Posted on 12/07/2014 4:30:17 AM PST by wheat_grinder
One more proof for anyone following who still doubts the historical orthodox Christian Faith.
Jewish boys must be circumcised on the 8th day according to the law. Say a Jewish boy is born on the 6th day at 3:00pm, what day is the 8th day?
6th day - day one
7th day - day two
1st day - day three
2nd day - day four
3rd day - day five
4th day - day six
5th day - day seven
6th day - day eight
So the answer is he must be circumcised by the following Friday sun down.
Doubt me? Ask a rabbi, I have.
Notice when the third day is if the birth was on Friday, it is Sunday.
Bonus proof- suppose Jesus was speaking on the sixth day in Luke 13, on what day would he finish his course? ( Luke 13:32 )
Sixth day - today
7th say - tomorrow
1st day - third day, course is finished
Yes, Jewish days begin at sundown.
Now according to Jews, if a baby is born one minute before sundown on Friday and lives until one minute after sundown Saturday evening, how many days old was that baby at death?
Blessings to you.
More importantly, how many nights did he live? Which is where the discrepancy lies.
Answer - the baby was three days old when it died according to Jewish reckoning, even though it was alive for 24 hours and two minutes.
It was alive for one night, but remember to the first century Jew and the Jew in 2014, any part of a day or night counts as a whole day and night.
In my circumcision example, if two Jews were discussing the birth of the baby on the sixth day, on what day could they echo Luke 24:21 and say “ and besides this, it is now THE THIRD DAY since his birth”?
Answer - Sunday, the first day of the week.
Evidently you missed the conversation about 3 days and 3 nights spoken by Jesus earlier in this thread.I think this is where you should start. Oh, a Strongs concordance is necessary to verify what I said was truth. Take all the words of Matthew 12:40 back to the Greek.
And, again,understanding the feast days during that most glorious time in human history is a must.
I didn’t miss anything, your objection was answered and dismissed rather easily.
You might have a better case if you were actually able to tell us what day Jesus died.
4th day - Wednesday?
5th day - Thursday?
You haven’t actually read Matthew 12:40 have you? And if you have you’ve not taken any of the words back to the Greek to fully understand them have you? And you do not understand God’s festivals and Sabbaths do you?
My objection, as you call it, may have been dismissed but it hasnt been disproven.
Until you gain more knowledge our conversation is fruitless, on both sides.
Shalom
I do not see a reason to go into such granularity with regards to the phrase ‘three days and three nights’. After all, you already (wisely) concede that it can’t mean an exact 72 hour period.
In other words, since you already concede that it’s not meant to be taken as an exact measure of time (in hours), then there is little reason to take the word “night” so literally. After all, a word study of the word “day” in the same verse gives an apparently similar restrictive sense you assign to the word “night” See here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2250&t=KJV
Thayer’s (for the passage in question, Matt xxii. 40 “to the number of days are added as many nights”) clearly says the same thing about “day” as it did about “night”. So, if this is to be understood as applying to the word “day” as you claim for the word “night” then we are back to the exact 72-hour interpretation. But of course that’s impossible according to Scripture (as I’m sure you know already).
To be sure, I don’t know why Thayer says this about the words in this passage, other than to say he can’t be saying they are whole nights and whole days. It’s just patently and demonstratively wrong to say that the phrase “three days and three nights” must be 72 hours. So it can’t be using whole nights and days in this passage. Others perhaps but not this.
So why can’t it mean as I (and oneLordoneFaithoneBaptism) has said, which is the expression “three days and three nights’ means the same thing as simply ‘three days’. And as OLOFOB pointed out, the Jews did (and still do) count any portion of a day as a “day”.
You might find this of interest:
This contradiction seemed unsolvable until a few years ago. The majority of exegetes were of the opinion that John was reluctant to tell us the true historical date of Jesus’ death, but rather chose a symbolic date to highlight the deeper truth: Jesus is the new, true Lamb who poured out his Blood for us all.
In the meantime, the discovery of the [Dead Sea] Scrolls at Qumran has led us to a possible and convincing solution which, although it is not yet accepted by everyone, is a highly plausible hypothesis. We can now say that John’s account is historically precise.
Jesus truly shed his blood on the eve of Easter at the time of the immolation of the lambs.
In all likelihood, however, he celebrated the Passover with his disciples in accordance with the Qumran calendar, hence, at least one day earlier; he celebrated it without a lamb, like the Qumran community which did not recognize Herod’s temple and was waiting for the new temple.
Consequently, Jesus celebrated the Passover without a lamb - no, not without a lamb: instead of the lamb he gave himself, his Body and his Blood. Thus, he anticipated his death in a manner consistent with his words: “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (Jn 10: 18)”
And this:
“Nor can there be any doubt about St. John’s agreement with the Synoptic Evangelists on the question of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. The Supper was held “before the festival day of the pasch” (John, xiii, 1), i.e. on 14 Nisan, since the sacrificial day was computed according to the Roman method (Jovino, 123 sqq., 139 sqq.). Again, some disciples thought that Judas left the supper table because Jesus had said to him: “Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor” (John, xiii, 29). If the Supper had been held on 13 Nisan this belief of the disciples can hardly be understood, since Judas might have made his purchases and distributed his alms on 14 Nisan; there would have been no need for his rushing into the city in the middle of the night. On the day of Christ’s Crucifixion the Jews “went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch” (John, xviii, 28). The pasch which the Jews wished to eat could not have been the paschal lamb, which was eaten on 14 Nisan, for the pollution contracted by entering the hall would have ceased at sundown, so that it would not have prevented them from sharing in the paschal supper. The pasch which the Jews had in view must have been the sacrificial offerings (Chagighah), which were called also pasch and were eaten on 15 Nisan. Hence this passage places the death of Jesus Christ on the fifteenth day of Nisan. Again, Jesus is said to have suffered and died on the”parasceve of the pasch”, or simply on the “parasceve” (John, xix, 14, 31); as “parasceve” meant Friday, the expression “parasceve of the pasch” denotes the Friday on which the pasch happened to fall, not the day before the pasch. Finally, the day following the parasceve on which Jesus died is called “a great sabbath day” (John, xix, 31), either to denote its occurrence in the paschal week or to distinguish it from the preceding pasch, or day of minor rest.”
http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/jesus-christ
Also this is interesting: http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/monthly.html?month=4&year=33&country=34
MARK 7:9
Now that, my friend, is a reply! :-) Gonna have to digest that in the morning. Have to get up at 0430. I WILL read and post back tomorrow.
Blessings
Hmm, Mark warns against the tradition of men.
Paul commands we keep the tradition taught by the Apostles.
The Church doesn’t consider the Apostles ordinary men that Mark warns about, but rather as instruments the Holy Spirit used to bring forth the Word of God.
Big difference.
Paul would not teach tradition that “reject the commandment of God.” Would he?
No he wouldn’t, who said he did?
Ok.
Please note the links of interest I provided don’t show the same exact alternate theory of a Friday crucifixion and Sunday Ressurection. The papal address shows one possible and the Catholic encyclopedia entry shows another. So two alternate explanations to what you propose.
The interactive calendar link is interesting because it shows 14 and 15 Nissan overlapped with the modern calendar for any year selected (in Israel). I selected AD 33 because that’s the traditional year of His death and Ressurection but of course that exact date isn’t known. I just thought it was interesting since 14 and 15 Nissan intersect nicely that year with Friday and Saturday implying He rose on Sunday, April 5, AD 33. This isn’t proof of anything though per se.
Sorry about the delay. Wife and grandkids all have strep throat. Will get back with you as soon as I can.
Ok no problem. I’ll pray for their quick recovery.
Exactly! Thank you.
Maybe studying Shavuot will provide a clearer linkage.
It seems plain enough to me that the seventh day of rest was separated from the feast of weeks and first fruits and the ingarhering at the years end.
And means every seven days, the Sabbath is the seventh day.
Exodus 34
21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.
23 Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel.
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.