucifixion occurred on the 14th, the day that the Passover was killed. Also, Mark 14:12 indicates that the first day of Unleavened Bread started on the 14th, "the day when they killed the Passover".

Further, Matthew 26:17 says; "Now on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?"

 

[Pilgrimer]

>Actually, the crucifixion occurred on the 14th, the day that the Passover was killed.

That’s not possible because Jesus ate the Passover supper.

On the afternoon of Nisan 14 “they sacrifice between the ninth and the eleventh hours” . . . or between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. (Josephus VI 9:3) The Passover was eaten that night (Exodus 12:8). By common reckoning, the Passover was killed and eaten the same day, or the first day of the feast, Thursday.

By Ecclesiastical reckoning, the Passover was slain one day, in the afternoon of the 14th, but it was eaten that night which was the beginning of the 15th Nisan.

Later that night of the 15th Nisan, after having partaken of the Pesach, Jesus was arrested.

The “next day” (Friday) by common reckoning, Jesus was crucified, which was still the 15th Nisan by Ecclesiastical reckoning and still the first day of unleavened bread.

This day on which Jesus was crucified, the 15th Nisan and the first day of Unleavened Bread, which had begun the night before with the Passover meal, this day was a Sabbath (Exodus 23:6-7).

The following day, which would begin that evening, would be Nisan 16, the second day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, which was not a festival Sabbath. So for Sabbath preparations to be required, it had to have been the regular weekly Sabbath that approached (Saturday).

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[kmichael]

Here is my msot humble but learned opinion. I tend to be a literalist with biblical numbers. Numbers mean the same thing to those in the first century and before as they do to us today. There is no reason to interpret them differently.

2 things we know. Jonah was in the belly of the whale 3d's and 3n's (Jonah 1:17) as Christ was in the tomb 3d's and 3n's (Mt 12:40)

We also know that on the Jewish calendar (AD 33 Nisan) the 14th falls on a Wednesday. We also know hat the High Passover Sabbath was began Wed at 6pm (sunset; I will use 6pm for a reference) and ended Thursdsay night at 6pm. Then, they had 24 hours to prepare for the weekly Sabbath (Friday night at 6pm and Saturday nigth at 6pm)

We also know that Christ arose at the end of the Sabbath (after Sat at 6pm) We also now that He died and was placed in the tomb on Wednesday before the High Passover Sabbath began. (This gives us a full 3 days and 3 nights)

His body was quickly placed in the tomb (not a proper burial) So, the next change the ladies would have had to prapere the body would have been Saturday after 6pm, but we are told they went early the first day of the week after the son had risen (Mark 16:1; Mt 28:1-8)


What is interesting to note with this theory, is that int he year 1491 BC in the month of Nisan, the passover lamb is slain in the evening in the 14th, a Wednesday. (Ex 12:6; Lev 23:5)
**************************8

i do not hold this to be doctine, but it is the best scenario I have seen. I also understadn that there can be issues wit the year 33 AD as the year of His death. But assuming 33 is correct, I would invite any and all possible holes to be punched in this theory.

Here is another parallel: on the 10th in 1491, the sacraficial lamb was chosen (Ex 12:1-5); in the year 33, on the same day we find Jesus' triumphal entry into the Holy City (John 12:12-19; Mark 11:1-11)

I tend to think this wasall not coincidence.


K