Gospel Of John

[JReducation]

" 38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.”
39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one[e] greater than Jonah is here. 42The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.

That is Matthew 12:38-42 to the best of my knowledge and understanding. Please point out my mistake if I have misquoted. By any calculation Yeshua was not three days and three nights in his tomb. The length of time that he was is in the tomb is in dispute in the Christian scriptures. According to John 20:1 Yeshua was two days and two nights. According to Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, Matthew 28:1-Yeshua was three days and two nights.

Finally, I raise these points merely as they have been raised as part of the discussion. I am a guest on this forum and have no wish to impugn on anyone’s beliefs. I am merely curious as to the accepted explanations.

The earliest Christian traditions, which predate the the Gospels said that he was dead for three days. The idea of three days and three nights was not part of the tradition and has never been so. What happened was that the Europeans began to count the days using ordinal numbers so that each 24 hour period is a day. The way that our people counted a day and a night are not the same as the Gentiles do.

The dates are not precise and we don’t actually know them. The synoptic writers do not agree on the dates. They agree on the events. As to the birth of Jesus, Luke’s Gospel is the most reliable. By the calculatons of later Catholic astronomers, we believe that year one CE is not the year in which Jesus was born. He was born earlier and we have miscalated and placed year one later. The reason that Luke’s narrative is the most reliable is because he gets his information about Jesus’ birth from Mary herself. As it has been pointed out by later historians, Luke was a man of science. Things like this were more important to him than to the other evangelists. They were more interested in telling the story, than in actual dates and names.

Their stories coincide, but not the small details, because of the different sources that they used. Luke’s greatest source was Mary. Mark’s source was Peter and another teacher whom we do not know by name. Matthew was an Apostle. He wrote for those who had seen the events that he saw. He was not to focused on the fine details as he was on recording the Messiahship of Jesus. John is an eye-witness and a mystic. He’s not into the historical details, but the theological truths about Jesus Christ.

Each of them is coming to us from different perspectives and with different target audiences in mind. It’s like Genesis, where we have two writers with two perspectives, but the same truth. Therefore some details are either missing or do not coincide.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

The earliest Christian traditions, which predate the the Gospels said that he was dead for three days. The idea of three days and three nights was not part of the tradition and has never been so. What happened was that the Europeans began to count the days using ordinal numbers so that each 24 hour period is a day. The way that our people counted a day and a night are not the same as the Gentiles do.

The dates are not precise and we don’t actually know them. The synoptic writers do not agree on the dates. They agree on the events. As to the birth of Jesus, Luke’s Gospel is the most reliable. By the calculatons of later Catholic astronomers, we believe that year one CE is not the year in which Jesus was born. He was born earlier and we have miscalated and placed year one later. The reason that Luke’s narrative is the most reliable is because he gets his information about Jesus’ birth from Mary herself. As it has been pointed out by later historians, Luke was a man of science. Things like this were more important to him than to the other evangelists. They were more interested in telling the story, than in actual dates and names.

Their stories coincide, but not the small details, because of the different sources that they used. Luke’s greatest source was Mary. Mark’s source was Peter and another teacher whom we do not know by name. Matthew was an Apostle. He wrote for those who had seen the events that he saw. He was not to focused on the fine details as he was on recording the Messiahship of Jesus. John is an eye-witness and a mystic. He’s not into the historical details, but the theological truths about Jesus Christ.

Each of them is coming to us from different perspectives and with different target audiences in mind. It’s like Genesis, where we have two writers with two perspectives, but the same truth. Therefore some details are either missing or do not coincide.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The Catholic Church does not rely on the questionable theory that Luke got information from Mary to establish the truth of the teaching of Luke’s Gospel.

 

[inkaneer]

Can anyone comment accurately on the idiomatic meaning of the term, “three days and three nights” I believe that might provide the answer for this apparent contradiction.

 

[JReducation]

Can anyone comment accurately on the idiomatic meaning of the term, “three days and three nights” I believe that might provide the answer for this apparent contradiction.

If you scroll up two of us (both of Jewish heritage) have explained that our anscestors counted days.

Day 1: Friday
Day 2: Saturday
Day 3: Sunday

Days and night are counted as such: days and night. The prophecy said that he would rise in three days.

By Jesus’ own statement, “I will tear this temple down and rebuild it in three days.”

It does not go into three days and two nights. The number of nights is nevre mentioned.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

The Catholic Church does not rely on the questionable theory that Luke got information from Mary to establish the truth of the teaching of Luke’s Gospel.

It is at the Angelicum, very heavily.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[coolduude]

The earliest Christian traditions, which predate the the Gospels said that he was dead for three days…

Is there a source for this? I’d love to read up on it

 

[JReducation]

Is there a source for this? I’d love to read up on it

Any of the writings of the early Fathers, especially St. John Cysostom and St. Aurelius Augustine. You can alos look into any of the Orthodox books on the passion and resurrection of Jesus. They have very ancient writings which they preserve to this day, but were not available to Catholics before the excommunications were lifted.

Good luck on you search.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

It is at the Angelicum, very heavily.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Maybe, I don’t know. Thanks for sharing. But nowhere in the Catechism, Dei Verbum, or any other Magisterial teaching that addresses the truth, canonicity, and aspotolicity of Scripture does the Church require that Luke getting information from Mary is necessary for the faith.

 

[inkaneer]

Earlier I posted a clue to deciphering this ‘three days and three nights’ thingy. But no one picked up on it. So here is the clue I gave previously and my response follows it.

Can anyone comment accurately on the idiomatic meaning of the term, “three days and three nights” I believe that might provide the answer for this apparent contradiction.

Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation before the sabbath. That day was Friday. John 19:31 says, “Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.”

What occurred was that a yearly sabbath [Feast of Unleaven Bread] fell on the same day as the weekly sabbath [Saturday] Jesus died on the Preparation day or the day before.

The Feast of Unleavened Bread lasted seven days [Ex 12:15] Passover was celebrated according to Leviticus 23:5, “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, is the LORD’s passover.” So here now is the sequence of Passover events in the exact order revealed in the Scriptures: 1. Fourteenth day – Slaying of Passover lamb, 2. Fifteenth day – Feast of Unleavened Bread 3. Sixteenth day – Firstfruits of harvest presented. The historical confirmation of these points comes from the testimony of Josephus, a contemporary of Jesus and a historian: “Nisan … is the beginning of our year, on the fourteenth day of the lunar month … and which was called the Passover. … The feast of unleavened bread succeeds that of the Passover, and falls on the fifteenth day of the month, and continues seven days… But on the second day of unleavened bread, which is the sixteenth day of the month, they first partake of the fruits of the earth.”

Okay here is the sequence of events: Passover begins at sundown on Thursday. Jesus and the Apostles eat the Passover [Last Supper] later Jesus is arrested He is tried by the Sanhehrin and brought to Pilate and Herod. Friday Pilate holds court and the people shout: “Crucify Him”. Jesus is crucified later that day and dies about 3pm. He is hurriedly buried and in the tomb before sundown. At Sundown the Passover day ends and the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread begins, what John in 19:31 called a “high day” It is also the Sabbath. Jesus is in the tomb. At sundown on Saturday the sabbath ends and the First Fruits begins. Jesus resurrects from the tomb. That is the sequence it includes by literal count one full 24 hour day [sundown Friday to sundown Saturday] one half day [Sundown Saturday to dawn Sunday] and maybe one or two hours extra. It certainly is not a full 72 hour period needed to match the three days and three nights scenario. So what is the explanation? The explanation is in knowing the idiom or the meaning of the term 'three days and three nights". Here is an example; Someone says, “it is raining cats and dogs.” How do we understand that phrase? Do we conjure up cats and dogs falling from the sky? Or do we understand it as a term of expression to denote that it is raining very hard? Obviously the latter. So too we must understand the term “three days and three nights” as an expression of a passage of time that spans three days. In this case Friday, Saturday and Sunday. But those days need not be complete days and could be partial days or the part of the day that is actually dark. So the days are 1st day-that last portion of the day on Friday. 2nd day sundown Friday to sundown Saturday and 3rd day-sundown Saturday to anytime on Sunday before sundown. So there you have it.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Maybe, I don’t know. Thanks for sharing. But nowhere in the Catechism, Dei Verbum, or any other Magisterial teaching that addresses the truth, canonicity, and aspotolicity of Scripture does the Church require that Luke getting information from Mary is necessary for the faith.

The sources are not objects of faith. They are background information, just as it literary criticism, historical and linguistic analysis. The points of faith are contained within the scriptures.

The teachings regarding the veracity of the scriptures is not concerned with the sources as much as it is concerned with the message and that the scriptures do reflect the faith of the Church, because that’s why they were put together, to reflect what the Church believed to be Truth and to communicate if to a target audience in a language that the audience would understand. Preserving the Gospel for posterity was not a major concern with the writers, because they believed that Jesus would be back soon. This became a concern with the Church Fathers such as Jerome and others.

Documents such as Dei Verbum or the CCC are not studied at the Pontifical schools of theology. They are taught at lower levels of theology such as seminaries, because they are very basic pieces information. At the Pontifical Universities they are concerned with sources, language, history, Judeo-Christian view of God and man, fluidity, filling in the gaps, Christological message, ecclesiology and theology contained in scriputure. Sacred Scripture is explored from two perspectives: historical background and eschatalogy. You focus on where they came from and what they point to. Obviously, to go from the source to the end, you have to go through everything in between.

Luke’s infancy narratives are examined with a fine tooth comb and when you do it that way, Mary comes up as a high ranking and reliable source. If I’m not mistaken the same approach is also taken at the Gregorian, Holy Cross, Josephinum, and CUA, which have the best schools of Scripture among the Pontifical Universities.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

JReducation
The sources are not objects of faith. They are background information, just as it literary criticism, historical and linguistic analysis. The points of faith are contained within the scriptures.

The teachings regarding the veracity of the scriptures is not concerned with the sources as much as it is concerned with the message and that the scriptures do reflect the faith of the Church, because that’s why they were put together, to reflect what the Church believed to be Truth and to communicate if to a target audience in a language that the audience would understand. Preserving the Gospel for posterity was not a major concern with the writers, because they believed that Jesus would be back soon. This became a concern with the Church Fathers such as Jerome and others.

Documents such as Dei Verbum or the CCC are not studied at the Pontifical schools of theology. They are taught at lower levels of theology such as seminaries, because they are very basic pieces information. At the Pontifical Universities they are concerned with sources, language, history, Judeo-Christian view of God and man, fluidity, filling in the gaps, Christological message, ecclesiology and theology contained in scriputure. Sacred Scripture is explored from two perspectives: historical background and eschatalogy. You focus on where they came from and what they point to. Obviously, to go from the source to the end, you have to go through everything in between.

Luke’s infancy narratives are examined with a fine tooth comb and when you do it that way, Mary comes up as a high ranking and reliable source. If I’m not mistaken the same approach is also taken at the Gregorian, Holy Cross, Josephinum, and CUA, which have the best schools of Scripture among the Pontifical Universities.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Note: Edited at poster’s request.

Who posted this? Br. JR or Thomas Casey? If I want to respond, to whom should I respond?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Who posted this? Br. JR or Thomas Casey? If I want to respond, to whom should I respond?

Reply to JReducation. I was editing the post at the request of the poster. Sorry for the confusion. I should have noted that the post was edited.

FYI: When you post, you if you want to edit, you must make sure that you do so before the time runs out. Otherwise you have to find a moderator to edit for you.

Thomas Casey
Moderator