Good Friday? Is it Church dogma?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
catholic2:
Hey mtr01, now I know what mtr stands for. I’m sure your baby is as cute as can be. Maybe I should change my name to gp04.
Thank you for the kind words…he is, although I can’t take the credit, it was my nephew 🙂

catholic2 said:
“If I told you once, I told you a million times, my mama said.” Sound familiar? Works in scripture too. I do not see any conflict between after three days and on the third day. I Know that you are only referring to Mark’s Gospel, but other Gospels use “after”. In Matthew 26:61 and 27:40, you will see both usages describing the same event! (DR search on “three days”)

Since scripture do not conflict, then one should think the expanded “after” everytime you see “third day”.

I understand what you are saying, however my take would be to think “on” everytime I see “third day”, for the same reasons

catholic2 said:
(Nice Greek program. I wish I had one.)

Thank you. If you (and Pug too) want it, you can download it free from here. I find it to me a most useful program, with translations in many languages. I have the two Greek NT’s I mentioned, plus both the Septuagint and Hebrew Masoretic OT’s. The only problem is that there only have one Catholic English translation, being the Douay-Rheims-Challonier (which is why I often only quote from that). My favorite feature is that you can select a particular verse and display it in all the different translations/languages you have downloaded, on one page. I highly recommend it.
 
Hey, I know I’m gonna sound a bit crazy here, but on the bottom of my last post are there little hebrew letters? I can see them on my computer, but maybe it is dependent on having the right fonts installed, so of couse I can see it, but can you?

BTW it should be saying to keep My Sabbath. (God is talking).

Mtr, I’ve seen the esword bible, it seems to work well and it’s free! I think you can download other bible versions to use with it, like the American Standard or the Good News.
 
Pug, thank you for the study. You covered everything that I wanted. The only thing I would want to add is that the bones of the slain lamb was not to be broken (v46) (also the dates of the unleavened bread requirement, especially day one…can you see where this is headed?)

mtr01 Thank you for the link.

I think at this point I have to address a concern brought out by Swiss Guard (post 40). I am going to pose my initial question to the Ask an Apologist forum. I’ll be back when I get a response.
 
40.png
catholic2:
If you will do a search on the DR (link is given on one of the posts above) on “three days”, you will see that even the Vulgate says AFTER three days.
That is simply not true. I provided the exact quotes from the Vulgate. They do NOT say “post”, which is after in Latin. They simply say “the third day”, which, in Latin, if in the ablative case without a preposition indicates “in” or “during”, and is best translated to English “the third day” (implying “on” or “during”, not “after”, as I pointed out in my first post).
 
40.png
catholic2:
Would you consider a peech cherapist?

Well my friend, I am thinking that (among other things) that there is no way three nights and three days can fit a Friday crucifixion. However Thursday would fit perfectly, don’t you think?
Aha! Now I undestand the problem! You didn’t take Jewish Math, you took New Math (or whatever it is now).

Christ was crucified on Friday and died that day. The next day (the second day, because hHe was dead on the first day) was Saturday, and started at nightfall (sunset) as that was hopw they counted a day - from sunset to sunset. The third day started at nightfall on Saturday, and He rose during the night, somewhere between nightfall and sunrise. That is on the third day.
 
To Swiss Guard,

I am in a holding pattern right now in deference to your comments. I won’t go further unless I can get an opinion from some authority figure on whether or not a discussion of examining the basis of the crucifixion date is within the purview of a Catholic.

You called me a Fundamentalist twice now, but I am not sure what a fundamentalist is or what you mean. Maybe, if you can get away from your important sports stuff, you can define it for me. I have a feeling I should be angry at you for calling me that but who knows. In any case I feel like you are shouting when I read your posts and I don’t like that.
 
40.png
catholic2:
To Swiss Guard,

I am in a holding pattern right now in deference to your comments. I won’t go further unless I can get an opinion from some authority figure on whether or not a discussion of examining the basis of the crucifixion date is within the purview of a Catholic.
The fact that the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that Christ was crucified on a Friday isn’t enough evidence for you? I can’t understand why you’re bringing into question something the Church has taught for 2,000 years. Here is what I posted from the Catechism:
641 Mary Magdalene and the holy women who came to finish anointing the body of Jesus, which had been buried in haste because the Sabbath began on the evening of Good Friday,
were the first to encounter the Risen One. (emphasis mine)
Just because you don’t understand certain passages of Scripture doesn’t mean the Church is wrong and you are right. The only “holding pattern” you should be in is to admit you don’t understand the Scripture passage and accept Church teaching.
You called me a Fundamentalist twice now, but I am not sure what a fundamentalist is or what you mean. Maybe, if you can get away from your important sports stuff, you can define it for me. I have a feeling I should be angry at you for calling me that but who knows.
Well, since the Packers haven’t made any moves today, I’ll tell you what I mean. I should point out I’m still bummed out about Marquette losing today. You can’t turn the ball over 23 times and expect to win. They’re just not the same without Travis Diener.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand. A Fundamentalist Christian is someone who believes in sola scriptura and sola fide. He also believes in any Christian can interpret the Bible, as long as that Christian adheres to sola scriptura and sola fide. Fundamentalists have a very strict literal interpretation of Scripture. For example, they deny the doctrine of purgatory because the word purgatory isn’t in the Bible. The same concept applies to transubstantiation. However, they do believe in the Holy Trinity even though those words don’t appear in the Bible. There is no logic or reason to their interpretation. Examples of Fundamentalists are Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Extreme Fundamentalists would be Hal Lindsey and Bob Jones.

You should be angry about being called a Fundamentalist, but you shouldn’t direct your anger at me. I’m just the messenger. Stop acting like a Fundamentalist and adhere to the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

In any case I feel like you are shouting when I read your posts and I don’t like that.
I’m not shouting at you. I would be posting in ALL CAPS if I were shouting at you. I post in bold because it’s easier to see green in bold on a yellow background. I’m not trying to make you angry or uncomfortable. Please don’t take my posting in bold as shouting.

**The reason I post in green is that it is the color of my favorite football team the Green Bay Packers. Of course you knew that from my last post. **

My “sports stuff,” as you call it, is more important than your thread because what you posted was decided 2,000 years ago. How the Packers are going to replace their two starting guards is not yet known. I’m happy the Packers lost Bhawoh Jue to the Chargers and cut Michael Hawthorne. Losing those two defensive backs is addition by subtraction. The Packers need a pass rushing defensive end and an outside linebacker. Now they must find a couple of interior offensive lineman to open up holes for Ahman Green. I still think Brett Favre will come back this year, but if the offensive line isn’t addressed, this will be his last year.

You see all the important “sports stuff” I have to deal with!


I’m sorry for having angered you by my statements. I was frustrated as to why someone who is Catholic would personally interpret Scripture. If you don’t understand Scripture passages, join the club. None of us can interpret Scripture ourselves, which is why Christ gave us His Church and the Holy Spirit to guide Her.
 
40.png
catholic2:
Pug, thank you for the study.
Catholic2, Don’t want you to think I am ignoring you, but I assume conversation is on hold for right now. I was interested in seeing where you were going with this, but understand. My understanding is that the disciples were told to go prepare the passover on the first day of unleavened bread (the festival of Azuma or Matzoth) and when evening came, they ate the last supper see Mt 26:17+. Also from the OT (for example Dt 16:3) it seems that when they ate the passover lamb, then they also started with eating the unleavened bread. I’m not sure if that makes sense, though.

השׁביעי
 
Alright, listen up.
This excerpt was taken from www.tomorrowsworld.org
from the booklets section.
Was Jesus Resurrected on Sunday?
Code:
**For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth"** (Matt. 12:39-40).
Some will argue the definition of “day.” But Christ clearly stated that there are 12 hours in a day, not including the night (John 11:9-10). Therefore, when Easter Sunday proponents take His remark and conclude that Christ was in the grave three days x 12 hours = 36 hours, we can see that they are leaving out the “three nights.” There are approximately 12 hours of daytime and 12 hours of nighttime in one 24-hour day! So three days and three nights is definitely 72 hours. But was it exactly 72 hours? Jesus said He would rise “AFTER three days” (Mark 8:31)-i.e. no less than 72 hours. But He also said He would rise “IN three days” (John 2:19, 21)-i.e. no more than 72 hours. This is absolutely clear-72 hours exactly! And God is always right on schedule.
Code:
 Why have so many thought that Christ was put in the grave on *Friday* afternoon? Mark 15:42 states that "it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath." Since the weekly Sabbath always occurred on the seventh day of the week (now called Saturday), the "Preparation Day" was normally on Friday. However, we have already seen the problem with this. The answer to the apparent dilemma is that the weekly Sabbath is not the only Sabbath mentioned in the Bible. Leviticus 23 lists seven *annual* Holy Days that occur in God's Festivals. Each of these days was considered a Sabbath (or a "rest" from normal labor). All annual Sabbaths or "High Days" (except Pentecost) fell on particular calendar dates rather than set days of the week.
Now the mystery can be solved by reading John 19:31. The Jews wanted to remove the crucifixion victims “because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a HIGH DAY).” Christ kept the Passover with His disciples the night before His death (Luke 22:15). He died on the cross the next afternoon, which was still Passover (the 14th of Abib or Nisan according to the Hebrew Calendar-Leviticus 23:5). Leviticus 23:6-7 reports that the next day, beginning the evening after His crucifixion, was not a weekly Sabbath, but an annual Sabbath-the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Now put together the facts. It is clear from the Bible that Christ died and was buried on Passover afternoon-and that the following day was an annual Sabbath. It is also clear that he was resurrected at the same time of day-late afternoon. But which afternoon? Since the women found Him already gone Sunday morning, it would be sensible to conclude that He had been resurrected the previous afternoon on Saturday! This would mean He had been buried three days and three nights earlier-Wednesday afternoon. It would also mean that Passover, Nisan 14, fell on a Wednesday that year. And, indeed, that is what happened in A.D. 31, a year that fits the time frame the Bible demands.
Scripture also provides further proof that there were TWO Sabbaths that week-an annual and a weekly one. In Mark 15:47, Mary Magdalene and her companion watched Joseph of Arimathea lay Jesus in the tomb near the end of the Passover. The next verse, Mark 16:1, tells us that after the “Sabbath,” Mary Magdalene and her companions bought spices with which to anoint Christ’s dead body. However, Luke 23:56 shows that they prepared the spices before the Sabbath. Naturally, they couldn’t have prepared spices before they were even bought! The only explanation that makes sense is that they bought the spices on Friday and prepared them the same day-after the annual Sabbath on Thursday and before the weekly Sabbath on Saturday! Then they rested on the weekly Sabbath-at the end of which Jesus was resurrected.
But even if Christ were resurrected on Sunday, why would His disciples-who had kept the seventh-day Sabbath with Him-have abandoned His example of keeping the Ten Commandments and switched to Sunday-keeping? And why would they have picked Sunday, a day already associated with pagan sun worship? But the Bible is very clear that Christ was NOT resurrected on Sunday morning. So this pitiful attempt to CHANGE God’s Law does not hold water!

There you have it. As for HLGOMEZ and his/her comments on the time of the day around the world…the Internation Date Line did not even exist until 1493. And, coincidentally, it was Pope Alexander VI who issued the bull.

Have a good one,

Trav
 
The Church holds that Christ died on a friday and was raised on a sunday.
 
40.png
Pug:
Catholic2, Don’t want you to think I am ignoring you, but I assume conversation is on hold for right now. I was interested in seeing where you were going with this, but understand. My understanding is that the disciples were told to go prepare the passover on the first day of unleavened bread (the festival of Azuma or Matzoth) and when evening came, they ate the last supper see Mt 26:17+. Also from the OT (for example Dt 16:3) it seems that when they ate the passover lamb, then they also started with eating the unleavened bread. I’m not sure if that makes sense, though.

השׁביעי
You are correct. Preparation day would start at sunset or Abib 14, then at twilight of the same Hebrew day (the next day our time) the Passover lamb was slain. Then at sunset (next day Hebrew time Abib 15) the same day our time, the Special Sabbath would begin. It will be clearer once I am allowed to proceed.

I’m in a quandry because “Ask an Apologist” has not responded to my question. I will go to EWTN’s “Catholic Q&A” and see if an answer can be gotten there.
 
40.png
twagler:
/snip/
In Mark 15:47, Mary Magdalene and her companion watched Joseph of Arimathea lay Jesus in the tomb near the end of the Passover. The next verse, Mark 16:1, tells us that after the “Sabbath,” Mary Magdalene and her companions bought spices with which to anoint Christ’s dead body. However, Luke 23:56 shows that they prepared the spices before the Sabbath. Naturally, they couldn’t have prepared spices before they were even bought! The only explanation that makes sense is that they bought the spices on Friday and prepared them the
/snip/
Preparation day was Abib 14. Abib 15 began Passover.

Christ died near the end of Preparation day, not near the end of Passover as you wrote above. You must have made an error because you used Preparation Day earlier in the post.

The next day Abib 15 is the Feast of Unleavened Bread. (see Lev. 23:6) There was enough time before the end of Preparation day for the women to hurriedly purchase the spices and perfumed oils before the start of Sabbath at sunset. No need to add a day between the two Sabbaths.
 
40.png
catholic2:
Preparation day was Abib 14. Abib 15 began Passover.

Christ died near the end of Preparation day, not near the end of Passover as you wrote above. You must have made an error because you used Preparation Day earlier in the post.

The next day Abib 15 is the Feast of Unleavened Bread. (see Lev. 23:6) There was enough time before the end of Preparation day for the women to hurriedly purchase the spices and perfumed oils before the start of Sabbath at sunset. No need to add a day between the two Sabbaths.
Don’t bother with twagler Catholic2. He’s a Seventh Day Adventist, one of the most anti-Catholic cults in the world today. That’s right, it’s a cult, not a religion.

Asking a Seventh Day Adventist about Catholicism is like asking a Nazi about Judaism.
 
Today I had a response from Father Vincent Serpa on EWTN:
ewtn.com/vexperts/conference.htm
then go to: Apologetics: Defending the faith.

Father says if you sincerely have doubts about the Friday Crucifixion, you do not sin. So, I’d like to continue presenting my scriptural evidence for a Thursday Crucifixion.
Thank you to all the posters, even good old swissguard!
 
Swiss Guard said:
Don’t bother with twagler Catholic2. He’s a Seventh Day Adventist, one of the most anti-Catholic cults in the world today. That’s right, it’s a cult, not a religion.

Asking a Seventh Day Adventist about Catholicism is like asking a Nazi about Judaism.

I believe that twagler is incorrect in his Holy Week sequence, but I like the fact that he points out two Sabbaths. He’s got that other Sabbath on the wrong day, I think.

If twagler is an SDA , I would ask him about SDA not Catholicism.

twagler, I wonder about the SDA practice on the seventh day. Since they follow the Jewish Sabbath, do the SDA also celebrate the Sabbath at sunset Friday through sunset Saturday? Just curious.
 
Taking an hiatus on this thread has apparently assigned it to the realm of electronic archeology. It is even perhaps a bit overdue to be assigned to internet history and it is getting too long anyway. So let me bring the whole idea to a conclusion with the following treatise, even though it may end up to be a monologue.

It is a pleasure and assurance to know that the teaching Church allows for discourse on perceived truths such as the Crucifixion date. It is a mark of Truth that allows itself to be examined. I am now convinced, however, that the Crucifixion day could not have occured on Friday but did occur on Thursday.

I think we have concluded, if you examine the posts on this thread, that there are Sabbaths that are not Saturday, and my studies lead me to conclude that Friday was also a sabbath, the Sabbath of Unleavened Bread. Therefore Crucifixion had to be on Thursday.

Some have said the Crucifixion was on Wednesday, because of Christ’s statement (Mat 12:40b)

“*…so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.”

*" but if that were so, then Christ would have been buried longer than three days and nights, negating His own prophecy. (twagler, an SDA solves the problem by moving the ressurection day to Saturday! check his post #52…and sorry, I am not going there!)

Friday crucifixion of course could not fulfill the 3 day/night prophecy, but Thursday could using the accepted biblical practice of using any portion of a day or night as fulfilling that particular day or night.

Also, Jesus’ last five days of life as a mortal man followed exactly the treatment of the Passover Lamb in Exodus 12, starting from Abib/Nisan 10 entry into Jerusalem. He entered Jerusalem on Sunday late afternoon, was examined as was the Passover Lamb until preparation day Thursday, was declared perfect by Pontious Pilate, then died on the cross that late afternoon about 3 pm, the same moment when the Passover Lamb was also slain at the temple. He was buried before sunset Thursday just before Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread began at sunset. There he remained the three days and nights, and on the third day He rose.
Jesus was ressurected on Abib/Nisan 17, or sometimes during the night starting after sunset Saturday to Sunday morning.

Mat 28:1 is mistranslated starting from Jerome 1600 years ago. It’s an easy mistake to make since preparation day precedes the Sabbath, and one instinctively assigns the sabbath to Saturday. So with a pre-concieved idea of a Saturday Sabbath one can perhaps be blinded by an apparent anomaly and discount it. But if you will look at the original language you will see that it refers to multiple sabbaths: Direct translation from the Greek: (UBS 3rd edition)
“*Evening but of sabbaths, in the dawning on in one of sabbaths went Mariam the Magdalene and the other Maria to watch the tomb.”
*Also, look at the other Gospels in the Greek in the same scenario. Multiple Sabbaths are definitely mentioned.

Pray for Terry Schiavo
Maranatha
 
Who said I was SDA? The donation of Constantine?

And actually, the entire reformation was based on the particular view that the CC was the beast of Revelation. This teaching has mysteriously been lost by most groups.
 
40.png
twagler:
Who said I was SDA? The donation of Constantine?

And actually, the entire reformation was based on the particular view that the CC was the beast of Revelation. This teaching has mysteriously been lost by most groups.
Speaking of ressurection! Twagler, you pulled this thread out from way down deep and it surprised me. But first of all to answer your question, your own bio says that you are an SDA. You might want to change your own info if you are not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top