Daniel 9 and other odd thoughts

[themuzicman]

I seem to recall that Jesus' actual birth wasn't in 1 AD. I just did some searching, and depending on who you ask, it could be between 3 BC and 4 AD. I've heard dates as late as 8 AD, because of the regularity of the census in Rome, but I can't find anything to support that, presently.

The most reliable date seems to come from Luke, who suggests around 4 AD.

Now, that doesn't fit what I was looking for exactly, but it does appear to present a problem to preterism, who wants to say that the 70 weeks refer to the destruction in 70 AD, the 70 weeks since Christ's birth.

I'd like to try an alternative view, and see how fast you all can poke holes in it. (Feel free to do so.)

The 70 weeks refers to the actual exile of Israel. Daniel 9:24 says that 70 weeks have been decreed fo ryour people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make and end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. All but the last one or two could easily refer to the exilic period, which God was saying was going to come to an end.

What is interesting, is that you have 70 weeks, and 62 weeks, and 7 weeks. Now, if Christ's birth is closer to 7 or 8 AD, we could still take Matt 24 as preterists wish, but have it come at the end of 62 weeks, whereby the temple and the city are destroyed (Dan 10:26), and legitimately have a gap (since it does refer to 62 weeks and 7 weeks, and not a 70 weeks) to verse 27, making a 7 year tribulation a possibility.

Now, what is the point of the 70 weeks? Essentially, all but the remnant of Israel rejected God when they failed to return from exile to the promised land to rebuild the temple and the city. The vast majority of Israelited and Jews remained in their exiled place, even when called to return to the promised land!

Now, the temple was rebuilt, along with the city, but that only has to be completed before the beginning of the 62 weeks (verse 25).

There are obviously many things left to be clarified, here, like how can the Messiah being cut off refer to the destuction/judgment of Israel? (Cut off from His people? Romans 9?) Who is the prince that acts in AD 70 and makes the covenant in the last 7 weeks? (Satan?)

But it seems to make sense.

Thoughts?

Michael

[joelkaki]

You fundamentally misunderstand the preterist position. We do not believe the 70 weeks, as such, refer to the Tribulation. That the Tribulation would occur was determined IN the 70 weeks is the point (read through Daniel 9 again--the desolation/destruction is only determined in the 70 weeks--it doesn't actually happen then).


Joel

[dizzle]

Now, that doesn't fit what I was looking for exactly, but it does appear to present a problem to preterism, who wants to say that the 70 weeks refer to the destruction in 70 AD, the 70 weeks since Christ's birth.

Wehre in the world did you get such a kooky idea? No preterist I know believes that. Certainly none here.

[themuzicman]

So, 70 AD is a coincidence?

[dizzle]

What??? Where are you getting these whacky ideas?

[GhostontheNet]

So, 70 AD is a coincidence?
Not at all, to my view Christ's birth was in 3 B.C., which would place the crucifiction at 30 A.D. Much significance could be found in a 40 year span of time between the cross and the fall of Jerusalem. Christ likens his death and Resurrection to the span of time Jonah was in the whale. While Ninevah repented before a mere 40 days to it's fall with minimal signs, wicked Jerusalem was given 40 years to repent it's deeds with all signs and forewarning imaginable and still didn't repent. Men of Ninevah rise up against this generation indeed. It was 40 years till Moses lead his people to a land rich in milk and honey, likewise it was 40 years till Christ the new Moses ushered in the age to come.

[dizzle]

Not at all, to my view Christ's birth was in 3 B.C., which would place the crucifiction at 30 A.D. Much significance could be found in a 40 year span of time between the cross and the fall of Jerusalem. Christ likens his death and Resurrection to the span of time Jonah was in the whale. While Ninevah repented before a mere 40 days to it's fall with minimal signs, wicked Jerusalem was given 40 years to repent it's deeds with all signs and forewarning imaginable and still didn't repent. Men of Ninevah rise up against this generation indeed. It was 40 years till Moses lead his people to a land rich in milk and honey, likewise it was 40 years till Christ the new Moses ushered in the age to come.

Hey have you read Richard Bauckman's "God Crucified"? He has some great stuff on Exodus imagery in the NT that fits hand and glove with this.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

So, 70 AD is a coincidence?If by coincidence you mean that AD 70 and Daniel's perido of time are both 70, then yes. The only person I ever heard say otherwise is you.

Where did you get this?

[themuzicman]

Just reading Daniel 9. It seems to the unwashed reader that there are three time periods: 70 weeks, 62 weeks, and 7 weeks.


24 "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.

First, this seems to be a completion of the exile, and that Israel give up her sinful ways, come home, and build the temple. 70 years is the amount of time that they were in exile.

Also, notice that it appears to be assumed that Daniel know this, and the angel has come to give Daniel prophecy about what is to come starting here.

25 "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.

Possible dual meaning, here. Obviously it wasn't 69 weeks between the end of the exile and Christ, and the rebuilding of the temple and city took longer than 69 years, even if you split it up between the two periods in which the temple and city were built.

But there seems to be some agreement that this refers to the birth of Christ. (At least that's what I thought, with both dispys and preterists saying that the 70 weeks could have been completed in 70 AD, and preterists saying that it WAS completed, whereas the dispies have a gap. I'm probably waaaaay off, here, but that's what I've heard.)

26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.

Notice that this is after the 62 weeks, thus comes in the problem with Christ's birthdate, plus the sometimes problem that numbers aren't always exact, although it would be hard to argue that 62 meant something else. But this DOES appear to refer to the destuction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This could also correlate to Matt 24, but wouldn't necessarily have to be the tribulation of Revelation.

Notice also, in the next passage, that there is a covenant for 1 week... which is 7 days... (Odd, that the 7 weeks isn't mentioned again, maybe the time periods are fluid?)

27 "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

It's in this week (7 days ... 7 weeks .. 7 years?) that the abomination that makes desolate comes, which also puts a potential gap in Matt 24, since the 62 weeks and the 7 weeks (assuming the 7 days are the 7 weeks) are separate here, and wouldn't have to be consecutive.

Call me crazy, but wouldn't this put all the pieces together?

Michael

[Ted]

If you want to understand the 70 weeks, get my book! (Shameless commercial plug!)

Actually, that's true. Chapter 3 of I Want to be Left Behind is devoted to the explanation of Daniel 9. But this discussion has been made in several other threads not long ago.

The first issue is the purpose of the 70 weeks. The language of 9:24 is probation. And the elements of probation are all covenant. This doesn't have anything to do with a return from exile, but a return to God.

I could go on at length, but the date you propose is odd. I know of no authority who proposes an AD date for Jesus' birth. I've seen as late as 1BC and as early as 5BC, based on a host of variable data.

It's good to investigate scripture for yourself, but start with good data.

Ted

[themuzicman]

Unfortunately, the data seems to be unconclusive, with a range of 10 years or more, based upon the accounts in Matthew (which put it around 3BC), and Luke (which put it later, like 4+ AD.)

We may not know that date, which, if everyone things that the 70 weeks is 70 years, and wants that to definitively refer to 70 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem, could be a problem, and, in fact, if the 70 weeks is exile (which is covenantal in nature), and the remainder is prophecy, might lead to another conclusion.

Michael

[GhostontheNet]

Hey have you read Richard Bauckman's "God Crucified"? He has some great stuff on Exodus imagery in the NT that fits hand and glove with this.
No, I haven't read it.

[Ted]

Muz,

How does Luke's account place Jesus' birth at 4AD or so?

Ted

[themuzicman]

Well, there are a couple of schools of thought on this:

Here's the (http://www.biblebell.org/mbag/mailbag7.html) early argument. 6-4 BC would refer to the time before that Herod died (4 BC), and when Caesar decalred a census (8 BC), and when Quarineus was govenor. This seems most straightforward, but not conclusive.

Here's (http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/birthyr.htm) the 6 AD argument:

Quarineus was apparantly govenor twice, once until 4BC, and once starting in 1 AD. If the decree was the tax, which would require a census, that would be around 5 AD putting the actual census later in time (6+ AD) and the only problem is who was king in Jerusalem at the time. Since there was a Herod at 4BC, and a Herod during Jesus' ministry, it doesn't seem unreasonable that there would be one inbetween.

Luke's reporting that the census was a result of the tax supports this later date.

Either way, it seems clear that Jesus was not born in 1 BC or 1 AD.

Michael

[Ourglass]

The 70 weeks is for Israel to attone for their sins against God. Each week being a period of 7 years. When Jesus was "cut off" was his death, and paused Israel's 70 weeks until the end of the times of the Gentiles (church age) which is Christ's bride (God already makes it clear in certain passages that he is Israel's husband). When Christ removes his bridge, the clock will begin again for Israel and their final week (the 70th week or 7 year period) will begin.

Nehemial 2 is when the decree to restore was issued (Daniel 9:25) to Jesus' death on the cross were 69 weeks or actually (445 BC to 30 AD). Isn't the Lord amazing, this is a period of 483 years (69 x 7) and the final week or 7 years is at the end - accounting for the total of 490 appointed on Israel.

Another point that this pre-triber holds to why the Church is not present during this time on earth. The Bride is taken at Revelation 4:1 and in seclusion, per jewish tradition. Tradition is 7 days - 7 years will pass here on earth - which is why we see this in Revelation 19:7 "For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready"

[Daywalker]

Daniel's 70 weeks never even started. It is ALL in the future.
God gave a PROPHECY to Daniel of what God WAS GOING to do.
Daniel 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.

Now, if we look past the BREAK in our Bibles where Dan. 9 ENDS we see that this vision was given to Daniel, when? In the...not the first, not the second, but in the THIRD YEAR of Cyrus. Right?
In order to BEGIN to make Daniel's weeks start to be fulfilled with the rebuilding of the temple with Ezra, Cyrus would have had to have given his command to rebuild the temple AFTER the prophecy is given.

Ezra 1:1-2 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

Things that differ are never equal.
Here is what's worse...
If you look again at Dan. 10:1 you see that that the time appointed was LONG, not 2 years or so IN THE PAST.
Grace,
Mike
PS. Unless a person first comes to grips with this, Matt. 24 is not even worth dealing with in my opinion.

[GhostontheNet]

Daniel's 70 weeks never even started. It is ALL in the future.
God gave a PROPHECY to Daniel of what God WAS GOING to do.
Daniel 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.

Now, if we look past the BREAK in our Bibles where Dan. 9 ENDS we see that this vision was given to Daniel, when? In the...not the first, not the second, but in the THIRD YEAR of Cyrus. Right?
In order to BEGIN to make Daniel's weeks start to be fulfilled with the rebuilding of the temple with Ezra, Cyrus would have had to have given his command to rebuild the temple AFTER the prophecy is given.

Ezra 1:1-2 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

Things that differ are never equal.
Here is what's worse...
If you look again at Dan. 10:1 you see that that the time appointed was LONG, not 2 years or so IN THE PAST.
Grace,
Mike
PS. Unless a person first comes to grips with this, Matt. 24 is not even worth dealing with in my opinion.
Alright, even if your exegesis of the data holds, where is it said the starting point must be in the future? It is at least possible that this is written to show the reader that the 70 sevens began two years ago and not from the writing of the prophecy.

[dizzle]

Funny how it could have been planned to be long (an abuse of that reference) and yet the radical dispensational view it was supposed to happen in the first century but was delayed because the Jews didn't do what they were supposed to. This whole system completely implodes upon itself (and certainly cannot rely upon timing statements that it routinely ignores).

[Ted]

Ghost,

If your assertion is true, then perhaps you could enlighten us as to how the magi knew that a "star" they saw was definitely the sign of the King of the Jews.

Have fun. Think outside the box for a minute or two. (Matthew 2, BTW)

Ted

[GhostontheNet]

Ghost,

If your assertion is true, then perhaps you could enlighten us as to how the magi knew that a "star" they saw was definitely the sign of the King of the Jews.

Have fun. Think outside the box for a minute or two. (Matthew 2, BTW)

Ted

And you're sure you're asking me and not Daywalker? Personally, I've not done a thorough inquiry into such things as time divisions and starting points of the 70 Sevens prophecy. As to the star/comet, these passages in Tacitus and Suetonius come to mind.

Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Nero: 36
Tacitus, The Annals, 14:? (close to 21) This seems very similar to Herod's actions, save that instead he attempted to kill the coming king Himself having narrowed down His age and pinpointed His location. Perhaps the Magi held this kind of belief described by Suetonius and Tacitus, and went to investigate.

[Ted]

Ghost,

Those quotes are interesting, but aren't scripture. They tell us about the general view of stellar events. And that's all they say.

Palestine was the armpit of the Roman Empire. It was completely insignificant in the politics of the day, from a larger perspective. So why would astrologers see it as the birth of "the King of the Jews" of all people? After all, the birth is not the time of the change of regency that these historians indicate.

The account of the magi is included in scripture for more than the simple fact of their visit to Jesus. Their certainty about the time and the event from the simple observation of the star can help us learn about porphecy. Give it a try. And Daywalker should answer the question as well.

Ted

[GhostontheNet]

I suppose you propose the Magi were familiar with the 70 Sevens prophecy? Honestly, I believe this has plausability. You are right when you say that there is a discrepancy between a change of regency and the birth of a king. Nevertheless, the text indicates Herod took the drastic action of wiping out all the male children under two in Bethlehem, and the angel's warning of a flight to Egypt instead of simply out of Bethlehem implies a dogged persistence to kill the newborn King. I find this at least as drastic as Nero's "wholesale massacre of the nobility" to evade the "wrath of heaven. Its doubtful Herod didn't see this as a threat, either to him or those after him. Its obvious he fears a change of government sooner or later. The text makes no real indication of the magnitude of its sign save that because it reappears over the location of Christ its probably no ordinary star. Perhaps it was something like "...a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city..." which Josephus described was seen over Jerusalem as a portent of Jerusalem's desolation that would occur soon (The Jewish War 6.5.3). Were the star reported in Matthew of the magnitude reported of Josephus' other star or greater, perhaps it might get Magi from far off coming to to the armpit of the Empire. However, I suspect I'm fighting the wrong battle, and as such I retract my original idea until I do a more thorough anylasis of the data.

[Jude3b]

DANIEL'S 70 WEEKS PREDICTED THE COMING OF JESUS CHRIST!

Daniel predicted the coming of the Messiah, saying, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy" (Dan. 9:24). This inspired prophecy met its fulfillment in that Christ who came to "save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21).

[GhostontheNet]

Of course the 70 Sevens predicts Christ, Daywalker is simply trying to bail out of the implication that if the 69 sevens passed without gap, there's no real reason not to assume the last seven came without a gap. And if so, the judgement is fixed, and as a consequence the events of the people of the prince desolating the city and sanctuary, and the abomination of desolation all come in the first century.

[Ted]

Ghost,

I am suggesting that the magi were familiar with the 70 weeks prophecy. Most authors suggest they were from the Persian empire, and certainly there were Jews there. Those Jews would have brought Torah (at least) with them, and Daniel was completed in the Persian empire. Ancient astrologers tried to be familiar with more than their core texts, so a familiarity with Jewish literature would not be surprising.

Yes, Herod saw the child as a threat. But it was a future threat, not a present one. It’s far easier to wipe out a baby than a Messiah with a following. Think Masada.

The story in Matthew 2 says that the magi “saw” the star in the east. This act of “seeing” is all that is presented in the text as occurring in “the East.” There is no account of it speaking, or leading them to Jerusalem. There is an account of it leading them to Bethlehem. This combination strongly suggests that they did not follow it to Jerusalem. This suggests that there was something else about the star that led to their firm conclusion and the effort to take a trip of 1,000 miles or so. You can find it in scripture is you look. (This is one of those cases where scripture interprets scripture. Look up “star” in you concordance in the Pentateuch. Then find a prophecy that gives the time of the arrival of the Messiah.)

Muz,

Per your PM, let me tackle the 70 weeks in bare outline.

The 62, 7, and 1 are subunits of the 70. The 70 is the bare outline, and the others are the details. Yes, there is some connection between 70 years and 70 weeks of years. In Lev 25, the sabbatical year is commanded. Every seventh year, no crops were to be planted. God would take care of them. But the Jews simply did not follow God. Jer 25 makes it clear that the Babylonian exile was a punishment for that. 2 Chron 36:21 makes it clear that those 70 years were the land sabbaths that had not been observed. That is, for 490 years, the Jews had not kept the land sabbaths. Now the prophecy of Dan 9 revisits that fact.

They had 70 weeks of screw-up. Now they get 70 weeks to get things right with the Lord. That’s the language of Dan 9:24. It’s probationary language. Imagine the same format in a common secular situation.

“Johnny, you have 30 minutes to clean up your room!”

In this case, at the end of 30 minutes, Johnny’s room will get checked, and supper (or the trip to the ball game, or whatever) will depend on whether he cleaned it. In the same way, Dan 9:24 says to the Jews, “You have 70 weeks to get these 6 things done.” Of course, at the end, God will check to see if they really did it. And they didn’t. Stephen (Acts 7) was God’s prosecuting attorney at the covenant lawsuit that terminated the probation. The Jews failed.

The 70 weeks are over. They were a single block of time.

As for the date of Jesus’ birth, let me suggest that the data to nail it down exists. We can’t be exact, but we can be pretty close.

First, we can date Jesus’ baptism quite well. Luke 3:1-3 includes a lot of data. The fifteenth year of Tiberias is the key. Tiberias assumed the Roman throne in August of AD14. By the Roman calendar, his 15th year would be from August 19, AD28 to August 18, AD29. But Luke came from an area that used the Syrian system for the dates of foreign kings, and that happens to be the same as the Jewish system. This dates the 15th year from Tishri 1, AD27 to Tishri 1, AD28. Without going through all of the details of the relative ages of John and Jesus, and the chronology in John, Jesus’ baptism was most likely in September/October of AD27.

Jesus was “about 30 years old” (Luke 3:23) at his baptism. By simple math, that places his birth in 3BC, but the imprecision of the expression would allow it to be as much as a year or two from that. That gives us a range of 5-1BC. The dates for Herod’s reign, as calibrated by an eclipse near his death, suggest 4BC as the best date. However, I have seen argument for a different celestial event to date his death at 1BC. So it’s tough to be dogmatic.

I hope that answers your questions.

Ted

[GhostontheNet]

Ghost,

I am suggesting that the magi were familiar with the 70 weeks prophecy. Most authors suggest they were from the Persian empire, and certainly there were Jews there. Those Jews would have brought Torah (at least) with them, and Daniel was completed in the Persian empire. Ancient astrologers tried to be familiar with more than their core texts, so a familiarity with Jewish literature would not be surprising.

Yes, Herod saw the child as a threat. But it was a future threat, not a present one. It’s far easier to wipe out a baby than a Messiah with a following. Think Masada.

The story in Matthew 2 says that the magi “saw” the star in the east. This act of “seeing” is all that is presented in the text as occurring in “the East.” There is no account of it speaking, or leading them to Jerusalem. There is an account of it leading them to Bethlehem. This combination strongly suggests that they did not follow it to Jerusalem. This suggests that there was something else about the star that led to their firm conclusion and the effort to take a trip of 1,000 miles or so. You can find it in scripture is you look. (This is one of those cases where scripture interprets scripture. Look up “star” in you concordance in the Pentateuch. Then find a prophecy that gives the time of the arrival of the Messiah.)

Muz,

Per your PM, let me tackle the 70 weeks in bare outline.

The 62, 7, and 1 are subunits of the 70. The 70 is the bare outline, and the others are the details. Yes, there is some connection between 70 years and 70 weeks of years. In Lev 25, the sabbatical year is commanded. Every seventh year, no crops were to be planted. God would take care of them. But the Jews simply did not follow God. Jer 25 makes it clear that the Babylonian exile was a punishment for that. 2 Chron 36:21 makes it clear that those 70 years were the land sabbaths that had not been observed. That is, for 490 years, the Jews had not kept the land sabbaths. Now the prophecy of Dan 9 revisits that fact.

They had 70 weeks of screw-up. Now they get 70 weeks to get things right with the Lord. That’s the language of Dan 9:24. It’s probationary language. Imagine the same format in a common secular situation.

“Johnny, you have 30 minutes to clean up your room!”

In this case, at the end of 30 minutes, Johnny’s room will get checked, and supper (or the trip to the ball game, or whatever) will depend on whether he cleaned it. In the same way, Dan 9:24 says to the Jews, “You have 70 weeks to get these 6 things done.” Of course, at the end, God will check to see if they really did it. And they didn’t. Stephen (Acts 7) was God’s prosecuting attorney at the covenant lawsuit that terminated the probation. The Jews failed.

The 70 weeks are over. They were a single block of time.

As for the date of Jesus’ birth, let me suggest that the data to nail it down exists. We can’t be exact, but we can be pretty close.

First, we can date Jesus’ baptism quite well. Luke 3:1-3 includes a lot of data. The fifteenth year of Tiberias is the key. Tiberias assumed the Roman throne in August of AD14. By the Roman calendar, his 15th year would be from August 19, AD28 to August 18, AD29. But Luke came from an area that used the Syrian system for the dates of foreign kings, and that happens to be the same as the Jewish system. This dates the 15th year from Tishri 1, AD27 to Tishri 1, AD28. Without going through all of the details of the relative ages of John and Jesus, and the chronology in John, Jesus’ baptism was most likely in September/October of AD27.

Jesus was “about 30 years old” (Luke 3:23) at his baptism. By simple math, that places his birth in 3BC, but the imprecision of the expression would allow it to be as much as a year or two from that. That gives us a range of 5-1BC. The dates for Herod’s reign, as calibrated by an eclipse near his death, suggest 4BC as the best date. However, I have seen argument for a different celestial event to date his death at 1BC. So it’s tough to be dogmatic.

I hope that answers your questions.

Ted
Fair enough, I conceed the point.

[Lion]

As an added thought, the years of artaxerxes reign are among the most easily established dates of history. The canon of Ptolemy with its list of kings and astonomical observations, the Greek olympiads and allusions to Greek history to Persian affairs all combine to place the seventh year of Artaxerxes at 457 BC adding 483 years to -457 gives 26AD. Since the decree was not issued on the new year day, we have to add one year to any date. Thus the date of Jesus' baptism was AD 27, making his birth 4 BC

Jesus was crucifed at passover time three and a half years later, it was AD31. This was the midst of the week. The sacrifice and grain offering was made unnecessary by his death. The fact the Jews didn't believe didn't make any difference. Those sacrifices were of no value. The dividing curtain between the holy place the most holy was torn from top to bottom when Christ died

Matt. 27:51 And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split.
Mark 15:38 And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
Luke 23:45 because the sun was obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.
Heb. 9:3 Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies,
Heb. 10:20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,

There were still three and a half years of the seventy weeks left. After thee and a half years, the sanhedrin met to accuse Steven.

Acts 6:11 Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.”
Acts 6:12 And they stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came up to him and dragged him away and brought him before the Council.
Acts 6:13 They put forward false witnesses who said, “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law;
Acts 6:14 for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.”
Acts 6:15 And fixing their gaze on him, all who were sitting in the Council saw his face like the face of an angel.

This was the charge. The believers recognized that Jesus had destroyed the need for the sacrifices, but the priests refused to believe and they stoned Steven. This was the final rejection and the seventy weeks were over in AD 34. The seventy years of captivity were ancient history by that time.

[Daniel927]

Whole lotta ideas here! Especially the one that says "think out of the box for a minute".

World History indicates that Herod, that ruled at the time of Christ died in the year 4 B.C.!

Now I'm thinking that PRIOR to this time he had to give the edict to kill all the male children (I think I made a "funny") - two years and younger - according to the time of the wise men, YES? So, according to this measure, at the latest, Christ could have been born in the year 6 B.C. Very Possible.

Yes, while it is true that God uses the numerical designation of 40 oftentimes to indicate a generation, there is also a "measure" given in Daniel of "TIMES, TIME AND HALF A TIME".

If you look at this as a "common denominator", as an "equation" that is applicable to all time frames, it ties together many events that surround Christ!

Ex: Matt. 1:17, "Abraham to Christ", (paraphrased); 42 generations (14 + 14 + 14 = 42)

Luke 3:23-31, "David to Christ", 42 generations (go ahead, count em').

Christ had a 3 year ministry (Lk. 13:7), John that preceeded him, "that voice crying in the wilderness", by a total of 6 months (Lk. 1:36). Which means that there was a "repentance" ministry (combined) of 3 1/2 years.

Now!!!!!!!!!! That equates into 42 months. Remember the "common denominator"?

From the crucifixion of Christ to his ascension would be 42 days (even as it would be 40 days from his resurrection to his ascension)!

IF - IF - Christ were born in 6 B.C., then his crucifixion, at the age of 33, would be in the year 28 A.D.

The temple being destroyed in the year 70 A.D., clearly shows that there would be exactly - 42 - years between his death and Jerusalem destroyed.

Daniel said "times, time and half a time". It represents an "equation" that is applicable to all measures of time, weeks, years, generations! A common denominator!

If the lamb was required to be taken into the "house" on the 10th and KILLED on the 14th, we know that it clearly spoke of the "pattern" that Christ would follow.

Triumphal entry, Sunday, (standing in the temple [house], Mk. 11:11) the 10th. Killed in the evening, the 14th, THURSDAY (Don't take my word for it, look at ANY calendar).

So from Mk. 11:11 to standing in front of Pilate would be exactly "three and one half" (3 1/2) days! Also then from standing in front of Pilate to his resurrection would be exactly "three and one half" (3 1/2) days.

ALL these adhere precisely to the "equation" that Daniel speaks of, "times, time and half a time". AGAIN, from his crucifixion to his ascension would be 42 days.

Okay, just one more instance, although not a 42. From his resurrection to the day of Pentecost would be "50" days (can you say "JUBILEE?"). Also then from his death to the day of Pentecost would be "52" days --- in Nehemiah 6:15---"So the wall was finished...in "52" days"!!!!!!!!

All these "patterns" speak of restoration, of redemption, of the completed work of Christ!!!!!

Bless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ted]

Christ had a 3 year ministry (Lk. 13:7), John that preceeded him, "that voice crying in the wilderness", by a total of 6 months (Lk. 1:36). Which means that there was a "repentance" ministry (combined) of 3 1/2 years.

Now!!!!!!!!!! That equates into 42 months…
Not so fast! Actually, Jesus had a three and a half year ministry (the chronology is in the book of John). But it’s not 42 months long. It would be if we were using the Gregorian calendar, but not with the Hebrew calendar. That calendar is lunisolar, with lunar months alternating between 29 and 30 days. Because that fell out of sync with the seasons (remember the spring and fall festivals), in 7 of 19 years, a thirteenth month was added. This means that there were at least 43 months (maybe 44) in three and a half years. The data to determine which is the case is not preserved either in scripture, Jewish tradition, or archeology.

Daniel said "times, time and half a time". It represents an "equation" that is applicable to all measures of time, weeks, years, generations! A common denominator!
Sorry, this is another case of loose association. As noted above, it doesn’t work for Jesus’ ministry. And, when Daniel 7:27 and 12:7 are studied, there are specific connections for each prophecy. Only those specifications are applicable to the interval (incidentally, the repetitions in Revelation refer to the same period).

ALL these adhere precisely to the "equation" that Daniel speaks of, "times, time and half a time". AGAIN, from his crucifixion to his ascension would be 42 days.
I applaud your enthusiasm, but this approach ignores Hebrew inclusive counting. The period is 43 days.

Okay, just one more instance, although not a 42. From his resurrection to the day of Pentecost would be "50" days (can you say "JUBILEE?"). Also then from his death to the day of Pentecost would be "52" days --- in Nehemiah 6:15---"So the wall was finished...in "52" days"!!!!!!!!
Once again, 53 days, not 52. And the association with Nehemiah is truly amazing. There’s no relationship at all. Your enthusiasm is commendable, but your lack of discernment requires a bit of caution on your part. You need to learn how to determine when the Bible actually uses a word or phrase in a meaningful way. Does the NT ever use “52” in a direct way? No. More specifically, does the NT ever use “52” from Nehemiah in any particular way? No.

If you are going to let the Lord speak, you have to listen to His prophets in scripture. Let them explain to you how the OT and NT interact. The Bible will interpret itself, if you let it speak. Your loose associations are first impressions that sometimes can be valuable. But before you declare that they are a new thread of truth, please take the time to see if they are part of an interpretation or explanation that God’s servants provide. If they don’t use them, chances are, the association is chance only.

Ted

[Daniel927]

Great responses, each and every one (you know what's coming?)

Thanks for the encouragement about the "enthusiasm", it is appreciated!

First there is the obvious REQUIREMENT that God indicates throughout Numbers (chapter 4 specifically), of the "age" being from 30 to 50 years old. Undoubtedly this is why the scripture indicates that Christ was "about" 30 years of age. So that his "service" would be in compliance with the word of God concerning this matter.

Also if Luke indicates that he was "about" thirty years of age, while John indicates the "time" of year, that it was (passover), does that say anything about the "time" of year that Christ was born?

Hey, don't beat me up that I might look at the time we "celebrate" his birth, as not being his actual "birth" date. Oh, and just as an "aside", although none of us are "shepherds", have you ever given thought to the fact that the reason you would "watch the flock by night", might be because it is the "lambing" season (spring time) and for the security of the newborns?

Just a thought.

Next in John 2, we see that at the wedding feast in Cana, the scripture clearly records that this miracle was the BEGINNING of miracles, which manifested his glory (again, being UN-manifested prior to this time).

Next, they went to Capernaum, abiding there not many days (would we understand that to be not many at all?).

Look at the next verse, 13, "...and the Jews passover was at hand and Jesus went up to Jerusalem". That gives us an exact time of the year for all these events.

If this, the beginning of his "revelation" to the world, his miracles, his glory, occurred right at the time of the passover, according to John, was his death not also at passover? We can't give him a 1/2 year of ministry if his ministry both began and ended at the time of Passover, can we? His ministry, according to John would have to be in "whole" year increments, either two, three or four, etc., YES?

NOW! If the scripture, Luke 1:36, the time of annunciation (sp.) by Gabriel, declares that Elizabeth in now in her "sixth" month, the science of math determines that John the Baptist is 6 months older! And as already presented to you the age, beginning and timing of Christ's ministry being 3 years, it does make the combined "repentance" ministry--3 1/2 years or 42 months!

However, not desiringto be "above" being instructed (desiring to have a "teachable" spirit), I concede the point that in 7 of 19 years there was a need for a 13th month! I would trust that you are more than able to show me that this 3, three, year period did not, was not contained within the 12 years that didn't require an extra month? YES????? After all, if we are going to refute a biblical presentation, it requires a higher level of substantiation, otherwise.......................

I hope that the "wedding feast" is seen to bear a striking resemblance to the eternal matters that Christ set in order with his sacrifice!

In Lk. 13:6-9, Christ clearly indicates the efforts of God the Father and himself, in dealing with Israel. Now the time frame stated is 3 (THREE) years, and while it is said, "...leave it alone THIS year", Christ is speaking of that same 3rd year. Go ahead, look at it.

The Father has now come 3 years and wants it "cut down", yet Christ says be patient this year also and THEN if not, THOU shalt cut it down.

Does this parable Christ gave relate any to his work of redemption or am I once again, off base?

I appreciate the fact that you took me to task relative to it being 43 days and not 42. Same as it being 53 and not 52. However, I think you may have made a fundamental math error.

First, in order to understand a "day", look at Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 and Gen. 2:2. God declaring the "evening" prior to the "morning" is what is known as FOUNDATIONAL. Every day has "two" components, first evening and then morning. This is also how you find the 3 days and nights of Christ. God is unchanging.

The sabbath would also begin in the same manner, AS WOULD THE DEATH OF CHRIST. Not his "passion", the ordeal, but his DEATH. Mark 16:42-44, Matt. 27:57, 58, these accounts both reference the "evening", the only time frames given in scripture.

Christ arose on the 3rd day, Matt. 12:39, 40. You must begin the "count" with the "evening" of his death (that's when he died, and what he spoke of in Matt. 12). You "count" the evening first and then the "morning", just like in creation. That way, with Sunday morning, you have now witnessed the passing of 3 evenings and 3 mornings. Go ahead, count them: Thursday evening, Friday evening, Saturday evening; Friday morning, Saturday morning and Sunday morning.

Don't think he was crucified on a Thursday? Look at the REQUIREMENT that God gave for the passover lamb! Into the "house" on the 10th, killed on the 14th (in the "evening"). If his triumphal entry was on Sunday (10th), the 14th HAS TO FALL ON THURSDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey, I"m just doing my best to understand that God doesn't change. What he gave in the very beginning, is still just as true, just as applicable today.

Now that I've shown you the perspective of the "count", allow me to address the 42/43, 52/53.

If you understand that Christ arose on the 3rd day, and that there were "two" components to that day, you know that the 3rd day had it's beginning on Saturday evening. Also that this 3rd day continued throughout Sunday and when he met those on the road to Emmaus they stated, Luke 24:21, that, "...and beside all this, TODAY is the third day since these things were done." It would continue to be the 3rd day all the way up to the "evening", when of course a "new" day would begin.

Acts 1:3, "...being seen of them forty (40) days". Knowing he was seen the first day of his resurrection by Mary at the tombsite. (You have to "help" me here, because this perspective may not be the easiest to explain). Knowing this very same day that he was seen, (Emmaus as well), was the 3rd day, INCLUSIVE. One day, same day, yet TWO seperate, distinct events.

The first day of resurrection was also the third day of crucifixion. If you begin the "count" of the forty days that he was seen, you MUST begin that "count" with the "day" that includes Sunday morning. Yet the beginning of that "day" was Saturday evening. This would be the first "day" that he was seen, the first day of the forty.

All you have left, after counting this "first" day of resurrection, is Thursday evening and Friday morning, along with Friday evening and Saturday morning. That's because Saturday evening goes with Sunday morning to make the 3rd day! If you "count" the 3rd day as his resurrection day (which it is), that only leaves you with TWO days since his crucifixion! If you add these two days to the total of the forty that he was seen = 42!!!!!!!

To get 43 days, you have to ignore that on that 3rd day he arose and not "count" that day as part of the forty. Yet that's what scripture says!

The same "math" applies to the 52/53.

I apoligize for this being soooooooooooo long, I do have a tendency to "ramble". So, I won't speak on some of the other things you mentioned. I do have some "Charts" made up that clearly outline this, in the event you would like to see them.

Again, thank you so much for all your time and input.

In the love of Christ,

Bless

[Daniel927]

Great responses, each and every one (you know what's coming?)

Thanks for the encouragement about the "enthusiasm", it is appreciated!

First there is the obvious REQUIREMENT that God indicates throughout Numbers (chapter 4 specifically), of the "age" being from 30 to 50 years old. Undoubtedly this is why the scripture indicates that Christ was "about" 30 years of age. So that his "service" would be in compliance with the word of God concerning this matter.

Also if Luke indicates that he was "about" thirty years of age, while John indicates the "time" of year, that it was (passover), does that say anything about the "time" of year that Christ was born?

Hey, don't beat me up that I might look at the time we "celebrate" his birth, as not being his actual "birth" date. Oh, and just as an "aside", although none of us are "shepherds", have you ever given thought to the fact that the reason you would "watch the flock by night", might be because it is the "lambing" season (spring time) and for the security of the newborns?

Just a thought.

Next in John 2, we see that at the wedding feast in Cana, the scripture clearly records that this miracle was the BEGINNING of miracles, which manifested his glory (again, being UN-manifested prior to this time).

Next, they went to Capernaum, abiding there not many days (would we understand that to be not many at all?).

Look at the next verse, 13, "...and the Jews passover was at hand and Jesus went up to Jerusalem". That gives us an exact time of the year for all these events.

If this, the beginning of his "revelation" to the world, his miracles, his glory, occurred right at the time of the passover, according to John, was his death not also at passover? We can't give him a 1/2 year of ministry if his ministry both began and ended at the time of Passover, can we? His ministry, according to John would have to be in "whole" year increments, either two, three or four, etc., YES?

NOW! If the scripture, Luke 1:36, the time of annunciation (sp.) by Gabriel, declares that Elizabeth in now in her "sixth" month, the science of math determines that John the Baptist is 6 months older! And as already presented to you the age, beginning and timing of Christ's ministry being 3 years, it does make the combined "repentance" ministry--3 1/2 years or 42 months!

However, not desiringto be "above" being instructed (desiring to have a "teachable" spirit), I concede the point that in 7 of 19 years there was a need for a 13th month! I would trust that you are more than able to show me that this 3, three, year period did not, was not contained within the 12 years that didn't require an extra month? YES????? After all, if we are going to refute a biblical presentation, it requires a higher level of substantiation, otherwise.......................

I hope that the "wedding feast" is seen to bear a striking resemblance to the eternal matters that Christ set in order with his sacrifice!

In Lk. 13:6-9, Christ clearly indicates the efforts of God the Father and himself, in dealing with Israel. Now the time frame stated is 3 (THREE) years, and while it is said, "...leave it alone THIS year", Christ is speaking of that same 3rd year. Go ahead, look at it.

The Father has now come 3 years and wants it "cut down", yet Christ says be patient this year also and THEN if not, THOU shalt cut it down.

Does this parable Christ gave relate any to his work of redemption or am I once again, off base?

I appreciate the fact that you took me to task relative to it being 43 days and not 42. Same as it being 53 and not 52. However, I think you may have made a fundamental math error.

First, in order to understand a "day", look at Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 and Gen. 2:2. God declaring the "evening" prior to the "morning" is what is known as FOUNDATIONAL. Every day has "two" components, first evening and then morning. This is also how you find the 3 days and nights of Christ. God is unchanging.

The sabbath would also begin in the same manner, AS WOULD THE DEATH OF CHRIST. Not his "passion", the ordeal, but his DEATH. Mark 16:42-44, Matt. 27:57, 58, these accounts both reference the "evening", the only time frames given in scripture.

Christ arose on the 3rd day, Matt. 12:39, 40. You must begin the "count" with the "evening" of his death (that's when he died, and what he spoke of in Matt. 12). You "count" the evening first and then the "morning", just like in creation. That way, with Sunday morning, you have now witnessed the passing of 3 evenings and 3 mornings. Go ahead, count them: Thursday evening, Friday evening, Saturday evening; Friday morning, Saturday morning and Sunday morning.

Don't think he was crucified on a Thursday? Look at the REQUIREMENT that God gave for the passover lamb! Into the "house" on the 10th, killed on the 14th (in the "evening"). If his triumphal entry was on Sunday (10th), the 14th HAS TO FALL ON THURSDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey, I"m just doing my best to understand that God doesn't change. What he gave in the very beginning, is still just as true, just as applicable today.

Now that I've shown you the perspective of the "count", allow me to address the 42/43, 52/53.

If you understand that Christ arose on the 3rd day, and that there were "two" components to that day, you know that the 3rd day had it's beginning on Saturday evening. Also that this 3rd day continued throughout Sunday and when he met those on the road to Emmaus they stated, Luke 24:21, that, "...and beside all this, TODAY is the third day since these things were done." It would continue to be the 3rd day all the way up to the "evening", when of course a "new" day would begin.

Acts 1:3, "...being seen of them forty (40) days". Knowing he was seen the first day of his resurrection by Mary at the tombsite. (You have to "help" me here, because this perspective may not be the easiest to explain). Knowing this very same day that he was seen, (Emmaus as well), was the 3rd day, INCLUSIVE. One day, same day, yet TWO seperate, distinct events.

The first day of resurrection was also the third day of crucifixion. If you begin the "count" of the forty days that he was seen, you MUST begin that "count" with the "day" that includes Sunday morning. Yet the beginning of that "day" was Saturday evening. This would be the first "day" that he was seen, the first day of the forty.

All you have left, after counting this "first" day of resurrection, is Thursday evening and Friday morning, along with Friday evening and Saturday morning. That's because Saturday evening goes with Sunday morning to make the 3rd day! If you "count" the 3rd day as his resurrection day (which it is), that only leaves you with TWO days since his crucifixion! If you add these two days to the total of the forty that he was seen = 42!!!!!!!

To get 43 days, you have to ignore that on that 3rd day he arose and not "count" that day as part of the forty. Yet that's what scripture says!

The same "math" applies to the 52/53.

I apoligize for this being soooooooooooo long, I do have a tendency to "ramble". So, I won't speak on some of the other things you mentioned. I do have some "Charts" made up that clearly outline this, in the event you would like to see them.

Again, thank you so much for all your time and input.

In the love of Christ,

Bless

[Ted]

First there is the obvious REQUIREMENT that God indicates throughout Numbers (chapter 4 specifically), of the "age" being from 30 to 50 years old. Undoubtedly this is why the scripture indicates that Christ was "about" 30 years of age. So that his "service" would be in compliance with the word of God concerning this matter.
Good.
Also if Luke indicates that he was "about" thirty years of age, while John indicates the "time" of year, that it was (passover), does that say anything about the "time" of year that Christ was born?
Almost. You indicate in your next couple of paragraphs the sequence from John leads to the wedding at Cana that was just before Passover. But you forget that Jesus calls His disciples, sends them out, gets the mission going, and then the word gets to the Sanhedrin that Jesus is baptising more people than John. This takes a little while. So His ministry doesn’t begin at Passover, it begins some time earlier.

If you go to the story of the birth of John the Baptist, you will see a couple of salient facts. First, his father was a priest of the course of Abijah. We can look that course up and see when he served. Next, John was born nine months later. Finally, Jesus was six months younger than John. Follow the trail, and you find John born around Passover, and Jesus around the Feast of Tabernacles. If we look 30 years later, that puts His baptsim around the Feast of Tabernacles, six months more or less before Passover. And most scholars follow that math. It gives Jesus 3 1/2 years of ministry.

If we then look at Dan 9:27, the cross “put an end to sacrifice and grain offering” “in the midst of the week,” 3 1/2 years into a 7 year week of years. Remember that the cross was the “once for all time” sacrifice. Once Jesus died, the last sacrifice in God’s economy had been made.

I appreciate the fact that you took me to task relative to it being 43 days and not 42. Same as it being 53 and not 52. However, I think you may have made a fundamental math error.

First, in order to understand a "day", look at Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 and Gen. 2:2. God declaring the "evening" prior to the "morning" is what is known as FOUNDATIONAL. Every day has "two" components, first evening and then morning. This is also how you find the 3 days and nights of Christ. God is unchanging.
I don’t think that Gen 1 has anything to contribute here. But you raise the “3 days in the grave” for Jesus. The basic fact is that He was crucified on Friday, and died just before sundown. Thus, Friday has at most an hour or two of duration in Jesus’ death. We can count all of Saturday. Then we notice that all the accounts have Him alive in the morning of Sunday. Thus, you have:
Friday – 2 hours
Saturday – 24 hours
Sunday – 12 hours.

Note: Jesus didn’t die on Thursday. He died on the “preparation day” before the Sabbath (Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:31). That’s Friday in modern parlance.

That’s 38 hours. Three days by modern counting is 72 hours. This is about half of that. But He was in the grave on three days. Thus, by Jewish inclusive counting, it was three days. BTW, Ed Thiele showed in the 50’s that the Hebrew king lists made perfect sense. They had been thought to be totally bollixed. But one key element to make it work is inclusive counting. In essence, it’s a basic fact of life in interpretation. No, the scripture doesn’t lay it out. But it doesn’t lay out the 7 of 19 years leap months, either. Those are simple facts that were assumed by the writers. They didn’t think they needed to explain them, since their readers knew those facts. We know them by reverse engineering troublesome statements. Once we do that, a host of chronological data falls in place.

Don't think he was crucified on a Thursday? Look at the REQUIREMENT that God gave for the passover lamb! Into the "house" on the 10th, killed on the 14th (in the "evening"). If his triumphal entry was on Sunday (10th), the 14th HAS TO FALL ON THURSDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to read Edersheim’s work. There were two competing traditions about how to observe the Passover. They ended up placing the meal 24 hours apart. Jesus ate it at the proper time. Notice John 18:28. This is early in the morning after Jesus had eaten the Passover the evening before. In verse 27 the cock crows (Dawn!) after Peter denies Jesus. Then the Sanhedrin refuses to enter the Praetorium because they would be defiled and unable to eat the Passover. There is absolutely no possibility that Jesus AND the Sanhedrin ate the Passover at the same time.

John 12:1 declares the visit to Bethany was “six days before the Passover.” The next day was the triumphal entry. Tradition places this on Sunday. (Scripture is silent.) Math would put Passover on Friday. That is, it would begin at Sundown “Thursday” evening and end Sundown “Friday evening.” (modern reckoning)

Now, if Jesus observed the tradition that Passover was to be eaten after Sundown (the Greek opsios is inexact) he would be eating Passover on Thursday evening. If the Sanhedrin observed the tradition that Passover was to be eaten before Sundown, they would eat it Friday afternoon. Thus, there is no scriptural conflict, and all the data consistently points to the cross on Friday.

Ted

[Daniel927]

Ted,

Thanks for the input. Being new to this "site", I want to "go easy" and not attempt to present myself as anything, knowing that it is in Christ we need to always remain willing, humble servants.

Yet, I would be remiss if I didn't follow up on your last post with a number of questions, as your response has generated even more "what if's".

To begin:

I have taken notice in other dialogues, there has been "exception taken", when it was thought that either one involved was thought to be called a liar. It seems to me that the concern was justified, due to it being such a "coarse" term. Not that the positions expressed, to warrant the "label", weren't out of line, but still, as Christ would tell us, do all things in love one toward another. To me, this "coarness" seemed to neglect or ignore this admoniton.

So then, here is what I would like to understand:

Why is it that a position of understanding, about scripture, can call Christ a LIAR? Not just once, but at least TWICE!

Christ said two things in Matt. 12:39, 40, "...AS JONAH WAS (1).......SO SHALL THE SON OF MAN BE IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS" (2).

If it were a matter of saying that, "We choose to ignore this portion of scripture, and therefore have no position on the death, burial and resurrection of Christ", I would find it far, far more palatable than the position you just relayed to me in your last post.

Christ clearly indicated that Jonah was in the whale's belly three days and nights, just as he would be. Yet, if Christ was not three days and nights in the grave, his was different than Jonah's. That would be a Lie.

Next, if his presence in the grave WAS NOT three days and nights, but it still was IDENTICAL to Jonah's, (...as Jonah was), then it was a LIE that Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and nights.

Christ said, "three days AND THREE NIGHTS, yet you tell me that is not what took place. So , once again, Christ is mistaken, once again a LIAR.

You present to me an understanding that you say "touches" on three days - Friday, Saturday, and early Sunday. Yet, I don't care what society, or place in world history any of us are----that scenario ONLY gives us TWO nights!!!!!!!!! Not Three!!!!!!!!! Once again it must be rationally understood that Christ was wrong about it, and when he spoke of three, he undoubtedly spoke yet another LIE!!!!!!!!

The difficulty that I have with Christ being a LIAR is then that he is not/was not that perfect, unspotted Lamb, which was necessary to take away the sins of the world. Therefore, my faith in him, an unacceptable, sinful LIAR, is not suffiecient for salvation and eternal life.

This position also says that because Christ LIED, he was not/could not be GOD. Rm. 3:4, "...Let every man be a liar, but God be true". SO, if Christ LIED, he was just like "EVERY" other man, and NOT God!!!!!!!!!

This also addresses who God is, because Christ claimed that, "I and the Father are One", meaning they share the same nature. I would easily deduce that that statement makes God a LIAR also, unless of course, this is yet another LIE perpetrated by Christ.

That being the case, having found all these instances, should I even continue to refer to this man as Christ? Or as John the Baptist said, "...Should I look for another?"

You can't have it both ways, saying that Christ wasn't in the grave 3 days and NIGHTS, and yet trying to convince me that he is the one, true God, without spot or blemish.

TWO---nights--------NOT THREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Either he was, and was correct about what he said, or he was wrong, and told a LIE!

It was good that you cited several works by prominent believers, yet as I have seen you post previously, "...error, even from the early church leaders, is still error." In Matt. 15:9, "But in vain (to no purpose) do they worship (adore) me, teaching for doctrines the commandments (religious precepts) of men.

CHRIST said THREE DAYS -- AND - THREE NIGHTS, "...As Jonah was"!

Show me! Either you are correct, or Christ is correct!

Next, the 10th and the 14th were given for dates for the Lamb, Ex. 12:3, 6. So for almost (1462 B.C.?) 1500 years that was what God REQUIRED for the covenant lamb, that mirrored Christ, and now Christ would deviate from that????? HUH??? James says, "..in whom in NO variableness, neither shadow of turning". Mal. 3:6, "I am the Lord I change NOT". Heb. 13:8, "Jesus Christ, the same YESTERDAY (1500 years, procalimed in the "passover Lamb"), TODAY (crucifixion day, the 14th) AND Forever".

Heb. 8:5, "Who serve unto the "EXAMPLE AND SHADOW" of heavenly things". Heb. 9:9, "Which was a "FIGURE" for the time then present"; :24, "For Christ is not entered into the holy places MADE with HANDS, which are the "FIGURES" of the TRUE".

And you desire me to believe that there is no "connection" between Genesis and the rest of scripture. When God says that he is ONE, it means that there is NEVER any "disjointing" (that's probably not a word?), any disconnect, any separation. He is one in his essence, in his nature, in his being and in the Godhead!

Even though I will not respond to the remainder of your post (though I had wanted to, but this has become rather lengthy), I must comment that regarding the other time frames, you need to recheck them, with the scriptures being your "source" rather than what some misinformed individuals say.

It is most apparent that they have been thoroughly unable to "find" 3 days and nights and therefore I would refrain from believing their "count" on ANY time element in excess of that!!!!!!!!

I am certainly not angry, but I think I am adamant about what the word of God says, particularly in this instant case where it is Christ speaking.

It behooves each and everyone of us to follow our "concepts/precepts" completely through. Thereby we can determine whether something that lies "down the road" from the inception of the position conflicts with the express written word of God.

God is harmony, unity and One,

As I am also with you,

Thank you,

God bless, In the tender mercies of Christ of Lord and Savior

[Ted]

Why is it that a position of understanding, about scripture, can call Christ a LIAR? Not just once, but at least TWICE!

Christ said two things in Matt. 12:39, 40, "...AS JONAH WAS (1).......SO SHALL THE SON OF MAN BE IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS" (2).
Hold on, cowboy! Nobody is calling Jesus a liar. Let us be very clear. Jesus is the source of all truth. Let’s tease this out so you can understand. The problem is anachronism. The word is built from a prefix meaning “without” and a root meaning “time.” That is, an anachronism is a situation where one person uses the thinking of one time period and incorrectly applies it to another. The result is “without time.” It becomes a mistake. Now to the problem at hand.

We have several elements. First the prophecy.
1) Jesus quotes Jonah 1:17 in Matt 12:40, saying he will be “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
2) Jesus says he will be raised “on the third day” (Matt 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, Luke 9:22).

Facts on the ground.
1) Jesus was buried in the evening before sundown (Matt 27:57-60, John 19:30-42).
2) Jesus was resurrected in the early morning (Mark 16:2-9, Luke 24:1ff, John 20:1-17).

Let’s make the counting easy. We’ll use a 6PM sunset and postulated round times.
Death 5PM -> Tomb on Day #1
Night 1 -> Day #2 (full day)
Night 2 -> Day #3 (full day)
Night 3 -> Day #4 -> rises at 6AM
(Granted, this isn’t exact, but is illustrative and comports with all the facts in hand so far.)

Added up, we have 2 full 24-hour days, plus about 13hours. We only have about 1 hour in the daylight portion of the third day, and that is the time of death. If we stretch the story, we can get 2 hours, but that’s about all. Let’s now re-engineer the proposal to get the full 3 days.
Death 5PM -> Tomb on Day #1
Night 1 -> Day #2 (full day)
Night 2 -> Day #3 (full day)
Night 3 -> Day #4 (full day)
Night 4 -> Day #5 -> rises at 6AM.

This has 4 nights to get three full days. But both premises suffer from a serious flaw. Jesus was to rise “on the third day.” And scripture confirms this fact (Acts 10:40, 1 Cor 15:4). The first proposal has Jesus rising on the fourth day, and the second on the fifth! We have a serious problem. No matter how we count the days, by modern reckoning, there is a contradiction in scripture.

On the other hand, if we accept the testimony of scripture, Jesus died on Friday (the preparation), rested in the grave on the Sabbath (the second day) and rose on the first day of the week (the third day). This language is very consistent, and testified to by Jesus both before and after the cross (Luke 24:7, 21, 46). This leaves only the “three days and three nights” line, also spoken by Jesus, as a problem.

This line is only a problem to a modern mind. But it is not a problem to a Hebrew of Jesus’ day. After all, the disciples heard it when he told the Pharisees that it was the only sign they would see. Now, if it wasn’t going to come true, why would he say it? And why would Matthew record it when he was going to record the other language? If there is a contradiction, then Matthew is guilty of recording one.

The proper answer is to consider the understanding in Jesus’ day. He wanted Pharisees to see the sign and be converted. How could he expect them to see something different and be convinced? It doesn’t make sense! But what was their understanding?

62 Now on the next day, which is the one after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, 63 and said, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I am to rise again.' 64 "Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, lest the disciples come and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last deception will be worse than the first." 65 Pilate said to them, "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how." 66 And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone.

Notice that the guard is only until the third day. The Pharisees understood “three days and three nights” as “on the third day.” That is, if they guarded the tomb through the third day (2 nights!) then the disciples couldn’t fake a resurrection.

In summary, modern literalism cannot resolve the apparent contradictions in the resurrection prophecies and recorded events. But it is clear that the people of Jesus’ day did not suffer from the same difficulty. Instead, they saw “three days and three nights” as a non-literal figure of speech. If we realize this fact, then all the difficulties go away. Jesus died on Friday, spent Saturday in the tomb, and rose on Sunday morning, “the third day.” The three days are Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

Either you are correct, or Christ is correct!
No. Christ is correct, and I am also correct because I understand the intent of his speech within the context of the milieu within which it was spoken. And that is the crux of the historical-grammatical method of interpretation.

And you desire me to believe that there is no "connection" between Genesis and the rest of scripture.
Quite untrue. Genesis 1-11 is the foundation of the rest of scripture. But the “evening and morning were the (x) day” formula of Genesis 1 doesn’t bear on the issue of inclusive counting.

Ted

[Daniel927]

Brother Ted,

Thanks for the reply, I'm reaallly glad to see that I got your attention (Cowboy and all!). You present an understanding that the three nights, for that given time of history, as being readily understood to mean only 2 nights.

I guess then at some point, a "new" math has come along, that I'm really struggling with. Putting that aside, and using the definition that God gave for a "day", no less than six times in one chapter, I'll show how to get 3 nights and three days.

You begin with the "evening" of his crucifixion - according to the commandment concerning the passover lamb, it was REQUIRED to be KILLED in the "evening"!!! This aligns perfectly with how God began creation.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, CHRIST WAS CRUCIFIED ON THE "PREPARATION DAY"! BUT IF THE SABBATH BEGINS ON FRIDAY EVENING (THERE'S THAT "BEGINNING" ON AN "EVENING" THING AGAIN) AND IS COMPLETED ON SATURDAY EVENING, WHEN DOES THE "PREPARATION DAY" TAKE PLACE???

Mark 15:42, "And now when the EVEN was come (knowing we BOTH agree the NEW DAY begins in the evening), because it WAS the preparation, THAT IS the day BEFORE the sabbath". If we study this verse carefully, we see that according to Mark, evening is set in and the NEW day "IS" the preparation. He goes on to further clarify that (this day) "IS" the day BEFORE the sabbath!!!!!!!!

When Israel was gathering manna from heaven, was there ever a provision of it made on the Sabbath? NO! So what did Israel do for provisions on the Sabbath day, if God didn't provide any?

Oh, that's right, he told them to gather twice as much on the day PRIOR to the Sabbath, and that would be their provision for the Sabbath. YES??

So, in order to have provisions for the Sabbath, Israel had to make "preparation" for those things on the day PRIOR to the Sabbath.

If the Sabbath is from Friday evening to Saturday evening - the day of "preparation", which occurs BEFORE the Sabbath, HAS to be Thursday evening to Friday evening. It certainly does not occur AFTER!

That is how Christ is found in the temple (Mk. 11:11), which would be the 10th and is "killed" Thursday, in the evening on the 14th (not 15th), according to the covenant REQUIREMENTS.

SO,
Thurdays evening - 1st evening
Friday morning - 1st morning
Friday evening - 2nd evening
Saturday morning - 2nd morning
Saturday evening - 3rd evening
Sunday morning - 3RD MORNING

You can't have Christ crucified, in the evening, and it be BOTH the preparation AND the Sabbath. These are two distinct and separate days. In the evening when he died, IF it was Friday, it then had to be the Sabbath, and COULD NOT be the "preparation"!

Just one problem with it being the sabbath, ALL the scriptures claim that it was the "preparation" day, even though "mention" to the Sabbath is given, none of scripture says, "it was the Sabbath". They ALL state "it was the preparation"!

For the "count" to begin, Christ had to be DEAD. The "count" is ONLY relative to him being in the heart of the earth. So, he gave up the ghost in the evening, on the 14th, Thursday evening, the day of preparation AND, according to scripture, was in the grave 3 days and nights! 3 NOT 2 !!!!!

Okay, here's a "test", I'll take it, if you"ll take it, okay?

Christ says, "Three days and three nights". YES?

You have a scenario that proclaims that it covers about 38 hours, give or take. Involves 1 hour or so, on one day; 24 hours the next day and in the vicinity of 12 hours or so, the last day. This you say is exactly what is meant by the 3 days and 3 nights provided by the "understanding" of men/society/culture at that time.

Fair enough, I accept your answer!

I have a scenario that proclaims, no different than God declares in his word, in the beginning, a "day" has two components! This day begins in the "evening", followed by the morning. Christ dies in the "evening", and the "count" begins. Dying on Thursday evening, the 14th, according (again) to God's word, I am able to "find" 3 evenings and 3 mornings between this time and resurrection morning, the first day of the week!

The dates for these events of "taken into the house" and "killed", are the 10th and the 14th, again just as God requires in his covenant!

Now the test is: Which scenario agrees with what Christ said, and what's written in the word?

Just so you realize, I never claimed 72 hours, Christ doesn't claim that either. So I don't think you're at liberty to include that into this equation of mine. Unless of course, that is YOUR position. It certainly isn't mine. So that equation that you outlined with 4 nights is NOT my understanding. I have a problem with it, as much as you do.

MY "count" begins with an "evening", the time of his death!

With the onset of morning, Sunday, Christ arises, this "completes" the definition that God gives for a "day". God's definition, and mine as well.

Don't "count" it as a "day", the "evening" prior to his death. That day of his passion was gone, completed finished. He gave up the ghost, according to scripture, as best as I can tell (Ex. 12:6), in the "evening", and THAT was the beginning of a new day

Your "understanding" is derived from what you say are the "cultural" standards (at least that's what I think you said, I don't want to put words in your mouth).

This "understanding" that I'm offering to you, is taken literally from the word.

Do you realize that if Christ was not "killed" in the evening, that would be a violation, a deviation from what God required for the covenant lamb? Look at Exodus, it's clear as a bell. We can debate what "hour" Christ died, but if we do, it must be from a position of "silence" as relating to the scripture. However, we can be certain from the word in Exodus what God required. That would be "evening".

So, don't start my "count" with a "day", start mine with an "evening".

If you study out the account given about the women, you will see that they substantiate a Thursday crucifixion as well.

Christ DID rise the third day, as it began on Saturday evening and the second component arrived with the sun, Sunday morning! Yet, it would REMAIN the 3rd day, UNTIL Sunday evening, when the new day began. That's how we both know he wasn't in the tomb for 72 hours!

This allows for him to meet the men on the road to Emmaus and they inform him that, "today is the third day since these things were done".

Even as you gave the example "until the third day", by the priests, They knew that the third day would not arrive UNTIL both components, evening and morning, were met. The rising of the sun Sunday would not be the completion, the fullness of the 3rd day, (again, Emmaus), that would happen with the onset of Sunday evening.

NONE of this is "MODERN RECKONING", all this is taken from the word.

If I were a "used car" salesman, this would be the place to say "TRUST ME". A feeble attempt at humor, what can I say?

The heart of these events declare so many works of our Lord and Saviour. I know how difficult it is to REALLY consider some other line of thought, when we are so steeped in our convictions. Believe me, I speak from the heart, I know this to be true.

Yet, if you will look at the details of this events, the dates required, the time element and everything else, you too can "find" exactly and precisely 3 days and 3 nights. It will have him rise on the third day -and - you will see that his last week, including his resurrection mirrors that first week of creation.

Man, I gotta go, I've really bent your ear!

As always, your brother in Christ

Bless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ted]

If the Sabbath is from Friday evening to Saturday evening - the day of "preparation", which occurs BEFORE the Sabbath, HAS to be Thursday evening to Friday evening. It certainly does not occur AFTER!
Correct.
You present an understanding that the three nights, for that given time of history, as being readily understood to mean only 2 nights.
Correct again. This is called “idiomatic.”
You begin with the "evening" of his crucifixion - according to the commandment concerning the passover lamb, it was REQUIRED to be KILLED in the "evening"!!!
Correct again. The problem is what “evening” means. We know that there can be as much as 90 minutes between solar sunset and true night darkness. This is called twilight. And therein lies the rub.

It appears that the true definition of when to observe the Passover had been lost somewhere in the mists of antiquity. Jesus shows us by example that the proper time is during twilight, after sundown. That is, if Passover is Friday, it would be on “Thursday evening” by modern reckoning. Of course, we have a definitional issue, since we clock the days from midnight to midnight, while the Bible clocks them from sundown to sundown.

Now, Jesus observed Passover after sundown on “Thursday evening” but the Sanhedrin and its leaders observed it before sundown on “Friday evening.” By Jewish (biblical) reckoning, they are the same day. They are both on “the preparation,” the day before the Sabbath. But they are about 22-23 hours apart. As Edersheim notes, there were two different traditions, and the scripture corroborates that observation.

In the evening when he died, IF it was Friday, it then had to be the Sabbath, and COULD NOT be the "preparation"!
Incorrect. The problem is that the word opsios “evening” is ambiguous. Friday “evening” can be either before or after sundown. The word is not sufficiently exact to inform us. But the account in scripture is exact. Jesus died “on the preparation day” before sundown. Thus, “Friday afternoon” would be the best expression for the time he died. And this is not on Sabbath.

Incidentally, in Mark 15:42, the use of [I]opsios[/] requires a time before sundown. There we find Joseph of Arimathea getting Jesus to the tomb “when evening had already come.” But we know from parallel accounts that this was before sundown. There are no accounts, however, that have Jesus dying “in the evening.”

MY "count" begins with an "evening", the time of his death!
And this is scripturally incorrect. Jesus died before sundown, and was placed in the grave before sundown, so the count MUST begin with the day of his death. That day is not part of the “evening and morning is the x day.” It is part of the day BEFORE.

Do you realize that if Christ was not "killed" in the evening, that would be a violation, a deviation from what God required for the covenant lamb? Look at Exodus, it's clear as a bell. We can debate what "hour" Christ died, but if we do, it must be from a position of "silence" as relating to the scripture. However, we can be certain from the word in Exodus what God required. That would be "evening".
Here you err. While Paul declares that “Christ our Passover was sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7), the command for Israel to sacrifice the lamb “in the evening” (Exod 12:6) was lost, as evidenced by the two traditions. Further, recall that Christ observed the Passover at the proper time, then about 20 hours later was sacrified by those who were observing the wrong tradition.

It does not matter what the command in Exodus says. The gospel accounts are explicit. We know that Jesus was NOT sacrificed at the time prescribed. Thus, your argument fails. And scripture is NOT silent! Matthew 27:45-50 identifies his time of death as 3PM. So the time was not “evening.” And I must ask you to forgive my earlier inexactness. The time from the true Passover meal to his death was closer to 20 hours than 22.

Yet, if you will look at the details of this events, the dates required, the time element and everything else, you too can "find" exactly and precisely 3 days and 3 nights.
Sorry, it’s not there.

Ted

[Daniel927]

T,

First, what time of the "day" was it when God created "evening?"
Or what time does the "even" designation apply to in these verses:
Matt.8:16 - when the even was come -
" 26:20
Mark 15:42, ETC., ETC.?

There is NO time given in scripture to define it. However "even" is most definitely different from sunset. Just as sunrise is different from Morning!

There is NO noted, recorded, discernable time delay between Mk. 15:34, the ninth hour (3 p.m.), and 15:42, where it is stated, "and now the even was come". This is an obvious allowance for thinking that "even" WAS NOT merely a hair breath away from sunset. AND EVEN (night), would last all the way up to morning.

Remember the association that you don't wish to recognize; God said "evening and morning", but Christ said "day and night". I don't understand how the N.T. can even THINK of using the terminology "evening or morning", because that is O.T. AND there is no connection or correlation between the "books", concerning these "time" designations.

This also permits the journey of Christ from Jerusalem to Bethany to transpire during "light" conditions, Mk. 11:11 (even-tide was come)! Almost three miles!

It applies to the women as well, which scripture again is wrong, if it is Friday, because it states they "observed the sabbath, according to the commandment". Bethany is almost three miles, a distance that is in violation of the "sabbath" allowable travel. You may feel free to ignore that account as well!

I went and attempted to look at all this in a more "core" understanding. I found that the word for three is - TRIA ! It just happens to be a "primary" number and the definition is: 3 - III - three - IIV - THREE!!!!!!! Greater in quantity, by one, than TWO is, and less in quantity, by one, than four is! Seems extremely definitive.

Check what scripture says about killing Christ on the 15th , the "feast" day, Mk. 14:2, "...NOT ON THE FEAST DAY". Also Matt.26:5, but these are just some more verses to ignore. TWO which deal explicitly with "your" 15th!

Avoiding the plain text and the "literal" understanding for three, go ahead, make it anything you want. Apparently it doesn't seem to bother you that even though there is a understanding that clearly shows AND COUNTS three days and nights, you wish not to "hear" it.

But you are wrong.

Changing gears.

In looking at some "charted" time lines, relative to KJV " studies (not that I'm a KJV - "only"), it is remarkable the details that are contained throughout the "charted" ministry of Christ. Page after page and event after event being clearly chronicled.

Yet what is totally remarkable, as they being to follow Christ, through scripture, of his "last" week beginning with Mk. 11:11, is they LOSE a day! HUH? Yeah, they follow his every move, from that Sunday, all the way up to TUESDAY and then they LOSE WEDNESDAY!

Beginning with Matt. 21 through Matt. 26:20, you can trace the movements of Christ, right up to that passover meal.

The only thing is, as they follow his course, they lose WEDNESDAY! Interesting? It seems they get right up to Tuesday, and jump from that day to Thursday, without any events recorded for Christ!

Why do you think that is? Is it possible that with them adhering to a Friday crucifixion (just like yours?), they "run out" of days before they get to Thursday? That's exactly what happens!

A "gaggle" of bibical scholars lose Wednesday, in following Christ and his workings, just two days before his death! Remarkable!! It seems that they HAVE to get to Thursday for his supper, and running out of days (recorded scripture) to do so; THEY SIMPLY ELIMINATE WEDNESDAY, OR ANY ACCOUNT THEREOF!!!!

THEY JUMP FROM TUESDAY TO THURSDAY, INTERESTING ISN"T IT?

Now, WHY didn't I think of that?

DON"T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, GO GET A KJV STUDY BIBLE, THERES THE CHART RIGHT BEFORE THE NEW TESTAMENT, CONTAINED IN THE "HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS" SECTION! SOME HARMONY!

This is YOUR account of Christ, as well as theirs, not mine, nor scriptures'.

-----

Thought it might be nice to let you know your account of Zechariah and "his" course being Abijah is correct. That would be the 8th month, according to their sacred calendar.

Only once again you miscount.

He finished serving in his course, meaning the WHOLE 8th month, which ushered in the 9th month. Then, AFTER those days, his wife conceives. At the earliest this would be somewhere during the 9th month, which is Chislev or Nov/Dec. This is the time of "conception", from that point it will take ONE FULL, COMPLETE MONTH TO BE ONE MONTH PREGNANT.

It will also take six full months from that same time to be "six" month pregnant, which would be Sivan, May/June. This would be the time of the announcement of the birth of Christ!!!!!!

AGAIN from the time of that, Mary would ONLY be ONE DAY pregnant, IF that. This is because Gabriel speaks of this event THAT WILL happen to her, not that it is, at that moment, happening to her.

YET, from that point in time (announcement), a FULL nine months later, would put the "birth" date, AT THE VERY EARLIEST, ADAR. This time period includes March!!!!!!!

The passover can, and does "fall" as early as mid-March.

In determing the ministry of Christ, no different than John, it speaks of John"s day of being "shown" (revealed) unto Israel. So too, in John 2:11, Christ is "manifested" (revealed). Preparing for his ministry AND beginning his ministry are TWO different things. Oh, and by the way, if you desire to "count" the preparing of his ministry, as the BEGINNING of his ministry, you need to check Luke 2:49. Then - THAT"S - the beginning, according to "preparation", and that gives Christ about a 21 or 22 year ministry!!!!!!!!

Once again, you "miscount".

If you, however, are going to "cite" other works, for their "enumeration", I suggest you double-check their math.

The beauty of the science of math is; one is always going to be one, no matter what you do.

By the way, since you've raised the concern of the 13th month previously, you wouldn't have any info that this would be one of those 7 of 19 (about 33%) years that have the extra month, would you?

Be so kind as to forgive me for not being more "open" to the scripture being traded back and forth, there seems to be alot of that "going around".

The attempt here is to let scripture define scripture, not man's society define it.

I must complement you, as you are a remarkable "sounding board"!

As always,

In the unity and bond of the love of Christ,

Bless

[Ted]

Daniel,

You raise a lot of questions. So lets tackle them.
In looking at some "charted" time lines, relative to KJV " studies (not that I'm a KJV - "only"), it is remarkable the details that are contained throughout the "charted" ministry of Christ. Page after page and event after event being clearly chronicled.

Yet what is totally remarkable, as they being to follow Christ, through scripture, of his "last" week beginning with Mk. 11:11, is they LOSE a day! HUH? Yeah, they follow his every move, from that Sunday, all the way up to TUESDAY and then they LOSE WEDNESDAY!
You then repeat this accusation from several other angles. What you forget is that the gospels make no pretense of filling in every detail. In fact, John explicitly declares that (John 21:25) that he made no attempt to tell everything. So to say that Wednesday is “lost” is total nonsense.

The gospel writers give us time indications when they are important. And in Matthew 26:2 we find that Passover is coming “in two days.” Verse 6 starts a new event, but the day isn’t listed. It isn’t important. Verse 17 shifts to “the first day of unleavened bread.” Matthew has made no attempt to fill in every day. So your argument is completely without merit.

There is NO noted, recorded, discernable time delay between Mk. 15:34, the ninth hour (3 p.m.), and 15:42, where it is stated, "and now the even was come". This is an obvious allowance for thinking that "even" WAS NOT merely a hair breath away from sunset. AND EVEN (night), would last all the way up to morning.
This is incorrect in every detail. The Greek word for “evening” (“even” KJV) is opsios. It is ambiguous, and can mean the time as the sun is close to the horizon or the time of twilight. There is no possibility that it can extend backward to 3PM or forward to include the entire night. The LXX word for “evening” in Genesis 1 is astera, not opsios. The original Hebrew is ereb, which does mean sunset. Thus, your entire construct is based on an ambiguous English translation that does not reflect the original adequately. You are imposing your ideas on the text, an improper use of scripture.

It applies to the women as well, which scripture again is wrong, if it is Friday, because it states they "observed the sabbath, according to the commandment". Bethany is almost three miles, a distance that is in violation of the "sabbath" allowable travel. You may feel free to ignore that account as well!
The “Sabbath day’s journey” is not a biblical command. It is a rabbinic restriction (1 of about 1,500) placed on the Sabbath by man. You are basically arguing that the improper rabbinic prescription of a “Sabbath day’s journey” is binding. That again is placing your views on the text. I see no place in the gospels where Jesus allowed himself or his disciples to be bound by rabbinic prescriptions. Instead, He routinely did things that tweaked the rabbis and then showed how they were wrong. So this argument is equally fallacious.

Check what scripture says about killing Christ on the 15th , the "feast" day, Mk. 14:2, "...NOT ON THE FEAST DAY". Also Matt.26:5, but these are just some more verses to ignore. TWO which deal explicitly with "your" 15th!
Does the Bible say that they followed their own advice? No! It explicitly states the day as Passover, since Jesus was killed between the time that He and the Sanhedrin ate the Passover.

This is the third or fourth time you have argued that some prescription has to be the historical fact when the text of scripture explicitly says that the fact is otherwise. By now you should recognize that when the scripture is explicit, you ought to accept that as factual.

Thought it might be nice to let you know your account of Zechariah and "his" course being Abijah is correct. That would be the 8th month, according to their sacred calendar.

Only once again you miscount.

He finished serving in his course, meaning the WHOLE 8th month, which ushered in the 9th month. Then, AFTER those days, his wife conceives. At the earliest this would be somewhere during the 9th month, which is Chislev or Nov/Dec. This is the time of "conception", from that point it will take ONE FULL, COMPLETE MONTH TO BE ONE MONTH PREGNANT.
Once again, you are incorrect. There were 24 courses of priests. They served one WEEK at a time. That means that they served twice a year, plus the three pilgrimage festivals (Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles).

You get some crazy ideas from loose associations. But when examined carefully, they constantly fail. The definition of “evening” is one good one. If you bothered to get lexical help, you would have discovered what I have been saying. Next, if you had original language help, you would have discovered that “evening” in Genesis 1 is not the same as “evening” at the Passover before the cross. Finally, had you bothered to look up “Sabbath day’s journey,” you would have discovered that it’s not a scriptural rule.

You really need to get some help to learn good methods of interpretation. It’s obvious that you regard the Bible as authoritative. That’s good. And at times I find your comments to be very well considered and on point. But other times you wander so far that it’s hard to connect your comments with the Bible.

I don’t want to scare you away from looking for the hidden gems in scripture. It’s fun and rewarding. I’ve found a few. But I always run them past experts first. For example, I discovered a translation issue in Daniel 9:25. Several Hebrew professors have signed off on it. Likewise, when I found a translation issue in Matthew 24:29, I posted it for discussion. We had a rollicking give-and-take, with some disagreeing. But Greek professors have again signed off on it as “defensible.” I am now working on the additional research to publish.

Don’t give up. But likewise, don’t hang on to an error when it has been clearly shown to be one. Learn and go on.

Ted

[Daniel927]

Ted,

Just a short line to let you know that I was concerned when you hadn't responded for a few days.

I AM SO GLAD that my responses had not discouraged you, as being "adamant" is one of my "weaknesses"! Paul says that we are in constant warfare with this old flesh!

Just a parting shot: God who is unchangeable, gave a covenant to Moses that said the 10th and the 14th!

The beauty of it is so that Christ could come along and NOT ADHERE to it!

Come on Ted, tell me something else!

Yes, there were 24 courses to serve, but it was Still the 8th month, even if , it was the first part of the month, and you STILL count an immediate conception, as well as an immediate conception with Mary (which scripture does not portray), it STILL only moves the "birth" up by 3 weeks!!!!!

You still need at least 2 1/2 months to get back to December!!!! And it isn't there!

As for the women, you may dispute that the "journey" itself was not a direct violation of "ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT". But it goes on to speak that they labored (prepared, worked), WHICH, my friend, does constitute a violation.

Christ is "found" to still be alive at 3 p.m., but you attempt to make a point of him not yielding the ghost until sometime just prior to sunset. Scripture does not support that.

YOU CANNOT FIND A SINGLE VERSE THAT STATES CHRIST (PASSOVER LAMB) BEING OFFERED UP AT ANYTIME OTHER THAN "EVENING".

I AM IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT THAT CHRIST PARTOOK OF THE COVENANT FEAST - ON THE FRONT SIDE OF THE DAY, THE EVENING PRIOR, WHILE ALL OF ISRAEL PARTOOK AT THE END OF THE DAY. NO PROBLEM.

IT IS THAT YOU INSIST THAT THIS WOULD BE THE EVENING OF THE SABBATH, WHICH IS INCORRECT.

IT IS THE EVENING OF THE "PREPARATION', WHICH OCCURS THE DAY PRIOR TO THE SABBATH EVENING.

AGAIN THERE IS NOT ONE VERSE THAT SAYS, "IT IS THE SABBATH", THEY ALL SAY IT IS THE "PREPARTATION".

THE SAME EVENING CANNOT BE BOTH1

[Daniel927]

CONTINUED............

Bless all you believers,

In Christ