Wednesday Crucifixion?
Comments
-
Well said, MJ. However, the arguing about the number of angels that can sit on a pin was originally going on in early Protestant Orthodoxy, so you Catholics must have stolen that problem from us! [:P]
"Mach's wie Gott - werde Mensch!" | theolobias.de
0 -
MJ. Smith said:David Paul said:
Isn't it dangerous for the Pope to write books? What if he ends up being demonstrably wrong?
I'd be more concerned if he doesn't end up demonstrably wrong on some points. As humans our understanding is incomplete and (fortunately) continually growing. We, as Catholics, are perfectly happy to spend a millennium or two or three debating the best understanding or wording for the mystery that is God/God's. Rumor has it that we can happily argue for decades over the number of angels that can sit on a pin. I worry far more about those poor theologians who think they HAVE all the right answers. What do they do for fun? I've never even met a Catholic theologian who thinks he has all the right QUESTIONS.
I think your comments make sense, MJ, and I agree that it doesn't make sense to assume any human is always right all the time. My comment wasn't intended as a dig. It was based on my understanding of infallability as it has been claimed in times past.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
It was based on my understanding of infallability as it has been claimed in times past.
If I were you, I'd check my sources - they apparently are not very reliable.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:David Paul said:
It was based on my understanding of infallability as it has been claimed in times past.
If I were you, I'd check my sources - they apparently are not very reliable.
This is one reason why I own catholic resources. It's hard to trust what someone says someone else believes.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
"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 28:1 KJV
"In the end" means BEFORE sunset.
"began to dawn TOWARD" means "getting close to" or "approaching".
When we read the Word of God for what it clearly says, then yes, Wed afternoon (fourth day of the week) to Sabbath afternoon (God's Holy seventh Day) would harmonize with what Jesus said - three days AND three nights.
God's Holy seventh-day Sabbath that was never ever "done away with" except by the Roman catholic church in 321 AD by Constantine to blend pagan sun worshipers into Christianity - notice that people call the first day of the week "sun day". Christmas (christ mass or mass of christ), easter (Ishtar or Astarte) are not Biblical.
more info: Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ
0 -
Welcome to the forums Ben. You have resurrected a thread that is nearly 3 years old. Please read the forum guidelines as we are not to engage in theology but rather to discuss the use of Logos software. What you, or I, may read clearly in the scriptures are fighting words for others who also use Logos and the forums.
If you have a question regarding Logos, please start a new thread.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I haven't read the entire thread to see if someone mentioned this text. It makes it clear for me. Mark15:42,43 ..... And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.
0 -
Ralph Hale said:
I haven't read the entire thread to see if someone mentioned this text. It makes it clear for me. Mark15:42,43 ..... And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.
As clear as mud, perhaps? Let me help you with that speck, then.
Lev. 23:5, 6, 7
In other words, Passover (Abib/Nisan 14), which can fall on any day of the week (postponements are rabbinical "add-ons"), is ALWAYS on the day before the Sabbath...the Sabbath that ALWAYS occurs on (Abib/Nisan 15), otherwise known as the First Day of Unleavened Bread, the first of seven "yearly sabbaths" which are mentioned in Lev. 23 in order. For the sake of clarity, let me point them out for you.
Let's first notice that there are 10 days mentioned in this chapter--10 moh`:adhiym (appointed times), of which 8 are sabbaths. The two which are not sabbaths are Pessahh (Passover Lev. 23:5) and `Ohmer Reishiytth (First sheaf (omer) aka "wavesheaf" day Lev. 23:10, 11). Both of these are appointed times, but work is not forbidden on these days. All the other days mentioned are sabbaths and work is forbidden on each of them.
- Lev. 23:3 The weekly Sabbath
- Lev. 23:6, 7, The First Day of Unleavened Bread (1st yearly sabbath)
- Lev. 23:8 The Seventh/Last Day of Unleavened Bread (2nd yearly sabbath)
- Lev. 23:16, 21 Feast of Weeks/Firstfruits aka Pentecost (see v. 16) (3rd yearly sabbath)
- Lev. 23:24, 25 Day of Shouting/Feast of Trumpets (4th yearly sabbath)
- Lev. 23:27, 28, 30 Day of Atonements (5th yearly sabbath)
- Lev. 23:34, 35 First Day of Feast of Booths/Tabernacles (6th yearly sabbath)
- Lev. 23:36 Last Great Day aka Eighth Day of the Feast (but not really...it just happens after the seventh/last day) (7th yearly sabbath)
Okay, that's them. So, again, Passover is always a Day of Preparation--because the 14th day (Passover--the day on which Yeishuu`a was crucified) always occurs the day before the 15th day (1st DUB). That should be clearer than mud.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Also, to make this clearer still, in Jn. 19:31 John stresses that the sabbath in view was a "high day" (i.e. one of the yearly sabbaths), not the weekly sabbath. There is zero Biblical evidence that the crucifixion was on Friday. None. There are numerous other evidences (Genesis, Exodus, Daniel, Hosea all come to mind) establishing the Wednesday crucifixion, but I won't get into those here.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
-
[:D]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
John Kight said:
Yesterday my pastor presented to the congregation his view of "Holy Week" and up held a Wednesday view of the Crucifixion. He made a great case for his position, and even though I've herd of the theory I've never actually look into it in detail.
The Jerusalem Talmud quotes rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around A.D. 100, as saying: "A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it"
--Jerusalem Talmud: Shabbat ix:3, I.1.J as quoted in Hoehner, 1974, pp. 248-249
0 -
John Kight said:
Yesterday my pastor presented to the congregation his view of "Holy Week" and up held a Wednesday view of the Crucifixion. He made a great case for his position, and even though I've herd of the theory I've never actually look into it in detail. I ran a search of my entire library for "Wednesday NEAR Jesus NEAR Crucifixion" and found next to nothing about this theory. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
The problem with attempting to set a date for the crucifixion lies in the fact that the gospels are not HISTORICAL presentations and cannot be relied on to provide precise historical information. The gospels are THEOLOGICAL. The view that Jesus was in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights rests upon the comparison being made with the story of Jonah and are not therefore necessarily historically precise. The synoptics present the view that Jesus was crucified on the day in which the Passover lamb was slain and presents the Last Supper as a celebration of the Passover. This is not the case with John. John specifically states that the Jews wished to avoid ritual defilement so that they would be able to celebrate the Passover. What it amounts to is that attempting to reconcile these accounts is an attempt to square the circle. Read to understand the theological points being made and not for the construction of a precise historical sequence (Besides, how does the precise sequence matter? ["At this point, what difference does it make?" [;)]])
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
I think the historical / theological distinction only applies to 'prove it' or 'nail it' type discussions among the 'edicated'.
I've no doubt 'normal' people in the first century wanted know exactly what Jesus was doing in Joseph's tomb for 2+ days. If he was really dead, did he leave the tomb for Gehenna (pre-punishment Gehenna)?
Then there's travel time to Gehenna, time to break down the gates (battle the Evil One?), and of course Jesus typically took 3 days to preach (the dead not needing loaves and fish). Travel time back, to then meet Mary, a couple Emmeus guys, plus the team.
As much as it sounds like bad humor, there was a day when people asked common sense questions. Mat 27.52 is most illustrative of real history running afoul of later theology. The saints (presumably preached to by Jesus) awakening (but not rising), even before Jesus was taken off the cross.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
George Somsel said:
The problem with attempting to set a date for the crucifixion lies in the fact that the gospels are not HISTORICAL presentations and cannot be relied on to provide precise historical information. The gospels are THEOLOGICAL. The view that Jesus was in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights rests upon the comparison being made with the story of Jonah and are not therefore necessarily historically precise. The synoptics present the view that Jesus was crucified on the day in which the Passover lamb was slain and presents the Last Supper as a celebration of the Passover. This is not the case with John. John specifically states that the Jews wished to avoid ritual defilement so that they would be able to celebrate the Passover. What it amounts to is that attempting to reconcile these accounts is an attempt to square the circle. Read to understand the theological points being made and not for the construction of a precise historical sequence (Besides, how does the precise sequence matter? ["At this point, what difference does it make?"
]) Setting a date for the crucifixion is easy breezy, George. Scripture says explicitly it happened on the 14th day of the first month. What year? Well, that's not so easy, because it literally depends (or rather depended) on the weather. But the ballpark is pretty small. There are certain prophecies that make it potentially possible to narrow it down very closely, but those weather conditions I mentioned could throw it off by a day, a month, or a day and a month. I'm not sure that there is any extant record that could make it certain. However, the fact that it was on Wednesday is a 100% lock. Prophecy demands it.
Despite what you say, there is a way to reconcile the difference between the Synoptics and John that makes perfect sense, aligns with all prophecy, and leaves no loose ends. In other words, it actually happened--it isn't some hypothetical theological construct. I will address that in my book The Priesthoods of Passover, but I have to finish about 4-5 other books first before addressing that issue. People have to get their minds around the fact that YHWH does all kinds of things they don't think Him capable of. Once those log jams are addressed, people will be able to accept things they would otherwise say "can't be true", not because the Bible disagrees but just because they are convinced "God would never do that". Those fuzzy feelings, based mostly on assumptions, not Scripture, literally cause people to make excuses for why explicit things can't be possible. I've seen it happen often...after reams of information are presented, much of which can't be and isn't denied, folks simply say, "I don't believe that" without providing a single shred of countervailing evidence, thus fulfilling Hab. 1:5. That prophecy is going to be getting a most strenuous workout...right up to the point where denials become pointless. That's when people just start saying, "Maybe so, but I just don't care."
I suggest that no one assume they know YHWH enough to predict His behavior--or limit it, since He has explicitly said He has saved more than just a few surprises for the end...mind-blowing kinds of things. Obviously, something has to account for Hab. 1:5. But yeah, Yeishuu`a ate Passover and was Passover. Those who say that is impossible (and there are more than a few) are wrong.
Oh, and the Jews, they have really painted themselves into a box. The rabbinic interpretations of certain key concepts are just not in the ballpark. Of course, the Christians rely on those interpretations themselves, and so they are just as dislocated. Fun times ahead--fun times.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
George Somsel said:
The view that Jesus was in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights rests upon the comparison being made with the story of Jonah
Has anyone done the study to prove exactly how long [in hours] that Jonah was in that what ever it was? [Reference please]
[or do we run into the same problems in 800 BC as we are doing in [about] 31 AD?]
0 -
Maybe I should make the following my forum signature:
"Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums. ... 2. Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions."
[;)]
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
David Ames said:George Somsel said:
The view that Jesus was in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights rests upon the comparison being made with the story of Jonah
Has anyone done the study to prove exactly how long [in hours] that Jonah was in that what ever it was? [Reference please]
[or do we run into the same problems in 800 BC as we are doing in [about] 31 AD?]
Well, I don't think it is quite the same as the timing of the crucifixion--there is much more info to go on where that is concerned.
But the only thing there is to go on from Jonah is Jon. 1:17. The question is pretty simple...does this mean what it seems to be explicitly saying, or is it an inexplicable overstatement that actually means something much less detailed? It says, three days & three nights, not three days & nights, not three days, nor anything else that is less specific. Why introduce the unnecessary specificity and then make a point of quoting that unnecessary specificity if the unnecessary specificity was unnecessary and misleading?
Let me also add this point--the number three is rife throughout the Tanakh. Things are forever happening "in three days" or "after three days". But Yeishuu`a, after stating that this was the ONLY sign He would give (in Mt. 12:39, Mt. 16:4, and Lk. 13:29), with all those other options to quote from, specifically chose the highly specific wording of Jonah. Why?
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super.Tramp said:
Probably not much of one, je pense.
But it would alleviate my frequent temptation to quote from that particular forum guideline in reply to all-too-many of the threads around here.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
SineNomine said:
But it would alleviate my frequent temptation to quote from that particular forum guideline in reply to all-too-many of the threads around here.
It always gets worse on Fridays, after 5pm.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
SineNomine said:Super.Tramp said:
Probably not much of one, je pense.
But it would alleviate my frequent temptation to quote from that particular forum guideline in reply to all-too-many of the threads around here.
Why bother? This—and many other—discussion does not even come close to the chaos that caused the Forum Guidelines to be written in the first place. I personally have no problem with the civil sharing of ideas, or even with the reasoning that led to the conclusion. When those discussion spill over into personal attacks, then it is time to call attention to forum decorum. The overly-frequent appeal to the Forum Guidelines reduces the effectiveness of such cautions.
0 -
Since I believe that the Bible is inerrant, I cannot accept a Friday crucifixion since there is no way to get 3 days and 3 nights into it. Also, the story of Jonah is the sign that Jesus gave the scribes and Pharisees. The best analysis I found when I taught this was R. A. Torrey's "Difficulties in the Bible" which is available in Logos. In fact there are 2 versions available.
Torrey, R. A. (1998). Difficulties in the Bible: Alleged errors and contradictions. Willow Grove: Woodlawn Electronic Publishing.
Andrews, E. D., & Torrey, R. A. (2011). Difficulties in the Bible Updated: Alleged Errors and Contradictions. Cambridge, OH: Edward Andrews.
His analysis is in Chapter 21. Here it is an excerpt from the original book:
WAS JESUS REALLY THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH?
Matthew reports Jesus as saying, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale (“sea monster,” RV marg.), so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (12:40). According to the commonly accepted tradition of the church Jesus was crucified on Friday, dying at 3:00 p.m., or somewhere between 3:00 p.m. and sundown, and was raised from the dead very early in the morning of the following Sunday. Many readers of the Bible are puzzled to know how the interval between late Friday afternoon and early Sunday morning can be figured out to be three days and three nights. It seems rather to be two nights, one day and a very small portion of another day.
The solution of this apparent difficulty proposed by many commentators is that “a day and a night” is simply another way of saying “a day,” and that the ancient Jews reckoned a fraction of a day as a whole day, so they say there was a part of Friday (a very small part), or a day and a night; all of Saturday, another day, or a day and a night; part of Sunday (a very small part), another day, or a day and a night.
There are many persons whom this solution does not altogether satisfy, and the writer confesses it does not satisfy him at all. It seems to him to be a makeshifts very weak makeshift.
Is there any solution that is altogether satisfactory? There is.
The first fact to be noticed in the proper solution is that the Bible nowhere says or implies that Jesus was crucified and died on Friday. It is said that Jesus was crucified on “the day before the sabbath” (Mark 15:42). As the Jewish weekly Sabbath came on Saturday, beginning at Sunset the evening before, the conclusion is naturally drawn that as Jesus was crucified the day before the Sabbath He must have been crucified on Friday. But it is a well-known fact, to which the Bible bears abundant testimony, that the Jews had other Sabbaths beside the weekly Sabbath which fell on Saturday. The first day of Passover week, no matter upon what day of the week it came, was always a Sabbath (Exodus 12:16; Leviticus 23:7; Numbers 28:16–18). The question therefore arises whether the Sabbath that followed Christ’s crucifixion was the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) or the Passover Sabbath, falling on the 15th of Nisan, which came that year on Thursday. Now the Bible does not leave us to speculate in regard to which Sabbath is meant in this instance, for John tells us in so many words, in John 19:14, that the day on which Jesus was tried and crucified was “the preparation of the Passover” (RV), that is, it was not the day before the weekly Sabbath (Friday) but it was the day before the Passover Sabbath, which came that year on Thursday. That is to say, the day on which Jesus Christ was crucified was Wednesday. John makes this as clear as day.
The gospel of John was written later than the other gospels, and scholars have for a long time noticed that in various places there was an evident intention to correct false impressions that one might get from reading the other gospels. One of these false impressions was that Jesus ate the Passover with His disciples at the regular time of the Passover. To correct this false impression John clearly states that He ate it the evening before, and that He himself died on the cross at the very moment the Passover lambs were being slain “between the two evenings” on the 14th of Nisan (Exodus 12:6, Hebrew; cf. RV marg.). God’s real Paschal Lamb, Jesus, of whom all other Paschal lambs offered through the centuries were only types, was therefore slain at the very time appointed of God.
Everything about the Passover lamb was fulfilled in Jesus. (1) He was the Lamb without blemish and without spot (Exodus 12:5). (2) He was chosen on the 10th of Nisan (Exodus 12:3), for it was on the tenth day of the month, the preceding Saturday, that the triumphal entry into Jerusalem was made, since they came from Jericho to Bethany six days before the Passover (John 12:1—that would be six days before Thursday, which would be Friday); and it was on the next day that entry into Jerusalem was made (John 12:12 ff.), that is, on Saturday, the 10th of Nisan. It was also on this same day that Judas went to the chief priests and offered to betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:6–16; Mark 14:3–11). As it was after the supper in the house of Simon the leper, and as the supper occurred late on Friday, that is, after sunset, or early on Saturday, “after” the supper would necessarily be on the 10th of Nisan. This being the price set on Him by the chief priests, it was the buying or taking to them of a lamb which according to law must occur on the 10th of Nisan. Furthermore, they put the exact value on the lamb that Old Testament prophecy predicted (Matthew 26:15; cf. Zechariah 11:12). (3) Not a bone of Him was broken when He was killed (John 19:36; cf. Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12; Psalm 34:20). (4) And He was killed on the 14th of Nisan between the evenings, just before the beginning of the 15th of Nisan at sundown (Exodus 12:6, RV marg.).
If we take just exactly what the Bible says, that Jesus was slain before the Passover Sabbath, the type is marvelously fulfilled in every detail; but if we accept the traditional theory that Jesus was crucified on Friday, the type fails at many points.
Furthermore, if we accept the traditional view that Jesus was crucified on Friday and ate the Passover on the regular day of the Passover, then the journey from Jericho to Bethany, which occurred six days before the Passover (John 12:1), would fall on a Saturday, that is, the Jewish Sabbath. Such a journey on the Jewish Sabbath would be contrary to the Jewish law. Of course it was impossible for Jesus to take such a journey on the Jewish Sabbath. In reality His triumphal entry into Jerusalem was on the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday. This was altogether possible, for the Bible elsewhere tells us that Bethany was a Sabbath day’s journey from Jerusalem (Acts 1:12; cf. Luke 24:50).
It has been figured out by the astronomers that in the year 30 A.D., which is the commonly accepted year of the crucifixion of our Lord, the Passover was kept on Thursday, April 6, the moon being full that day. The chronologists who have supposed that the crucifixion took place on Friday have been greatly perplexed by this fact that in the year 30 A.D., the Passover occurred on Thursday. One writer in seeking a solution of the difficulty suggests that the crucifixion may have been in the year 33 A.D., for although the full moon was on a Thursday that year also, yet as it was within two and half hours of Friday, he thinks that perhaps the Jews may have kept it that day. But when we accept exactly what the Bible says, namely, that Jesus was not crucified on the Passover day but on “the preparation of the Passover,” and that He was to be three days and three nights in the grave, and as “the preparation of the Passover” that year would be Wednesday and His resurrection early on the first day of the week, this allows exactly three days and three nights in the grave.
To sum it all up, Jesus died about sunset on Wednesday. Seventy-two hours later, exactly three days and three nights, at the beginning of the first day of the week (Saturday at sunset), He arose again from the grave. When the women visited the tomb just before dawn the next morning, they found the grave already empty. So we are not driven to any such makeshift solution as that any small portion of a day is reckoned as a whole day and night, but we find that the statement of Jesus was literally true. Three days and three nights His body was dead and lay in the sepulcher. While His body lay dead, He Himself, being quickened in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18), went into the heart of the earth and preached to the spirits which were in prison (1 Peter 3:19).
This supposed difficulty solves itself, as do so many other difficulties in the Bible, when we take the Bible as meaning exactly what it says.
It is sometimes objected against the view here advanced that the two on the way to Emmaus early on the first day of the week (that is, Sunday) said to Jesus in speaking of the crucifixion and events accompanying it, “Besides all this, today is the third day since these things were done” (Luke 24:21); and it is said that if the crucifixion took place on Wednesday, Sunday would be the fourth day since these things were done. But the answer is very simple. These things were done just as Thursday was beginning at sunset on Wednesday. They were therefore completed on Thursday, and the first day since Thursday would be Friday, the second day since Thursday would be Saturday, and “the third day since” Thursday would be Sunday, the first day of the week. So the supposed objection in reality supports the theory. On the other hand, if the crucifixion took place on Friday, by no manner of reckoning could Sunday be made “the third day since” these things were done.
There are many passages in Scripture that support the theory advanced above and make it necessary to believe that Jesus died late on Wednesday. Some of them are as follows: “For as Jonah 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 12:40). “This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days” (Matthew 26:61). “Thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days, save thyself” (Matthew 27:40). “Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again” (Matthew 27:63). “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31). “They shall kill him, and when he is killed, after three days he shall rise again” (Mark 9:31, RV). “They shall scourge him, and shall kill him, and after three days he shall rise again” (Mark 10:34, RV) “Destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands” (Mark 14:58, RV). “Ah, thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days, save thyself!” (Mark 15:29). “Besides all this, today is the third day since these things were done” (Luke 24:21). “Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said” (John 2:19–22).
There is absolutely nothing in favor of Friday crucifixion, but everything in the Scripture is perfectly harmonized by Wednesday crucifixion. It is remarkable how many prophetical and typical passages of the Old Testament are fulfilled and how many seeming discrepancies in the gospel narratives are straightened out when we once come to understand that Jesus died on Wednesday and not on Friday.
0 -
My first post in this thread referenced Torrey's take on this, but there is much, much more besides. His breakdown is a drop in the bucket.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Hi Mr. Williams;
I have read your response to the crucifixion and have a question. What did Esther mean when she asked everyone to fast for her meeting with the king. In Esther 4:
Est 4:15 Then Esther bade them return Mordecai this answer,
Est 4:16 Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.
Est 4:17 So Mordecai went his way, and did according to all that Esther had commanded him.Did Esther mean just a part of each day? Did she mean 12 hour days and 12 hour nights or just a part of that?
Later in chapter 5 of Esther it is said:
Est 5:1 Now it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king's house, over against the king's house: and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the gate of the house.
Did this take place after the three days and three nights? When you say "We must think Eastern not western. Any part of a day is a day, in eastern thought." I would say that Esther proves that eastern thinking referred to three full days or 72 hours later and this would occur after the 72 hours of fasting.
So why would the 3 days and 3 nights of Christ be different?
Thank you for your time.
Fred K
0 -
Three full days or parts of three days where a part of a day counts as a day we can not prove beyond all doubt.
Minimum is two full nights and one full day and some parts of two other days. But does it make any difference to our salvation?
0 -
Thanks to all who have participated in this thread.
Two years ago or so my wife suggested that we undertake the task of varnishing the wooden shelves (made of stair treads) in my library room.
In the process of removing all the books, about three or four shelves at a time, I discovered in my library a long-forgotten (on my part) book by Roy M. Allen, titled Three Days in the Grave.
I wish this could be a resource in Logos!On the back panel of the dust jacket is a review by Keith Brooks, editor of Prophecy Monthly:
"Students who have had their pet theories as to the day on which our Lord was crucified should invest in a new book, THREE DAYS IN THE GRAVE by Roy M. Allen.
"The author is a scientist as well as a theologian and those who read this book will realize that they are dealing with one capable of thinking to the bottom of things. Mr. Allen is one man who has fairly set forth the strongest arguments for the three theories--Friday, Wednesday and Thursday, presenting the arguments against each and carefully analyzing all in the light of Scripture. While...(some attempt to)…make Friday fit in with Jewish ceremonies, Mr. Allen demolishes this completely. Wednesday crucifixion which the editor [Keith Brooks] once attempted to defend in a tract, we admit is left tottering and we have been amazed that we so thoughtlessly used some passages for its support. The alternative, Thursday, seems to meet all Scripture statements in the most satisfactory way, meeting the words of Matthew 12:40 and every other passage, as well as fitting the Passover details."
Mr. Roy M. Allen is the author of all the articles in the Encyclopedia Americana on the microscope and microscopy (from the "About the Author").
First edition, 2000 copies, 1942. Loizeaux Brothers Printing Company, Inc.
This is a hard cover book of 159 pages. It includes a detailed fold-out chronological chart at the back of the book.
I have found this book to be a fascinating, meticulously detailed, convincing study of the issues reflected in this thread's discussion.
0 -
Jerome Smith said:
I have found this book to be a fascinating, meticulously detailed, convincing study of the issues reflected in this thread's discussion.
I think I have this book, although I couldn't find it. People can support whatever floats their boat, but Wednesday is the day supported by prophecy. The primary reason "Good Friday" was enshrined as the day of crucifixion is because the gospels say Yeishuua` died on a preparation day. Unfortunately, the Gentile fathers were "determining" doctrines about the same time they were "sanitizing" the church of all things Jewish. They were familiar with the concept of the day of preparation as the sixth day before the seventh day Sabbath (Exo. 16:22, 23, 24, 25), the day to accomplish all necessary work so the Sabbath rest could be peacefully observed. What the so-called fathers clearly didn't understand is that there are seven yearly Sabbaths that occur during the yearly seasonal cycle, and each of those Sabbaths also has an accompanying preparation day which precedes it. Christians have historically been ignorant of this fact, or else they have intentionally ignored it. Nevertheless, the primary reason there is NO Biblical reason to confidently assert that "Good Friday" was the day of crucifixion is because Passover, the day Yeishuua` died, is ALWAYS a preparation day, no matter what day of the week it falls on. Pessahh occurs on the 14th of 'Aabhiybh , which is the day of preparation for the first yearly Sabbath (the First Day of Unleavened Bread), that occurs on the 15th day.
The fact that clinches this is what John says in Jn. 19:31 NASB: that "day of preparation" was for "a high day" Sabbath (i.e. a yearly Sabbath). Because Yeishuua`, the Passover Lamb, died on Pessahh, He HAD to die on a preparation day regardless of which day of the week He died. This fact alone doesn't rule out a Friday crucifixion, but it does eliminate all supposed Biblical evidence "requiring" a Friday death. The prophetic evidence supporting the mid-week Wednesday crucifixion is found spread throughout Tanakh.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Unfortunately, I don't have a time machine. All I get is documents, archaeological sites, and corporate memory ... all of which point to the fact that some in this thread fail to distinguish two very different issues (1) the astronomical position of the heavenly bodies determining the calendar of the time of Christ's death and its translation into our contemporary calendar i.e. when did the historical event occur and (2) when does the Church celebrate that event in the annual celebration of the life of Jesus - an eternity compressed into 365/366 days. To indicate that it is a "mistake" that 2 does not correspond to 1, is to fail to understand the nature of worship including Jewish worship with its own historical celebrations. Yes, the forums have made me grumpy today ... Anyone want to argue about the actual dates of the feasts that occur on the equinoxes?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Hi David;
I am asking a few questions that I have not been able to find anywhere on this topic not even with the internet. I have listened to all sides of a Wednesday, Thursday or Friday crucifixion and have several questions. As it stands right now no one has given any explanation to my question about Esther and her description of three days and three nights. I believe she fasted for 3 24hr. days the way she described the fast that she and the others were taking. In chapter 5 God clearly says "the third day". I
s this a way of saying after 3 full days?David Paul said:Jerome Smith said:I have found this book to be a fascinating, meticulously detailed, convincing study of the issues reflected in this thread's discussion.
I think I have this book, although I couldn't find it. People can support whatever floats their boat, but Wednesday is the day supported by prophecy. The primary reason "Good Friday" was enshrined as the day of crucifixion is because the gospels say Yeishuua` died on a preparation day. Unfortunately, the Gentile fathers were "determining" doctrines about the same time they were "sanitizing" the church of all things Jewish. They were familiar with the concept of the day of preparation as the sixth day before the seventh day Sabbath (Exo. 16:22, 23, 24, 25), the day to accomplish all necessary work so the Sabbath rest could be peacefully observed. What the so-called fathers clearly didn't understand is that there are seven yearly Sabbaths that occur during the yearly seasonal cycle, and each of those Sabbaths also has an accompanying preparation day which precedes it. Christians have historically been ignorant of this fact, or else they have intentionally ignored it. Nevertheless, the primary reason there is NO Biblical reason to confidently assert that "Good Friday" was the day of crucifixion is because Passover, the day Yeishuua` died, is ALWAYS a preparation day, no matter what day of the week it falls on. Pessahh occurs on the 14th of 'Aabhiybh , which is the day of preparation for the first yearly Sabbath (the First Day of Unleavened Bread), that occurs on the 15th day.
The fact that clinches this is what John says in Jn. 19:31 NASB: that "day of preparation" was for "a high day" Sabbath (i.e. a yearly Sabbath). Because Yeishuua`, the Passover Lamb, died on Pessahh, He HAD to die on a preparation day regardless of which day of the week He died. This fact alone doesn't rule out a Friday crucifixion, but it does eliminate all supposed Biblical evidence "requiring" a Friday death. The prophetic evidence supporting the mid-week Wednesday crucifixion is found spread throughout Tanakh.
I have another question perhaps someone has an answer.
When did the priests seal the stone??
This would be hard physical labor. I know because I am a cement mason. This would be hard work and would take most of a day to mortar up or chisel in a stone large enough to seal the opening to a tomb. The verse clearly says they went and did it:
Mathew 27:65¶ Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
66So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.
If the crucifixion was on a friday at 3pm there was not enough time for the priests to go to Pilate and ask for the right to seal the stone. They certainly could not do this on Saturday the Sabbath in view of everyone else watching them.
If the crucifixion is on a Thursday at 3pm The high Sabbath of the first day of unleavened bread would begin at 6pm that night and Friday would begin. They could not seal the stone with physical labor and Friday would be immediately followed by the Saturday sabbath at 6pm again no servile work. So when could the priests and scribes do this hard physical labor? With the stone rolled away while it was yet dark on the first day of the week, there would not be enough daylight after 6pm Saturday night which is when the first day of the week would begin. Any thoughts here??
Fred
0 -
Fred A Kuypers said:
I am asking a few questions that I have not been able to find anywhere on this topic not even with the internet. I have listened to all sides of a Wednesday, Thursday or Friday crucifixion and have several questions. As it stands right now no one has given any explanation to my question about Esther and her description of three days and three nights. I believe she fasted for 3 24hr. days the way she described the fast that she and the others were taking. In chapter 5 God clearly says "the third day".
Sounds like you are referring to Est. 4:16 & Est. 5:1.
Fred A Kuypers said:Is this a way of saying after 3 full days?
I would say "yes"...although I don't see the need here for absolute specificity. The phrase "on the third day" (or just "the third day") is one that can be taken as either "inclusive" or "non-inclusive". A lot depends on when the phrase gets used. Again, is the person including the day they are speaking (starting from 1)? Or are they intending something like "tomorrow at about this time one day will have passed" (starting from 0). To beat a dead horse, no society has a hard and fast rule that requires them to use only one or the other method; it is a choice based on what makes sense in the specific scenario. The ancient Jews didn't "always" use inclusive reckoning. In this Esther case, the day on which she spoke to Mordecai seems to have been day zero, leaving time for him to go announce the coming fast to the Jews of Susa, with the "clock" starting at sundown (at least for Esther herself). That said, she probably didn't eat anything from the moment she spoke, which means that when she later appeared before the king, she would probably have been fasting 72 hours. So, it would have been the following day after she spoke that counted as day one, the next day would be two, and the following day would be "the third day". This would have been as follows:
Day Zero: Esther makes the vow to fast for three nights and days; she likely doesn't eat from the moment of the vow; Mordecai alerts the Jews.
Day One: Days begin at even (dusk, i.e. sundown), so the Jews who had been alerted would begin fasting then.
Day Two: Begins the following day at sundown.
Day Three: Begins the following day at sundown. This is the fourth "calendar" day from the conversation she had with Mordecai. To make this somewhat clearer, let's say their conversation was at 3pm local time on Day Zero. At some point on Day Three, in all likelihood AFTER 3pm, she appears before the king. That means she has fasted for 72 hours at least, and yet she is also appearing "on the third day". To be clear, the Jews would still be fasting for her, because there is no necessity for her "clock" and theirs to be concurrent. In fact, if some Jews didn't hear about the fast until a day or two after the original conversation, those people might still be fasting for a day or two after Esther breaks her fast. The key thing to remember is that conceptual rigidity and "lock-step-ism" isn't a requisite for these scenarios. Just plain common sense.To be clear, there are some places in the Bible which do appear to use inclusive reckoning. These typically refer to simple "passage of time". When a scenario requires more specificity and precision, such as the one above where a vow is being kept, precision is "included" in the vow by phrasing such as is found in Est. 4:16..."three days, night or day" or Jon. 1:17 "three days and three nights". Such phrasing effectively requires (just as the phrasing appears to describe) a period that is 72 hours long.
I would like to point out that Est. 4:16 gives a perfect example of how the Hebrew word yohm ("day") can be used to refer to both daylight and a 24-hr. period including both day and night. In other words, yohm is used pretty much just like we use "day" today. Some people try to insist that yohm can only refer to daylight, victimizing themselves with a foolishly rigid and unnecessarily exclusive interpretation of Yeishuua`'s words in Jn. 11:9.
Fred A Kuypers said:When did the priests seal the stone??
In this case, I think you are misunderstanding what "seal" is intended to mean. What you describe isn't required, i.e. the need to entirely fill-in the edges with cement. Remember, the women expect someone to be able to roll away the stone. Second, "the priests" are not the ones who are doing this work. Notice again what Pilate says: "You have a watch...". He is giving the Jews a contingent of Romans to do whatever is necessary to "get the job done". This includes guards as well as those who would "seal" the stone. This alleviates the need for Jews to profane the Sabbath. In this case, the seal in all likelihood wasn't a total hermetic seal that might prevent air passing through cracks. It was more likely something akin to the seal one would put on a letter that indicated that no one had opened the letter prior to its intended recipient...though in this case it would undoubtedly be larger. In other words, the seal probably had a Roman imprimatur upon it, with the understanding being that anyone who broke the seal would have the weight of Rome's wrath upon them. I have heard some people say that Pilate's words, "You have a watch..." means he was throwing responsibility for guarding the tomb back on the Jewish leaders (i.e. "You have your own people who can take care of that"), but that is not what his words mean.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
[[Please list the source that PROVES what the words mean please]]David Paul said:I have heard some people say that Pilate's words, "You have a watch..." means he was throwing responsibility for guarding the tomb back on the Jewish leaders (i.e. "You have your own people who can take care of that"), but that is not what his words mean.
My research makes me one of those that believes that they were Jewish temple guards at the tomb not Roman.
In my Logos library the earliest resource that mentions Romans at the tomb is the Gospel of Peter. But one can not pick and choose what parts of a book you accept. It is all or nothing. If you accept the part of the Gospel of Peter that says that there were Roman soldiers at the tomb then you also must accept that the Cross walked out of the tomb and talked. If the Cross walked out of the tomb and talked then there were Roman soldiers at the tomb. If the Cross did not walk out of the tomb and talk then the Gospel of Peter can not be used as a witness that there were Roman soldiers at the tomb nor any source that quotes as its source the Gospel of Peter.
I agree with you on the placing of the seal just not who put it there nor what it was stamped with.
0 -
David Paul said:
[ I have heard some people say that Pilate's words, "You have a watch..." means he was throwing responsibility for guarding the tomb back on the Jewish leaders (i.e. "You have your own people who can take care of that"), but that is not what his words mean.
1. koustodia (κουστωδία, 2892); “a guard,” (Latin, custodia, Eng., “custodian”), is used of the soldiers who “guarded” Christ’s sepulchre, Matt. 27:65, 66 and 28:11, and is translated “(ye have) a guard,” “the guard (being with them),” and “(some of) the guard,” rv, kjv, “… a watch,” “(setting a) watch,” and “… the watch.” This was the Temple guard, stationed under a Roman officer in the tower of Antonia, and having charge of the high priestly vestments. Hence the significance of Pilate’s words “Ye have a guard.” See watch.
Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
[[Not a salvation issue as far as I can see]]
0 -
Going on your perspective, the Jews could have attended to such activities without having bothered Pilate...but they went to him for a reason. He pretty clearly understood the powder keg situation that this whole event entailed, so I doubt he would have cavalierly punted. They asked, and his reply "you have..." was his response, which at the time meant the asker was receiving what was requested of the askie. Understand...Pilate's ENTIRE purpose for being in Jerusalem was to keep the Jewish powder keg from igniting. Judea was notorious as one of the more, if not the most, troublesome districts in Rome's "care". If the Jews said they needed help keeping things "under wraps", I'm sure he obliged.
Regardless, though, I think at the very least one can safely assume it was the Roman seal that the Jewish authorities were after, and Romans would have been the one's to affix the seal, whatever it entailed. This resolves the "but it was work the Jews wouldn't do on Sabbath" argument.
EDIT: i just want to make (remake?) a point. The response (You have...) doesn't necessarily have the same contextual meaning we tend to assign today in English. Saying "you have" does not (especially given the historical context) mean the same thing as "you ALREADY have". When a request of a sovereign-type individual was made, if the response was positive, saying "You have..." is the equivalent of saying "I HAVE granted your petition..." to whatever extent the petition was fulfilled.
It was the intimidation factor that the Roman imprimatur held that the Jewish leaders were after, and there is no reason to assume he wouldn't provide it since his entire reputation depended on continuing "smooth sailing".
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Ames said:David Paul said:
[ I have heard some people say that Pilate's words, "You have a watch..." means he was throwing responsibility for guarding the tomb back on the Jewish leaders (i.e. "You have your own people who can take care of that"), but that is not what his words mean.
1. koustodia (κουστωδία, 2892); “a guard,” (Latin, custodia, Eng., “custodian”), is used of the soldiers who “guarded” Christ’s sepulchre, Matt. 27:65, 66 and 28:11, and is translated “(ye have) a guard,” “the guard (being with them),” and “(some of) the guard,” rv, kjv, “… a watch,” “(setting a) watch,” and “… the watch.” This was the Temple guard, stationed under a Roman officer in the tower of Antonia, and having charge of the high priestly vestments. Hence the significance of Pilate’s words “Ye have a guard.” See watch.
Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
[[Not a salvation issue as far as I can see]]
David, you may want to consult David, regarding the guards. How time passes in Logosland.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
David, you may want to consult David, regarding the guards. How time passes in Logosland.
Yeah, Dave is probably the one I heard the "temple guard" idea from. I will admit there is no inherent clarity on this issue, but the Jewish authorities requesting support from Pilate has always caused me to "see" the guard as Roman. Could it have been a "twofer" affair, where both shared some role?. Sure, maybe. But I can't imagine Pilate not doing whatever he could to "keep a wrap" on this. His reaction to the Jewish authorities publicly declaring that he "wasn't a Friend of Caesar" if he didn't "deal" with Yeishuua` shows how spooked he already was. "Friend of Caesar" was a coveted title that had great political benefit, so he had tons of motivation to squelch this matter and avoid further controversy.
It also bears remembering that the Jewish law required death for blasphemers, the sin which they charged Yeishuua` with. If not for the Roman presence in Jerusalem, Pilate would never have been consulted...the leadership would have simply had him stoned to death. However, the Romans had outlawed the death sentence in Judea unless it was explicitly condoned and carried out by the Roman authorities. This is why He died by crucifixion rather than stoning. Point is...the Romans pretty much had to be involved in the entire process or the Jewish authorities may have had charges of breaking Roman law brought against them. This is why they consulted Pilate about a guard for the tomb, and it is also why he almost certainly provided their request.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Denise said:
David, you may want to consult David, regarding the guards. How time passes in Logosland.
I did. I reviewed all 236 pages of notes that he made on his study on the temple guards.
A search of his library returned 1606 hits in 789 resources and yes, he did look at every one.
He was left with another question: Was the tomb guarded the first night? That is did the priests go to Pilate just after dark or wait until daylight?
0 -
David Paul said:
EDIT: i just want to make (remake?) a point. The response (You have...) doesn't necessarily have the same contextual meaning we tend to assign today in English. Saying "you have" does not (especially given the historical context) mean the same thing as "you ALREADY have". When a request of a sovereign-type individual was made, if the response was positive, saying "You have..." is the equivalent of saying "I HAVE granted your petition..." to whatever extent the petition was fulfilled.
Resources that discuss this point of view please. If I own one I missed that point.
Also IF they were to use temple guards how would it have been worded?
Another subject that needs to be researched on this. What was the relationship between the temple guards, who were known to carry sharp things like spears or swords, and the Roman authorities? That is what were the rules that the temple guards had to follow when operating outside of the temple? Did they need to get permission first? Or could they report the what and why after the event? Did they need to get permission to go out to arrest Jesus or did they just have to report that they did the next day? Today the US forces in Germany and Japan have rules they have to follow. What rules did the Romans make the temple guards follow when they were outside of the temple? [[Any suggested resources?]]
IF temple guards were going to be active outside of the temple for three days did they need prior permission?
0 -
David Ames said:
He was left with another question: Was the tomb guarded the first night? That is did the priests go to Pilate just after dark or wait until daylight?
This is one of Matthew's many instances demonstrating his sense of humor ... miscounting generations, describing disbelieving disciples as they watch Jesus power up to heaven, and here, waiting until after the body can be stolen, before assigning the guards.
But ignoring his humor, my guess is that resurrection was not uncommon (of course, claims). The 3rd day prophesy was the apocalyptic sign.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I haven't read this, but so I do not know how good it is, but someone else may be able to comment on it.
https://www.logos.com/product/164055/the-eucharistic-words-of-jesus
0 -
My question, before replying to yours, is...what are the underlying reasons you are so invested in this question? What do you think "changes" if the guard was Romans vs. temple guards (apart from the concern about profaning Sabbath--or is that the main issue)?
David Ames said:David Paul said:EDIT: i just want to make (remake?) a point. The response (You have...) doesn't necessarily have the same contextual meaning we tend to assign today in English. Saying "you have" does not (especially given the historical context) mean the same thing as "you ALREADY have". When a request of a sovereign-type individual was made, if the response was positive, saying "You have..." is the equivalent of saying "I HAVE granted your petition..." to whatever extent the petition was fulfilled.
Resources that discuss this point of view please. If I own one I missed that point.
My resources are not religious so much as historical. If you are sufficiently motivated on this point, I would try to contact someone who is familiar with ancient speech patterns (that is, with ancient plays and historical documents that record "royal" and high-class authoritative speech). I don't have any particular resource in mind; I'm just aware that those with the kind of social power that permitted them to grant petitions to those of lower classes would (as in "could") respond to a petition by saying "you have (that which you requested)". It's akin to "you asked; I've answered affirmatively". It's phraseology designed to convey extraordinary authoritative power. The response "You have..." indicates the power broker's tremendous ability to affect change by will and word.
David Ames said:Also IF they were to use temple guards how would it have been worded?
If they intended from the outset to use temple guards, they wouldn't have approached Pilate. Also, since Pilate would have no reason to suspect a dead man would ever rise to life again, there would be no reason for the Romans to give Yeishuua`'s body or his grave a second thought, so the Jews probably could have posted a guard on their own without Roman oversight. BUT THEY WANTED ROMAN OVERSIGHT...and once the concern of the body being taken was broached, I seriously doubt Pilate would have rebuffed them, for reasons I've given above.
David Ames said:Another subject that needs to be researched on this. What was the relationship between the temple guards, who were known to carry sharp things like spears or swords, and the Roman authorities? That is what were the rules that the temple guards had to follow when operating outside of the temple? Did they need to get permission first? Or could they report the what and why after the event? Did they need to get permission to go out to arrest Jesus or did they just have to report that they did the next day? Today the US forces in Germany and Japan have rules they have to follow. What rules did the Romans make the temple guards follow when they were outside of the temple? [[Any suggested resources?]]
IF temple guards were going to be active outside of the temple for three days did they need prior permission?
I think that to some degree the questions you are asking are deeply entrenched in the "ultimately unknowable" category; there are too many variables that are not enunciated in the Bible and probably not enough extant extra-Biblical discussions of the various issues to draw anything like firm conclusions.
Again, why the need for such specificity?
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
If they intended from the outset to use temple guards, they wouldn't have approached Pilate. Also, since Pilate would have no reason to suspect a dead man would ever rise to life again, there would be no reason for the Romans to give Yeishuua`'s body or his grave a second thought, so the Jews probably could have posted a guard on their own without Roman oversight. BUT THEY WANTED ROMAN OVERSIGHT...and once the concern of the body being taken was broached, I seriously doubt Pilate would have rebuffed them, for reasons I've given above.
Have read ALL of your posts and thank you for responding. Might respond deeper latter but we have covered most of the ground on this subject However:
As to why they approached Pilate even if they intended from the outset to use temple guards goes back to my thoughts on the relationship between the temple guards, who were known to carry sharp things like spears or swords, and the Roman authorities. Did they need the Roman OK to operate outside of the temple? I have not (yet) found resources that cover that that topic.
I have a problem with preachers that assume that something is proven and then take that 'fact' to prove something else. There is enough in Scripture that is proven. We do not need use that which is not proven.David Paul said:Again, why the need for such specificity?
Like, in my opinion, talking about the 100 Roman soldiers at the tomb.
0 -
David Ames said:
As to why they approached Pilate even if they intended from the outset to use temple guards goes back to my thoughts on the relationship between the temple guards, who were known to carry sharp things like spears or swords, and the Roman authorities. Did they need the Roman OK to operate outside of the temple? I have not (yet) found resources that cover that that topic.
A couple of the synoptics (Mt. & Mk.) describe the crowd that arrested Yeishuua` as carrying clubs and swords. John 18:3 adds the detail that a cohort (assumedly a Roman one; Gk. speira) was part of this crowd. This is Strong's entry:
Conceivably it was the Romans with the swords and the temple guard with the clubs. As far as the guard needing Roman approval to operate outside the temple, I doubt that can be determined. My guess would be that they could move about freely but their actions were limited in certain ways by Roman decree (particularly with regard to carrying out death sentences).
Notice that Jn. 18:3 NASB says that "Judas had "received" a cohort and temple guards. This calls to mind what Pilate later says, "You have...". Granted, none of this is explicit.
David Ames said:I have a problem with preachers that assume that something is proven and then take that 'fact' to prove something else. There is enough in Scripture that is proven. We do not need use that which is not proven.
Agreed. This happens often and it can ultimately undermine rather than buttress the points and arguments being made.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
My question, before replying to yours, is...
David Ames said:David Paul said:EDIT: i just want to make (remake?) a point. The response (You have...) doesn't necessarily have the same contextual meaning we tend to assign today in English. Saying "you have" does not (especially given the historical context) mean the same thing as "you ALREADY have". When a request of a sovereign-type individual was made, if the response was positive, saying "You have..." is the equivalent of saying "I HAVE granted your petition..." to whatever extent the petition was fulfilled.
Resources that discuss this point of view please. If I own one I missed that point.
As you found, it can mean "2b any band, company, or detachment, of soldiers" as found in Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon that you quoted.
[[I think that we have gone as far as the others will allow us to go on that topic. But to make this a legitimate Logos discussion I spent some time reviewing your reply and found 3 dictionaries on the word and got four different answers. Here you picked 2 and I picked 2b from Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Just looking up the word may not help. [In English there are 10 definitions to the word 'deep'] ]]
So we need to dig deeper into the context of the speech. So to do that I am still looking for Resources that discuss your point of view please.
The one that backs your statement of ""The response "You have..." indicates the power broker's tremendous ability to affect change by will and word.""
0 -
David Ames said:
I am still looking for Resources that discuss your point of view please.
I suppose this subject matter may be discussed in some Biblical commentary addressing this specific passage, but I'm not sure. This is a very specialized language scenario. It's possible that in English something similar could be found in Shakespeare or the like, since he frequently wrote about royalty. You might consider contacting professors of literature who specialize in time periods where appeals to royalty and quasi-equivalent power brokers (wealthy patrons, for example) were more common...they might be able to suggest something off the top of their heads.
Although it doesn't have the specific phraseology we are discussing from Matthew, the exchange that occurs in Neh. 2:1-8 is the sort of conversation I am suggesting where such language could occur. There are some similar royal decrees found in Ezra, however, in order to encounter the precise language we have been discussing, the power broker needs to be responding directly to the petitioner (second person).
I'll keep my eyes open for something, but it's not just a needle in a haystack situation. It's the fact that I rarely encounter haystacks to begin with (whether actual hay or this particular kind of scenario).
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
I may be arguing against myself (Or showing that, with proof, I will examine accepting your arguments) but in Daniel 2:5 that says in the KJV “The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.”
Most interpret the words “The thing is gone from me” to mean that he forgot the dream. But my research (That I am not sure that I could repeat. I.E. I too might not be able to find the resources that I used back then) found that those words “The thing is gone from me” meant that the next thing he says is a royal decree. That is the thing gone is not the dream but the command “ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.”
But that was some 625 years before (or so) and in the Prussian empire.
[[Another place where I am in the minority. He remembered the dream and if they could not tell him the dream how could he accept their interpretation?]]
0 -
David Ames said:
But that was some 625 years before (or so) and in the Prussian empire.
The KJV 'gone from me' is a Prussian loan word in the aramaic centering around decree or officially announce. Interestingly, the english followed 'gone from me' until the early 1900s.
BTW David, given your interests, moving from Strongs to hebrew, aramaic, or greek is not that big a step. You'd enjoy it.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
So ‘gone from me’ is a fair literal translation. That, except for scholars like all of us, gets misunderstood not as a royal command but that the dream was forgotten.Denise said:
The KJV 'gone from me' is a Prussian loan word in the aramaic centering around decree or officially announce. Interestingly, the English followed 'gone from me' until the early 1900s.
As to if thinking changed around 1900: In the mid-1800s Bible scholarship changed.
By the way some other translations:
The Living Bible But the king replied, “I tell you the dream is gone—I can’t remember it.
NRSV The king answered the Chaldeans, “This is a public decree:
NASB The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, “The command from me is firm
HCSB The king replied to the Chaldeans, “My word is final:
I reported the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon reading as that was the one that David Paul quoted. I had checked others that said the same thing.Denise said:
BTW David, given your interests, moving from Strongs to Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek is not that big a step. You'd enjoy it.
As for learning Greek and Hebrew, I took typing and two years of bookkeeping in high school. Very unusual for someone on the college track back in the early 60s. Did not find out until years after she was gone but the teacher that would have been my Latin teacher was very instrumental in getting the school to allow me to take those classes as she stated that I would never pass Latin. Spent the last six years of my working career as a bookkeeper.0
