3 Days and 3 Nights (Jewish, sunday, believe, Jesus)

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by busterkeaton

If Christians are supposed to understand that it's supposed to be Good Thursday(or Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday)...instead of Good Friday; why doesn't the Holy Spirit, then, instruct their church leaders concerning this error? Seems like something that would deem elucidation on the subject.

Precisely.

The bibles have been edited and words changed so many times as political needs changed and no one in the start of the reformation could have guessed we could do the research ourselves and in fact find out it was all tweaked and twisted to suit agendas.

An innocent observation may be explained away by these lame apologetics which boils down to

Was jesus really dead for three days?

Yes

and the sheeple accept the pastor's take on it as he after all studied at a youneevercity.

True textual criticism however, does not accept these lame apologetics and demands an answer.

The priests of yore had no idea so many would be literate and have access to the bible in their own language so back then, it was easy to sell the myth.

The bible does not stand up to this sort of scrutiny and as E has suggested we look at the CLV (probably the worst translation ever but slanted with a christian universalist agenda) is supposed to tell the truth™

If it so obvious, why then do they not update the texts? The reason, is that the bits and pieces of original stuff we have at our disposal does not support these new claims.

This is but one of many discrepancies.

[AREQUIPA]

While we risk going off- topic a bit, when theists ask what would convince us, some simple 'ask and ye shall receive' universally agreed explanation of these matters would put it all beyond doubt. As it is, not only can the theists not agree on the meanings and interpretations, but they can't even get the texts sorted.

In addition to which we get this sort of total confusion by trying to rewrite Bible text to make it fit their theological theories. Rather as Judge Judy says (I do like her style ) 'If you tell the truth, you don't need a good memory'. So if you stick to what the gospels say and don't try to rewrite it, you don't get totally confused.

[SeekerSA]

Maybe the point I was trying to make was not well set out. The apostles creed has this;

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

Point 5 is learned at an early age and indoctrinated. When one actually reads the gospels with this mindset, it is glazed over and "accepted" as true.

If you read with unbiased views, you come up with "wait a bit, this is not three days" and pose the question, that question IMO is not a deal breaker for the non literate theist. (Non literate in the sense that they will read either rote or read it as a we did as a chapter to be discussed within the confines of belief)

There is a reason why we are supposed to "accept the kingdom of heaven as a little child or by no means enter it..."

Children seldom question stuff the way adults do. Conformance to the flock mentality is paramount to the survival of the church.

My parents cult had us believe that it was THE continuance of the early church. For a young kid it was obvious that it was. Our preachers called workers entered the "work" with no change of clothing, abandoned all their earthly possessions, lived a life of celibacy and went from home to home and stayed with other xians that cared for their carnal needs. What was there not to believe? They lived the life of the disciples.

Then someone did some research and lo and behold, was invented by some Irish dude in the 19th century where all the other Johnny come lately's sects developed and exported to the US mainly and to other parts of the world. Turned out this founder was a promiscuous charlatan and fathered a number of bastard children. Ergo, the church was NOT a direct descendant of the church of Acts.

They are pretty radical and up there with the Mennonites and Amish folk. Of course, like all the rest, they believe that their way is the only way.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by The Lantern

Yes, human sacrifice, that is people who descended directly from Adam. Jesus wasn't born like us, and thus that didn't apply to Him.

Rejecting Jesus' humanity has traditionally been considered a heresy. If we're still discussing Christianity here, the orthodox view is that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. Otherwise you run into problems where he was just a god-like being pretending to suffer which makes his sacrifice a sham.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

Maybe the point I was trying to make was not well set out. The apostles creed has this;

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

Point 5 is learned at an early age and indoctrinated. When one actually reads the gospels with this mindset, it is glazed over and "accepted" as true.

If you read with unbiased views, you come up with "wait a bit, this is not three days" and pose the question, that question IMO is not a deal breaker for the non literate theist. (Non literate in the sense that they will read either rote or read it as a we did as a chapter to be discussed within the confines of belief)

There is a reason why we are supposed to "accept the kingdom of heaven as a little child or by no means enter it..."

Children seldom question stuff the way adults do. Conformance to the flock mentality is paramount to the survival of the church.

My parents cult had us believe that it was THE continuance of the early church. For a young kid it was obvious that it was. Our preachers called workers entered the "work" with no change of clothing, abandoned all their earthly possessions, lived a life of celibacy and went from home to home and stayed with other xians that cared for their carnal needs. What was there not to believe? They lived the life of the disciples.

Then someone did some research and lo and behold, was invented by some Irish dude in the 19th century where all the other Johnny come lately's sects developed and exported to the US mainly and to other parts of the world. Turned out this founder was a promiscuous charlatan and fathered a number of bastard children. Ergo, the church was NOT a direct descendant of the church of Acts.

They are pretty radical and up there with the Mennonites and Amish folk. Of course, like all the rest, they believe that their way is the only way.

I'm prepared to check as I was astonished to find how little there actually was in the Bible to support the idea of and angelic rebellion. However, I have the distinct impression that the Gospels do harp on the Three days prediction.

later...
Mark 9. 30 They left that place and passed through Galilee. Jesus did not want anyone to know where they were, 31 because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.”

Matth.17. 22 When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. 23 They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life.” And the disciples were filled with grief.

Luke 9. 21 And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing;22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.

Matthew 16.21From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

Matthew 20.19 18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

Mark.10.33 “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and deliver Him to the Gentiles; 34 and they will mock Him, and scourge Him, and spit on Him, and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.”

Matthew 27. The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate.63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, `After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.”


Luke 24. 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’....

24. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place.

John of course has not a word of this but does have (John 2. 18) The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said.

which reflects Mark. 14 57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’”

and Matthew 26. 59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”

Speaking for myself, all this is clear if the idea is that we have Christian writers arguing that the authority of the Jewish Temple, law and religion is superseded by the fact of Jesus' resurrection. In fact I suspect that the reference to the destruction of the temple places the final form of the Gospels after the Jewish war and destruction of the temple and the story was circulating that it was the punishment for the Jews 'rejecting' Jesus.

[SeekerSA]

Jonah and the great fish

This predictive text which has nothing to do with jesus really has to be taken as an allegory. There is no fish that would swallow a man up whole and allow for him to survive a 3 day voyage.

He would need oxygen, fish do not breathe with their mouths nor do they have cavernous bellies.

The fish would have to remain at a depth of less than 10m (30') or else poor old Johah would encounter what we scuba divers call atmospheric pressure increase. Scuba BA kits deliver air to the diver at one atmosphere above ambient pressure. So at greater than 10m (30') Jonah's diaphragm would not be able to operate and inhale what pretend belly air there was.

The story is an allegory and not to be taken as literal. It is pretty odd that creator of the universe in meat form was not aware of these oddities in the human genome and the fact that we cannot survive in a submerged vessel that is not at least always at one atmosphere pressure to allow one to breathe. Why he would make an assertion or comparison to an obvious folklore tale is beyond comprehension.

Of course when you realise that this is all fiction, then submergence survival physics and awkward biological fish faktz do not apply.

That part of the bible could have been edited out when diving bells were first used (1535) that preceded the reformation. However we all know the church was not really interested in science back then.

Again the Greek geeks had the diving bell and submergence worked out in 4BCE. (Damn Greeks) Of course they probably did not know about the bends but chances are they never dived deep enough or long enough.

It really shows up the flawed prophesy and regardless how long he allegedly was dead, is of no consequence.

Do folk take the story of Jonah literally? I know not everyone has done scuba diving but anyone that has dived as a kid in the deep end of a pool has felt the effects of water pressure on their ear drums.

No wonder Jonah capitulated to god, the ear ache must have been excruciatingly painful.

[AREQUIPA]

Yes. I place Jonah as just after Job as being evidently allegorical. At least the idea of God sending him to capital of Assyria to call it to repentance is utterly ludicrous.

Perhaps it was the suitable prophetic number to give the three - day resurrection a Scriptural- prophetic framework. On the other hand, maybe the crucifixion event really did go over three days -or at least could be made to look like it .

[The Lantern]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I don't follow. The only way you'd have a two day sabbath - rest at passover is if the day before Passover or after was a Saturday. Any other day of the week wouldn't be a rest day - unless there's something about Passover I don't know.

I was just stating how every year, because the Passover is a special Sabbath, there would be two Sabbaths that week. Back to Back, or spread out. (Of course if Passover fell on the Saturday, then it would be included in the regular Sabbath rest) So perhaps the writers of the Gospels automatically expect the readers to understand that bit, and felt no need to spell out two Sabbaths. (Of course John does metion it)


I forgot to bring this up yesterday, but again with the Passover being a special Sabbath, Scripture seems to point that He died the day before it. No way would the people call Passover a preparation day, because it was considered a Sabbath. They wouldn't do any work that day. So the preparation day that is mentioned in the Gospels, must be the day before Passover, the 14th of Nissan. There is calculated evidence that Passover did fall on a Friday April 3, 33 AD.

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Rejecting Jesus' humanity has traditionally been considered a heresy. If we're still discussing Christianity here, the orthodox view is that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. Otherwise you run into problems where he was just a god-like being pretending to suffer which makes his sacrifice a sham.

Yes, Jesus was fully man. Yet, He wasn't like us. If He was like us, He would have been born in sin. In other words, Jesus was a man, yet a new kind of man if you will. The Bible calls Him the second Adam.

[busterkeaton]

[quote=The Lantern;24447519]I was just stating how every year, because the Passover is a special Sabbath, there would be two Sabbaths that week. Back to Back, or spread out. (Of course if Passover fell on the Saturday, then it would be included in the regular Sabbath rest) So perhaps the writers of the Gospels automatically expect the readers to understand that bit, and felt no need to spell out two Sabbaths. (Of course John does metion it)


[quote=The Lantern;24447519]I forgot to bring this up yesterday, but again with the Passover being a special Sabbath, Scripture seems to point that He died the day before it. No way would the people call Passover a preparation day, because it was considered a Sabbath. They wouldn't do any work that day. So the preparation day that is mentioned in the Gospels, must be the day before Passover, the 14th of Nissan. There is calculated evidence that Passover did fall on a Friday April 3, 33 AD.


So, if Jesus was born without sin, unlike man, then that would make Jesus a god or at least, non-human. If Jesus was born a god off the get go...then, Jesus couldn't begin to understand the temptations that man has....so, that tempting in the desert was no tempting at all, but mere show. Once again, the fable falls short.

[The Lantern]

Originally Posted by busterkeaton

So, if Jesus was born without sin, unlike man, then that would make Jesus a god or at least, non-human. If Jesus was born a god off the get go...then, Jesus couldn't begin to understand the temptations that man has....so, that tempting in the desert was no tempting at all, but mere show. Once again, the fable falls short.

Nope, He was tempted like Adam was tempted. Adam was without sin, yet he made the choice to disobey God's orders. Jesus could have done the same, but He obeyed God. (The Father)