The Sign of Jonah...HELP!!!

[MountainRecluse]

Hello folks! First thread and post here.

I posted this on another site but never received and answer from a Catholic/Orthodox perspective…It is about the sign of Jonah and how could there have been a Sunday Resurrection if you really analyze Scripture…

I want to hear perspectives (especially from Catholics/Orthodox/etc) about HOW Jesus could have been crucified on a Friday and risen on Sunday…( I have only part of the article here, in quotes and italics with the link at the bottom)

*"WHEN DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD?

The tradition of a Sunday Morning resurrection is very much a part of modern Christianity. Most everyone thinks of a Sunday morning resurrection. After all the Sunrise services seem to imply that this is when Jesus arose from the dead. But Jesus said, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40).” “Three days and three nights” means seventy-two hours. Jesus defined the length of a day in John 11:9. Our Lord said, “Are there not twelve hours in a day?” Well, if there are twelve in a day, then there are twelve hours in a night. And therefore, three days and three nights would be 72 hours.

 If Jesus was placed in the grave at sundown as the Scriptures teach.  See Luke 23:54;  "And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath (Passover Sabbath was Thursday on that week) drew on."  Then His resurrection had to be seventy-two hours later at sundown.  If you accept a Sunday morning resurrection then Christ stayed in the grave for three days and four nights.  Not three days and three nights as Jesus said.

Have you ever wondered how Jesus Christ could be crucified on Friday and be resurrected on Sunday after being buried for three days? Well, that’s impossible! You cannot squeeze three days between Friday and Sunday. By no stretch of the imagination is it possible to stretch the period from Friday evening to Sunday morning into “three days and three nights.”

We believe that Jesus Christ died on a Wednesday. We do not believe that Jesus died on Friday. Let’s turn to Matthew 12:40, and notice Christ’s own prophecy pertaining to His death, burial, and resurrection. “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40).” “Three days and three nights” means seventy-two hours. Jesus defined the length of a day in John 11:9. Our Lord said, “Are there not twelve hours in a day?” Well, if there are twelve hours in a day, then there are twelve hours in a night. And therefore, three days and three nights would be 72 hours. Anything less than 72 hours would not fulfill the prophecy of Jonah or the words of Jesus Christ."*

biblelineministries.org/articles/basearch.php3?action=full&mainkey=WHEN+DID+JESUS+RISE+FROM+THE+DEAD%3F

If this is true, than that means Jesus rose late Saturday night (Sabbath) and the empty tomb discovered early Sunday morning. It would also seem fitting for Him to rise on the actual Sabbath considering he is the “Lord of the Sabbath”…

What have you guys got? I’m hoping I get a response here! Thanks!

 

[po18guy]

Welcome to the forums!

In ancient Judah, any given part of a day was counted as a day. For example, the last half hour of Monday and the first three hours of Tuesday would be counted as two days, since whatever is being talked about actually occurred on (parts of) two separate days. Thus, Jesus death on Friday is one day, his remaining in the tomb Saturday is the second day, and His resurrection early on Sunday is the third day. Also, Jewish time was (still is) from sunset to sunset. Thus, something that happens Friday afternoon at 3PM and stops six hours later (after sunset) is counted as occurring on two days. We see from Genesis that “evening and morning” made a day - but also that the day began with the evening, or darkness. Only in modern times do we think that the day begins at midnight, or in the morning at sunup.

Someone at Calvary Church is privately interpreting scripture without the proper context. The book of Acts is quite clear that the Apostles met on the first day of the week - Sunday. It is clear that the tomb was found empty early in the morning on the first day of the week - Sunday. Thus, Jesus, the “Lord of the Sabbath” had, via His Holy Spirit inspiring the Apostles, instituted the “Lord’s Day” of Sunday - not to replace the Sabbath, but to fulfill it with the new and everlasting Covenant. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches, being Apostolic, meet on Sunday, just as the Apostles did.

You may also want to read the appropriate sections of the catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the Resurrection CCC 638 - CCC 658, available here.

I hope this helps.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

You also need to take into account the Jewish authorities did not want to be contaminated on the Sabbath, which is Saturday in our parlance. Since the next day was the Sabbath, Christ was clearly crucified on Friday. Hence their anxiety that the bodies should be taken down and disposed of before the Sabbath began at 6pm on Friday night.

In addition it was the Passover Sabbath, which was, and no doubt still is, highly important in Jewish religious ritual.

This meant a full moon, and therefore the darkness of the sun could not have been a solar eclipse, since the moon would have been on the wrong side of the earth. There are a couple of third hand references of ancient historians noting the “darkness of the sun” during the reign of Tiberius, who was emperor when Christ was crucified.

You’d be better to believe what the Scriptures say themselves, while taking into account colloquial terminology of the time, rather than listening to somebody else pushing their private theological barrow.

 

[MountainRecluse]

Thanks for the responses! I will be looking further into this…

 

[Barbkw]

Apostolic Tradition (Jewish lunar calendar days beginning and ending in the evening) is also why Catholics can celebrate Saturday evening Mass.

Jesus died at 3 p.m. on Good Friday (Day 1), He was entombed into the late hours on Good Friday and Holy Saturday day (Day 2), and then Resurrected on Easter Sunday early in the morning (Day 3).

 

[Barbkw]

This meant a full moon, and therefore the darkness of the sun could not have been a solar eclipse, since the moon would have been on the wrong side of the earth. There are a couple of third hand references of ancient historians noting the “darkness of the sun” during the reign of Tiberius, who was emperor when Christ was crucified.

Bob,

TBN (Dish Channel 260) has a reshowing of “Bethlehem Star” early in the morning either this Sunday or Monday 12:30 a.m. tbn.org/index.php/2/4/p/1131.html

Larson explains the rising of the blood moon in more detail on the Bethlehem Star website: bethlehemstar.net/day/day.htm

Larson uses a NASA space computer program to reorient the sky to show the lunar eclipse and the constellation Virgo.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I lifted this from another site. However another reason is that the darkness lasted for a long time, far longer than any eclipse could have done.

creation.com/darkness-at-the-crucifixion-metaphor-or-real-history

"Thallus wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trojan War. Thallus wrote his regional history in about AD 52.6 Although his original writings have been lost, he is specifically quoted by Julius Africanus, a renowned third century historian. Africanus states, ‘Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun—unreasonably as it seems to me.’ Apparently, Thallus attempted to ascribe a naturalistic explanation to the darkness during the crucifixion.

Phlegon was a Greek historian who wrote an extensive chronology around AD 137:

In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., AD 33) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day * so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.’7

Phlegon provides powerful confirmation of the gospel accounts. He identifies the year and the exact time of day. In addition, he writes of an earthquake accompanying the darkness, which is specifically recorded in Matthew’s Gospel (Matthew 27:51). However, like Thallus, he fallaciously attempts to interpret the darkness as a direct effect of a solar eclipse.

Africanus composed a five volume History of the World around AD 221. He was also a pagan convert to Christianity. His historical scholarship so impressed Roman Emperor Alexander Severus that Africanus was entrusted with the official responsibility of building the Emperor’s library at the Pantheon in Rome. Africanus writes:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others a portent only to the eye. Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth—manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period.8

Local or global?

Many have pondered whether or not the darkness was a regional or global phenomenon. A vast majority of biblical translations records that the darkness was ‘over the land’, ‘over all the land’, or ‘over the whole land’. However, some translations of Luke’s account state the darkness was ‘over all the earth’ or ‘over the whole earth’.

“ What we do have is a plethora of extremely early, historically reliable, and highly respected sources for the darkness during the crucifixion. ”

The Greek has the usual word for earth, gē,9 here, from which we derive ‘geology’. The language of most translations appears to strongly suggest that the darkness was a local or regional phenomenon, which is a possible rendition in some contexts. All the same, if it was regional, it was over an extensive region. Dr Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, notes ‘This phenomenon, evidently, was visible in Rome, Athens, and other Mediterranean cities.’7

On the other hand, Africanus writes of the darkness as a global event. Tertullian, the famous second century apologist, also hails the darkness as a ‘cosmic’ or ‘world event’. Appealing to skeptics, he wrote:

At the moment of Christ’s death, the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noonday, which wonder is related in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day.10

Apparently, Tertullian could state with confidence that documentation of the darkness could be found in legitimate historical archives.

Many skeptics ask why John’s Gospel does not mention the darkness at the crucifixion. Simon Greenleaf, of Harvard Law School, said it best about the gospels:

There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they were all independent narrators of the same great transaction.11

In other words, independent narrators will sometimes record different secondary details about the same exact event.

Many skeptics also ask why other early historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger fail to mention the darkness. But the skeptics are committing the fallacy of arguing from silence. It is unreasonable to expect every contemporary writer to include every event that happened—and there are good reasons not to expect these specific authors to mention the darkess (see Thallus: Darkness Rules). What we do have is a plethora of extremely early, historically reliable, and highly respected sources for the darkness during the crucifixion. The list of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Thallus, Phlegon, Africanus, and Tertullian is impressive indeed!"*

 

[Mailman]

You also need to take into account the Jewish authorities did not want to be contaminated on the Sabbath, which is Saturday in our parlance. Since the next day was the Sabbath, Christ was clearly crucified on Friday. Hence their anxiety that the bodies should be taken down and disposed of before the Sabbath began at 6pm on Friday night…

The next day was a Sabbath. But was it the seventh day Sabbath, thus putting the crucifixion day on Friday?

According to the apostle John, that Sabbath was not just any ordinary Sabbath day, “For that Sabbath day was an high day” (John 19:31).

For a Jew, a “high day” is an annual holy day or feast day. The Israelites observed seven of these every year, every one called a Sabbath. Notice in the following texts all these annual holy days were all called Sabbath days: Leviticus 16:31; 23:24, 26-32, 39.

The crucifixion happened on Passover day (John 19:14). The day following the Passover is a feast day – an annual holy day – a high Sabbath. Notice Numbers 28:16-18: “And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the Passover of the LORD. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the FEAST. In the first day [the fifteenth] shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work therein.”

Christ was not crucified on the feast day, but the day before, which was the Passover. “But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people” (Matt. 26:5; Mark 14:2).

It was not the seventh day Sabbath that followed the crucifixion but an annual “high day” Sabbath which could fall on any day of the week.

 

[Mailman]

Apostolic Tradition (Jewish lunar calendar days beginning and ending in the evening) is also why Catholics can celebrate Saturday evening Mass.

Jesus died at 3 p.m. on Good Friday (Day 1), He was entombed into the late hours on Good Friday and Holy Saturday day (Day 2), and then Resurrected on Easter Sunday early in the morning (Day 3).

Jesus did not just say “in three days I will rise again” giving us some room to explain away the inconsistency with parts of days being taken as one whole day. He said [on that quote in Matthew 12:40] He will be entombed for “three days and three nights” before rising back to life.

Jesus compared His length of stay in the grave to the length of time Jonas remained in the fish’s belly before being vomited out. If Jesus indeed was entombed near sunset Friday and rose Sunday morning, then Jonas was not inside the fish for three days and three nights as the Scriptures say, but only half that time. The Scriptures therefore erred in its testimony of the prophet Jonas. Is that possible?

 

[NHInsider]

This subject has been beaten to death more than once in these forums. It’s a fairly pointless argument. The preachers and organizations that promote the “Jesus couldn’t have been crucified on Friday” are doing so because they believe that the Church is wrong. Most believe the Church is wrong about many things. Wrong to have transferred the Sabbath observance to Sunday, for example, or wrong to commemorate the crucifixion on Friday. Mailman laid out his arguments “proving” that the crucifixion took place on a Wednesday last spring (or maybe 2 springs ago, I don’t remember) so this inquiry is a great opportunity for him to spin the web again.

It’s all about undermining the credibilility and authority of the Church - ironically based on various interpretations of the New Testament, which has NO credibility or authority at all except as it has been established by the Church they despise.

 

[po18guy]

This subject has been beaten to death more than once in these forums. It’s a fairly pointless argument. The preachers and organizations that promote the “Jesus couldn’t have been crucified on Friday” are doing so because they believe that the Church is wrong. Most believe the Church is wrong about many things. Wrong to have transferred the Sabbath observance to Sunday, for example, or wrong to commemorate the crucifixion on Friday. Mailman laid out his arguments “proving” that the crucifixion took place on a Wednesday last spring (or maybe 2 springs ago, I don’t remember) so this inquiry is a great opportunity for him to spin the web again.

It’s all about undermining the credibilility and authority of the Church - ironically based on various interpretations of the New Testament, which has NO credibility or authority at all except as it has been established by the Church they despise.

This subject comes up time and again, but is worth revisiting simply because a new poster inquires about it. Scripture states clearly and directly that:

1. The tomb was empty on the first day of the week.
2. The Apostles began meeting on the first day of the week.
3. Sunday is the first day of the week.

Done.

It is only the SDAdventists and SDBaptists (fringe sects who disagree with one another on many other precepts) who oppose the rest of Christianity - Catholic, Orthodox and protestant - on this “issue”.

 

[MountainRecluse]

This subject has been beaten to death more than once in these forums. It’s a fairly pointless argument. The preachers and organizations that promote the “Jesus couldn’t have been crucified on Friday” are doing so because they believe that the Church is wrong. Most believe the Church is wrong about many things. Wrong to have transferred the Sabbath observance to Sunday, for example, or wrong to commemorate the crucifixion on Friday. Mailman laid out his arguments “proving” that the crucifixion took place on a Wednesday last spring (or maybe 2 springs ago, I don’t remember) so this inquiry is a great opportunity for him to spin the web again.

It’s all about undermining the credibilility and authority of the Church - ironically based on various interpretations of the New Testament, which has NO credibility or authority at all except as it has been established by the Church they despise.

I was born and raised in the RCC myself. I harbor no ill will against the church and definitely do not “despise” it!..

I apologize for wasting the bandwith with my silly, honest questions into this topic. Lesson learned.

 

[MountainRecluse]

This subject has been beaten to death more than once in these forums. It’s a fairly pointless argument. The preachers and organizations that promote the “Jesus couldn’t have been crucified on Friday” are doing so because they believe that the Church is wrong. Most believe the Church is wrong about many things. Wrong to have transferred the Sabbath observance to Sunday, for example, or wrong to commemorate the crucifixion on Friday. Mailman laid out his arguments “proving” that the crucifixion took place on a Wednesday last spring (or maybe 2 springs ago, I don’t remember) so this inquiry is a great opportunity for him to spin the web again.

It’s all about undermining the credibilility and authority of the Church - ironically based on various interpretations of the New Testament, which has NO credibility or authority at all except as it has been established by the Church they despise.

That wasn’t my intention here. I am sorry you feel that way.

 

[NHInsider]

That wasn’t my intention here. I am sorry you feel that way.

Sorry, I didn’t mean you, I meant whoever wrote the article you read/quoted. Asking questions like yours is exactly what these forums are for!

 

[Greg57]

The Jewish understanding of ‘days’ and ‘nights’ at the time was different than what we understand now. The days were divided into quarters, from what I understand. If Jesus was crucified before the Sabbath on a Friday, then they took Him off the Cross before the sun set, which would begin the Sabbath. So, the day Jesus died was the ‘first’ day. The next ‘day’, Saturday, was the Sabbath. The third day, was the first day of the week, Sunday, the Lord’s Day.

 

[MountainRecluse]

The next day was a Sabbath. But was it the seventh day Sabbath, thus putting the crucifixion day on Friday?

According to the apostle John, that Sabbath was not just any ordinary Sabbath day, “For that Sabbath day was an high day” (John 19:31).

For a Jew, a “high day” is an annual holy day or feast day. The Israelites observed seven of these every year, every one called a Sabbath. Notice in the following texts all these annual holy days were all called Sabbath days: Leviticus 16:31; 23:24, 26-32, 39.

The crucifixion happened on Passover day (John 19:14). The day following the Passover is a feast day – an annual holy day – a high Sabbath. Notice Numbers 28:16-18: “And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the Passover of the LORD. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the FEAST. In the first day [the fifteenth] shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work therein.”

Christ was not crucified on the feast day, but the day before, which was the Passover. “But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people” (Matt. 26:5; Mark 14:2).

It was not the seventh day Sabbath that followed the crucifixion but an annual “high day” Sabbath which could fall on any day of the week.

This is precisely the issue I was trying to get at.

 

[MountainRecluse]

Jesus did not just say “in three days I will rise again” giving us some room to explain away the inconsistency with parts of days being taken as one whole day. He said [on that quote in Matthew 12:40] He will be entombed for “three days and three nights” before rising back to life.

Jesus compared His length of stay in the grave to the length of time Jonas remained in the fish’s belly before being vomited out. If Jesus indeed was entombed near sunset Friday and rose Sunday morning, then Jonas was not inside the fish for three days and three nights as the Scriptures say, but only half that time. The Scriptures therefore erred in its testimony of the prophet Jonas. Is that possible?

“Three days and three nights” is pretty specific…

 

[po18guy]

“Three days and three nights” is pretty specific…

Consider: Upon reaching the garden, Jesus told the Apostles that His Soul was grieved “to the point of death”. Just as Jesus used this phrase (Matthew 26:38, Mark 14:34), Jonah also used it (Jonah 2:5). Christ’s atonement began in the garden the night before He died - as He was in His agony. So, looking at it this way, we are talking early Friday morning,to early Sunday morning - still three days in the Hebrew mind. Are we trying to apply mathematical precision to the principle of God’s word? This is one of man’s worst errors - applying human meaning to the Divine. I don’t know what the postal worker is trying to accomplish here, unless he is Mormon and attempting to show the total apostasy of the Church. Good luck to him, as he will be fighting against God Himself on such an issue. Is he seeking understanding before he will have faith? So did the Pharisees.

 

[Mailman]

The Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign – a supernatural evidence – in proof of His Messiahship. Jesus expressly declared that the only sign He would give to prove He was the Messiah was that He should be just three days and three nights in the tomb.

Stop and think for a moment what that means. Consider the tremendous import – the overwhelming significance – of Jesus’ statement. Jesus staked His claim to being your Savior and mine upon that only sign! If He remained just three days and three nights inside the earth, He would prove Himself the Savior – if He failed in this sign, He must be rejected as an impostor!

It is a fact that no one witnessed the resurrection. When the women arrived at the tomb, Jesus was already resurrected. “He is not here: for he is risen, as he said” (Matt. 28:6; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:6). Any thinking person can see that the tomb being found empty on Sunday morning says nothing of the time of the resurrection.

How about the apostles’ meeting on the first day of the week, does it say anything about when the resurrection happened? Let’s check and find out.

John 20:19 “Then the same day at evening, being the first [day] of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you.”

This happened on the same day the tomb was found empty and the resurrected Christ first showed Himself. But why were the disciples assembled that evening? It says, “… for fear of the Jews.”

Act 20:7 “And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”

Here is a religious assembly on the first day of the week. But does it say they assembled because the resurrection happened on Sunday? It does not. And this is not even a Sunday meeting. This is the time of day we call Saturday night! Paul must have been preaching all day Saturday and this account mentions the time when they took a break to take their evening meal – “break bread” – before Paul resumed preaching. And notice it, Paul stopped at midnight (obviously to get some sleep) to depart the next day, Sunday morning. Paul indulged in the labor of walking 20 miles from Troas to Assos on Sunday while his companions engaged in the labor of rowing and sailing a boat for 60 miles. Why? Because Sunday was a regular working day for them!

Now, here’s the last text in the bible where we find the assembling on the first day of the week.

1Co 16:2 “Upon the first [day] of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as [God] hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”

Paul here instructs the brethren to gather fruit on the first day of the week. Why? Again, because the first day of the week is, for a Christian, one of the days where he may labor and do all his work.

 

[NHInsider]

Act 20:7 “And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”

Here is a religious assembly on the first day of the week. But does it say they assembled because the resurrection happened on Sunday? It does not. And this is not even a Sunday meeting. This is the time of day we call Saturday night! Paul must have been preaching all day Saturday and this account mentions the time when they took a break to take their evening meal – “break bread” – before Paul resumed preaching. And notice it, Paul stopped at midnight (obviously to get some sleep) to depart the next day, Sunday morning.

1. “the Breaking of Bread” refers to the Eucharist. I know that there are anti-sacramentalists who disagree with this, but they are, frankly, wrong.
2. How you get from the text you quote to the conclusion that Paul preached all day Saturday until midnight is – puzzling. The plain statement of the text is that they came together “on the first day of the week” and he preached until midnight.

Now, here’s the last text in the bible where we find the assembling on the first day of the week.

1Co 16:2 “Upon the first [day] of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as [God] hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”

Paul here instructs the brethren to gather fruit on the first day of the week. Why? Again, because the first day of the week is, for a Christian, one of the days where he may labor and do all his work.

No, he instructs them to put into the collection (at their regular weekly gathering) for the suffering Church at Jerusalem whatever they can, based on their means, so that he will not need to take up a “special collection” when he visits. He wants them to give out of their charity, not in response to influence of the visiting Apostle. Again, you are seeing in the text meanings that support the conclusion you have already drawn. What possible reason could there be for Paul to instruct them to gather fruit on the first day of the week and not any other (non-sabbath) day?

While we’re looking at Scriptural texts, what do you make of the fact that EVERY post-resurrection appearance of Jesus for which a day is given occurs on the first day of the week? And what is the significance of the Revelation to John, which takes place “on the Lord’s Day?” Is there any evidence that the Jews referred to the Sabbath as “the Lord’s Day?”