Conference yukon::christian_v7

    I've seen this adequately explained by biblical exegesis in notes from
    Irena Pulkstenis in one of the prior archived Christian notes
    conferences.
    
    No further comment do I expect to make at this time...

        Let me explain a bit.  The questions I've posted in 382 and 383 are
        questions I've recently had put to me.  I am ashamed that I was
        unable to address them.  I will be submitting them to serious
        study, that I may show myself approved next time I am confronted
        with these questions.  I'm just looking to this conference for a
        little help, not trying to open a bag of worms.  
	
	Regards,
		Tony
		

Friday is the first day, Saturday is the second day, and Sunday is the third
day.

/john

John's explanation is also the way I understand it (thanks John).

							Andrew

    The prophecy given by Jesus is that he would raise ON the third day,
    not after three days.

    Jim

I believe it has to do with how they reckoned days, as mentioned in .5.  In
our culture and language we would say "after one day" meaning after 24 hours
had elapsed.  In the culture and language of Jesus' day, "the second day"
meant "tomorrow".  So "the third day" means the day after tomorrow.

Or using mathematic terms, the Jews used 1-based counting starting with the
current day, and we use 0-based counting starting with the current day.

Paul

.5

>    The prophecy given by Jesus is that he would raise ON the third day,
>    not after three days.
>
>    Jim

Correct.  Here are the pertinent verses:

Jesus speaks:

Matthew 16:21  From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples,
how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and
chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Matthew 17:23  And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised
again. And they were exceeding sorry.

Matthew 20:19  And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge,
and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

Mark 9:31  For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is
delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is
killed, he shall rise the third day.

Mark 10:34  And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit
upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.

Luke 9:22  Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of
the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the
third day.

Luke 18:33  And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third
day he shall rise again.

Luke 24:7  Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful
men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

(The following was said by two disciples walking to Emmaus.)
Luke 24:21  But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed
Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were
done.

Luke 24:46  And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ
to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

From Acts and 1 Corinthians:

Acts 10:40  Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

1Corinthians 15:4  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third
day according to the scriptures:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 12:40 and Mark 8:31 shows the phrase "after three days".

Matthew 12:40  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.

Mark 8:31  And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many
things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes,
and be killed, and after three days rise again.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pharisees speak:

Matthew 27:63  Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was
yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, so what we have is a whole bunch of verses where Jesus says the
"third" day, two verses where Jesus says "three days" and one verse
where his enemies say "three days"  Without digging into the greek on
all the verses (I did look up "third" and it means third (not three);
(I suspect "three" means three), what we have is language to be understood
in context.

If you wanted to pick at the language, then Jesus would have to have
risen on the fourth day which is "after three days."  However, the
preponderance of Jesus' teaching on this matter is recorded as him
saying he would rise on the "third" day, which GIVES CONTEXT TO THE
MEANING 
of "after three days."

This is one of the tactics of those who oppose Christianity (whether 
they call themselves [pseudo-]Christians or not) to undermine the
authority of the Bible.  However, present them with this evidence
and they remain as unconvinced as ever - you having done the digging,
which strengthens your faith but hardens their hearts - them not doing
any searching on their own for the truth of the matter.  Hebrews 11:6
says that "God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."  When
you get challenges like this, ask them if they have diligently sought
the truth in the matter and if they did a search, would they even be
willing to allow the truth to change them.

Mark

    The expression "three days and three nights" is a Hebrew idiom that is
    understood to cover three days/nights, but it is understood that any
    part of a day/night is counted as a whole day/night.
    
    I understand that the Talmud (or Mishnah?) clarifies this (although I
    don't have copies myself), but we can infer this definition from the
    Bible itself. In 1 Sam. 30:11-13 we read part of a story where a man
    was left sick for "three days and three nights", and yet when he
    related the story to David he said it started "three days ago".
    
    Jim also reminded us that Jesus was using that idiom. Whereas He said
    that as Jonah was "three days and three nights" in the belly of the
    fish... (Matt. 12:40), He also said (just a few chapters later, et al.)
    that on "the third day He will be raised up" (Matt. 17:23).
    
    So, given that the Jews were counting a day from sunset to sunset, and
    that Jesus died before 6pm Friday and was raised around dawn on Sunday,
    it looks like this:
    
    	Fri before 6pm		- part of Thursday/Friday: Day 1
    	Fri from 6pm to Sat 6pm	- Friday/Saturday: Day 2
    	Sat 6pm to dawn Sunday	- Saturday/Sunday: Day 3
    
    	BD�

In case you don't skim through 97 lines:

This is one of the tactics of those who oppose Christianity (whether 
they call themselves [pseudo-]Christians or not) to undermine the
authority of the Bible.  However, present them with this evidence
and they remain as unconvinced as ever - you having done the digging,
which strengthens your faith but hardens their hearts - them not doing
any searching on their own for the truth of the matter.  Hebrews 11:6
says that "God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."  When
you get challenges like this, ask them if they have diligently sought
the truth in the matter and if they did a search, would they even be
willing to allow the truth to change them.

Mark

    The problem is in the translation. In Matt. 28 as well as in one other
    place, it is in the Greek 'Sabbaths', not 'Sabbath'. The King James
    version says,
    
    'In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first of the
    week, came Mary Magdalene...'
    
    In Greek, it is 'In the end of the sabbaths', the plural is used rather
    than the single. (I am no greek scholar. This I have heard from an
    English Vicar who knows more) Passover is a HIGH SABBATH. The same
    plural tense is used in Col.2:16 (also shown as singular in the KJV)
    
    Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of
    an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days'
    
    In KJV, days is italicized, showing that it doesn't exist in the greek.
    But unfortunately, they have again showed sabbath as singular. In
    the King James version there are often reference to 'sabbath days',
    meaning the days which are to be regarded as sabbaths.
    
    In Mark 15:42 it states:
    
    'And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that
    is, the day before the sabbath.'
    
    This shows clearly that the passover was referred to as the sabbath.
    
    In Luke 23:54 it saws the same,
    
    And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
    
    Again, the preparation was always the day before the passover. It could
    fall on any day of the week, but the day after the preparation,
    passover, is always referred to as 'the sabbath'.
    
    Even clearer it is in Joh.19:31
    The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies
    should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath
    day was an high day,)...
    
    The Jews differentiated different sabbath days. The passover is an high
    sabbath.
    
    In Leviticus 16:31 it states:
    It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you. (The atonement day)
    
    In Lev.23:16
    Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath
    Lev.23:32
    It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: 
    in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye 
    celebrate your sabbath.
    
    The plural form, sabbaths, I believe, refer to the special feast days
    as well. In Isa.56:4:
    For thus saith the lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths,
    and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
    
    If you wish to have more, let me know.
    
    In Luke 24 as they were on their way to Emmaus, the 2 disciples were
    talking to Jesus unknowingly, and stated that:
    :13
    And, behold, two of them went that same day (24:1 first of the week)
    to a village called Emmaus...
    :21
    But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel:
    and beside all this, today is the third day since these things were
    done.
    
    Jesus was NOT crucified on friday, but thursday. Thursday was the
    preparation and Friday the Passover(Sabbath) and Saturday the Second
    Passover Sabbath AND the weekly Sabbath. He rose on the third day.
    
    Thurs Night
    Fri Day
    Fri Night
    Sat Day
    Sat Night
    Sun Day (Rose Again)
    
    3 Days and 3 Nights
    
    
    Your brother in Christ
    
    
    
    Rodger Dusatko     
    
    
    In the old testament it was the same: 
    

>    Jesus was NOT crucified on friday, but thursday. 

Well, that's certainly a unique view.

        Thank you all for your considered replies to my questions.  The
        individuals who presented these challenges to me are, from what I
        can tell, very well studied beleivers.  Of late, I have been
        extremely busy here at work, putting in many hours, so I have had
        precious little time for the kind of soul-searching, Spirit-guided
        study demanded by challenges such as these.  

	Tony
	

>    The prophecy given by Jesus is that he would raise ON the third day,
>    not after three days.
    
    
>   Correct.  Here are the pertinent verses:
    
    Not correct. Mt. 12:40
    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.
    
    But, since Jesus was crucified on Thursday, he WAS 3 days and 3 nights
    in the heart of the earth. AND it was 'the third day he shall rise
    again. (Mr.10:34) (Same as Mr.9:31,Lu.9:22,Lu.24:7)
    
    (Knowledge of the scriptures ISN'T the foundation, but it belongs as a
    secondary part of the chimney. In doing the Word is our life's
    fulfillment found, AND God's pleasure in us) 

>>    Jesus was NOT crucified on friday, but thursday. 
>
> Well, that's certainly a unique view.
    
    Not really unique.  I know many who have arrived at the same
    conclusion.
    
    Me?  I don't really know.  Both arguments have merit.  What *really*
    matters to me is the *fact* that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again
    on the third day.
    
    Mark L.

    Re .10 (Rodger)
    
    Even a Thursday afternoon crucifixion does not allow for 72 hours in
    the tomb. If you insist that Jesus was entombed for 72 hours (no more,
    no less) then either He died around dawn on Thursday, or He didn't rise
    from the dead until the evening Sunday. Neither of these cases is
    consistent with Scripture.
    
    Btw, in my Bible Difficulties class we spent weeks studying the four
    Resurrection accounts. I myself have spent an untold number of hours in
    prayer and study in my efforts to reconcile all of the details from all
    four accounts. There's nothing like doing the work yourself to fully
    appreciate the difficulties involved - and coming away with a firm
    conviction that in fact there is a satisfactory resolution to all
    supposed problems!
    
    	BD�

    Re .12 (Tony)
    
    Being well-studied doesn't guarantee correctness - even if you're a
    believer. You have to approach your studies in an honest way, properly
    realizing the authority and inspiration of the Scripture. Even at that
    there are many godly scholars who still have disagreements about some
    things. I point you to topic 71, which is devoted to discussing
    challenges such as these.
    
    	BD�

383.13 GYMAC::RDUSATKO

>>   Correct.  Here are the pertinent verses:
>    
>    Not correct. Mt. 12:40

Apparently you didn't read the whole note.  Matthew 12:40 was presented
as were the others.

MM

I don't buy the Thursday or Wednesday arguments.

FWIW.

The scripture says "3 days and 3 nights".

Can we count, or what?  Let's answer the following 6 questions:

	When was day #1? ____      When was night #1? ____
	
	When was day #2? ____      When was night #2? ____
	
	When was day #3? ____      When was night #3? ____

I have found that the only thing behind the "Friday" argument is tradition.
There is just nothing more to the "Friday" idea.  So I'll believe scripture
over tradition. 

Garth,

> I have found that the only thing behind the "Friday" argument is tradition.
> There is just nothing more to the "Friday" idea.  So I'll believe scripture
> over tradition. 

Yeah, ever since Martin Luther uncovered the Bible (buried in north Germany, 
wasn't it?) which had been lost for 1,500 years, we now know the truth and can
safely ignore the witness of those ignorant early Christians, to whom it never
occurred to consult Scripture.

I don't suppose you might consider that by "three days and three nights" Jesus
meant three periods of daylight followed by darkness, i.e., what we would
simply call "three days", and that thereby it is not necessarily true that there
were literally three nights between Jesus's death and His Resurrection.

I suppose that since we should take the words of Scripture literally, "three
days and three nights" means that there was one period of light three times as
long as usual followed by one period of darkness three times as long as usual.
Simple and obvious: Scripture says three days and three nights, and that is
what it meant; the Word of God says it, I believe it, case closed!

Now that we've intepreted "three days and three nights" in the most literal way
possible, let's proceed to John 6 ...

(Yes, I'm in an obnoxious mood today)

Eric

Re: .20  (Eric)

I am not knocking tradition.  I am simply placing scripture above it.

Re: .21 (Garth)

Assume N possible, plausible, and equally valid interpretations, i[1] to i[N],
one unknown member (say i[C]) of which is correct, of Scripture A (the
Scripture in question).  Now take tradition T, which contradicts i[G] but
agrees with i[X] (where G, X, and C are all less than or equal to N.).  It is
possible that tradition T is false, but not necessarily so; it is possible that
the existence of tradition T implies interpretation i[G] is now less likely to
be the unknown correct member i[C], and i[X] more likely to be i[C].  Shall we
insist that i[G] is right and T is wrong when it is easier to say that both T
and i[X] are correct -- a conclusion which does not violate your premise that
Scripture takes precedence over tradition?

The apparently simplicity of subtracting 72 from Sunday 6am does not mean that
this is the correct interpretation of the Scripture.  If the tradition said
that Jesus died on Tuesday, you would have an argument, since this in no way
can be reconciled with Scripture; but there is a valid interpretation of
Scripture with agrees with the tradition, and so why reject the tradition in
favor a novel interpretation of Scripture?

The early Christians were not dummies; I find no logical reason why they
could have gotten the day wrong when they had equal access to Scripture as
you and I do now. Since they considered Scripture to be inspired and inerrant
as we do, there is no reason to think (IMHO) that they would have chosen 
Friday over Thursday without a just reason.

Eric

    Actually, Garth, I think there is a bit more than tradition to the
    Friday date. Try to reconcile everything that happened from the
    Triumphal Entry on into a time span that ended with Jesus' being
    crucified on Thursday (or were you going for a Wednesday date?). I've
    never gone through the exercise myself, but I believe there is too much
    in there for Him to have been crucified any earlier than Friday.
    
    Besides, how do you define "three days and three nights"? I know you
    take a "day" in Genesis 1 to be 24 hours. Surely you don't take these
    days to be 24 hours (otherwise we'd have 24*3 hours, plus 3 nights; and
    how long is a "night"?). Perhaps you'd take a "day" here to only be the
    daylight hours? In that case do you think it means 3*12+3*12? That
    still doesn't work because we know Jesus was crucified at 9:00 a.m. and
    died between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m., but He rose before dawn on Sunday. You
    can't get 72 hours under those conditions regardless of what day you
    assign to the crucifixion.
    
    No, the expression "three days and three nights" must mean something
    other than 72 hours. As I said earlier, there is no problem with a
    Friday crucifixion once you realize that any part of a day/night is
    counted as the entire day/night.
    
    	BD�

This is not a Scripture vs. Tradition discussion and I don't know
why Garth is trying to make it into one.

Scripture tells us lots of things.

Just about timeframe, it says:
  - 3 days
  - 3 days and 3 nights
  - on the third day
  - after the third day

Tell me how on the third day is reconciled with after 72 hours?

It's an interpretation issue, pure and simple.  My take is that
if we don't insist that Jewish culture and terminology be interpreted
from the perspective of 20th century Christians that the problems will
fade away.

Herbert Armstrong insists on a Wednesday death and a Saturday
resurrection (no appearing until Sunday morning) because he
reconciles these words as 72 hours.  I think he's missed the
boat on this (as well as a number of other things :-) ).

Knowing that any part of a day or night was commonly referred
to as a full day or night means that Jesus must have died on
a Friday.  Scripture says that!  :-)

Collis

Well, Jesus said he was to be in the tomb for "3 days and 3 nights".  I
can see part of a day being a day, and I can see part of a night being a
night.  I can even see part of a day not counting or part of a night not
counting.

But no way can you get 3 days and 3 nights from a Friday afternoon to
Sunday morning event.  Go back and fill in the blanks in my reply .19.

Tuesday would be stretching it at both ends, and Thursday is compressing
it at both ends.  But no way does Friday cut it.  Friday is out, period.
A flat out contradiction in what Jesus said.

Re: .23  (Barry)

>    still doesn't work because we know Jesus was crucified at 9:00 a.m. and
>    died between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m., but He rose before dawn on Sunday. You
>    can't get 72 hours under those conditions regardless of what day you
>    assign to the crucifixion.
    
Re: .24  (Collis)

>Just about timeframe, it says:
>  - 3 days
>  - 3 days and 3 nights
>  - on the third day
>  - after the third day
>
>Tell me how on the third day is reconciled with after 72 hours?

The scriptures say that he rose "on the 3rd day", and "after the 3rd" day.
They would both be strictly true if he was in the tomb exactly 3 days from the
start of day 0 (our 6 pm) to exactly the same point of time 3 days later. 

The scriptures say that they went and found the tomb empty early in the
morning on the 1st day of the week.  The 1st day of the week is the day
after the 7th day, which is the Jewish Sabbath.  We know it as "the Lord's 
day", and we traditionally go to church on that day, which we Gentiles
start 6 hours later (at midnight).

If he rose at 6 pm on what we know as Saturday, exactly 3 days before
that would have been Wednesday 6 pm when he was in the tomb.  So he would
have died Wednesday afternoon.

Have a Good Wednesday.

Q.E.D.

(BTW, I'm not dogmatic about Wednesday vs. Thursday.  It's just that
Friday is no good.)

  A solution??

  Unless some one else has gone over this...

  Christ laid is state for an undisclosed amount of time awaiting His
  burial preparation because of the sabbath(s).

  Assuming He was crucified and died on wednesday, Thursday the Passover lying 
  in wait, and then was annointed, wrapped and buried on Friday before
  sundown...

  Christs' Spirit was in the belly of the earth 3 days and 3 nights Wednesday
  to Sunday before dawn (preaching to the imprisoned spirits) while His body 
  was in the grave Friday to Sunday, fulfilling both prohecies.

                    Hank

    Garth, according to your timeline, when did Jesus celebrate the
    Passover with His disciples (Matt. 26:17-20; Mark 14:12-17)?
    
    Thanks.
    
    	BD�

Someone mentioned the bit about there being two Sabbaths; I don't think Garth
has said he accepts this, but I'm going to take a stab at some exegesis here.

* Scripture says that the Jews were in a rush to get Jesus down from the Cross
because of the Sabbath, which began at sundown; since they were crucified at
9am and sundown was around 6pm or so, and Jesus died at 3pm, it's pretty
obvious that Jesus died on the day before a/the Sabbath.

* It was pointed out that the Passover was considered a Sabbath, I think.
Maybe this is true, I'm not sure.  But we know that Jesus ate the Passover
Seder (the Last Supper) on the night before he died, which really meant
according to the Jewish reckoning, he ate and died on the same date, since the
day began after sundown on the previous night.  Hence Jesus died at 3pm on the
15th of Nisan, and ate the Seder in the early part of the 15th of Nisan
(i.e. during the evening).  Not only were the Jews solemnly commanded to eat
the Seder _on_ Passover, but Jesus had to have died on Passover, since he was
the Lamb of God, i.e., the Passover Lamb, He Who was prefigured by the Passover
ritual and Who fulfilled it.  Sorry, anyone who argues that Jesus died on the
day before or day after the Passover just doesn't get it: it is no coincidence
that Jesus's passion and Passover coincided, our faith is entirely meaningless
if Christ did not die on the Passover.

* Hence the Sabbath which they were rushing to prepare for was NOT the
Passover, since the day of Jesus's death and after his Seder was the Passover.
Hence it had to have been Saturday.  (Note that here is where I doubt that the
Passover was a strict Sabbath: if they were in a rush to get Jesus down from
the Cross before the Sabbath because they could not do this during the Sabbath,
obviously they could do it on the Passover, which means that the Passover was
not considered a strict Sabbath.)

* Since the day immediately after the Passover, on which Christ died, was the
Saturday Sabbath (unless some enterprising individual can come up with another
heretofore unknown and unscripturally attested holiday between Passover and the
nearest Sabbath), Jesus died on Friday, Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

It might prove a lively discussion as to whether Jesus died on the Passover.
Personally I hope not, because it should be intuitively obvious to the devoted
student of Christianity that to believe anything else is to satisfy itching
ears and to follow vain traditions of men.  To Garth's delight I am sure
(;-)) I don't even need to appeal to tradition to argue this point.

Eric

  When Christ died the earth was covered with darkness...
  He ate the Passover Wednesday
  The Passover would begin at sundown wednesday
  The Passover began at the onset of the darkness 3PM wednesday
  Night had miraculously fallen. The legalist waited until the 6th hour.

    re .10 (GYMAC::RDUSATKO)/Rodger
    
>    Again, the preparation was always the day before the passover. It could
>    fall on any day of the week, but the day after the preparation,
>    passover, is always referred to as 'the sabbath'.
>    
>    Even clearer it is in Joh.19:31
>    The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies
>    should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath
>    day was an high day,)...
    
    	Your reply was the only one I noticed that mentioned John 19:31,
    and I see that you believe this verse supports the idea that Jesus
    didn't die on a Friday, since the Passover was itself a sabbath day,
    and it could fall on any day of the week.
    
    	I find this interesting because there's another way to interpret
    this that proves that Jesus DID die on a Friday.
    
    	The RSV reads similarly to the translation you quoted above:
    
    		"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) ..."
    
    According to the footnote in the Oxford Annotated RSV, the expression
    "High day" signified:
    
    		"especially holy since it fell on the Passover"
    
    which means that the sabbath was not only the ordinary 7th day of the
    week (Saturday) but was "a high day" because it was ALSO the Passover
    sabbath (i.e., this day was, as I recall, what was called a 'double
    sabbath').
    
    	You seem to be saying that the sabbath was a "high day" merely
    because it was Passover (but not a Saturday).  I don't know if
    Passovers were always called "high days" since they were special,
    regardless of which weekday they fell on; but according to the RSV,
    this expression means it was BOTH Saturday and a special sacred day.
    
    	As an aside, the NWT says this was a "Great Sabbath" -- which I
    gather is a more literal translation than "high day" -- though I'll
    have to look it up at home to be sure, since I usually don't use the
    NWT as a stand-alone reference in this conference.  This, in my mind,
    would tend to confirm that the emphasis was on the dual significance of
    that particular sabbath day, that it was not merely a "high day" for
    being a non-seventh-day sabbath, but was a special 7th-day sabbath, and
    hence a "Great" one.
    
    	Have any of you other 'sabbath scholars' looked into this (one way
    or the other)?
    
    
    
    								-mark.

.10 (Rodger)

>    In Mark 15:42 it states:
    
>    'And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that
>    is, the day before the sabbath.'
    
>    This shows clearly that the passover was referred to as the sabbath.

(This verse, by the way, refers to the burial of Jesus; NIV says, "It was
Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath).  So as evening
approached ...")

>    In Luke 23:54 it saws the same,
    
>    And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
    
>    Again, the preparation was always the day before the passover. It could
>    fall on any day of the week, but the day after the preparation,
>    passover, is always referred to as 'the sabbath'.

Same context.  But you are arguing that the "Preparation Day" is the day
before Passover -- neither of these two verses say this and you have not
convinced me of it yet.  They simply say that the day of Jesus's death was
the Preparation Day, "that is, the day before the Sabbath."  (Not a Sabbath,
but THE SABBATH.)

>    The Jews differentiated different sabbath days. The passover is an high
>    sabbath.

Your English vicar told you this (what is an Anglican priest doing denying that
Jesus died on Good Friday?), but so far I've seen no convincing Scripture to
this effect.  Maybe you should post more information on this topic.

You claim that the day AFTER Jesus's death was the Passover, but let's look
at Scripture:

John 13:1 (Jesus washes his disciples feet): "It was just before the Passover
Feast."

Matthew 26:17: "On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the
disciples came to Jesus and asked, `Where do you want us to make preparations
for you to eat the Passover?' He replied, `Go into the city to a certain man
and tell him, "The teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to
celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house."'"  (See also Mark
14:12) 

Luke 22:7 - "Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb
had to be sacrificed.  Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make 
preparations for us to eat the Passover."  22:11

Luke 22:15: "`I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I
suffer.'" 

Luke 22:7 is the most compelling: the Passover began on the night of the Last
Supper. Hence the Passover did _not_ occur on the day after Jesus's death, but
on the day starting with the Last Supper (a Passover Seder) and ending the
afternoon of his death.

.29: 

>  When Christ died the earth was covered with darkness...
>  He ate the Passover Wednesday
>  The Passover would begin at sundown wednesday
>  The Passover began at the onset of the darkness 3PM wednesday
>  Night had miraculously fallen. The legalist waited until the 6th hour.

If you count the darkness as a night, then that accounts for the extra night
between Friday and Sunday, and there is no need to go for a Wednesday date.

But I don't understand you: how could he eat the Passover Wednesday when
you say Passover did not begin until the darkness that coincided with His
death?

Hence:
- Passover started Thursday evening when the Jewish day started.  Jesus eats
the Passover meal, and the Passover lamb is slain (Luke 22:7). 
- Thursday night, Gethemane; early Friday morning in the darkness, Jesus is 
arrested.
- Jesus is tried after dawn on Friday, and is immediately crucified -- still
on Passover -- Friday morning 9am. 
- Christ our Passover is sacrificed, 9am to 3pm.
- Temporary darkness comes between 3pm and 6pm, which one might account as the
missing night; added to the full night Friday night and the night on Saturday,
that gives us three nights.

Eric

      One thing that I find more interesting is the fact that the
      sacrifice was referred to an experience of Jonah's which was
      an experience through which Jonah was alive during his entire
      ordeal.
    
      This (and numerous other texts) have led me to the conclusion 
      that Christ's  physical death was symbolic of a prior sacrifice;
      that being weighted with sin and its accompanying guilt and
      temptation to despair and overcoming this awful experience by
      faith.
    
      Psalm 23:4
      Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
      I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy
      staff they comfort me.
    
      Psalm 22:24
      For he hath not dspised nor abhorred the affliction of the 
      afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when 
      he cried unto him, he heard.
    
      That was the victory.  That was the sacrifice.
    
      The link to Jonah finds much more significance than the time
      duration between physical death and resurrection, it points to
      an experience of death in the spiritual, a conflict between faith
      made perfect and the onslaught of sin, a conflict whose entire
      duration was while Jesus was fully conscious and which preceeded
      physical death.
    
      His physical death was not the real sacrifice.  It was symbolic 
      of the real sacrifice which preceeded it.
    
      Anyway...when I think of Jonah, I'm thinking of a whole lot more
      than some time duration!!
    
                                                     Tony
                                       

Thanks, Mark.

On a related not, I noticed a discrepancy in translations of John 19:14.  Both
the KJV and RSV, I think, render this, "it was the day of Preparation of
Passover," which might lead someone to believe that the Day of Preparation
referred to the day before Passover.

But the NIV is clearer: "It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week."
These are not contradictory; if you interpret "day of Preparation of Passover"
as the Day of (Preparation of Passover), i.e., the day before Passover, there
is a contradiction; but if you interpret it as "(day of Preparation) of
Passover", understanding that "Passover" referred sometimes to the whole
celebration of Unleavened Bread which I think was eight days, it means what
"day of Preparation of Passover Week" means: it was the day of Preparation (the
day before the Sabbath) during the celebration of Passover (Week).  

Eric

Re: .26  (Hank)

"He answered, 'A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign!
But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.  For 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."  
(Matt 12:39-40)

As Jonah was bodily in the fish, Jesus was bodily in the earth.  The miraculous
sign was to be something that "a wicked and adulterous generation" could see. 
You can't spiritualize his burial, because "a wicked and adulterous generation"
doesn't have the spiritual eyes to see it.

So the following is fallacious:

>  Assuming He was crucified and died on wednesday, Thursday the Passover lying 
>  in wait, and then was annointed, wrapped and buried on Friday before
>  sundown...
>
>  Christs' Spirit was in the belly of the earth 3 days and 3 nights Wednesday
>  to Sunday before dawn (preaching to the imprisoned spirits) while His body 
>  was in the grave Friday to Sunday, fulfilling both prohecies.

Regarding preaching, Christ *in the spirit* (as opposed to *in the flesh*)
preached to those who disobeyed in the days of Noah.  Those spirits are now in
prison.  1 Peter 3:19-20.  And their bodies are in the ground -- what's left of
their bodies, that is.  Christ did not preach to them after they died, because
"man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).
For them, it is too late for any more preaching.  They should have repented
before Noah shut the door on the ark.

    The following note is posted on behalf of a friend who wishes to remain
    anonymous...
    

The reason that they broke the legs of the thieves was to hasten their death 
so that the bodies could be removed BEFORE Sabbath began.  Sabbath begins at 
SUNDOWN on *Friday* evening.  There were laws which forbade the touching of
dead bodies, and especially on Sabbath, so it was required that the bodies (so
they had to BE bodies) had to be down before then. 

    re .29 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>  When Christ died the earth was covered with darkness...
>  He ate the Passover Wednesday
>  The Passover would begin at sundown wednesday
>  The Passover began at the onset of the darkness 3PM wednesday
>  Night had miraculously fallen. The legalist waited until the 6th hour.
    
    	One thing to note is that the Bible says that Jesus arrived at
    Bethany 6 days before the Passover, and describes things that happened
    during that time.
    
    	If the Passover was Wed Eve/Thur Day, that would mean that Jesus
    arrived on the previous Thurs/Friday, which would mean that there would
    have been a regular sabbath in between.  If you sort through the events
    carefully, you'll find very definite descriptions for what happened
    during the next two days, one of which would have been the regular
    sabbath.
    
    	On the day after his arrival in Bethany, Jesus rode into the city 
    on the colt of an ass, and went back to Bethany.  No mention of it
    being the sabbath.
    
    	On the next day, Jesus went back into the city, cursed a fig tree
    (in the early morning), threw the money changers out of the temple, and
    eventually went back to Bethany, where they passed the whithered fig
    tree.  No mention of it being the sabbath.
    
    	On the day after that, they went back to Jerusalem, Jesus was
    questioned by the priests and scribes and he gave his disciples the
    Great Sign of his _parousia_.  At this point, the Passover was 2 days
    away (Matt 26:2).  No mention of it being the regular sabbath.
    
    	On the next day, Jesus was back in Bethany at the house of Simon
    the leper, where the woman poured oil on him.  Judas criticized this
    action, and then went out and made the deal with the priests to betray
    Jesus (for the festival "drew near" (Luke 22:1 RSV).  Again, no mention
    of it being a regular sabbath.
    
    	It seems that a day is missing (one of the two days to go after
    Jesus gave the Great Sign), but no matter how you slice it, there is no
    mention of any of the days before the Passover being a regular sabbath;
    and again, Jesus was in Bethany 6 days before the Passover.  If the
    Passover was NOT on a Friday/Saturday, one of those days would have HAD
    to have been a regular sabbath.
    
    
    								-mark.
    

Re: .27  (Barry)

>    Garth, according to your timeline, when did Jesus celebrate the
>    Passover with His disciples (Matt. 26:17-20; Mark 14:12-17)?
    
The evening before the afternoon that he died.

Re: .28  (Eric)

>Someone mentioned the bit about there being two Sabbaths; I don't think Garth
>has said he accepts this, but I'm going to take a stab at some exegesis here.

I accept this.  There was the weekly sabbath, and the high sabbath.

    Re .31 (Eric)
    
    You've done a good job at summarizing things, and of course I agree
    with you that Jesus died on Friday (though between 3pm and 6pm). There
    is one verse, though, that poses another difficulty.
    
         John 18:28 -> "[The Jewish leaders] led Jesus from Caiaphas
         to the Praetorium, and it was early morning. But they
         themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should
         be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover."
    
    Evidently the Jewish leaders had not yet eaten the Passover meal (which
    Jesus had done with His disciples Thursday evening), and here it is
    Friday morning and they're anticipating eating it on Friday. What's the
    deal?
    
    I have a couple of explanations that resolve this difficulty, but I
    think I'll wait until the "3 day & 3 nights" discussion cools down.
    I just wanted to post that verse to get people thinking.
    
    	BD�

    Re: Note 383.37 by KALI::WIEBE
    

�Re: .27  (Barry)

�>    Garth, according to your timeline, when did Jesus celebrate the
�>    Passover with His disciples (Matt. 26:17-20; Mark 14:12-17)?
    
�The evening before the afternoon that he died.

    I did not realize I had to be so explicit with you, Garth. On what *day
    of the week* did Jesus celebrate the Passover with His disciples?
    
    Thanks.
    
    	BD�

 Re .31
 Hi Eric,

 I like the Wednesday theory because somewhere in Daniel (Dan 7 ?) it states 
 that the  Messaiah will be cut off in the middle of "the week" which would be:
  day 1      = sunday
  day 2      = monday
  day 3      = tuesday
  day 3/12   = wednesday at noon.

 I'll do some more research at home to locate this passage.

 I realize that the Daniel passage has signifigance as a week of years
 but i think it applies to Holy Week also.

 I believe it is tradition that assigns the Triumphant Jerusalem Entry to
 wednesday, but was probably the 1st day of Holy Week.

 Jesus ate the Passover with the disciples the afternoon before because He
 knew He couldn't on Passover itself (coinciding with His death).

 Re .34 Garth Hi Garth, ok I know there is disagreement concerning I Pet 3:19
 the point is that Christ might not have been buried until Friday, but had
 been dead (physically) since Wednesday evening.

 Re .37 Mark S - Hi Mark, No mention of a regular Sabbath... this does not
 conclusively prove that it was not a regular sabbath.

 

                        Pax - Hank

Re: .40  (Barry)

>>>    Garth, according to your timeline, when did Jesus celebrate the
>>>    Passover with His disciples (Matt. 26:17-20; Mark 14:12-17)?
>>    
>>The evening before the afternoon that he died.
>>
>    I did not realize I had to be so explicit with you, Garth. On what *day
>    of the week* did Jesus celebrate the Passover with His disciples?
    
I avoided being explicit intentionally, because I am not dogmatic about the
crucifixion being Wednesday vs. Thursday.  

So to answer your question, it would be our Tuesday or Wednesday evening.

Have a Good Thursday!

    re .41 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)
    
> Jesus ate the Passover with the disciples the afternoon before because He
> knew He couldn't on Passover itself (coinciding with His death).
    
    	It definitely wasn't in the afternoon.  When Judas was dismissed,
    "it was night" (John 14:30).  The Passover meal was always eaten after
    sun-down.
    
    
    								-mark.

>   Evidently the Jewish leaders had not yet eaten the Passover meal (which
>   Jesus had done with His disciples Thursday evening), and here it is
>   Friday morning and they're anticipating eating it on Friday. What's the
>   deal?
    
An interesting difficulty.  A few thoughts of mine.

All of the flesh of the lamb had to be eaten before the next morning 
(Deu 16:4). Maybe the Jewish leaders were so engrossed in preparing for
Jesus's arrest that they had not yet eaten the Passover; it does say that it
was "early morning," which might imply before down.  Hence they had to get
Jesus off so they could eat the Passover before dawn.

A weak argument, to be sure. But we know that the Passover had to be eaten
on the same day, and that Jesus had already eaten it (he who fulfilled every
bit of the Law!), which means that they had to eat it before morning, too.

An even weaker argument is that the Passover the Jews wanted to eat was not
the Seder but a later Passover meal (Passover lasted seven days; maybe they
had to be pure all seven days).  But it says that he wanted to "eat the 
Passover" which would seem to me to be nothing other than the seder.

An earlier correction: the feast of Passover is exactly a week, and begins
on after twilight the 14th of Nisan, that is, at the beginning of the 15th
of Nisan (Leviticus 23:4ff).  

Eric

  Re : .43  hi mark,

  "it was night..."  ok, but they probably started in the afternoon...
  
  Since Jesus was/is the Passover of God, His eating the Passover was
  one of desire to be with the ones who loved Him, not of obligation.
  It was necessary for Him (imo) to eat the passover before the legally
  appointed time.

  The wednesday theory is my choice by preference not by conviction.
  I hope I havnt ruffled anyone's feathers, I think this is a lively but
  healthy discussion.

  Eric is right that Jesus had to offer Himself on the Passover, I guess 
  i was experimentally probing as to whether Christs' Death  ended or began 
  Passover Day.

  my summary :

  Because of the laws concerning The Preparation Day the disciples  couldn't 
  carry  Jesus' body to the appointed tomb, so took His Body from Gogatha to 
  the garden nearby and prepared Him for His burial through the night (which
  was legally allowed) after the day passed (sundown of Preparation Day) they
  were able to legally carry His Body to the Tomb without interference.

  The point is that there was 1) Jesus death (wednesday or thursday) and 
  2) His Burial (Friday). This would allow either "three days and three nights"
  reckoning from His Death or "on the third day" reckoning from His Burial.
  
  I love and respect all other Christians who prefer or are convicted of
  anything else.

                            Hank
  

    re .45 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>  "it was night..."  ok, but they probably started in the afternoon...
>  
>  Since Jesus was/is the Passover of God, His eating the Passover was
>  one of desire to be with the ones who loved Him, not of obligation.
>  It was necessary for Him (imo) to eat the passover before the legally
>  appointed time.
    
    	Matthew says:
    
    		"When it was evening, he sat at the table with
    		the twelve disciples; and as they were eating,
    		he said: ..." (Matt 26:20,21a RSV)
    
    Mark says:
    
    		"And when it was evening he came with the
    		twelve.  And as they were eating, Jesus said,..."
    		(Mark 14:17,18a RSV)
    
    Luke doesn't say it was evening, but his language implies that they sat
    down at the normal time for the Passover meal (after sundown):
    
    		"And when the hour came, he sat at the table,
    		and the apostles with him."  (Luke 22:14 RSV)
    
    The footnote in the Oxford Annotated RSV says that "The hour" means
    "after sundown".
    
    	To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is about him eating in
    the afternoon, since the truth is that Jesus didn't die until the
    "ninth hour" of the next day (3 pm; Matt 27:46), which is obviously
    also in the afternoon.  Therefore, whether he ate in the afternoon or
    the evening wouldn't have made any difference as to when he had died,
    or how long he was dead.
    
    
    								-mark.

   RE:383.46


>      To be honest, I,m not sure what your point is about him eating
>  in the afternoon...
   
       Well, i guess its because John said that Jesus was put to death on
   "the Preparation of the Passover" which would have begun the day
   (by our reckoning) before the evening of the Passover. Maybe I shouldnt 
   have said "he ate" the passover in the afternoon, but was busy (perhaps) 
   during the late afternoon with the disciples in the upper room until He 
   ate the Passover that evening with them. But this would mean that jesus 
   ate the Passover the day before everyone else (out of necessity).

 a highly theoretical proposition:

 Tuesday afternoon :  Jesus and disciples have a private "Passover Preparation"
 
 Tuesday evening   :  Jesus and disciples eat a private Passover.

 Tuesday night     :  The Garden of Gethsemene and the arrest

 Wednesday AM      :  ("The Preparation of the Passover of the Jews" 
                         John 19:42) Jesus trial and sentence.

 Wednesday PM      :  Jesus Christ dies, darkness over the whole earth.

 Wednesday "even"  :  Joseph of Arimathea "begs" the Body of Jesus.
 Passover meal        Note: how long must have this taken? Joseph had to go
 is legally eaten     from Golgatha to Pilate's home, get an audience
                      beg-argue, go back to Golgatha, (Nicodemus is now
                      with Joseph did he go get him?, they then carry Our 
                      Lord's Body to the "Nigh at hand" garden-tomb. It could 
                      very well have been after midnight by this time.

 Perhaps they said (this is conjecture to be sure) "its after midnite, we're
 exhausted, lets just wrap His Body and come back in the morning to finish
 when we're rested and have the light of day"  Then...
      
 Thursday AM       :  Joseph and Nicodemus return and prepare the Body of Our
 probably late        Lord "after the custom of the Jews" a tender and elborate
                      love ritual of washings, annointings, singing "Kadesh"
                      wrapping etc... By that evening (legally Friday) they 
                      have "buried" Jesus and at sunset Thursday begins 
                      "the Preparation of the Sabbath" There are TWO 
                      preparation days involved the Passover preparation
                      and the Sabbath Preparation

 Friday            : Jesus Body is in the tomb.

 Sabbath day       : Jesus Body is in the tomb.

 Sunday            : (sometime after Sabbath Sundown before dawn Sunday) 
                     The Ressurection.

 wednesday night   1 night
 thursday  day     1 day

 thursday  night   2 nights
 friday    day     2 days

 friday    night   3 nights
 sabbath   day     3 days

 Jesus rises Sunday during the darkness of the morning hours.
 
 This is difficult but not impossible to harmonize with the Scripture... (imo)

 but its a possible solution...(maybe)

 I know it goes against tradition and im sorry if ive upset anyone.
 
            Hank

    re .47 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)
    
    Thanks for the additional information.
    
>       Well, i guess its because John said that Jesus was put to death on
>   "the Preparation of the Passover" which would have begun the day
>   (by our reckoning) before the evening of the Passover. 
    
    	In the Alternate Explanation Dept: I did a little reading on this
    the other day ... The actual Passover day was immediately followed by
    the Festival of Unfermented Cakes, thus the entire Festival was itself
    sometimes refered to in its entirety as Passover.  There was a festival
    meal on the first day as well, and thus there was also a 'preparation'
    of this meal.
    
    ===
    
    	I also realized that I made an error in a previous reply, on when
    Jesus arrived in Bethany/Jerusalem.  For some reason I was thinking
    Jesus ate the Passover meal Friday evening (which is wrong), and thus
    having arrived 6 days before he would have missed the weekly sabbath.
    Instead, 6 days before the Thursday/Friday Passover would have put his
    arrival on the Friday before.
    
    ===
    
    	What year do people believe Jesus died?  Since the day of the
    Passover is known (or can be figured out) for any year back then,
    simply knowing the year would establish when Jesus died.
    
    	My religion believes Jesus died in the year 33 C.E., in which the
    Passover was on Thursday/Friday.
    
    
    								-mark.

>       Well, i guess its because John said that Jesus was put to death on
>   "the Preparation of the Passover" which would have begun the day
>   (by our reckoning) before the evening of the Passover. 

Ah, but "the Preparation [Day] of the Passover" does not necessarily mean the
day before Passover, and in fact it is more consistent with Scripture to
recognize "Preparation Day of the Passover" as the Preparation Day -- the
day before Saturday -- during Passover (which lasted seven days), which the 
NIV more clearly translates, "Preparation Day of Passover Week."

Here is another issue.  I did a full Bible search for the term "Preparation 
Day."  It occurs only in the New Testament.  Not only that, it occurs only in
the Passion sequence with respect to what the day of Jesus's death was called.
It is not a term defined in the Old Testament. Hence how you interpret it is a 
matter of debate; not only that, but we must rely on (duck, Garth! :-)) 
tradition to know what it means. (Jewish tradition, that is.)

I admit I do not know what it means exactly, except insofar as Scripture 
explains it as "the day before the Sabbath."  So as such I doubt that it
would also be a term used to describe the day before the Passover.  Not only
that, but in the context of the day of Christ's death, Scripture says "It was
the Day of Preparation (that is, the day before the Sabbath)."  You might
argue that the Passover was a Sabbath, but Scripture says "the Sabbath" and
not "a Sabbath" which seems to specifically refer to Saturday.  Besides the fact
that as I have pointed out, Jesus died ON the Passover, not on the day before, 
which if you argue that "Day of Preparation of the Passover" means the day 
before the passover, contradicts this fact.

Can any of our Hebreophiles tell us definitively what the Jews meant by 
"Preparation Day"?

Eric

  Re: 383.43 M Sornson

    Hi Mark,

  > What year do people believe Jesus died?

    Well Mark thats a lot like "what year was His earthly birth"
    and as far as I know the answer to both questions is no one knows
    for sure, so its a matter (as you say) of belief. In all probability
    His earthly birth was around the year 0 (i think the greatest consensus
    is between 4BC and 4AD) 

    I suppose the wednesday theory could be used to inductively look
    for wednesday-sunday line ups around the year 33 (traditional year of
    His death, assuming 0 as a birth date).

    Another little glitch is i recall reading that its not positively
    know whether accurate adjustments were made and just how they were done 
    to the 360 day years at the time of Christ. Any historian/scholars  out 
    there who know? This could affect day of the week on 14-15 Nisan.

    I've just read Eric's note...  I have some books at home...

    Also there is a highly technical-grammatical question with John 19:42
    as to whether it should be  translated "because of the Preparation (day) 
    of the Jews" or "through the Preparation (day) of the Jews" which in the 
    overall picture has some weight.


                              Hank

    I feel like so many comments and views have been shown that it probably
    isn't so easy for anyone to say anything in agreement. But how important
    is it anyway for us as servants to the Lord in our lives? Still, why 
    do I feel so certain about Thursday? And what about the confusion between
    Jesus' disciples celebrating passover on the evening of the 13th(Roman 
    Calendar day) and the Pharasees celebrating it on the 14th(Roman Calendar
    day) and calling the 14th during the day the Preparation? Why was
    the 14th not a Sabbath holiday until evening?

    The preparation was the day the lamb was killed, the 14th of Nissan.
    In the evening (Ex.12:6). The biblical jewish day starts at 6:00 in the 
    evening and goes until 6:00 in the morning. This is the evening, incl. 
    night. Then from 6:00 in the morning until 6:00 in the evening it is the 
    same day.
   
    So, for the jewish people it is as in Genesis 1, It was evening and it 
    was morning, the first day. The evening was counted BEFORE the morning as
    being a single day.

    When it talks about the lamb being slain on the evening of the 14th,
    this would certainly mean at the beginning of the 14th, in the evening(
    around 6:00 - 8:00P.M by our calendar). Jesus and his disciples partook
    of the passover in the night of the 14th(10:00PM-12:00PM?), having 
    prepared for it in the beginning of the evening(6:00 - 8:00PM(Mt.26:17)) 
    according to the law.

Mr. 14:12   
    And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his 
    disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou 
    mayest eat the passover?

    There were 2 days when the PASSOVER were to be celebrated, the 14th and 
    the 15th(Lev.23:5,6). Even today it is the first 2 days of the week of 
    unleavened bread.

    In the night of the 14th, probably not too far from midnight, Jesus was 
    betrayed.
    Pilate told the Jews who he should release on the Passover. Jesus
    was NOT released on Passover, but Barabus. Instead, Jesus was crucified 
    on the Passover.

    In the day of the 14th, approaching the end of the 14th, Jesus was 
    crucified. Towards the end of the 14th his legs were broken. Jesus 
    celebrated Passover with his disciples on Passover, the 14th, AND
    Jesus was crucified on Passover, the 14th.

    Now there are 2 days celebrated by the Jews for passover, the 14th AND
    the 15th. Jesus and his disciples celebrated the PASSOVER on the first
    of the two days, the day of Preparation, in the evening(the beginning
    of the day when the lamb would be slaughtered). Later that same day,
    towards evening, when the lamb would be slaughtered, was Jesus also
    sacrificed. 

    We see that the jewish people saw the 14th as the preparation and the 
    15th as the feast. The word 'preparation' was never used in the law.
    Could it be that by this time in history the Jewish people were thinking
    like the Romans concerning a calendar day? That the day of the 14th was
    understood to be the day AND the evening? This could explain why there
    was a difference even amongst the Jews when they would take passover.
    There were some who saw the 13th after sunset still as the 13th, and 
    thought that Passover should be celebrated after sunset on the 14th (which
    according to others would have already been the 15th) So the preparation
    took place on the 14th and on the evening of the 14th Passover was 
    celebrated. The day of the 14th was when it was prepared, and therefore
    would not be considered a Sabbath, since on the Sabbath you could not
    prepare. It would be the day of the 15th which would be a high sabbath,
    a feast day, after the passover on the evening of the 14th was celebrated.

    Today the Passover is celebrated on the evening of the 14th, showing that
    the Jewish people still see a day like the Romans did. According to the
    earlier understanding, the day that the Jewish people now celebrate 
    Passover is 1 day late! After sunset on the 14th used to be understood
    as the 15th! Today the feast happens on the 15th(again a normal
    calendar day as we understand it), not starting after sunset.
    
    Much of the confusion may result from these 2 ways of viewing a day. It
    seems that Jesus himself saw it as it is biblically understood, starting 
    at evening and followed by morning.
    
Mr. 14:12   
    And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his 
    disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou 
    mayest eat the passover? 

    Most of the Jewish people DID not see it this way any more. They celebrated
    it 1 day later. They would have considered it as the 13th of Nissan in
    the evening. 

    So, after the Sabbaths(plural), early on the first day of the week, 
    Jesus was reported as having risen from the dead(Matt.28:6).

Mr. 16:2
    And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the 
    sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

    The rising of the sun did not in either way mark the beginning of a new
    calendar day. If it started with the setting of the sun, it was ca.
    12 hours after the day had already started. If as the Romans understood,
    then ca. 6 hours after the day had started. In both cases it was 'on the
    third day' and 'in the morning the first day'.

    In a short article from my friend the Anglican Vicar, 'Who is kidding who',
    it was for the first time I saw the answer. It is the word 'Sabbaths'
    in Matt.28:1 and another reference which I don't have im my mind now. 

    I read the note suggesting that the 'sabbaths' means one Saturday,
    but since it was also the Passover it was considered plural. The writer
    of Matthew was not trying to infer something more than simply 'In the end
    of the Sabbaths'. He wrote it for normal people and I'm sure he meant it to
    be understood as he wrote it. The Passover joining to the weekly Sabbath
    would be understood as 'the end of the Sabbaths'. The Passover ON the
    Sabbath would be understood as 'the end of the Sabbath', with this Sabbath
    being a high(great) sabbath.

    Jesus died on Thursday evening at 3:00 P.M.(Mt.27:46). 
    (Earlier Calendar day starting at sunset)
    Thursday 3:00 P.M.- sunset. (partial day)
    Friday Evening 1. Night
    Friday Morning 1. Day
    Saturday Evening 2. Night
    Saturday Morning 2. Day
    Sunday Evening 3.Night
    Sunday Morning 3.Day(partial day)
   
    (Roman Calendar day starting at 0:00)
    Thursday 3:00 P.M. - Midnight 1.Day
    Friday Midnight - Noon AM 1.Night
    Friday Noon - Midnight  2.Day
    Saturday Midnight - Noon 2.Night
    Saturday Noon - Midnight 3.Day
    Sunday Midnight - Noon 3.Night (Middle of Midnight - Noon he rose)

    Both calendar day methods count 3 full nights and that he rose on the
    3rd day.

    So, by the early calendar day, it is 3 FULL nights and 2 FULL days with 
    2 partial days.
    In order for the prophecy to be true that he rose on the 3rd day
    AND he was in the deep parts of the earth 3 days and 3 nights, it could not
    have been 72 hours unless Jesus had been crucified AND rose at EXACTLY 
    sunset. It would otherwise have been 'on the 4th day' that he would have 
    risen. Both of these prophecies are totally, literally fulfilled in what 
    happened! Sunday was the 3rd day. 

    If Jesus had been crucified on Friday,
    the disciples would not be saying as 'a matter of fact' of sunday(Lu.24:1):
    
Luk.24:21
    and beside all this, today is the third day since these things were done.

    They were certainly not theorizing that on Friday an 'extra day' occured
    when the sun was darkened. It was 'matter of fact' independant of 
    theorizing the third day. I can therefore understand why my Anglican
    Vicar friend uses the title 'Who is kidding who' when refering to those
    who think Jesus was crucified Friday night. There is really only Saturday
    which lays between them. How could Sunday at sunrise ever be considered 
    the third day after Friday?

    Using Wednesday could never work, since he would have been in the 
    deeper parts for (no matter which calendar you use) Wednesday night, 
    Thursday night, Friday night and the complete Saturday night, 4 complete 
    nights! The disciples would not have spoken on the way to Emmaus that it 
    was ON the 3rd day when approaching Sunday evening.

    Jesus could have prophesied and said he would be in the tomb 72 hours. He
    didn't. 

    You could count thursday (the last 3 hours by the old calendar day and
    the last 9 hours by the Roman calendar day) as part of the first day. 
    The rest of a partial day is sunday morning.

    I know a lot of comments may result from this, but I don't plan to 
    answer them (I think for this subject enough has been said). Please don't
    take this wrong. Our discussions about such things seem only to magnify
    our differences, which in reality are often over-amplified and of no
    crucial importance. It doesn't matter to me one bit if you think
    Jesus was crucified on Friday, Easter or anything else. But I don't have
    to agree with it, just as much as you don't have to agree with me. We
    are servants to Christ. Why should I have a problem when someone who serves
    Christ disagrees with me? He his Christ's servant, not mine. But I will
    read any comments you make.


    Your Fellow-Laborer in Christ, whom we love dearly,

    Rodger Dusatko
    

>    Today the Passover is celebrated on the evening of the 14th, showing that
>    the Jewish people still see a day like the Romans did. According to the
>    earlier understanding, the day that the Jewish people now celebrate 
>    Passover is 1 day late! After sunset on the 14th used to be understood
>    as the 15th! Today the feast happens on the 15th(again a normal
>    calendar day as we understand it), not starting after sunset.

Roger, the Jews celebrate the Passover on the 15th of Nisan, as they always
have -- and this means that first Seder is in the evening which precedes the
day and that second Seder is on the next day.

The Jewish day has always begun at sundown and run through the sundown.
Today is the 20th of Shebat, 5754; the 21st begins this evening at sundown.

This year, the 14th of Nisan is Saturday, the 26th of March, and the 15th of
Nisan begins at sundown on Saturday, March 26th, but any calendar program will
show it as Sunday, March 27th.  I am painfully aware of this, because I am
producing a Gilbert & Sullivan production of "Patience" which was unable to
get access to the stage we normally use except on a date which conflicts with
Passover.

Several of our regular performers and orchestra members are unable to
participate in the production this year because first Seder would conflict
with our _Saturday_ productions.

/john

  Re .51 Hi Rodger,

  Thank you Rodger for your data, I'm torn between a wednesday and a Thursday
  view. Im going to extract and review your note (along with some others).

  Rodger I really think this is a healthy exercise... its not devisive
  no one is getting angry (as fas as can be determined)

  its important because as someone has already said its one of those places
  where skeptical people need some help. I think just being honest with
  them goes a long way... like , well im not sure but...

  Eric, 

  i checked Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT and came up with
  a little bit Re: the Preparation Day :

  Kittel's Vol VII Pgs 1-34 : Sabbaton, paraskeua

  Mosly concerning the Sabbath, but the Preparation Day is any day before
  a Holy day.

  Paraskuea - To make ready 

  Para   : Preposition - of, from, with  (Strongs 3844).
  Skeuos : Vessels, goods, stuff, (household implements) (Strongs 4632).

  literally means "get your stuff ready" day  and absorbs its ritual from
  the holy day it precedes.

  I also read a note concerning the apparent plural ending in the NT of the 
  word sabbath - sabbata (in many places). One writer claimed it was the 
  hellenistic way of reproducing the exact transliteration of the Hebrew 
  sabbatta (ending in a dagesh teth) to koine and is really not a plural. 

               Hank  

Re:  .25

  >(BTW, I'm not dogmatic about Wednesday vs. Thursday.  It's just that
  >Friday is no good.)


  >They would both be strictly true if he was in the tomb exactly 3 days 
  >from the start of day 0 (our 6 pm) to exactly the same point of time 3 
  >days later. 

I don't understand, Garth.  If Christ was in the tomb for precisely 72
hours (not a moment more, not a moment less), then how could Thursday
be acceptable (giving Jesus a Sunday afternoon resurrection).  Obviously,
it seems you don't really believe the exactly 72 hour scenario.

Again, the issue is not the figuring out of the time; it is the
*meaning* of the terms.  You say that 3 days and 3 nights MUST
mean at LEAST part of 1 day and part of 1 night.  I'm telling you
flat out that this is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.  A day and a night in
the Hebrew language can mean any part of *either* a day or a night.

Therefore, the discussion is meaning of words (or expressions)
in the Bible.  You have presented zero Biblical evidence about
why your interpretation must be correct.  To be honest, I have
also presented zero evidence about why my interpretation may be
correct.  I have read authorities who have done this research
and who claim that what I am repeating here is true.  Dr. Walter
Martin from the Bible Answer Man show is one, for example.

So, unless evidence is provided that squarely contradicts what
I've presented, it seems to me that the Biblical evidence strongly
points to a Friday death and a Sunday morning resurrection.

Collis

Re: .54  (Collis)

>I don't understand, Garth.  If Christ was in the tomb for precisely 72
>hours (not a moment more, not a moment less), then how could Thursday
>be acceptable (giving Jesus a Sunday afternoon resurrection).  Obviously,
>it seems you don't really believe the exactly 72 hour scenario.

I am not dogmatic about 72 hours.  I could also see part of a day counting
for a day and part of a night counting for a night.  

>Again, the issue is not the figuring out of the time; it is the
>*meaning* of the terms.  You say that 3 days and 3 nights MUST
>mean at LEAST part of 1 day and part of 1 night.  I'm telling you
>flat out that this is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.  A day and a night in

I am not interested in discussing how "3 days and 3 nights" can mean parts of
3 days and 2 nights.

  >I am not interested in discussing how "3 days and 3 nights" can mean 
  >parts of 3 days and 2 nights.

You're not interested in providing any evidence whatsoever on
the very point that we disagree.  I accept that.  

However, I hardly find it convincing (and am amazed that so 
many others are willing to make the same *assumptions* as you 
and believe them simply because of the *English* meanings of the 
individual words in the 20th century while ignoring the clear 
possibility (probability) that this was an idiomatic
expression.

We will continue to disagree.

I respect a lot of what you enter, Garth.  I think much of
it is well-researched and well thought out.  Your total lack of
Biblical, contextual evidence on what this expression means
along with your dogmatic view about what it must mean I find
quite perplexing.

Collis

Re: .56  (Collis)

You say you respect a lot of what I enter and think that much of it is
well-researched and well thought out, but then you are perplexed that I 
don't buy into some extra-biblical hearsay about a Jewish idiom?  Could you
even provide references and quote the primary source documents in support of
your case if I asked you to? 

Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you, not me, to demonstrate that
the text shouldn't be taken at face value.  Otherwise we would have to bring
into dispute every plain and straightforward passage in the bible as possibly
not meaning what it says at face value. 

    re .57 (KALI::WIEBE)/Garth
    
    I know I should stay out of this, but what you say reminds me of a
    loose end from another topic (on the length of the creative days) ...
    
>Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you, not me, to demonstrate that
>the text shouldn't be taken at face value.  Otherwise we would have to bring
>into dispute every plain and straightforward passage in the bible as possibly
>not meaning what it says at face value. 
    
    We discussed briefly the meaning of the passage that says God brought
    all the animals to Adam for him to name before Eve was created -- which
    is to say that all the animals were named on the 6th day.  Unless I
    misread you, you implied that we shouldn't take this at face value, but
    rather take it to mean that either 1) Adam didn't really name all the
    animals down to the last variation, but only gave them general
    classifications, or 2) that Adam continued to name them after Eve was
    created (after the 6th day).
    
    It just struck me that this was a passage that had a pretty definite
    'face value', but which you didn't feel should be taken so literally.
    If I've misinterpretted you, perhaps you could say a few more words on
    this (in the other topic), if you have the time/inclination.
    
    
    -mark.

.57 (Garth)

> You say you respect a lot of what I enter and think that much of it is
> well-researched and well thought out, but then you are perplexed that I 
> don't buy into some extra-biblical hearsay about a Jewish idiom?  

> Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you, not me, to demonstrate that
> the text shouldn't be taken at face value.  Otherwise we would have to bring
> into dispute every plain and straightforward passage in the bible as possibly
> not meaning what it says at face value. 

Plain and straightforward: the day of Christ's death was the day before the
Saturday Sabbath -- ergo Christ died on Friday.

But what is face value to you as an American male in the 20th century is
different than what is face value to a first century Jew.  The meaning would be
obvious to a first century Jew.  He would see no difficulty in reconciling the
fact that Jesus promised he would be in the grave three days and three nights
and the fact that he died on Friday and rose on Sunday. Hence you have to think
like a first century Jew to understand it.

Which is why the literalist, simplistic hermeneutic of "if it makes sense at
face value, take it at face value" is wrong.

Though I reject Garth's hermeneutics, I admire his consistency with the
evangelical Protestant axiom of Sola Scriptura.  I find nothing more amusing
than to go to the homes of my evangelical friends who have lexicons, Greek and
Hebrew grammar books, study Bibles, Bible dictionaries, Bible commentaries,
"New Manners and Customs of Bible Times", Septuagints, history books, etc.,
etc., etc., and then tell me with a straight face that all we need to know
God's truth is the Bible. 

Ah, but don't get me started ...

Eric

Re: .58  (Mark)
    
>    We discussed briefly the meaning of the passage that says God brought
>    all the animals to Adam for him to name before Eve was created -- which
>    is to say that all the animals were named on the 6th day.  Unless I
>    misread you, you implied that we shouldn't take this at face value, but
>    rather take it to mean that either 1) Adam didn't really name all the
>    animals down to the last variation, but only gave them general
>    classifications, or 2) that Adam continued to name them after Eve was
>    created (after the 6th day).
    
I think you misunderstood me.  I don't see any reason not to take the
passage at face value which describes Adam naming all the animals.  I recall
pointing out two possibilities:  1) He did name them all, and there were
"less" than there are now (due to speciation and/or modern-day
misclassification).  2) that Adam continued to name them after Eve was
created (after the 6th day).  

#1 is consistent with the scripture at face value, because it only questions
whether Adam had to name as many animals as a hypothetical modern-day "Adam"
would. 

#2 is consistent with the scripture at face value, because the scripture
doesn't say he completed the naming on the 6th day.

Now, I know what your problem is with #2 above:  You read the scripture
"But for Adam no suitable helper was found.", mentally insert the phrase
"by Adam", and consequently make a chronology out of verse 19-21.  

But my point is that the scripture does not say that at face value.  Neither
does the scripture say, "And so on the 6th day Adam completed the naming of 
all the animals."  If it did, that would certainly rule out option #2.

However, the scripture does say, "3 days and 3 nights".

I hope this clarifies things.

Re: .59  (Eric)

>Plain and straightforward: the day of Christ's death was the day before the
>Saturday Sabbath -- ergo Christ died on Friday.

The scripture does not say "Saturday Sabbath".  

Plain and straightforward: Jesus said "3 days and 3 nights".  They found the
tomb empty on the morning of the 1st day of the week.  Therefore Jesus could
not have died on Friday.

    Re: Note 383.59 by KOLBE::eje
    
�I find nothing more amusing
�than to go to the homes of my evangelical friends who have lexicons, Greek and
�Hebrew grammar books, study Bibles, Bible dictionaries, Bible commentaries,
�"New Manners and Customs of Bible Times", Septuagints, history books, etc.,
�etc., etc., and then tell me with a straight face that all we need to know
�God's truth is the Bible. 
    
    Eric, I suspect you'd be amused more than you could bear if you
    visited my house some time.
    
    While it's true that we treat the Bible as the ultimate source if
    truth, it's not true that we can know the Bible as well as possible
    without the use of outside helps. To properly understand the Bible - or
    any ancient document for that matter - you need to bridge the gaps that
    exist between our understanding and the understanding of the author.
    
    There are at least 4 gaps that adversely impact our ability to
    accurately understand the Bible:
    	- History: there is a whole lot more history that helps to
    	  frame out understanding that what is recorded in the inspired
    	  66 books. Back then there were no cars, planes, computers,
    	  television, etc. Understanding what the historical setting
    	  was and how it frames the Biblical writings improves our
    	  ability to understand the what/why/how of much of what
    	  was written. One way to get a better understanding of the
    	  history of the times is to read Bible handbooks, atlases,
    	  commentaries, etc.
    	- Culture: obviously there are tremendous cultural differences
    	  between then and now. Our (western) culture has replace the
    	  "kiss of greeting" with a handshake. Women today are no longer
    	  considered second-class citizens. We don't wash the feet of our
    	  guests or anoint their heads with oil. There is more to the
    	  culture of that day than is recorded in the Bible. The better
    	  we understand the culture the more that things will make sense.
    	- Geography: here's at least something that hasn't changed too much
    	  in the past couple of millennia, but how well do we know the
    	  geography of the Holy Land? It can make a difference. For example
    	  sometimes we read that Moses was given the Law on Mt. Sanai
    	  but other times we read that he received it on Mt. Horeb. Knowing
    	  that they're two names for the same place (or that one is the
    	  subset of the other) dispells the apparent contradiction.
    	  Knowing how far Elijah ran when he was scared by Jezebel gives
    	  a better appreciation for the mood he was in when he was
    	  wishing for death. Knowing that Samaria was between the north
    	  and south pieces of Palestine and that the Jordan River runs
    	  North/South on the east provides insight on Jesus' movements
    	  during His ministry.
    	- Language: I will be so bold as to say that no one here has as
    	  good a grasp on Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek as did the Biblical
    	  writers. There is so much richness that exists in the original
    	  languages that we miss by sticking only with English. We also
    	  miss the idioms that were common to the people of the day. We
    	  often don't the tense/aspect/number/mood of the verbs without
    	  the help of an analytical lexicon.
    
    I agree, Eric, that the Bible is God's truth, and that all other
    sources (commentaries, word study books, Bible handbooks, etc.) may
    have error in them. For the serious student, though, the more that can
    be learned about the history, culture, geography, and language that
    formed the environment in which the Bible was written, the better will
    be our understanding of what God is trying to tell us.
    
    	BD�

>    While it's true that we treat the Bible as the ultimate source if
>    truth, it's not true that we can know the Bible as well as possible
>    without the use of outside helps. To properly understand the Bible - or
>    any ancient document for that matter - you need to bridge the gaps that
>    exist between our understanding and the understanding of the author.

Sounds good.  But would you agree that Christian tradition can be one of these
sources that helps us properly understand the Bible and "rightly divide the
Word of truth"?

Let's say -- for the sake of argument, since I reject this position -- that all
Christian tradition is just as fallible as commentaries, lexicons, history
books, and so forth.  Even then, would it be reasonable to say that if the
Christian church interpreted a particular verse of the Bible in a particular
way throughout most of its history, without wavering, that this would be a
compelling witness that that verse should not be interpreted in another way,
even though it might be a reasonable interpretation?

In other words, are we free to interpret Scripture in any way we like and any
way we find reasonable within the context of Scripture itself, or should we
interpret Scripture in accordance with the unanimous and unchanging tradition
of the Church, where this tradition admits only a narrow range of possible
interpretations?

Part of my disillusionment with evangelical Protestantism when I moved and
believed in those circles was that everyone agreed that Scripture was the sole
authority, but everyone's interpretation of Scripture varied widely to such a
degree that groups could not even come to agreement on the most basic truths of
the Christian faith, even by relying on Scripture alone.  I found it quite
ironic that people were in essence taking advantage of the fact that authority
was limited to Scripture alone to propose scores of new and different 
interpretations that were reasoned from Scripture, but disagreed with quote
'orthodox' Christianity.  These new interpretations could not be refuted from 
Scripture alone, because they were reasoned from Scripture. Nonetheless, they 
were so strange that they had to be wrong.  This same 'hermeneutic principle'
as I will call it (the Bible as sole doctrinal authority), which originally
was proposed to clean Christianity from error and purify it, was now a license
for error, and left the Christian church on the shifting sands of private
interpretation, 'tossed about by every wind of doctrine.'

I see this interpretation of Scripture which gives a Thursday or Friday
crucifixion as one of these innovations, a teaching previously unknown in the
Christian Church. Sure they can defend this position from Scripture -- but
simply because they can is no proof that it's right.

Why should I believe this innovative, context-free teaching, for which one can
provide no proof that it was believed by the Christians before recent times,
when for two thousand years, the [rest of the] Christian Church has taught a
Friday crucifixion, which is entirely consistent with Scripture?  This is
especially ironic since as far back as I have been able to investigate, the
Christian Church has celebrated every year the day of Christ's death, Good
Friday, and indeed even in the first century, we see that the Christians fasted
every Wednesday and Friday -- the day of Christ's betrayal, and the day of
Christ's death.

"watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are
contrary to the teaching you have learned." Romans 16:17

"hold fast to the traditions which you received, whether by word of mouth or
by letter" (2 Thes 2:15).

Eric

    Hi eric,
    
    If I may pop in..
    
    I think the main difference between tradition (or Tradition) and a
    lexicon or the like, is that the latter is a somewhat "scientific" tool
    designed to assist one in understanding languages that are not one's
    native tongue, while the former is somewhat less "scientific" ;-)
    
    However, this doesn't negate tradition.  Some are wonderfully rich,
    others aren't worth the believers' time.  Approached with discernment,
    some traditions are and should be a much welcome thing.
    
    Steve

    That should be *E*ric - nothing intentional there...

.63	Eric

I am in near agreement with everything Eric has been saying.  Tradition 
has value and is one of the quadrilateral means for determining truth.
When tradition agrees with the Word, then both are attested and affirmed.

On the flip side of the coin, tradition _can_ be diverted and added to
so that the straight and narrow may still be narrow enough but not as straight
as it used to be.  Course correction is then needed.  I do not intend to 
point out what I think those things are.  I believe those things exist in
varying degrees within the churches.  Whether Jesus speaks to several facets
of one church organization in Revelation, or several church organizations,
He certainly has different difficulties with each of those churches when He
said "Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee."  

Which of our church organizations does Jesus have nothing against?
And so we comfort ourselves in the safety of our own church's doctrines;
each of us.  When it comes down to it, folks, church membership won't
be the guage, and even doctrine will fall short of gaining entrance into
heaven.  Jesus said that the Jews "know who they worship" ... but that
true worshippers of God will worship Him in spirit and in truth.
And this may include *some* doctrinally screwed up Samaritan who is shown
what it means to worship in spirit and in truth, even though they may
still live in Samaria.  Oh, it is good to have the proper bead on doctrine
and that doctrine should be preached to shine light on ignorance.  In
the same vein, let us each endeavor not to be those Jews who know who
they worship but were lost in their traditions.  When tradition agrees
with the Word, and the Spirit, then we can revel in the affirmed tradition.

Mark M.

Re:  "straight-forward meaning of 3 days and 3 nights"

I have no specific references for the meaning of this
phrase and neither have you produced any.  I have not
studied this in detail.  I have, however, been instructed
by those who claim to have studied this in detail and claiming
knowledge of the times and the language have indicated
that these words did not mean what you are attempting to
claim they must mean.

It appears that other words used in this same discussion
are not compatible (after three days, within three days)
to our English-based minds.

What I have to go on is:

 - reports from knowledgable scholars
 - tradition
 - Scripture

which all reconcile to a Friday death.  Is it any wonder
that I don't accept your Wednesday (certainly impossible in
light of Scripture timetable) or Thursday (does not reconcile
with "after 3 days", so some adjustment in interpretation is
going to be needed) which is based on a particular definition
of the words in this phrase for which you offer no evidence
other than it being straight-forward literal meaning to a
20th century English reader?

If nothing else, it seems to me that I have presented a case
for reasonable doubt and more work in understanding this phrase
(as well as the other words used).

Collis

    The 'after 3 days' fits. It did not mean 'on the 4th day', as shown by
    how the Pharisees saw it.
    
    Mt.     27:62   Now the  next  day,  that  followed  the  day  of  the
    preparation,  the  chief priests and Pharisees came together unto
    Pilate.
    Mt.     27:63   Saying, Sir, we  remember  that  that  deceiver  said,
    while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
    Mt.     27:64   Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure 
    until  the  third  day,  lest his disciples come by night, and steal
    him away, and say unto the people, He  is  risen  from the dead; so the
    last error shall be worse than the first.
    
    If they understood it to mean After the 3rd day, i.e., the 4th day,
    they would have asked 'until the end of the 4th day', but they said
    'until the third day'.
    
    There is a big difference between 'And after 3 days I will rise again'
    and 'And after the 3rd day I will rise again'. He said 'on the 3rd day
    I will rise again', 'destroy this temple and in three days I will
    raise it up'.
    
    
    Rodger Dusatko

    Another thought.
    Thurs 15:00 - 20:00 1st day (but only partial)
    Thurs 20:00 - 5:00 1st night
    Fri.  5:00 - 20:00 1st day + partial day
    Fri. 20:00 - 5:00 2nd night
    Sat. 5:00 - 20:00 2nd day + partial day
    Sat. 20:00 - 5:00 3rd night
    Sun. at 5:00 is after 2 days + partial day, but still considered the 3rd 
    day. If both 'on the third day' and 'after 3 days' are to be true,
    Jesus couldn't have done it better.
    
    Rodger

Has anyone else ever noticed that if you add forty hours to 3pm Friday, you
get 7am Sunday, which is very close to the hour that Christ was discovered
risen from the dead?

Eric