**This 2000 years old shroud proves only one thing: That Jesus was shrouded with. That’s all. It is no proof that he died and much less that he resurrected.As i alluded to, if the shroud is 2000 years old, it’s corroboration with John’s gospel proves John’s gospel is based at least in part, from eye witness testimony. That much is obvious.
If the shroud is 2000 years old, its corroboration with John’s gospel is as close as any one could reasonably ask for, to show that the shroud belongs to Jesus.
If the shroud is 2000 years old and medical experts today say that the man in the shroud is most certainly dead, then YOUR VERY INDIVIDUAL IDEA WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER is proved wrong beyond all reasonable doubt.
I’m not saying the shroud is 2000 years old, but if it is, your story falls down and you will have to invent another one. The shroud most certainly matters. Ponder !
**If what I say is a lie, obviously I am a liar. Now, are you going to tell me that this is not an ad hominem? And rather from Adrift, who taught me about ad hominems? Oddy!This is what you want to see but it is not true. It is a lie. The one using this is a translator of the Gospel writers not the writers themselves. I have pointed out numerous times that other translators in other languages have a different translation. In the Polish translation, it reads He is risen. The blunder is continually repeating a lie.
Lapell;5477908:
You want a material proof, Ben? That would be more like Communist, not simply Jewish!You didn’t answer my question: What is the part of the third night?
But still, I will tell you this: whether Jesus was risen or raised, if the One True God iHimself is said to observe the Sabbath, why should Jesus be raised before the beginning of the third day, which was then the 1st day of the week? If God had raised Jesus (or Jesus claiming to be God Himself were risen) before the end of the 2nd, He would have broken His own commandment on observing the Sabbath. And Jesus indeed fulfilled the word “And on Sabbath Day God rested of all the works that He had done”…
Ben Masada;5477974:
**Sorry Lapell, but you still haven’t answered my question. Matthew speaks of three days and three nights and I can’t figure where to find the third night. If you can’t find it, ask for help or I will take Matthew 12:40 as one of the contradictions of the NT. **You want a material proof, Ben? That would be more like Communist, not simply Jewish!
But still, I will tell you this: whether Jesus was risen or raised, if the One True God iHimself is said to observe the Sabbath, why should Jesus be raised before the beginning of the third day, which was then the 1st day of the week? If God had raised Jesus (or Jesus claiming to be God Himself were risen) before the end of the 2nd, He would have broken His own commandment on observing the Sabbath. And Jesus indeed fulfilled the word “And on Sabbath Day God rested of all the works that He had done”…
Well Ben, it is not an ad hominem attack. I was not addressing your character but what you said. I didn’t say you were stupid to present such nonsense that would be an ad hominem attack. What I addressed was what you wrote not your character.**If what I say is a lie, obviously I am a liar. Now, are you going to tell me that this is not an ad hominem? And rather from Adrift, who taught me about ad hominems? Oddy!
I do remember what you have said in other posts about translations. The translator of my Catholic version of the Bible was or is a Catholic. How come he translated whatever was in there into “being raised” and not “risen?” I think he knew a little better than you and I.**
Everything is all right Adrift. I understand your reply. Looking forward to your return. Good luck!Well Ben, it is not an ad hominem attack. I was not addressing your character but what you said. I didn’t say you were stupid to present such nonsense that would be an ad hominem attack. What I addressed was what you wrote not your character.
You stated that this is what the authors of the Gospels wrote. It was not. It was a translation. I have presented other translators who translated it differently. They certainly know what they are doing and you are right better than you and I.
After tonight I will not be on the internet for sometime. I suppose when I return I will have more to say to you but until then best wishes.
Lapell;5493331:
Well, are the three days and three nights of Jonah in the fish so strictly back then? My understanding of this is that to Jews who believe in a resurrection, or so our class was told in a Bible study led by a priest, there Biblically can’t be a resurrection otherwise than on a third day. And the reference to the three days, three nights in the Prophet Jonah was, I think, the only reference about something symbolizing a resurrection which would not be a reanimation like Elisha and Elijah performed in 1 Kings and 2 Kings…**Sorry Lapell, but you still haven’t answered my question. Matthew speaks of three days and three nights and I can’t figure where to find the third night. If you can’t find it, ask for help or I will take Matthew 12:40 as one of the contradictions of the NT. **
Moreover, Jesus mentions about the Son of Man who shall be in the belly of the earth three days and three nights only once according to Matthew. To me, the main thing is that the Resurrection, Jesus’, happened on the 3rd day according to all 4 Gospels.
You go by Scripture alone when the Jewish community preceeded the TaNaKH…
Ben Masada;5496690:
Of course, if there are other references in the TaNaKH about being back to life otherwise than from reanimation, I count on you to bring it to our attention, Ben.Well, are the three days and three nights of Jonah in the fish so strictly back then? My understanding of this is that to Jews who believe in a resurrection, or so our class was told in a Bible study led by a priest, there Biblically can’t be a resurrection otherwise than on a third day. And the reference to the three days, three nights in the Prophet Jonah was, I think, the only reference about something symbolizing a resurrection which would not be a reanimation like Elisha and Elijah performed in 1 Kings and 2 Kings…
Moreover, Jesus mentions about the Son of Man who shall be in the belly of the earth three days and three nights only once according to Matthew. To me, the main thing is that the Resurrection, Jesus’, happened on the 3rd day according to all 4 Gospels.
You go by Scripture alone when the Jewish community preceeded the TaNaKH…
Ben Masada;5496690:
Forget Jonas and stick to Matthew 12;40. This guy said “three days and three nights.” Why don’t you admit that he made a mistake? And this is a small one. There are others so much more disturbing, that it is an embarrassment even to mention.Well, are the three days and three nights of Jonah in the fish so strictly back then? My understanding of this is that to Jews who believe in a resurrection, or so our class was told in a Bible study led by a priest, there Biblically can’t be a resurrection otherwise than on a third day. And the reference to the three days, three nights in the Prophet Jonah was, I think, the only reference about something symbolizing a resurrection which would not be a reanimation like Elisha and Elijah performed in 1 Kings and 2 Kings…
Moreover, Jesus mentions about the Son of Man who shall be in the belly of the earth three days and three nights only once according to Matthew. To me, the main thing is that the Resurrection, Jesus’, happened on the 3rd day according to all 4 Gospels.
You go by Scripture alone when the Jewish community preceeded the TaNaKH…
**It means you want me to forget the blunder of Matthew?You actually act like some Protestants do toward our Catholic teaching, Ben. Better to love the Lord your God with your whole heart, soul, strength and love your neighbour as you love yourself (and to love yourself as much as God loves you, of course)…
Lapell;5540074:
Christ spoke in parables. He used the MYTHOLOGICAL story of Jonah, which by the way, was included in your Jewish Scriptures even though it was a fable from start to finish (so how much credence should we give the Jewish Scriptures in the first place?), to illustrate the fact that He Himself would be entombed for a period of time. If He chose to use typical expressions of the day to illustrate his point, then that was His decision. If we count Friday as day number one, he rose on day number three, and as far as I’m aware, that’s how the ancient Jews would have recognised the numbering.Forget Jonas and stick to Matthew 12;40. This guy said “three days and three nights.” Why don’t you admit that he made a mistake? And this is a small one. There are others so much more disturbing, that it is an embarrassment even to mention.
If He hadn’t risen, the ancient Jewish authorities and scribes would not have been in such a tizz to work out ways to cover it up.
What you’re trying to do is to use an analogical reference to a mythological story to legalistically prove Matthew, or the writer of Matthew, was incorrect. Christ died on Friday, and rose on Sunday, and the Church has generally worshipped on Sunday, the first day of the week, ever since.
If you want to disregard Christ simply because He used an expression 2000 years ago that doesn’t line up with your 20th century culture, that’s your decision.
Hi Ben,**It means you want me to forget the blunder of Matthew?
No problem. For the sake of love to my neighbour, I apologize and promise not to touch this subject anymore. **
Ben Masada;5542794:
If you think I am going to leave this contradiction of the NT alone by accusing the Tanach for reporting the case of Jonas, you are mistaken. We Jews are a little more intelligent than you think to get upset at your Jonny-come-lately discovery that the book of Jonas is a parable. All that story of Jonas happened during a vision of the Prophet. Everything is possible in a vision or dream. That’s why I told Lapell to forget about Jonas and explain the blunder of Matthew 12:40 to specify three days and three nights within 24 hours.Christ spoke in parables. He used the MYTHOLOGICAL story of Jonah, which by the way, was included in your Jewish Scriptures even though it was a fable from start to finish (so how much credence should we give the Jewish Scriptures in the first place?), to illustrate the fact that He Himself would be entombed for a period of time. If He chose to use typical expressions of the day to illustrate his point, then that was His decision. If we count Friday as day number one, he rose on day number three, and as far as I’m aware, that’s how the ancient Jews would have recognised the numbering.
If He hadn’t risen, the ancient Jewish authorities and scribes would not have been in such a tizz to work out ways to cover it up.
What you’re trying to do is to use an analogical reference to a mythological story to legalistically prove Matthew, or the writer of Matthew, was incorrect. Christ died on Friday, and rose on Sunday, and the Church has generally worshipped on Sunday, the first day of the week, ever since.
If you want to disregard Christ simply because He used an expression 2000 years ago that doesn’t line up with your 20th century culture, that’s your decision.
While you are away, try to find the third night or part of it. I am all ears.Hi Ben,
There was no blunder what you need to forget is your bad translation. I will be back in a few weeks to see your answer.
Adrift
Bob Crowley;5542807:
The context of the passage refers to the demand by the Scribes and Pharisees who demanded a sign. Christ replied that only an evil generation demands a sign, and that the only sign it would be given was His death and resurrection, of which the episode of Jonah was a type. I doubt if the people of the time would have been so interested in a literal 3 days and 3 nights - they’d have realised that was not the thrust of the message.If you think I am going to leave this contradiction of the NT alone by accusing the Tanach for reporting the case of Jonas, you are mistaken. We Jews are a little more intelligent than you think to get upset at your Jonny-come-lately discovery that the book of Jonas is a parable. All that story of Jonas happened during a vision of the Prophet. Everything is possible in a vision or dream. That’s why I told Lapell to forget about Jonas and explain the blunder of Matthew 12:40 to specify three days and three nights within 24 hours.
But you’re so legalistic with your 20th century mindset, I doubt whether you’d be able to accept the thrust of the message, which was not a literal 3 days and 3 nights, any more than the oft repeated “40 days” in the Jewish Scriptures always meant a literal 40 days.
From the Collegeville Bible Commentary (Catholic)
(Matthew) “12:38-42 The sign of Jonah (see Luke 11:29-32). Despite the miracles that Jesus had already worked, the scribes and Pharisees ask for more signs. The exasperated Jesus promises them only the sign of Jonah. The basic meaning of the sign of Jonah seems to involve the preaching of repentance to non-Jews and its acceptance by them. When the Old Testament prophet Jonah preached conversion of heart to the people of Nineveh, they acted on Jonah’s preaching and repented (v.41) The queen of Sheba came to Jerusalem to hear the wisdom of Solomon (see 1 Kgs 10:1-6), and she was duly impressed by him (v. 42). Jesus surpasses Jonah and Solomon and so the scribes and Pharisees have good reason to repent. In verse 40, Matthew has given a second interpretation of the sign of Johah: The three days spent by the prophet Jonah inside the fish (see Jonah 2) were a type of foreshadowing of Jesus’ death and his resurrection.”
It’s an illustration by “type” which is how Scripture should be taught.
Secondly we don’t know what the 3 days of Jonah were either. They could well have been Friday to Sunday.
Bob Crowley;5542807:
Hold it, Ben. I am not quite done about Mt 12, 40! And why should I forget Jonas as you ask me to elsewhere. No way, and I’ll show you why…If you think I am going to leave this contradiction of the NT alone by accusing the Tanach for reporting the case of Jonas, you are mistaken. We Jews are a little more intelligent than you think to get upset at your Jonny-come-lately discovery that the book of Jonas is a parable. All that story of Jonas happened during a vision of the Prophet. Everything is possible in a vision or dream. That’s why I told Lapell to forget about Jonas and explain the blunder of Matthew 12:40 to specify three days and three nights within 24 hours.