Posted on 04/16/2011 7:28:34 PM PDT by RaceBannon
So, by telling the truth, and explaining it in detail, in a friendly way, you are saying I am starting a fight with people who are living in error, and in order to stop the fight, I should never tell the truth to people who are living in error, and you did so by using an arcane and distant reference to a fabled story of old which no one with a normal education would reference except yourself?
Wow, you need to read the last section of what you wrote, it applies to your post.
According to your own table, Christ was in the tomb all of the 14th and 15th and 16th of the month of Nisan. Three full days.
Then, on the 17th of Nisan - the fourth, and not the third, day - He is no longer in the tomb.
That is, according to your table.
According to the Scriptures, though, He rose on the third day.
It is not trivial when the very mention of a Friday Crucifixion denies prophesy, denies the inerrancy of Scripture and also lies about what it teaches
Either the bible is true or it isn’t, and since it is, we need to hold to those truths
Jesus was NOT Crucified on Friday!
It seems a much less forced interpretation for the reader to conclude that, just as an earthquake and the miraculous rending of the temple veil and the darkening of the skies accompanied the moment of Christ's death, this second earthquake and the opening of the tomb and the light of dawn accompany the moment of Christ's rising.
What is being disputed is the rather sketchy timeline presented here.
The timeline presented in post 60 which asserts a resurrection on the fourth, rather than the third, day contradicts the many passages of Scripture that make direct reference to the third day.
Moreover, this fourth day timeline presupposes that the day before the resurrection was not Passover, even though the Gospel of John indicates it was.
Filoque means "and the Son." You noted the controversy between East and West correctly later in your post.
Filioque means "and the Son." You noted the controversy between East and West correctly later in your post.
I guess more than one person on this thread did not have what one poster called "a normal education."
One would then have to assume that the earthquake and the miraculous removal of the stone from the tomb did not herald the moment of the resurection.
Yes, one would.
It seems a much less forced interpretation for the reader to conclude that, just as an earthquake and the miraculous rending of the temple veil and the darkening of the skies accompanied the moment of Christ's death, this second earthquake and the opening of the tomb and the light of dawn accompany the moment of Christ's rising.
Yet it is only an assumption (which leads to your conclusion). It is implied, not declared. One must remember that, and that is all that there is - the implication - as glorious and beautiful as it seems.
While I am operating in a similar fashion (my conclusions are derived from implied or inferred actions/events as well), mine do not stand alone:
Since it is declared by YHWH that the sacrificial system, which is the Temple Mount, does not have efficacy, what is it's purpose? It is also declared that the Holy Days of YHWH (and by inference, every action, rite, and symbol) are "shadows of things to come." Since the Temple system did not have effect, and it's only other purpose supports those Holy Days, I must conclude the whole Temple structure and all it's scenarios, in all their ways and means, to be prophetic in nature,and Christ's coming was fulfilling that prophecy, just as He fulfilled the more general written words of the prophets. The Temple rites and rituals which encompass the Holy Days may be (in my mind, are) a microcosm of salvific events in exacting detail, and with exquisite timing.
Your inferences, while matching the majority opinion, are made of whole cloth - tangentially recognizing the Holy Days (again, the Jewish sense is "rehearsals")... and your church has created rites and rituals in remembrance after the fact, in support of their similar conclusion.
My inferences take into account the rites and rituals established before the fact, not only in remembrance of past events, but also as portents of good things to come, as established directly by YHWH the Father, or in compliance with that establishment. IOW, THAT is what the Holy Days are FOR. My inferences stand upon those Holy Days, rites, and rituals and thereby take strength by them.
The time in question, the earthquake Sunday morning, coincides with the cutting of the sheaves at the Temple. What can we draw from that?
And which opinion stands in compliance with the "Jonah" statement? No matter how you might calculate, there is no way to get three days and three nights out of your scenario. If one simply accepts that bare fact, one will be lead in paths never even dreamed of.
the only thing sketchy is your belief in a 4th day, something the Bible does not teach, nor did I hint at, nor did I assume was
The problem lies NOT with me or what I wrote.
I am arguing, in contradiction to your diagram, that the resurrection occurred on the third day.
I am arguing, in contradiction to your diagram, that the resurrection occurred on the third day.
if it makes you happy....
wb45: “I don’t know where you get Wednesday from, but the Jews were in a hurry to get him buried because the next day was the sabbath.”
Holy days and feast days were also considered sabbaths.
The Good Friday-Easter Sunday Question
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2226464/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.