Could your Jesus be the Messiah?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mailman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s a pretty big assumption you are making, and it seems that your whole argument relies on this. I have also heard the year 33 AD used for the Crucifixion. I am not willing to accept your argument based on the assumption that Jesus died on that one particular year.

As for the original question, while I am not a linguist, bdelykleon’s answer sounds pretty good to me:
If you will read my post again, the whole argument for a Wednesday crucifixion relies on the following FACTS as recorded in the Holy Scriptures:
  1. Jesus was entombed for three days and three nights as He said.
  2. The day of Jesus’ death was Passover day, 14th of Nisan/Abib.
  3. The day following His death was a feast day or annual “high day” Sabbath, the 15th of Nisan.
  4. There were TWO Sabbaths during the week of Jesus’ death – an annual “high day” Sabbath and the seventh day Sabbath “according to the commandment.”
  5. One “day” according to God’s reckoning of time (note: not Jewish) is a 12-hour period covering the daylight part of a [24-hour] day (see Genesis 1:5 and John 11:9).
  6. One “night” according to God’s reckoning of time (note: not Jewish) is a 12-hour period covering the dark part of a [24-hour] day (Gen. 1:5 and John 11:9).
  7. The Scriptures do not just say Jesus will rise on the third day. The Scriptures also say Jesus will rise “AFTER three days” (Matt. 27:63 and Mark 8:31). But, more importantly, the Scriptures record Jesus as saying the ONLY sign He will give to us to prove that He is the promised Savior of the world is that He will be [exactly] THREE DAYS and THREE NIGHTS entombed in His grave.
Now, from all the above FACTS as recorded in the Scriptures, we can p(name removed by moderator)oint the day of Jesus’ crucifixion and death as having occurred on a Wednesday, not a Friday (A Friday crucifixion would be inconsistent with biblically recorded facts). We take 31 AD as the year Jesus died because in 31 AD, Nisan 14 is a Wednesday.

Let me elaborate on that phrase “after three days” found in Matt. 27:63 and Mark 8:31. There is a very simple way to determine what day falls AFTER three days have elapsed. Here it is.

Suppose Jesus died on Friday, when would His resurrection be? -
  1. IF Jesus had said, “After one day I will rise again”? Ans. SATURDAY
  2. IF Jesus had said, “After two days I will rise again”? Ans. SUNDAY
  3. IF Jesus had said, “After three days I will rise again”? Ans. MONDAY
Now, any third grader can figure those out because he only has to count one day on each case. After answering the first question, he can go to the second, add one day, then go the third and add another day. It’s simple. And it’s not possible to make a mistake.
 
Not sure if this will help
From Jimmy Akin
Thanks for sharing it. It could help me clarify the things I’ve said.
When Scripture indicates that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, therefore, it means that he rose on the day that began at sunset on Saturday and lasted until sunset on Sunday. Since we are told his tomb was found empty “after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week” (Matt. 28:1), he must have risen between sunset Saturday and dawn Sunday. Whether this was before or after midnight Scripture does not say. He might have risen either Saturday night or Sunday morning before dawn, though, for purposes of determining when he was crucified, it doesn’t matter.
Scripture does not say Jesus rose on the first day of the week, but that Jesus’ tomb was found empty on the first day of the week. And the reason it was found empty on that particular day was because it was only on that day that the tomb was visited. His tomb “was found empty” on the first day of the week says nothing about the time of the resurrection, just as, according to NHInsider, “Jesus’ appearance to the disciples says nothing about the time of the Resurrection.”
In the Bible, parts of time units were frequently counted as wholes. Thus a king might be said to have reigned for two years, even if he reigned for only fourteen months.
We all do the same, not just the writers of the Bible. Depending on what we intend to convey on our statement, saying some king reigned for 2 years even if he had reigned only for a year and a few months would be perfectly normal.
In the same way, a day and a night does not mean a period of twenty-four hours. It can refer to any portion of a day coupled with any portion of a night.
Now, that could be true, again depending on what we intend to convey. I could say, for example that I will spend a day and a night at my parents’ place but in reality I am planning to arrive there at 10 am and depart at 4 am (8 daylight hours and 10 nighttime hours).

If we apply this principle to Jesus’ three days and three nights, it is “possible” that Jesus could be in the tomb only two nights, two days, part of a day, and part of a night. Anything less would not be acceptable. But notice in our Friday crucifixion to Sunday resurrection tradition, there would only be two nights, one day, and two partial days. We are not only missing one full night, we are also missing one full day.
The expression “three days and three nights” could be used as simply a slightly hyperbolic way of referring to “three days.”
“Three days” as in three 24-hour days, yes.

But “three days” as in three 12-hour days, NO; for why would you say “three days and three nights” when what you really mean is three days? It doesn’t make sense.
As Protestant Bible scholar R. T. France notes: “Three days and three nights was a Jewish idiom to a period covering only two nights” (Matthew, 213).
What is his basis for arriving at this conclusion? Is it not from a premise that Jesus was buried Friday afternoon and found risen Sunday dawn? If that premise is faulty, then his whole statement crumbles.
Similarly, D. A. Carson, regarded as one of the deans of conservative Protestant Bible exegesis, explains: “In rabbinical thought a day and a night make an onah, and a part of an onah is as the whole. . . . Thus according to Jewish tradition, ‘three days and three nights’ need mean no more than ‘three days’ or the combination of any part of three separate days” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 8:296).
Of course, “three days and three nights” could not mean more than three [24-hour] days. It could not be more than 72 hours.
If Jesus was crucified and died Friday afternoon, that would be the first day; at sundown on Friday the second day would begin; then at sundown on Saturday the third day would begin. So Jesus was indeed “raised on the third day” (Matt. 20:19).
We have to take Scripture in its entire context. Some Scriptures say “on the third day.” Others say “in three days.” Still others say “after three days.” One Scripture says emphatically: “three days and three nights.” So, what is it? Was Jesus raised on the third day, in three days, after three days, or after three days and three nights?

When we consider the Scriptures in its entirety, we have to take the more specific “three days and three nights” as the time that will have to be fulfilled before Jesus will be resurrected.

Now, some Scriptures also say Jesus will be killed and will rise again after three days. But one Scripture quotes Jesus as saying He will be in the grave three days and three nights before resurrecting. So, when do we start the count of the three days, from the time Jesus died on the cross or from the time He was entombed? Since the more specific statement is the one that say Jesus will be IN THE GRAVE for three days and nights before resurrecting, then the three-day count has to start from the time of Jesus’ entombment.

Now, Jesus was entombed when the day was about to close (near sunset). So, that day could not be counted as day one.

Also, Jesus could have risen BEFORE sundown of Saturday and this would still be consistent with the biblical record. No one witnessed the resurrection. The Scriptures also do not say when the actual resurrection happened.
 
From Jimmy Akin

Scripture repeatedly tells us that Jesus was crucified on “the day of preparation,” which was the first-century Jewish way of referring to Friday, the day of preparation for the Sabbath.
Again, when we take Scripture in its entire context, we find that this “day of preparation” is not the preparation day for an ordinary [seventh day] Sabbath. This “preparation day” is the “preparation day of the Passover” (John 19:14). That day, the Passover, was the preparation for the next day, the FEAST, a “high” Sabbath (The seventh day is not the only Sabbath of the Lord. God has His annual Sabbaths or holy days also, just as Catholics have annual holidays like Easter, Christmas, New Year’s, etc.).

Numbers 28:16-18: “And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the Passover of the LORD. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the FEAST. In the first day [the fifteenth] shall be an HOLY CONVOCATION; ye shall do no manner of servile work therein [showing it is a Sabbath].”
This is why the women were not able to anoint his body before he was buried—because Jesus was hurriedly buried late in the afternoon, just as the Sabbath was beginning. The women thus had to rest until the Sabbath was over (Luke 23:56).
That is not what Luke 23:56 says. Luke says the women prepared the spices AND THEN “rested the Sabbath day.”

“And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56).

It is Mark who says the women had to rest until the Sabbath was over before preparing the spices. Mark writes: “And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him” (Mark 16:1).

Now, there is a contradiction between these two texts. How do you explain it?
We are also told that the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to order the legs of the crucifixion victims broken so they would die faster (from.asphyxiation due to an inability to push themselves up on their crosses and take a breath), “in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the Sabbath” (John 19:31).
Some advocates of a Wednesday crucifixion concede that Jesus was crucified on the day before a Sabbath, but deny that this was the regular, weekly Sabbath. In later times, the phrase “day of preparation” came to be used to refer to the day before Passover and, this argument goes, Passover counted as a Sabbath in the sense that it was a day of rest, even though it usually did not fall on the weekly Sabbath. Thus Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover and had to be buried hurriedly on that account.
But this explanation will not do. In the first century, “the day of preparation” referred to Friday, not the day before Passover. Further, we know from Scripture that the Sabbath following Jesus’ crucifixion was the regular, weekly Sabbath, the seventh day of the week: “Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulcher” (Matt. 28:1).
The “day of preparation” was Passover Day itself. The day after was a Sabbath (annual Sabbath), as Numbers 28:16-18 clearly show.
Those anti-Catholics who allege that the Church commemorates Christ’s death on the wrong day are themselves in the wrong. The appropriate time for Christians to gather to commemorate Christ’s death is indeed Good Friday, not a hypothetical Crucifixion Wednesday.
There is nothing hypothetical in a Wednesday crucifixion. The belief is based on facts as recorded in the Bible. And the belief of a Sabbath resurrection is based upon the assumption that Jesus fulfilled His only sign.

For the Good Friday-Easter Sunday advocates, their belief is based solely on passages in Scripture that say Jesus was crucified on “the day before the Sabbath” and then assume “Sabbath” to mean the seventh day of the week. As for Sunday being the resurrection day, it is based on the assumption that the resurrection happened on the day the women visited the tomb and found it empty.

Why would those who believe in a Wednesday crucifixion be labeled as anti-Catholics only? Why not label them anti-Christians? Doesn’t the whole Christian world [the vast majority of those who profess to practice Christianity] believe in the Good Friday-Easter Sunday tradition?
 
i didn’t really understand this thread. All I can say is , I believe Jesus Christ IS the messiah.
Hopefully one day …everyone will too.
 
i didn’t really understand this thread. All I can say is , I believe Jesus Christ IS the messiah.
Hopefully one day …everyone will too.
I don’t really understand it all either, but I think that mailman has laid out a very convincing argument. Not that it really matters in how we celebrate the events of Holy Week, just as it doesn’t really matter that Jesus was almost definitely NOT born on December 25th. 🤷
These are commemorations of important events and we should not become entangled in too many details. The important thing is that Jesus DID come, and DID die and DID rise from the dead. And He WILL come again.

Peace
James
 
Mailman -
I have another question which I posed in another thread about the coming of Elijah and a seeming contradiction in the Gospels between what John the Baptist says and what Jesus says.

You have done a nice job here, Would you care to take a stab at this one?

The thread is HERE.

Peace
James
 
I do not think that anyone needs to worry about whether or not the days are complete since, as has already been mentioned, at the time Jesus would not have been understood as meaning such, but simply as three days, however partial.

I think history shows this is true since Easter has traditionally been celebrated on Sunday. While the obvious counter-argument is to say they are wrong, I do not see how the ancients could interpret this wrong, since the Gospels were written a way that would be easier for them to understand than us. It was with ancient figures of speech, in ancient languages, that Jesus’ words were recorded, so I think that the ancients probably had a better grasp of what Jesus meant in the ancient languages, than us in modern times would in modern languages.
 
I do not think that anyone needs to worry about whether or not the days are complete since, as has already been mentioned, at the time Jesus would not have been understood as meaning such, but simply as three days, however partial.

I think history shows this is true since Easter has traditionally been celebrated on Sunday. While the obvious counter-argument is to say they are wrong, I do not see how the ancients could interpret this wrong, since the Gospels were written a way that would be easier for them to understand than us. It was with ancient figures of speech, in ancient languages, that Jesus’ words were recorded, so I think that the ancients probably had a better grasp of what Jesus meant in the ancient languages, than us in modern times would in modern languages.
Here is an eye-opener on the real history of Easter which every professing Christian should know.

Easter, says Alexander Hislop in his The Two Babylons, “bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven….”

In the ancient Chaldean idolatrous sun-worship, as practiced by the Phoenicians, Baal was the sun god; Astarte, his consort or wife. And Astarte is the same as Ishtar, or the English “Easter.”

Hislop says, “The festival, of which we read in Church history, under the name of Easter, in the third or fourth centuries, was quite a different festival from that now observed in the Romish [and Protestant] Church, and at the time was not known by any such name as Easter. It was called Pascha, or the Passover, and… was very early observed by many professing Christians…. That festival agreed originally with the time of the Jewish Passover, when Christ was crucified… That festival was not idolatrous, and it was preceded by no Lent.”

From the Encyclopedia Britannica (comments in brackets):

“There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers…. The first Christians [the original true Church] continued to observe the Jewish [that is, God’s] festivals, though in a new spirit, as commemorations of events which those festivals had foreshadowed. Thus Passover, with a new conception added to it, of Christ as the true Paschal Lamb and the first fruits from the dead, continued to be observed.

“Although the observance of Easter was at a very early period in the practice of the Christian Church, a serious difference as to the day for its observance soon arose between the Christians of Jewish and those of Gentile descent, which led to a long and bitter controversy. With the Jewish Christians… the fast ended… on the 14th day of the moon at evening… without regard to the day of the week. The Gentile Christians on the other hand [that is, the beginning of the Roman Church, now substituting pagan for true Christian doctrines]… identified the first day of the week with the resurrection, and kept the preceding Friday as the commemoration of the crucifixion, irrespective of the day of the month.

“Generally speaking, the Western Churches [Catholic] kept Easter on the 1st day of the week, while the Eastern Churches [containing most of those who remained as part of the true Christian Church] followed the Jewish rule. [That is, observing Passover on the 14th of the first sacred month instead of the pagan Easter.]

“Polycarp, the disciple of John the Evangelist [the Apostle John of the NT], and bishop of Smyrna, visited Rome in 159 [sic] to confer with Anicetus, the bishop of that see, on the subject, and urged the tradition which he had received from the apostles of observing the 14th day. Anicetus, however, declined.

About forty years later (197), the question was discussed in a very different spirit between Victor, bishop of Rome, and Polycrates, metropolitan of proconsular Asia [the territory of the Churches at Ephesus, Galatia, Antioch, Philadelphia, and all those mentioned in Revelation 2 and 3 – and the Churches established through the Apostle Paul]. That province was the only portion of Christendom which still adhered to the Jewish usage “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” – Jude 1:3].

“Victor demanded that all should adopt the usage prevailing at Rome. This, Polycrates firmly refused to agree to, and urged many weighty reasons to the contrary, whereupon Victor proceeded to excommunicate Polycrates and the Christians who continued the eastern usage [that is, those who continued in God’s way, as Jesus, Peter, Paul, and all the early true Church had done]. He was, however, restrained [by other bishops] from actually proceeding to enforce the decree of excommunication… and the Asiatic churches retained their usage unmolested. We find the Jewish [true Christian Passover] usage from time to time reasserting itself after this, but it never prevailed to any large extent.

“A final settlement of the dispute was one among the other reasons which led Constantine to summon the council at Nicaea in 325. At that time the Syrians and the Antiochenes were the solitary champions of the observance of the 14th day. The decision of the council was unanimous that Easter was to be kept on Sunday, and on the same Sunday throughout the world, and that ‘none hereafter should follow the blindness of the Jews.’” [That is, in plain language, the Roman Church now decreed that none should be allowed to follow the ways of Christ – of the true Christian Church.]
 
Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons has been discredited so many times, you may as well cite Jack Chick in your arguments.
 
Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons has been discredited so many times, you may as well cite Jack Chick in your arguments.
Wow.

I can’t believe I’d ever say this, but I think you just insulted Jack Chick! :rotfl:
 
Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons has been discredited so many times, you may as well cite Jack Chick in your arguments.
If you have no clue as to where the word “Easter” comes from or why this world’s Christianity calls the supposed day of Christ’s resurrection “Easter,” you have no business ridiculing Hislop and his work. At least Hislop can give a plausible explanation as to why, of all names, this “principal feast of the ecclesiastical year” has to be called Easter.

If you will notice, the Encyclopedia Britannica quote practically agrees with Hislop, except for that part which identifies the name’s origin – of which the Britannica only says “parallels with the German word Ostern” and is “of uncertain origin.”

Do you know that practically all scholars agree that the word “Easter” has its roots in ancient polytheistic religions [aka paganism] and that most say the name is derived from Eastre, the Teutonic goddess of spring? But could the name’s origin and the goddess be far more ancient – going all the way back to the ancient Tower of Babel? Hislop attempts to connect the two and his argument is certainly not without any basis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top