Easter... Sunday?

[Catholic_Mike]

Is there any way to prove to a Bible-Alone Protestant that Christ rose on Sunday? All the gospel accounts I can see mention that the women came to his tomb early Sunday morning, but seem to leave room for the possability that it happened at some point on Saturday.

 

[cazayoux]

I can’t say for the gospels, but I’m reading Acts right now and just ran across something that might be useful.

Acts 20:7
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart the next day; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

The note in the Ignatius Catholic Bible Study (RSV2CE) for this verse states…

the first day of the week: The day following the Saturday Sabbath (Gen 2:3). This passage provides the earliest evidence that believers assembled on Sundays for catechetical instruction and sacramental worship. It was soon called the “Lord’s day” (Rev 1:10) to commemorate the day Jesus rose from the dead (Lk 24:1; CCC 1343).

michel

 

[LilyM]

Is there any way to prove to a Bible-Alone Protestant that Christ rose on Sunday? All the gospel accounts I can see mention that the women came to his tomb early Sunday morning, but seem to leave room for the possability that it happened at some point on Saturday.

Mary Magdalene heard the earthquake and saw the stone being rolled back from the tomb on Sunday morning in Matthew’s Gospel. Clearly that would seem to have been the moment of his resurrection.

In Luke the angel says Jesus rose to fulfill the prophecy that, among other things, he would be raised up on the third day.

So it seems pretty cut and dried that it was Sunday.

 

[Spirithound]

Is there any way to prove to a Bible-Alone Protestant that Christ rose on Sunday? All the gospel accounts I can see mention that the women came to his tomb early Sunday morning, but seem to leave room for the possability that it happened at some point on Saturday.

The Jewish day started at sundown the previous day, and so it is permissible to believe that Jesus rose any time between sundown Saturday night and Sunday morning, because it is the same day.

 

[Catholic_Mike]

The point about it being the third day doesn’t work since some people deny that he was crucified on Friday. The stone could have been rolled back later.

 

[LilyM]

The point about it being the third day doesn’t work since some people deny that he was crucified on Friday. The stone could have been rolled back later.

It absolutely *had *to be Friday afternoon when he died and was buried - Luke 24:54 - ‘it was the day of preparation and the Sabbath was about to begin’. Sabbath is and always has been Saturday. Friday afternoon was when he died, no question, since the Sabbath began at sundown Friday.

It’s clear as day that he was crucified and died on the one day, in one three hour period. References are to ‘noon’ and ‘three pm’ (the sixth hour and the ninth hour), not ‘three pm of the next day’ or anything, so it didn’t take more than the one day, and that day was Friday.

Of course if they don’t believe the plain as day words of the Gospels there’s nothing you can do

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The Jewish day started at sundown the previous day, and so it is permissible to believe that Jesus rose any time between sundown Saturday night and Sunday morning, because it is the same day.

Dear Friend,
you need to understand that there were THREE systems in place in Palestine at this time.
One was the Normative Jewish Calendar, used by the Jewish, that is the Pharisaic Priests, which operates as you say,
Two was the Roman civil calendar, the Julian Calendar, which was inuse continuously undil a hundred or so years ago, which changed the date at midnight,
The third is the Galilean calendar, which is descroibed in the Dead Sea Scrolls, have a civil year of exactly 52 weeks, with an intercalated week if the year number is divisible by seven, and an extra intercalated week if it is also divisible by four, but not by 128.
This year had 12 months each of 30 days, with quarter days added at the change of season. The first month of each quarter began always on the Fourth Day, or Wednesday, and the day started at sunrise.
Thus for a Galilean, staying in Jerusalem, the Sabath began at sunset of Friday, to respect the Judeans, and continues through to sunrise on Sunday to respect the Galileans. Both recognised that the civil day changed at midnight, hence Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early on Sunday morning, as it was Dawning ON the first day of the week, using the Roman dating system, the ablative is used, so it was Dawnin upon the First Day, not towards the First Day as Douay incorrectly reads. That reading would require the accusative case, not the ablative.
To Mary, it is still the Sabath, according to Galilean tradition, and she intends to sit and wait for sunrise, before she attends to Our Lord’s body.

 

[Spirithound]

Dear Friend,
you need to understand that there were THREE systems in place in Palestine at this time.
…
To Mary, it is still the Sabath, according to Galilean tradition, and she intends to sit and wait for sunrise, before she attends to Our Lord’s body.

You lost me…what did you intend to contribute to the OP?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You lost me…what did you intend to contribute to the OP?

Dear Spirithound,
What do you fail to understand?
The time we are referring to, when Mary went to the tomb, to await the beginning of the First Day according to Galilean tradition, was:
In the Normative Jewish calendar, the dawning of the First Day, before sunrise.
According to the Roman Julian calendar, the dawning of Sunday, before sunrise.
According to the Galilean calendar, it was still the Sabath, as the First day in that calendar began at the sunrise she was awaiting.
Sunrise is not mentioned, so it is indeed possible to read the account that Our Lord had resumed his Earthly Life while it was yet the Sabath in Galilean tradition, and He was/is a Galilean.

 

[Bennie_P]

Dear Spirithound,
What do you fail to understand?
The time we are referring to, when Mary went to the tomb, to await the beginning of the First Day according to Galilean tradition, was:
In the Normative Jewish calendar, the dawning of the First Day, before sunrise.
According to the Roman Julian calendar, the dawning of Sunday, before sunrise.
According to the Galilean calendar, it was still the Sabath, as the First day in that calendar began at the sunrise she was awaiting.
Sunrise is not mentioned, so it is indeed possible to read the account that Our Lord had resumed his Earthly Life while it was yet the Sabath in Galilean tradition, and He was/is a Galilean.

And where did you get this information? It is nice to know the source for verification. Sounds like LDS heresy to me?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

And where did you get this information? It is nice to know the source for verification. Sounds like LDS heresy to me?

So John Pratt is associated with LDS.
So What!
Read his scientific research. It is well researched. It is good science.
If it is false, it is easily disproved.
Not everything your friend says is true.
Not everything your enemy says is false.
Evidence is common and good that the Galileans used the calendar described in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And the description of that calendar is quite precise. Only minute details of the exact method of intercalation are uncertain.
I guess you found John Pratt on Google, so I won’t advise you to Google ‘Galilean Calendar’

 

[Bennie_P]

So John Pratt is associated with LDS.
So What!
Read his scientific research. It is well researched. It is good science.
If it is false, it is easily disproved.
Not everything your friend says is true.
Not everything your enemy says is false.
Evidence is common and good that the Galileans used the calendar described in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And the description of that calendar is quite precise. Only minute details of the exact method of intercalation are uncertain.
I guess you found John Pratt on Google, so I won’t advise you to Google ‘Galilean Calendar’

I never said anything about John Pratt. Your busted.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I never said anything about John Pratt. Your busted.

Dear Bennie,
Forgive me, I noted your reference to LDS, and that John Pratt, who has done much sterling work on ancient calendars was/is associated with LDS.
I put 2 and 2 together, and came up with what I assumed was 4.
Since I am obviously in error, then I invite you to Google “galilean calendar”
ps. in what way am I busted?
I think you did mean “you’re”.

 

[Bennie_P]

Dear Bennie,
Forgive me, I noted your reference to LDS, and that John Pratt, who has done much sterling work on ancient calendars was/is associated with LDS.
I put 2 and 2 together, and came up with what I assumed was 4.
Since I am obviously in error, then I invite you to Google “galilean calendar”
ps. in what way am I busted?
**I think you did mean “you’re”./**quote]

You are correct, I did mean “you’re”. But what do I know? myself being a dumb Catholic.
The only information or sources, I can find on what you posted comes from LDS web sites, so I cannot accept it, but, as heresy or bad science. It seems to contradict what is acceptable by **the **Church.

I don’t reject findings from scientist just based on their religion, but when it comes to matters of theology, faith,and morals I must be more prejudice.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco proTatiano;2101559:

Dear Bennie,
Forgive me, I noted your reference to LDS, and that John Pratt, who has done much sterling work on ancient calendars was/is associated with LDS.
I put 2 and 2 together, and came up with what I assumed was 4.
Since I am obviously in error, then I invite you to Google “galilean calendar”
ps. in what way am I busted?
I think you did mean “you’re”./

quote]

You are correct, I did mean “you’re”. But what do I know? myself being a dumb Catholic.
The only information or sources, I can find on what you posted comes from LDS web sites, so I cannot accept it, but, as heresy or bad science. It seems to contradict what is acceptable by **the **Church.

I don’t reject findings from scientist just based on their religion, but when it comes to matters of theology, faith,and morals I must be more prejudice.

Dear Bennie,
Let’s try to keep this cool.
I do not mean to denigrate Catholics.
The presentation of the three alternative calendars does not deny scripture, it explains how scriptural apparent contradictions can be understood.
For instance: the Last Supper was held on a Thursday evening, and indeed, that is when the passover was celebrated according to Galilean tradition. Always a Thursday, for new-year’s-day is ALWAYS a Wednesday. Thus Our Lord celebrated passover on the Thursday before the Saturday on which the Judeans celebrated the same.
Synonyms for the Galilean calendar are:
Enoch’s calendar
Qumran calendar
Dead Sea Scrolls calendar - Temple Scroll - Yigal Yadin.

As for the Julian calendar, Named for Julius Caeser, who inaugurated it.