tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post6379245443782013093..comments2024-03-17T17:55:18.426-04:00Comments on AS BEREANS DID: The Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28Marthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-66463030300349547532023-08-19T09:26:39.742-04:002023-08-19T09:26:39.742-04:00I've heavily edited this post for readability....I've heavily edited this post for readability. Never was happy with the flow.xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-9287158113701577532018-05-04T05:40:32.030-04:002018-05-04T05:40:32.030-04:00Therefore, there has to be a sequence of events fo...Therefore, there has to be a sequence of events for the Resurrection that is consistent with all of what Scripture says:<br />- The Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the Earth (Mat 12:40)<br />- The Tomb was found empty on the first day of the week (a Sunday morning) after Sabbath (Mat 28:1, Mar 16:2, John 20:1)<br />- Jesus was just resurrected when Mary saw him first "…. I have not yet ascended to my Father …" (John 20:17)<br />- Jesus was laid in the tomb on the day of His Crucifixion (Mat 27:57-61, Mar 15:42:47) <br />3 days and 3 nights in the tomb means that Jesus was crucified on a Thursday <br />But it also says that the next day (Friday) was a Sabbath day (Mar 15:42, Mat 27:62, Luc 23:54, John 19:42) and this must then be the special Sabbath at the first day of the Unleavened Bread) which follows Passover day, the 15th day of Nissan when the passover meal is held. See particularly John 19:31 .....it was the Preparation Day .... for that Sabbath was A HIGH DAY (emphasis added) <br />The Last Supper was therefore held on Wednesday 14th day of Nissan at dusk, when the traditional Passover Lamb was slaughtered, i.e on the night before Passover and also this this is consistent with Scripture (John 13:1, 18:28). <br /><br />To fix a date for Jesus death, we are therefore looking for 14th day of Nissan falling on a Wednesday (beginning at Sundown the day before). There are two possibilities given the passover dates in the period of years from 26-34 AD), these are: 28 AD or 31 AD (http://www.intercontinentalcog.org/Appendix/Passover_dates_26-34_AD.php) <br /><br />Therefore Crucifixion was on either on <br /> - Thursday 26 April 31 AD and Resurrection on Sunday 29 April 31 AD <br />or<br />- Thursday 28 April 28 AD and Resurrection on Sunday 1 May 28 AD.<br /><br />This leaves the unresolved issue of purchasing and preparation of spices and oil for the anointing of the body. Mark 16:1 mentions that these were purchased when the Sabbath was past, while Luke says that the spices and oils were prepared before the Sabbath. (unless this was done in quick time between the two Sabbath days)....<br /><br />Shalom,<br />TjenTjennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-10879676037577133392018-04-21T11:05:10.798-04:002018-04-21T11:05:10.798-04:00AOD Follower,
Thanks for reading the blog and tak...AOD Follower,<br /><br />Thanks for reading the blog and taking the time to comment.<br /><br />I would agree with you that making a stone would preclude a Friday crucifixion, except that the tomb was already prepared. The Bible doesn't specifically say to whom the tomb belonged. It is believed to be the tomb of Joseph of Arimathaea. Joseph was rich and was the one who begged Pilate to give Jesus' body over to Him (otherwise, Jesus' body would have been unceremoniously disposed of in the valley). Joseph must have had a plan in mind on where to put the body. The tomb must have belonged to him and/or his immediate family.<br /><br />Part and parcel of the process of creating the tomb is crafting the door. It's a necessary part. Therefore, the door would have already been there. And the door closed that same night around sunset. They would not have laid any body in there if there was no door as without a door there isn't a ready tomb.<br /><br />The guards didn't close the door, they just sealed it. Meaning with wax. It was already closed. The Roman guards were placed there early on, or else there was no point in sealing the tomb. It does not make reasonable sense that on Thursday there was no door at all, then all day Friday they crafted a door, then Friday night the guard was placed to protect from zealots stealing the body after 48 hours had already elapsed. Especially given that the Pharisees specifically knew that this all had to happen within 3 days.<br /><br />This is why Matthew 27 says this:<br /><br />(MAT. 27: 59-60) 59 When Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and laid it in his new tomb which he had hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb, and departed.<br /><br />So, the stone was already there.<br /><br />God bless and peace to you.xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-47644538431053274612018-04-19T08:56:23.269-04:002018-04-19T08:56:23.269-04:00Mat 27:62 Now the next day, that followed the day...Mat 27:62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, <br />Mat 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. <br />Mat 27:64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. <br />Mat 27:65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. <br />Mat 27:66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch. <br />I am a stone mason. Here is what I see. There has to be a day where this work could be accomplished. This is not an easy day's work, to secure a stone in front of a grave weighing several hundreds of lbs. But in verse 66 it says that they (the Chief Priests and Pharisee's) performed the sealing of the stone. This is hard work. Mixing mortar or shoveling dirt to secure this stone is hard labor. This is very obvious from the above passages. Now my question is when was there an opportunity to do this work? I know they could not perform this work on a Sabbath. so that leaves Saturday out. This completely eliminates a Friday crucifixion. If He was crucified on a Thursday, Then the only day they could do this work would have been the next day, Friday and that work must be done by 6pm that night. But it is obvious that the Body had to be taken down by 6pm because a Sabbath was beginning. John calls this a high Sabbath. There has to be a day to perform this work. When was that?<br />Ancient of Days followernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-63592267617712201862018-04-05T13:35:59.212-04:002018-04-05T13:35:59.212-04:00"The Jews therefore, because it was the prepa..."The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (FOR THAT SABBATH DAY WAS AN HIGH DAY ,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away." John 19:31<br /><br />I wonder why didn't he tapped into the above verse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-24037594385835704832017-04-26T19:34:48.912-04:002017-04-26T19:34:48.912-04:00MikeF,
You might be interested in our article &qu...MikeF,<br /><br />You might be interested in our article "<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2017/04/wayne-carvers-crucifixion-chronology.html" rel="nofollow">Wayne Carver's Crucifixion Chronology - part II: Holy Week Timeline</a>"<br /><br />This article is a review of the claims of one Mr. Wayne Carver. We do not agree with Wayne Carver's conclusions. But in the process of writing this article we went into a little depth on the Holy Week timeline. A Monday Triumphal Entry is a possibility, in our estimation. We believe the Monday Triumphal Entry hinges on whether or not there really is a Silent Wednesday. (No, we didn't attempt to answer that.)xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-55103511847066388912017-01-03T22:39:46.372-05:002017-01-03T22:39:46.372-05:00My advice would be to be your own harshest critic ...My advice would be to be your own harshest critic and try and prove Sir Robert Anderson wrong. In two days of looking into his work, I've found several credible reasons why his calculations are off. You're always going to have some joker saying your wrong. But I mean to take very seriously the credible criticism. A good question to ask is why do so many competent Biblical scholars completely disagree with him?<br /><br />Feel free to peruse our material. We believe that Wednesday is eliminated due to the language of the Bible itself. We have two other articles in addition the one I mentioned earlier that explain our position on this:<br /><a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/03/two-sabbaths-of-matthew-28.html" rel="nofollow">Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28</a><br /><a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/03/three-days-and-three-nights.html" rel="nofollow">Three Days and Three Nights</a><br /><br />God's blessings to you, and much success in your studies!xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-12616243940639751812017-01-03T10:43:53.153-05:002017-01-03T10:43:53.153-05:00MikeF,
Thanks for all of that info. Very interest...MikeF,<br /><br />Thanks for all of that info. Very interesting. You're doing your homework, and that's most often a good thing.<br /><br />I can't help but notice that it's still all just speculation. Interesting, yes! Perhaps even correct. But speculative none the less.<br /><br />The main problem is solving what counting system Luke was using. There are more than just two options. Apparently, no one has been able to definitively nail that one down so far. Not even from the earliest years (just ask Dionysius Exiguus). Can we get real close to knowing? Sure. Can we absolutely know with supreme confidence? No. And that's why it's speculation, hence my advice to everyone to never make doctrine out of prophecy speculation.xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-4743373075931600942017-01-02T13:56:08.856-05:002017-01-02T13:56:08.856-05:00MikeF,
"I tend to believe that there is some...MikeF,<br /><br />"I tend to believe that there is some missing key that we are just not seeing. Maybe we will only find out after the resurrection!"<br /><br />That's quite possible. I suspect there are more than just a few things we'll be straightened out on when we see Jesus next.<br /><br />I don't know about Sir Robert Anderson. If he was so successful, many others would be on board. More evidence would be discovered that falls in line. But that's not what we see. There are many, many interpretations. Which is right, if any? I will be the first to admit I don't know. I trust some day it will be revealed, as you said, but as for now I cannot know. <br /><br />But what I do know is that there is nothing specific to tie the 70 weeks prophecy to the triumphal entry. To tie those two things together is just speculation, just like saying Jesus must be selected on the 10th is only speculation. To take Jeremiah's years and Daniel's weeks of years and make that suddenly into a week of days just doesn't sound proper to me. A second thing I know that it doesn't solve the issue of the triumphal entry being on the 10th. It doesn't matter what year or what day of the week. The triumphal entry cannot be on the 10th according to Jerusalem reckoning, only the Galilean.<br /><br />I don't say that to put you down or to put myself up. That's not my point. I'm just explaining why I'm not being more specific as you hoped for. I think that without the 10th being explained we already have enough definite understanding in Jesus' death to satisfy us that He is the prophesied Messiah, the Son of God, and that's really the entire point of the whole Bible as a Christian understands things.xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-5195324095086272992017-01-01T14:51:26.838-05:002017-01-01T14:51:26.838-05:00I could be missing something, but so far I haven&#...I could be missing something, but so far I haven't seen a biblical reason that the Triumphal Entry necessarily took place on Nisan 10. <br /><br />Some things that Jesus did had a direct correlation to the Passover lamb. Some didn't. <br /><br />Nisan 10 may have been the day that the Passover lamb was sequestered, so to speak, but it doesn't appear that Jesus stayed within the city of Jerusalem after the Triumphal Entry, indicating there may not be a symbolic correlation. Matthew 21:17 tells us Jesus left the city shortly after the Triumphal Entry. Likewise, Mark 11:11 tells us Jesus left Jerusalem late the evening of the Triumphal Entry to go back to Bethany. We see Him in Bethany again a day or two later, in Mark 14. He did not make His entrance into the city and stay there until His sacrifice. <br /><br />Many things in Jesus' life had a direct correlation to the Passover lamb - His spotlessness and His innocent blood being shed. Others do not. For example, lambs were not crucified when they were sacrificed at Passover. In this instance, the symbolism is found in John 3:14 - the snake being lifted up on a pole as Moses did in Numbers 21 to stop the plague. Also, a one-year-old Passover lamb was chosen. But Jesus was not sacrificed as a one-year-old; nor did He die after the first year of His ministry. And of course, as you mentioned, the lamb was chosen on Nisan 10. But Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8).<br /><br />I guess, like xHWA mentioned, I don't see the Triumphal Entry fulfilling Exodus 12:3, but rather prophecies like Zechariah 9:9. But I'm open to biblical evidence otherwise, for sure! Marthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-14074403103992769322017-01-01T12:37:04.849-05:002017-01-01T12:37:04.849-05:00MikeF,
Thanks for reading and thanks for commenti...MikeF,<br /><br />Thanks for reading and thanks for commenting.<br /><br />I am going to propose something that might not be exactly to your liking, but it seems reasonable to me at this time. I don't think Jesus had to fulfill Exodus 12: 3.<br /><br />Now, don't think that I'm saying that I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that He would. I admit, it makes some sense. But I also have to admit that I don't see it as necessary. I'll give you a couple reasons why not. <br /><br />1) Even though He was our Passover Lamb He wasn't selected by the people He was selected by God. He was rejected by the people. If he was selected by the Father before the foundation of the world, then there wasn't any pressing need for Him to be selected again here. There was a Triumphal Entry. That may have fulfilled the symbolism of being selected by the people. But we know it fulfills certain specific prophecies, like Zechariah 9: 9. So, was it the selection? Maybe.<br /><br />2) The timeline is what it is. It doesn't make any difference what day of the week the 14th fell on for these purposes. The 10th is the 10th and the 14th is the 14th and what happened on each day happened on each day. So, no matter what day of the week, we see the same events in the same order. What happened on the 10th is either Triumphal Entry or the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple, depending on if you count the Galilean way or the Jerusalem way (they had two different ways of counting days). If Triumphal entery, then perhaps that is the selection. But, if the cursing of the fig tree, then either a) no fulfillment of Exodus 12: 3 is necessary or b) something else happened that we're overlooking or simply was not recorded. For instance, the selecting of the lambs is never mentioned at all.<br /><br />The issue in the order of events so far as the day of the week goes is how can the events early in the week fall on a weekly Sabbath? Caleb discusses this in his article <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/03/wednesday-crucifixion-not-likely.html" rel="nofollow">Wednesday Crucifixion? Not Likely.</a><br /><br />That being said, I want to discuss a possible theory.<br /><br />We have two overlapping timelines. Galilean reckoning of time was sunrise to sunrise, and a half day earlier than the Jerusalem reckoning. Jerusalem reckoning was sunset to sunset and a half day later than the Galilean. Let's assume a Friday crucifixion for the sake of argument. According to the Galilean timeline, Friday was the 15th, the Last Supper could have been a Seder, and the Triumphal Entry was on the 10th. There is no way to get the Triumphal Entry to fall on the 10th according to the Jerusalem counting. But it seems to explain how Jesus had a Seder before the Pharisees did and still be crucified when the lambs were being slaughtered. Later Christians had a debate about when to end their fast prior to observing the death and resurrection. This controversy is called the Quartodecimen Controversy (quartodecimen means 14th). The important part to take from this is that Jesus did die on the 14th -- according to the Jerusalem count because these Christians were arguing over the difficulty of timing their observances according to when the Jews put away leavening from their homes. <br /><br />What I'm proposing in the previous paragraph is not definite but theoretical. In theory, it seems possible that Jesus too advantage of the Galilean reckoning (we assume He grew up with this) in order to make things fit into the timeline of events on a week where He had to fulfill quite a few prophecies and symbolisms. For example, He was a lamb at a Passover Seder being eaten (bread and wine) by the people there while He was still alive, and the next day was sacrificed as a Passover lamb according to the Jerusalem reckoning.<br /><br />Theory! But not my theory. It's been debated for years. I personally like it. But I'm not going to die on this hill. Theories and prophetic interpretations are two things I like to talk about but I highly recommend never making doctrine of them.xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-64124650971933617382016-12-29T15:13:23.930-05:002016-12-29T15:13:23.930-05:00I understand that you would be hesitant to take th...I understand that you would be hesitant to take that phrase as being idiomatic. I certainly was for most of my life. However, it's inescapable that it is a known and ancient idiom. It's not for us in our time and our language to decide for them in their time and their language what was and was not idiomatic.<br /><br />And when you count, you aren't counting as the Hebrews counted. We can't simply use our own modern method of counting and apply that anachronistically to the ancient Hebrews. They counted inclusively. All of the Mediterranean peoples that I'm aware of counted this way. If any part of a day is touched, then that day is included in the count. The Hebrew word for this notion is "Onah".<br /><br />So, when you force the death to be on a Wednesday, you have to bend both the language used and the counting method used. And this will inevitably open up other issues - as we can see from the statement Cleopas made.<br /><br />Basically, I take it from your comments that you have no intention of ever investigating our post "<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/03/three-days-and-three-nights.html" rel="nofollow">Three Days and Three Nights</a>"?<br /><br />Which makes me wonder if your questions are simply advertisements for a booklet that As Bereans Did has already answered in depth.xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-6122166352000825402016-12-29T12:55:38.264-05:002016-12-29T12:55:38.264-05:00It doesn't just sound good. If you read what ...It doesn't just sound good. If you read what Wayne is saying he points out that the chronology indicated by the text is the only one that satisfies the three "seemingly" incompatible situations. I've noticed that it has become rather popular to call something an idiom or a metaphor, rather than take the text literally. When no other possible explanation exists, then I would agree to say perhaps its an idiom, or perhaps a metaphor is being used. But in this case, close and careful study of the text does support what Jesus said. And the timing of the week had to be such that it worked out the way it did. When I count dusk on Wednesday to dusk on Saturday I get 72 hours (3 days and nights), not 4 days. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556617640655704462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-7131505633752781082016-12-20T10:39:56.362-05:002016-12-20T10:39:56.362-05:00David Acre,
"observing the events shown in t...David Acre,<br /><br />"observing the events shown in the Gospels is all that is needed to make the determination of the days possible."<br /><br />But that sentence is precisely what we at ABD protest. It's not the only thing needed. This is illustrated by your later comment:<br /><br />"And if its not 3 days and 3 nights like Jesus said, then He is a liar"<br /><br />Did you get that conclusion from the Gospels? No. Because the Gospels don't say what you just did nor do they tell us to interpret the phrase "three days and three nights" literally as you have.<br /><br />The Bible has other examples of this phrase and when we investigate them we can tell that it's not to be taken literally as Carver did and as you have. If you will but read and compare our article <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/03/three-days-and-three-nights.html" rel="nofollow">Three Days and Three Nights</a>, and give us the opportunity to explain, then you will understand this.<br /><br />It is merely and idiom. An ancient idiom. It was never meant to be taken literally. If you go against the proper interpretation and take it literally, as it ought not be, then you cause several other issues that you cannot solve. For example, Wednesday to Saturday is not three days, when counted inclusively as the Hebrews did. It's four days. So how can you reconcile four days in the tomb with the 19 other verses that describe the time of Jesus's death? You cannot. In Luke 24: 18-32, when Cleopas said Sunday (not Saturday) was the third day since Jesus was buried, and Jesus agreed (verse 46), Carver's insistence on literal interpretation makes nonsense of that entire conversation.<br /><br />The path with the most explanatory power is interpreting "three days and three nights" as the Hebrew idiom it is, and counting the time inclusively as the Hebrews did -- both of which are exactly as the Bible demonstrate, neither of which rely on us just choosing a literal interpretation because we think it sounds good.<br /><br />That is why I pointed this out to you earlier.xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-34775710691795920502016-12-20T08:54:24.609-05:002016-12-20T08:54:24.609-05:00I think you'll see that he explains based on t...I think you'll see that he explains based on the manners and customs of the time, not in any way based on our calendar (other calendars which call the chronology into question), that observing the events shown in the Gospels is all that is needed to make the determination of the days possible. The feasts and their timing is crucial to understanding of the last week of Christ's life. When I had first read this, the only presupposition I had was that the crucifixion and resurrection were a Friday-Sunday thing. As I read Wayne's information, I realized he did an excellent job with the chronology, and supporting what he said. He also demonstrated that other events had to occur during the week such as the lamb being set apart on Nisan 10, which also helped establish timing. The fact he came up with the actual days of the week is icing on the cake. And Christ having the passover meal with his disciples on the evening (start) of Nisan 14 was perfectly in keeping with the Jewish Passover. The "lamb" could be slain "between the evenings" and still be valid, which permitted his to share the covenant meal with his disciples on the evening, and become the actual intended sacrifice for our sins during the daytime of Nisan 14. Seeing the entire chronology as a whole only solidifies the understanding of what the Jews understood - that Jonah's prophecy was to be taken literlly, and it follows that Christ was using this example, not as a kind of- sort of - maybe it is true type of example, but as a literal example, to be understood by those (the Pharisees) who chose to walk by sight and not by faith. I appreciated the fact that Wayne does an excellent job of establishing context and doing proper observation of the text before he interprets. I read this booklet several times, and compared scripture with scripture before fully understanding what he said. I know I can't get days and 3 nights out of any mental gyration of Friday to Sunday. And if its not 3 days and 3 nights like Jesus said, then He is a liar, but we know God cannot lie. I did look over the Armstong paper, and I did notice he left out several details that Wayne makes clear.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556617640655704462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-83704149684364744722016-12-18T11:53:41.094-05:002016-12-18T11:53:41.094-05:00Wayne Carver's booklet relies mainly on his ac...Wayne Carver's booklet relies mainly on his account of the timeline of events during the crucifixion week. ABD has done our own study of the timeline of evens. You can find it here: <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/03/wednesday-crucifixion-not-likely.html" rel="nofollow">Wednesday Crucifixion? Not likely.</a>xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-28117489079891429872016-12-18T10:29:26.922-05:002016-12-18T10:29:26.922-05:00I'm nowhere near done reading the pamphlet. Tu...I'm nowhere near done reading the pamphlet. Turns out the improper interpretation of "three days and three nights" as a literal 72 hours (which is <b>not</b> how the ancient Jews counted at all) isn't Wayne Carver's only mistake. <br /><br />He makes a second mistake in that he says the Passover Seder was early on the 14th of Nissan as the 13th became the 14th, rather than late on the 14th of Nissan as the 14th became the 15th. I specifically deal with this error in the post <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2012/11/history-of-easter-part-i.html" rel="nofollow">Easter History part I</a>. <br /><br />Any search into how the Jews observe Passover will show that this is simply not how it's done. Just for example, here is an example website (Hebcal.com) with a <a href="https://www.hebcal.com/hebcal/?year=2017&v=1&month=x&yt=G&nx=on&o=on&vis=on&d=on&c=off&maj=on&min=on&mod=on" rel="nofollow">Hebrew calendar for 2017</a>. Notice how Passover begins not on April 9, as Wayne Carver asserts, but on April 10. I have never happened across anything that says the Jews changed their observance by a day. Even the calendar changes of the 350's AD would have no affect on this date. It would almost certainly mean that Nissan 14 of today is not Nissan 14 of 2000 years ago, but it would not change in any way that the Passover Seder is on the evening of Nissan 14, as the 14th becomes the 15th.<br /><br />Given just these two errors, I would advise against using Wayne Carver's booklet as a reference.xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-12688803484018657572016-12-16T11:32:53.601-05:002016-12-16T11:32:53.601-05:00David,
Thanks for the offer! Please email the fi...David,<br /><br />Thanks for the offer! Please email the file to escapingarmstrong@gmail.com<br />Much appreciated.<br /><br />I've never read his article, of course, but I'm guessing he came away explaining that "three days and three nights" means a literal 72 hours? If so, then he didn't explain how the Jews of Jesus' day counted time (or even going all the way back to Moses' day). He would be correct in how the Jews <b>now</b> count time, but not the Jews back then. Back then they counted inclusively. Which is how all the ancient Mediterranean peoples counted.xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-11134010852474940642016-12-16T10:40:25.263-05:002016-12-16T10:40:25.263-05:00Hi,
The article/booklet is out of print, but I obt...Hi,<br />The article/booklet is out of print, but I obtained permission a couple of years ago from the CJF to copy it, so I took all the pages and scanned them in and placed them into a PDF. I have that file available if you'd like a copy. A couple of points: the Jews counting of days and the way we count them are not equivalent. I don’t know how they generally counted days in the Mediterranean at that time, but I do understand how the Jews counted them. Also, after reading Wayne's article for the first time, I had to sit down with 4 Bibles open and walk through each of the Gospels to find the synchronization points, and they are there just as he says. It was amazing to see how tightly God merged each of the Gospel messages so as to demonstrate when His Son entered the tomb, and when He was raised. Of course this is a debatable and not a salvation issue. But I have seen so much confusion regarding this subject that it became apparent to me that this information needs to be placed into a study so God’s people can learn for themselves. I’ve taught inductive Bible study class since 1989, and this is an amazing study. Most don’t want to put in the time and effort to understand God’s word for themselves, but 2Tim 2:15 says we are to study (make a diligent effort) to know His Word. If you’d like a copy of the file, what would be the best way to do so without publishing my email? My gmail account is not my typical email account.<br />-Dave<br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556617640655704462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-32930073686352293482016-12-15T15:31:24.155-05:002016-12-15T15:31:24.155-05:00Hi David Acre. Thanks for reading.
I would be int...Hi David Acre. Thanks for reading.<br /><br />I would be interested in seeing this article by Wayne Carver. Mainly because we have several articles on this subject which use all of the Gospels, and Acts, and Jonah, and history, to display that Wednesday isn't even a possible contender -- mainly because it relies on a method of counting which no one in the Mediterranean at that time used. We've addressed the "high day is a type of Sabbath" claim. From the language used, that claim is contraindicated. We address that in this very blog post, no less.<br /><br />To make this as short and to the point as possible, when you say "three days and three nights" you are approaching that from a modern vantage point and not that of the Bible. And that's about as simple as I can phrase it.<br />For more on this particular facet, see our article <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/03/three-days-and-three-nights.html" rel="nofollow">Three Days and Three Nights</a>xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-2173311660383848382016-12-15T14:41:20.619-05:002016-12-15T14:41:20.619-05:00Hi All
I'm preparing a study which addresses t...Hi All<br />I'm preparing a study which addresses this based on an article was written years ago by Wayne Carver of the Christian Jew Foundation. Wayne does an outstanding job of showing how the Wednesday crucifixion is most likely. Why? Jesus made no apologies for stating the prophecy of Jonah (3 days and 3 nights = three 24 hour periods) to the Pharisees. He backs up 10 days before the resurrection, and by using all 4 Gospels points to the time clues to stay in synchronization (like “the next day”), showing which days were which, and which could not have been a sabbath. He also notes several good points about Hebrew manners and customs in effect during the first century, as well as defining when the Jewish day started (dusk), and what the various hours (third hour, ninth hour, etc.) meant. Understanding the Jewish feasts’ timing is also critical. He also calls out the fact that it was well understood that a “high day” is also recognized as a type of Sabbath. As the explanation continues, he also points out three seemingly incompatible situations – that Christ had to satisfy: 1) to be raised on the third day (1 Cor 15:3-4) , 2) to be in the earth for three days and 3 nights (Mat 12:38-40) , and 3) become the first fruits of them who slept (1Cor 15:20) . Only one point in time satisfies all three – at dusk on Saturday, also evidenced by an earthquake – the time of our Lord’s resurrection. The day following the seventh day Sabbath was the Feat of First Fruits. Jesus was the Jew’s Jew and kept the feasts perfectly, even during His death and resurrection. When the women arrived Sunday morning, He was not there, and the stone had already been removed. Thanks to Wayne for showing that the Christian Jews can really show us what the Bible says.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556617640655704462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-81360541460086651232016-03-26T22:45:34.926-04:002016-03-26T22:45:34.926-04:00Guys its quite simple. The earth was created and t...Guys its quite simple. The earth was created and then God rested on the 7th day. Until the resurrection the 7th day was the sabbath. Then when the Jesus Christ was resurrected we have a new sabbath. Matt 28:1 IS about 2 sabbaths its about the end of the old and the beginning of the new. Simple. Its a special verse that has at its core the end of the old sabbath which was the day God rested and the dawn or beginning of the new sabbath to commerate Christs triumph over death. truck driverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17761792481774739012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-79725582548526402042015-11-19T02:49:37.370-05:002015-11-19T02:49:37.370-05:00pmary65 .. I don't understand your comment, &q...pmary65 .. I don't understand your comment, "Many accounts that show otherwise." Would you please elaborate?xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-76657304591303542382015-11-18T21:23:31.836-05:002015-11-18T21:23:31.836-05:00There are many accounts that show otherwisr.There are many accounts that show otherwisr.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-39184758263585754142015-06-03T19:41:27.724-04:002015-06-03T19:41:27.724-04:00Anon Jun 1,
But there were witnesses. To just abo...Anon Jun 1,<br /><br />But there were witnesses. To just about everything He did. <br />Just because <b>we</b> aren't those witnesses doesn't mean there weren't witnesses. You quote John 20, but Thomas was there to witness it. In the next two verses, John relates that they witnesses so many things that they didn't even bother to write them all. <br /><br />(I JON. 1: 1) That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life<br /><br />In fact, the only reason why you can quote John, or any other book in the New Testament, at all is because witnesses were there. So yes, that there were witnesses is incredibly important.xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com