Did Christ rise on Easter Sunday? Or Good Saturday?

[Shibolet]

The other gospels say dawn…or early morning…so three days. Jesus is also beyond time.

The gospel writers, at leas we know, Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to seeing Jesus after the resurrection. So do you doubt their eyewitness account?

How do you propose to verify, 2000 yrs later, the resurrection?

I understand what you mean Pablope. I read in my Catholic version of the NAB the expression “dawn towards the first day of the week.” “Towards” is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Towards dawn is not dawn. Therefore it is still part of the night; not yet day. Therefore, the third day cannot be accounted for.

Then, you appeal to “eyewitnesses” as a help or an attempt to turn my focus away from the prophecy of Mat. 12:40. I am more than happy to discuss the “eyewitness” point with you but, are you trying to make me forget about the three days and three nights? At least,
tell me that it was somehow a mistake of the gospel writer or that there is no other way but to believe it by faith, since nobody knows what really happened.

Now, about the eyewitnesses, Luke says in Acts 1:3 that Jesus did appear to his disciples for the next 40 days but he says, “after his passion or sufferings.” After one’s passion or suffering does not necessarily mean that one died, let alone resurrected. Therefore, Jesus’ disciples saw him after his passion or sufferings on the cross, not after his resurrection, which brings down the fact that there was no eyewitness to Jesus’ resurrection.

Then, you ask if I doubt the eyewitness’ account. I would not if he had eyewitnessed the resurrection of Jesus; but he did not. Besides, how did Jesus prove that he was in flesh and bone and not a ghost? By eating and drinking with his disciples just as he used to before his passion on the cross. If we are to eat and digest food after the resurrection as we used to before death, I think a lot of people will prefer to stay in the dust and don’t try life again.

So, what are we to do with the three days and three nights or the way Jesus proved not to be a ghost but just like any man in flesh and bone? What do the Catholic authorities have
to say about these issues? Are they to be accepted by faith for lack of commonsense or…
or what?

With regards to your last question of how I propose to verify the resurrection after 2000 years, I find very accommodating. It reminds me of Luke 24:11, when the women ran to the apostles to report that Jesus had resurrected and the apostles refused to believe them because their story sounded like an idle tale of nonsense. Why, for heavens’ sake? Does it mean that Jesus had never told them anything at all about that afterlife event? That’s the conclusion one is tempted to arrive at. But then, reading the whole of the NT, I have come about 2 Tim. 2:8 when Paul confessed to his disciple Timothy that Jesus resurrected according to his - Paul’s - gospel. What does it mean, that there was another gospel at the time whose agenda the resurrection was not a part of? Believe me, I am confused. Could it be that the resurrection was something fabricated by Paul?

 

[Shibolet]

It is just the language used and the translation says accordingly. The Semitic language is rather flowery especially for emphasis. As have been said before this, the three days and three nights are not 72 hours as what our modern day scientific and analytic mind would rightfully think.

It just mean three days to reference the prophecy before that. Perhaps the issue here is to look for a contradiction. There is none. As is always the case, a book is to be read in context, always so. In this instance, one needs to understand how the mind of the early Jews spoke and perhaps that is beyond us. But scripture does not contradict itself because the people who chose which books to include in the Bible would make sure of that. If we think there is contradiction today, it is because we do not understand the context and its literature and that is fair enough.

Behold! You could be the one to help me. According to your words, you seem to understand the context. Would you be able to share with me what you understand that I find so hard to? Where can I find the context that will explain that Mat. 12:40 was not a mistake? How can I figure three days and three nights in the tomb for the three days and three nights of Jonah in the belly of the whale? I can’t wait to understand this issue.