Finch
Paul R., Passover Papers
Paul R Finch,
Passover Papers Published in March, 2009, B-F Enterprises (
An
investigation by Gerhard Ebersφhn into Passover Papers by Paul R. Finch
First
Delivery
PRF ..... Paul
R Finch Cursive
GE
..... Gerhard Ebersφhn
PRF:
(The Day of the CrucifixionFriday or
Wednesday?
206
Appendix 1 The Day of the CrucifixionFriday or Wednesday?)
The Christian Church down through the ages
has traditionally
held
that Jesus was crucified on a Friday and was resurrected on the third calendar
day thereafter, early on Sunday morning. A simple reading of the Gospel
accounts shows that it was the day before the Sabbath that Jesus was crucified.
Nevertheless, the Good Friday/Easter Sunday tradition has been recently
challenged by a modern theory based upon the statement that Jesus made in
Matthew 12:40, that he would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three
nights.
GE:
First, I do not try to answer for or to people who
do not accept the Bible for the Word of God the unfailing, Word of God. I answer from the standpoint of the believer
in God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit one who believes the Holy
Scriptures for the Written Word of God Tri-Une that it is.
I shall
therefore have to regard as irrelevant and of no consequence for either the
research of Paul R. Finch or mine, critical questions like the following by Norm Goldman of
bookpleasures.com, .... what if you dont accept
the teachings of the Gospel, the New and Old Testaments? Moreover, what if you
refuse to accept the Bible as absolute, true and without error and that many of
the characters in the Bible are fictitious and are inventions of the ancient
Hebrew scribes? .....
What if? Well, then we have no common ground to stand
on, and consequently do not have anything to say to one another.
I therefore also
must disregard even Paul R. Finch where he himself says, the Good Friday/Easter Sunday tradition has been recently challenged by
a modern theory based upon the statement that Jesus made in Matthew 12:40, that
he would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. That
is saying something no different than Goldmans wisdom, because it makes of
what the statement that Jesus made,
a mere, modern theory,
ostentatiously, based upon the statement
that Jesus made, but is no better than what PRF concluded it really is a modern theory, not the Word of God.
Whether Finch
has said this per accident or not, how could a person who does believe that the statement that Jesus made, is the
Word of God since it is Written and since Jesus, who that person
believes is God, has made it how could that person agree or accept the
statement that Jesus made, as
recorded, in Matthew 12:40, is a modern theory of the Good Friday/Easter Sunday tradition,
that challenge(s), the statement that Jesus made in Matthew 12:40,
that he would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights?
There is no way a believing Christian could accept it or support such a
statement. Because that is what we
have to deal with, as is, from Paul R Finchs hand, that the statement that Jesus made in Matthew 12:40, that he would be in the
heart of the earth for three days and three nights, IS WHAT this modern theory, is based upon.
Whether it is
style (much like what I call Samuele
Bacchiochhi style) or inattentiveness, that, is what PRF actually, wrote
for the truth. Unfortunately this Finchs style crops up far too many
times. And each time it is employed, it
is in a situation or argument where one is supposed to believe Finch is telling
us the truth.
So then, re:
Paul
R. Finch:
A simple reading of the Gospel accounts
shows that it was the day before the Sabbath that Jesus was crucified.
GE:
Considered PRF
speaks of The Christian Church down
through the ages, it must be deduced he means The Christian Church down through the ages ..... the Gospel accounts;
the Gospel accounts actually show ..... that it was the day before the Sabbath that Jesus was crucified.
See what I meant
above?
That it was the day before the Sabbath that Jesus
was crucified is no more than the opinion of PRF. During whole the age of
the apostles no one has ever claimed or taught that it was the day before the Sabbath that He was crucified. Not the simplest reading of the Gospel
accounts shows that it was the day
before the Sabbath that He was crucified.
It is PRF who says it. It is tradition
that says that it was the day before the
Sabbath that Jesus was crucified. It may even be the Christian Church that
claims so; but the Gospels, dont say it, nor do they show it through a simple reading.
Nevertheless,
maybe I must give PRF credit, it is possible A simple reading of the Gospel accounts shows that it was the day
before the Sabbath that Jesus was crucified ..... IF one is reading some modern, Versions of the Gospels that
in truth are the version of the quasi translators own and surprisingly
unanimous opinion. (Surprisingly
unanimous, obviously because by SECRET AGREEMENT which the translators hoped
the simplest of readers would never notice!)
This is the crux
of the issue which you, PRF, obviously have not noticed yet and never have paid
attention to, namely, that Jesus was crucified on the day BEFORE the day that
He was BURIED on.
You begin, PRF,
with taking for GRANTED it was the day
before the Sabbath that Jesus was crucified, to in the end PROVE, it was the day before the Sabbath that Jesus
was crucified. Not that I agree
with the Wednesday-crucifixion fiction; but I find no reason why I should
accept the most fabulous of all fiction the Friday-crucifixion fiction to
disprove another fiction the Wednesday-crucifixion fiction. What would I have gained in the end? That a lie proved a lie a lie?
It is no modern theory that challenges the Good
Friday/Easter Sunday tradition, but the very statement of Jesus, made in
Matthew 12:40, that He would be in the heart of the earth three days and
three nights. Any common-sensed
human being can see that crucified on Friday rose on Sunday does not answer ANY
meaning of the expression, whether literal or figurative. And the same applies for the Wednesday
crucifixion theory.
Had Sunday
received fitting eschatological emphasis in the Old Testament like the Sabbath
did, crucified on Friday rose on Sunday might have answered some figurative
significance of the three days and three nights of the PROPHET
Jonah. But Sunday did not receive
such typological meaning in the Old Testament where so ever, and so the
crucified on Friday rose on Sunday figment fails
the God-given imperative of the eschatological wholeness of the three days
and three nights-three days.
Crucified on
Friday risen on Sunday also fails the God-given imperative of eschatological
wholeness attributed to the three days and three nights in both Old
and New Testaments LITERALLY. In other
words, Friday crucifixion Sunday resurrection fails the test hermeneutically as
sadly as exegetically; historically as badly as liguistically.
Jesus also said,
the sign of the PROPHET ..... shall be given them. By inserting ones
own word into Jesus statement, the Son of man shall be in the heart of the
earth three days and three nights, and make it read, that he would be in the heart of the earth FOR three days and three
nights, one with the word for,
makes Jesus statement mean for
any, arbitrary, three days and three
nights which not at all was what He had in mind. [Theres no word kata
in the Greek.]
That Jesus also
said, the sign of the PROPHET ..... shall be given them fixes the three
days and three nights to the only three days of Old Testament
Prophecy and Promise, the three days of the Passover of
Yahweh-calendar; its first three days, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth of
the First Moth, exclusively.
That is the very
first aspect or quality or distinctive of the three days and three nights
that the Son of Man (would) be in the heart of the earth, that they in
their God given and therefore eschatological imperative wholeness according
to the SCRIPTURES would be THESE, three days and no other days or
nights.
In other words,
Jesus without doubt connected the three days and three nights with
the Scriptures, and with the Scriptures relevance with Him; the three
days and three nights are the sure Word of Prophecy concerning the
Christ. These three days and three
nights were the three days
of the Passover of Yahweh, Exodus 10 to 15; it is the ONLY possibility and the
only CONTINGENCY.
Jesus would be
in the heart of the earth, the three days and three nights of the
three first days of the passover calendar because thus it behoved the
Christ. The three days and
three nights were Jesus obedience to the Father; they were the three
days on GODS calendar, sealed and signed for having been Gods
WILL which Jesus Christ obeyed as SON, to fulfil that, which is
written of Me on the third day according to the Scriptures and
the God-given and therefore imperative eschatological wholeness of the three
days and three nights-three days of Holy Writ.
Although the
Christian Church has made a mockery of it and the Friday-crucifixion
Sunday-resurrection fiction in every possible aspect of it belies and garbles
it, the Gospels maintain the God-given eschatological imperative of the three
days and three nights-three days in original coherence and
direction towards wholeness on the third day according to the Scriptures
In fullness of the Sabbath Day.
It must next be
noticed without a doubt a simple reading of the Gospel accounts shows that it
was the day before the Sabbath according to the (Fourth) Commandment
Lk23:56b that Jesus was BURIED, and that the God-given and therefore imperative
eschatological wholeness of the three days and three nights-three
days according to the Scriptures requires yea, demands the
God-given and therefore eschatologically imperative WHOLENESS
of
the SECOND DAY of the three days and three nights-three days
of the Passover of Yahweh.
Jesus was not buried on Abib 14 the day that He was crucified
on; He was buried on Abib 15, the Feast-Day.
Matthew
27:46-60; Luke 23:44-46 cover Crucifixion-day; they do NOT cover the day of the
Burial!
Mt27:57,
Mk15:42, Jn19:31 and Lk23:50 all indicate the BEGINNING it now had become evening evening
of the day on which Joseph still had to
bury Jesus.
Do not treat Matthew 27:46-60 and Luke 23:44-46 as included they the same
time on the same ONE day.
1) In Matthew
27:46-60 Crucifixion-day had stopped BEFORE Matthew 27:46-60 because Burial-day
only started in verse 57, It now
having become evening already. Matthew 27:46-60 therefore stretches
over TWO days.
2) In Luke 23:44-46 Crucifixion-day is 12 to
3 p.m. Roman time the sixth hour until the ninth hour BEFORE Jesus
died. The three ending-hours of
Crucifixion-day are implied from verse 44 up to and including verse 49.
3) In Matthew
27:46-60 Crucifixion-day is 3 p.m. Roman time the ninth hour
AFTER Jesus had died. The three ending-hours
of Crucifixion-day are implied from verse 46 up to and including verse 56.
Matthew
27:46-60 spans across the end of the first and the beginning of the next days
because day of Crucifixion ends, sunset before
the following evening mentioned in 27:57, and the day of Burial begins after sunset with the following evening mentioned in 27:57, as also mentioned in Mk15:42 and implied in both Lk23:50 and Jn19:31/38; 28:8.
Lk23:50 begins
the history of the following day and of Josephs
undertaking and therefore is the parallel text of Mk15:47, Mt27:57 and
Jn19:31/38.
The day that Joseph
buried Jesus on the Sixth Day Friday in its BEGINNING , began in
Lk23:50, Mk15:47, Mt27:57 and Jn19:31/38. Since it was The Preparation ....
because That Day was a great day of sabbath Jn19:31.
And That Day
was the Preparation Day as it began to dawn towards the Sabbath Friday
ENDING in Lk23:54 and Jn19:42.
According to
Luke 23:50-56 verse 54b to be
precise from by the time of
the Jews preparations Jn19:42 and mid-afternoon the Sabbath drawing
near Lk23:54b, that day (Jn19:31), this the same day, started nearing its end! It had not ended YET. Sunset, it would end;
three hours later.
In other words,
3 p.m. in the afternoon, mid-afternoon, by the time of the Jews
preparations dia tehn paraskeuehn tohn Youdaiohn Jn19:42, the same day that
had begun in Lk23:50, Mk15:42, Jn19:31 It now having become evening
already , was (now) beginning to come to an end / was (now) drawing
close / the Sabbath (now) drew near
kai .... kai epefohsken sabbaton Lk23:54b.
Burial-day thus
from its beginning in
Mt27:57,
Mk15:42, Jn19:31 and Lk23:50,
extended
until
its ending implied in
Mt27:62,
Lk23:56b and Jn19:42.
Mt27:62 looks back to Friday evening because it
speaks of the following morning AFTER the Preparation.
Lk23:54 looks forward to Friday evening because it
speaks of, and was indeed, The Preparation and / while the Sabbath
Day was nearing Imperfect, epefohsken and the women after they had
done the preparations of their spices and ointments the imminent Friday
evening would begin to rest the Sabbath, 56b.
Lk23:54 also
looks back and over the ENTIRE,
PAST, Sixth Day (Thursday night and Friday day) recapping That Day,
that was.
Four Scriptures
have bearing on the evening-beginning of
the weekly Sabbath Day (Friday after sunset); four Scriptures in terms of
the time of the two days involved:
1) Lk23:54 prospectively, mid-afternoon
on the Sixth Day of the week when the Sabbath drew near;
2) Jn19:42 the same day same time by the time of the Jews preparations;
3) Lk23:56b by inference, evening on the Sabbath
(on Friday after sunset) when the women had begun to rest the Sabbath;
4) Mt27:62 retrospectively, on the following
morning (of the Sabbath) after The Preparation.
This sabbath after
The Preparation as must be deduced from these four Scriptures and the
Friday-evening involved or implied indisputably was The Sabbath according
to the (Fourth) Commandment, and therefore, the day which preceded this Sabbath Day undeniably was The
Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath
or Friday ..... which ALSO was, That Day great day of sabbaths
(esteem) having been the Feast-sabbath of passover, Abib 15.
This same day
the Sixth Day of the week, Friday, had had begun (on Thursday night), here:
In Mt27:57, Mk15:42, Jn19:31, Lk23:50, It now having had become
evening The Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath.
There is NOTHING
that may prove these conclusions wrong or only improbable. Some simply do not see any of these many
implications although they are written in clear and plain words. That is why people resort to strange
doctrines to explain the three days and the three days and three
nights.
Jesus was not
buried on the day Abib 14 that he
was crucified on; He was buried on
the Feast-Day, Abib 15, so that it might be fulfilled
which is written of Me. It is written of
That which remained, that it should be carried out of Egypt and,
be burned with fire on the following day, That Day great
day-sabbath of the passover Abib 15, Ex12:10,37,39,47,51; 13:4,10;
Dt33:3-5, as a typical reference to the Burial of Jesus our Passover and Lamb
of God. The Scriptures knew and indicated this day Abib 15 and Feast of Unleavened Bread the
day-of-interment with the words or even titles of,
Old Testament:
the sabbath,
and
That Day,
and
(That Day)
great day, and
That-Day-in-the-bone-of-day
day, and,
New Testament:
That Day, and
That Day
great day-of-sabbath, similar to the
in-between-sabbath
in Acts 13:42.
The Scriptures
thus describe and point out this unique day in its God-given and therefore
demanded eschatological wholeness. No
other day of the passovers calendar and no other day whatsoever thus, has
received identification in the Scriptures as the fifteenth day of the First
Month did for its mandatory PURPOSE. But is it thus recognised and respected in
Christianity? It is disregarded as such,
and altogether caused to disappear into the passover on the fourteenth
day of the month, despite, Moses
wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the
the LORD, that they departed .... on the fifteenth day of the First
Month with an High Hand .... while the Egyptians buried their firstborn.
Paul
R. Finch:
FN389
One can find this explanation in the popular Companion Bible, appendix 144,
wherein Dr. Bullinger writes:
The
fact that three days is used by Hebrew idiom for any part of
three
days and three nights is not disputed; because that was the
common
way of reckoning, just as it was when used of years. Three or any number of
years was used inclusively of any part of those years, as may be seen in the
reckoning of reigns of any of the kings of
GE:
Is there
anything wrong with Bullingers conclusion?
I dont think so in any case not as it stands in this isolated
quotation. ..... (T)he expression (three days and three nights) ceases to be an idiom, and becomes a literal
statement of fact. Mark you, .....
of fact which undisputed fact in the relevant Scriptures was the SINGLE reality
of
1) Abib 15 as
2) second day of the passover and as
3) first day of seven days of passover
and
4) Feast of Unleavened Bread,
5) That Day and .....
6) ..... great day
7) of sabbath the sabbath of
the passover Lv23:11,15 .....
8) day, AND, night (Mt12:40)
.....
and not only the
last few minutes of Crucifixion-day Abib 14!
So yes, either the Good Friday-Easter Sunday
tradition is a fable or the Gospels and the passover Scriptures are a
waste of words and filled with meaningless typological references.
Paul
R. Finch:
Thus
speaketh the masters of shock evangelism.
...... (T)raditional Christianity congregates
on Sunday in
recognition
over the fact of the Resurrection ..... The
approach worked, for multiple thousands bought into it and cling to it as a
result, despite the fact that no one in the early Christian Church ever made a
point of the time element of the Resurrection .....
GE:
Now
this, is shock evangelism by
subtlety, Paul R. Finch stating a
totally baseless assumption for Gospel Truth, fact, traditional Christianity congregates on
Sunday in recognition over THE FACT OF the Resurrection ..... on Sunday. What
better way to prop up the entirely baseless tradition of one of Christianitys
key doctrines, the FALLACY of the
Resurrection on Sunday? Please remember I speak as a believing
Christian; not as an unbelieving bystander.
Paul
R. Finch
reverts to his introductory methods. He begins by taking for GRANTED on
Sunday ..... the Resurrection, to in the end PROVE, the
Resurrection ..... on Sunday.
Not that I agree with the after 72 hours in the grave resurrection
fiction. But I find no reason why I should accept the most fantastic of all fiction
the Sunday resurrection fiction to disprove another fiction, the after 72
hours in the grave resurrection fiction.
What would I have gained in the end?
That a lie proved a lie a lie?
What more
rejectable way than of traditional Christianity to undermine the entire basis
of Scriptural Christianitys key doctrines, than to offer arsenic for pure
glass of water. The approach worked,
for how many multiple thousands
have bought into the
Sunday-resurrection cauldron of doctrines and have clung to it despite the fact that no one in the early Christian Church
ever made a point of the alleged time element of the Resurrection ...... on Sunday!
Paul R. Finch:
No one in the early Christian Church ever
made a point of the time element of the Resurrection ..... especially the Apostles! Therefore,
this subject deserves an investigation due to the importance that is placed on
this aspect.
GE:
It seems also
the approach of Paul R. Finch, works. For the third time
so far, PRF with the same effectiveness is employing the selfsame tactics of
calling his ASSUMPTION the fact, in order to
take for granted fiction that no one in the early Christian Church
ever made a point of the time element of the Resurrection, so
that he in the end has PROVED, that no one in the early Christian Church
ever made a point of the time element of the Resurrection. Not that I agree with the fiction that no
one in the early Christian Church ever made a point of the time element of the
Resurrection, but I find no reason why I should accept of all
taken for granted facts the most
fictitious of all, that the early Christian Church made a
point of the time element of the Resurrection, on Sunday. What would I have gained in the end? That a lie proved a lie a lie?
For
certain then, yes, this subject deserves
an investigation due to the importance that is placed on this aspect ..... of
the time element of the Resurrection according to the SCRIPTURES THE
THIRD DAY.
My
first question therefore is,
Is
it true, No one in the early Christian Church ever made a point of the time
element of the Resurrection?
It
is a premature, unproved and improvable, wild, assumption.
There
literally are tens of factors and indicators, and implications and
straight-forward statements, of the time
element of the Resurrection,
The
very words like three days and the third day and
Prepositions
of time like in, on, before, etc.;
not to mention
Adverbs
and Adjectives like late and great (day) and
Praenomen
like sabbath and First Day; and, yes,
Numerals,
like first, six (days).
Not
to mention, further,
Prophetic
statements of Messianic Fulfilment?
Eschatological
symbolism and typology? .....
No,
ridiculous, is the justified word .....
But,
on the other hand, show, demonstrate, quote, refer, imply whatever JUST ONE
such case as these, due to the importance that is placed on
th(e) aspect of the time element of the Resurrection ..... ON SUNDAY?!
No chance .....
This statement
PRF has made is going to reach the point of irony once we shall get to his OWN
deliberations on the time element of the
Resurrection. Then, for certain, Therefore, this subject deserves an
investigation due to the importance that is placed on this aspect ..... the aspect of the
TIME-factor!
(See, there you can already see how PRF himself, denies himself
that No one in the early Christian
Church ever made a point of the time element of the Resurrection.
No?
Read: No one in the early
Christian Church ever made a point of the time element of the Resurrection.
Now read on, the importance
that is placed on th(e) aspect of the time element of the Resurrection.
Where is this importance
that is placed on th(e) aspect of the time element of the Resurrection, found?
In the Gospels; and, especially, in the Apostles, naturally.
Before I step off this quibbling; I wonder, has PRF not read
these sentences in other authors? Has he
not heard them used before? Why are they
sounding so familiar to me, then?
Paul R. Finch:
It
certainly is impossible to fit three full day periods and three full night
periods between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning. And the sign of Jonah argument
concerning Jesus Messiahship turns the entire issue around from just an
interesting, secondary fact of history into a primary doctrinal point of ones
Christian beliefs.
GE:
Which fact in fact, certainly PRF has phrased
so well it is impossible not to accept and underwrite. It is what I have tried
to do when I spoke of the God-given and therefore eschatological imperative
wholeness of the three days and three nights-three days.
[[I borrowed the
expression, the God-given and therefore eschatological imperative wholeness
from E. Lohmeyer in P.F. Theron, The Ecclesia as Cosmic Eschatological Sign.
Lohmeyer used it in connection with the twelve tribes of
Paul R. Finch:
This
new theory claims that Jesus was already risen the evening before the women
arrived in the morning. Therefore, by this line of reasoning it is possible to
count three full, 24 hour days from Wednesday evening to Sabbath evening.
GE:
I also believe
it; but I would have liked to use plainer and more precise and Biblical terms
to make my position unambiguously clear.
I would therefore word your statement as follows: Christ rose from the dead On the Sabbath
Day, in Sabbaths fullness mid-afternoon as it began to dawn towards the First
Day of the week Mt28:1, three hours before sunset before the evening in
which Mary while yet early darkness comes and sees the stone removed from
the sepulchre; and at least another six hours before the women arrived in the morning deep darkness of
night just after midnight carrying their spices prepared and ready
Lk24:1, they, thinking the body was still in the tomb. Therefore, by this sequence of events
(Inclusive reckoning and therefore no talking about seconds or minutes and
stuff.) it is inevitable to count three solid days from Wednesday evening
beginning of the Fifth Day of the week to Sabbaths mid-afternoon and
the end of the third day according to the Scriptures sunset, when the
women would have started to rest the Sabbath Day according to the
(Fourth) Commandment Lk23:56b.
Nevertheless, I
reserve my rights as to this line of reasoning
of the newness of this theory that claims that Jesus was already risen before the women arrived in the
morning.
First, by
rights PRF should not have set the trap for the unawares, when he stated, as
in full, that Jesus was already risen
the evening before the women arrived in the morning ..... risen the evening, implying an evening-resurrection?
Or even, evening before the women
arrived? So, better leave out the
words, the evening, first.
Then read: that Jesus was already risen .... BEFORE the
women arrived in the morning. Because then there is NO doubt left, Jesus was ALREADY RISEN BEFORE the women
arrived in the morning. Then all
left to do is to further find out:
WHEN BEFORE
(ON THE SABBATH) Jesus rose? And,
WHEN in the morning (on the First Day AFTER
the Sabbath) the women arrived?
Now, PRFs
words, the evening, must come into
play, because the questions now have become:
WHEN (ON THE SABBATH) BEFORE THE EVENING Jesus rose? And,
WHEN AFTER THE EVENING the women arrived?
Therefore, by this line of reasoning it is
possible to count three full, 24 hour days from Wednesday evening to .....
Saturday evening excluded now.
It is NOT
possible though, to count three full, 24
hour days from Wednesday evening to, Sabbath
evening, inclusive reckoning, because the Sabbaths evening, already
had been on what we now call Friday evening.
Paul R. Finch:
But
this would seem to do violence to the fact that Jesus died the day before the
Sabbath, as the Gospel accounts record. .....
GE:
No, it does
not. Your fact, that Jesus died the
day before the Sabbath, as the Gospel accounts record, is NO fact.
You record for me the Gospel accounts that record, Jesus died the day before the Sabbath! You cannot; theres no
such account or record.
Forget to find it, I guarantee you; UNLESS you use ADAPTED, corrected
/ improved versions; in other words, BOGUS translations; unfaithful,
unchristian, antichrist, corruptions!
Paul R. Finch:
This
to count three full, 24 hour days from Wednesday evening to Sabbath evening
is resolved, so we are told, by realizing that the Sabbath mentioned in John
19:31 is not just a simple, weekly Sabbath day, but was an annual Sabbath
known as the First Day of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15, which could land on any
day of the week, and in the year of the Crucifixion fell on a Thursday.
GE:
Yes, the
Wednesday-crucifixionists argue thus. But they also argue of course, precisely
as you pointed out, this Sabbath mentioned
in John 19:31 the annual
Sabbath known as the First Day of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15, which could land
on any day of the week in the
year of the Crucifixion fell on a THURSDAY.
By having argued
the Sabbath mentioned in John 19:31
..... fell on a THURSDAY, the Wednesday-crucifixionists have done two things
(which the Friday-crucifixionists also do):
1) They moved the Burial back from day-of-Burial
Abib 15 onto Abib 14 day-of-Crucifixion;
2) They leave a vacuum where the Burial should
have filled the day, and so remove the moment of Jesus death four days away
from his resurrection.
Then, by arguing
a full 72-hours period in the grave in the earth, they actually push the
resurrection onto the FIFTH day after the crucifixion! And I have had to do with proponents of the
Wednesday crucifixion theory who for support go so far as to interpret the
expression after three days literally!
The Friday crucifixionists
do not go to these lengths, but they also create a vacuous day by having moved
the Burial back from day-of-Burial Abib 15 onto Abib 14 day-of-Crucifixion
(Friday), and called their feat, Still Saturday. The joke is though, they
more often than otherwise place the Crucifixion on Abib 15, or they sometimes
more often than otherwise place the Resurrection on Abib 17. It goes to show what happens if the plain
Scriptures ARE SUPPOSED TO CONTRADICT OR THEY ARE FALSE WITNESSES!
Yes, the Wednesday-crucifixionists
argue thus. But they are completely
wrong and invent their own, artificial, resolve,
just because they refuse to allow the Feast or Sabbath or Great Day of the
passover Abib 15 its prophetic nature and purpose, and meaning and intent,
and factual content of HAVING BEEN DAY OF AND DAY FOR BURIAL because that,
according to them would be unlawful work on a sabbath day which is utter
nonsense and is nowhere to be found in all of Scripture. They simply ignore and wave the specific,
many and intentional, passover-Scriptures of exact time and day and date
there are in every Gospel for everyone with eyes willing to see.
It
is not the Gospel accounts that record or show that it was the day before the Sabbath that Jesus was crucified, because there is only the one account in the
one Gospel of a sabbath before the Sabbath, Jn19:31 SINCE IT WAS THE
PREPARATION AND THAT DAY OF GREAT DAY SABBATHS (status) ..... WHICH
IS THE FORE-SABBATH Mk15:42. [[Yes, there is one account in two Gospels of
a sabbath before the Sabbath, IF, in Lk23:54b Sabbath is
understood to be the current day from 54a mid-afternoon
(declining).]]
How does it seem to do violence?
Here you are
employing now for the third (or is it the fourth time?) your logic of false
assumption for false proof circular thinking. It is the same fact again so assumed for
fact while it is no fact but supposition faulty, supposition. Your supposition is faulty, yes, because you
do not distinguish between .....
A) the Sabbath, according to the
Commandment the Seventh Day Sabbath from the Ten Commandments (Abib 16 referred to
in Lk23:56b beginning,
in Mt27:62 in
its morning,
in Mt28:1-4 in
bright day of it,
and in Mk16:2 as
having gone through / ended ......
and ......
B) That Day (that) was great
day-sabbath of the passover, and
THAT DAY
Lk23:54a specially allocated for
that which
remained of the Passover Sacrifice;
The Feast
of Passover, Abib 15
in
Jn13:1;19:31, Mk15:42/Mt27:57/Lk23:50
BEGINNING TO BE; on which
Joseph after
these things the Jews did (and later on, also Nicodemus UNDERTOOK
TO, do, namely,
to bury the
body to custom / law of the Jews (Jn19:40);
The Feast
of Passover, Abib 15
in
Jn19:42 and Lk23:54-56a
BEGINNING TO END,
and in between
these texts,
(the in
between sabbath cf. Acts
13:42)
in its
proceedings
(the in-the-bone-of-day
day)
until
Joseph
rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre Mk15:46
and departed
Mt27:60
and they (Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary (of Joses)) returned
and prepared
spices and ointments Lk23:56a(Mt27:61/Mk15:47)
BEFORE the
Sabbath according to the (Fourth) Commandment in Lk23:56b, had begun or would have begun.
So, yes, this
having been resolved, Jesus DID
DIE, the day before the sabbath
but the day before the PASSOVERS sabbath (Abib 15), i.e., on The Preparation of the Passovers, sabbath as
the Gospel accounts Jn19:14, like the Law (Lv23:11,15) , record. Of course! Because He DIED, on the day that they
always had to kill the passover Lk22:7/Mk14:12, which was passover
on Abib 14 (Nmb33:3-4) which John described, was The PREPARATION of
the PASSOVER, Jn19:14, BEFORE THE FEAST Jn13:1.
This has been
resolved by having realized that the sabbath mentioned in John 19:31 is not
just a simple, weekly Sabbath day, but was an annual Sabbath known as the
First Day of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15, which could land on any day of the
week, and in the year of the Crucifixion ....., clearly and indisputably fell on the SIXTH
Day of the week, Friday.
Because it
was The Preparation ..... AND ..... That Day
was, great day
of sabbaths (esteem) ..... which Preparation AND
great day of
sabbaths esteem) was ....
the
Fore-Sabbath of the weekly Sabbath
day..... simultaneously.
He was Killed,
our Passover for our sins on Abib 14;
He was Buried,
for our sins, on Abib 15
killed
and buried on two, separate, each in its own right, passover-days
(Nmb33:3).
It is clear, it
was FRIDAY, and
Since it was
the Preparation ..... That Day great day of sabbaths (esteem) was .....
(Jn19:31)
both
The
Preparation which is The Fore-Sabbath (Mk15:42)
and
That Day
great day of sabbaths (esteem).
It could land on any day of the week;
it could land on
The
Preparation which is The Fore-Sabbath (Mk15:42)
which is the
Sixth Day, Friday.
Abib 15 by the
dispensations and Providence of God accordingly
landed on the
Friday,
since it was
The Preparation and That Day was
great day of
sabbaths (esteem).
(Jn19:31)
THE THIRD
DAY according to the Scriptures He rose (1Cor15:4),
First Sheaf
Wave Offering before the LORD Lv23:11,15 .....
and God THE
SEVENTH DAY
from ALL his
works, rested .....
in this wise
Hb4:4
When He had
by Himself purged our sins
SAT DOWN ON the
Right Hand of the Majesty on High Hb1:3:
God .... raised
Him up from the dead
and gave Him
Glory
1Pt1:21;
Buried ....
into death .... in newness of life ....
as Christ was
raised by the Glory of the Father Ro6:4;
Obedient
unto death wherefore God highly exalted Him Php2:9;
WHEN He
raised Him from the dead God
SET Him at his OWN
RIGHT HAND
in heavenly
EXCELLENCE far above all principality. Eph1:19-21
Paul
R Finch:
A
serious quest for the truth first must analyze not only the
structure
of Jesus wording in the light of the rest of the Bible, but also must weigh
the implications imposed by a literal reading.
GE:
The implications imposed by a literal
reading analyzed in the light of the Bible are .....
It
took the THREE, first WHOLE days of PASSOVER, in
WHOLE
It was the FOURTEENTH day of the First Month:
Even the FIRST day ye shall PUT AWAY LEAVEN. Ex12:15b.
The first
day without leaven when they KILLED
the passover.
Lk22:7/Mk14:12/Mt26:17
(1Cor5:7-8).
Christ: IN HIS SUFFERING:
It was the NIGHT of the fourteenth day of
the First Month .....
CHRIST: ENTERING IN into the Kingdom of His
Suffering;
CHRIST: VICTORIOUS:
A NIGHT to
be solemnly observed.
CHRIST: in the Kingdom of My Father;
CHRIST: suffering dying death;
death is the
wages of sins;
CHRIST: under the curse of the Law
The Law is
the strength of sin
CHRIST: bearing our sins;
CHRIST: for our sins;
CHRIST: made sin for us;
CHRIST: in the heart of the earth;
CHRIST: thereby having OBTAINED;
CHRIST: IN IT TRIUMPHED.
..... and it was
the DAY of the fourteenth day of the First Month .....
CHRIST: VICTORIOUS:
CHRIST: IN HIS SUFFERING GOING THROUGH;
CHRIST: for three days: thick darkness;
CHRIST: IN HIS SUFFERING GOING OUT
CHRIST: in the heart of the earth three days and
three nights-three days this,
the FIRST of ..... thick darkness.
It was the
FOURTEENTH day of the First Month IN WHOLE: day, and, night.
It was the FIFTEENTH day of the First Month;
It was the NIGHT of the fifteenth day of
the First Month .....
CHRIST: AFTER his GOING OUT in the Kingdom of His
Father;
CHRIST: his BODY, AFTER
the death of death in the death of Christ
(John Owen);
CHRIST: VICTORIOUS:
CHRIST: his BODY being
awarded
Joseph,
and it, being
taken down,
and
away,
and
handled / treated,
and
prepared
as is the
Law / Custom of the Jews
TO, BURY;
..... and it was
the DAY of the fifteenth day of the First Month .....
There, by
the time of the Jews preparations,
laid they the
body of Jesus.
And there followed
after
Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary;
and they sat
over against the
grave;
they
looked on; they
saw (inside) the
grave
and how his body
was laid.
Since That
Day was
The Preparation
and
mid-afternoon
as it began to
dawn towards the Sabbath .....
CHRIST: VICTORIOUS:
CHRIST: BURIED ....
for our sins
..... according to the Scriptures;
CHRIST: in That Day,
CHRIST: in the heart of the earth three days and
three nights this, THAT DAY,
WHOLE BETWIXT three days
thick darkness.
It was the
FIFTEENTH day of the First Month IN
WHOLE: day, and, night.
It was the SIXTEENTH day of the First Month;
It was NIGHT AND IT WAS DAY .....
CHRIST: in the heart of the earth three days and
three nights-three days this,
the THIRD day according to the Scriptures of ..... thick darkness.
CHRIST: VICTORIOUS:
CHRIST: in the SIXTEENTH day of the First Month
MADE AN END of
to cleanse The House of the LORD;
CHRIST: the Pillar of Cloud gave light by night;
CHRIST: First Sheaf Offering Waved Before the
LORD;
CHRIST: WHEN GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD;
CHRIST: ENTERED IN into His Own Rest as God;
CHRIST: His Name is Holy of Holies, God
in his Temple;
CHRIST: in the end and fullness of the Sabbath
.....
CHRIST: in the being bright daylight of the
Sabbath;
CHRIST: Crucified, Risen;
CHRIST: CROWNED THE SON OF THE KING;
CHRIST: as it began to dawn towards the First Day
of the week;
CHRIST: I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE;
JESUS ..... having
given them REST.
It was the
sixteenth day of the First Month IN
WHOLE: night,
and,
DAY THICK DARKNESS
By the GLORY of the Father
in the heart
of daylight
God raised Christ
from the dead.
And God IN CHRIST
the Seventh Day
from all his
works,
RESTED.
Paul R. Finch:
Was
Jesus really trying to define precisely the exact number of hours, minutes, and
seconds of the time he was going to be lying in the tomb?
GE:
That is the
Armstrongites dilemma. As for the Thursday-Crucifixion - On the Sabbath-Resurrection
viewpoint, it poses no problem, since the three days and three nights-three
days are regarded in their eschatological wholeness according to the
Scriptures one by one and all collectively in perfect agreement.
These three
days if theyre but these three days constitute the
three days
of every Prophetic Word of Scriptures;
They constitute three
days by inclusive reckoning to the hour and minute and second;
They constitute three
days by sign of Jonah the prophet, three days and three
nights;
They constitute three
days by Word of the LORD and
by the raising
of hand of Moses three days thick darkness;
They constitute three
days by month and day of the month of
passover the
fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth days of
the First Month
Feast: Observe the Month of Abib!;
They constitute three
days by declaration of the Gospel .....
first of all,
How that Christ
died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
and (also)
How that He was
buried (for our sins according to the Scriptures),
and (finally)
How that He rose
again (for our sins) according to the Scriptures the third day.
Seen from the structure of Jesus wording in the light
of the rest of the Bible the three days and three nights or three
days and three nights-three days, NEVER involved other or strange
or just any, or LESS, or MORE, or, parts only, of days or days and nights
than THESE three days of the ESCHATOLOGICAL WHOLENESS of the three
days and three nights-three days of Jesus declaration regarding the
PROPHET, Jonah; or of Pauls declaration regarding the third day
according to the Scriptures.
If youre not
talking of the three days, according to the Scriptures the
passover Scriptures, youre off the subject of the three days or of the
third day or of the three days and three nights altogether; you
will never be able to resolve
anything. You wont be able to weigh the implications imposed by a literal
reading. You will and must
certainly FAIL before having won quest
for the truth of the fact without hesitation or doubt that Jesus rose
from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures: In Sabbath Days fullness.
First delivery
ends, 2 December 2009.
Gerhard Ebersφhn
http://www.biblestudents.co.za
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul R. Finch
To: gerhard
Sent: Friday,
December 04, 2009 4:20 PM
Subject: Re:
Passover's Papers
Hi Gerhard,
First of all, the name of my book is not Passover's Papers, but The Passover Papers.
Second, I had written two different versions of this book. One in 1998, and a
revised version in 2009. You quoted from the 1998 version, but you referenced
the 2009 version, which was completely revised from that which you quoted.
Third, where did you get this title Three days not calendar days? Those are not my words, but you make it seem as if they were.
Fourth, since you have not read my book in its entirety, you are like the fool who answers a matter before he hears all the facts - it is a folly and a shame to him (Prov. 18:13).
Fifth, you state:
That it was the day before the Sabbath that Jesus was crucified is no more than the opinion of PRF. During whole the age of the apostles no one has ever claimed or taught that it was the day before the Sabbath that He was crucified. Not the simplest reading of the Gospel accounts shows that it was the day before the Sabbath that He was crucified. It is PRF who says it.
Go back and read Luke 23:54-56.
Sixth, your writing style is so convoluted that I have no idea what you believe. You put a lot of effort and time into a complete circumlocution that is impossible to follow, nor fathom. Is there something you want to say, then say it! Get to the point! Any point! Is there some point that you are trying to make that is supposed to change my mind or my thinking? I haven't the slightest idea, nor would I expect anyone else would either.
Seventh,
I answer from the standpoint of the believer in God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit one who believes the Holy Scriptures for the Written Word of God Tri-Une that it is.
God Tri-Une? And you tell me your not steeped in Catholic tradition? To put in your words, during the whole age of the apostles no one has ever claimed nor taught God Tri-Une! Those are GE's words, not the Bible's. Two can play at this stupid game.
Not impressed,
Paul R. Finch
_____________
Dear Paul,
Thank you very much for having replied.
I come in peace, for the sake of the truth of the Scriptures, the Truth of the Gospel. Which I believe you also do. But I would come forward for the truth, even have you not believed; only then I would not have spoken to YOU, but to all others I come in contact with and believe. Therefore let us for the time being leave behind our OTHER differences, to concentrate on our present differences.
I apologise, 'first of all', for my typo, which I did rectify the moment after I had had your e-mail sent.
Next, I am trying to answer that which I have read and still am reading FROM your book, second edition. If I may be mistaken, it will be due to my misunderstanding of that which I have had read. Thank God it is a free world, and you are most welcome to shoot me down. I shall be thankful to you if you do; I do not want to make mistakes.
Allow me please, to tell you something. Be patient with me please, if for my sake only. I have been studying the Bible all my life and the Sabbath was the focus-point of my studies all my life. Now I have a brother two years my junior in years but my superior in intelligence, knowledge and experience by very far, who also loves God and his Written Word although he has spent the energies of his life on other studies than the Bible mostly. We have all our lives loved one another dearly, and have lived close friends. And only last night, he told me something most basic to my field of interest in the Faith that I never could IMAGINE he, also, believed, but have always thought he seriously differed about with me. So, whether I have read your book in whole or not, what difference would it make? I may still be totally mistaken about it on any number of points and perhaps even about the main focus of it ...... how much more, about the author of your book ......
But here is the punch-line. I and my brother have not OPENLY, REPEATEDLY, SPOKEN, ENOUGH, MAN TO MAN, ON SPECIFICS. That is the trouble, not only with modern technology; it is the trouble of our religious devotion _AS CHRISTIANS_ more than anything else.
Then about your fifth point in your mail to me, Go back and read Luke 23:54-56. I shall return the favour, dear Paul R. Finch. Let us do it together, NOW, OPENLY, REPEATEDLY, SPOKEN, ENOUGH, MAN TO MAN, ON SPECIFICS.
SPOKEN:
54
And that day _was_ ['ehn', Constative, Factual, Aorist = had been] -
That Day had been The Preparation and .....
..... and the Sabbath _drew on_ ['epefohsken', Imperfect, while going on drawing near:-
'epi'=MID; 'fohs'=LIGHT; 'k-en'=having been < simply, mid-afternoon] .....
That Day had been The Preparation and mid-afternoon the Sabbath (still) drawing near .....
..... And (mid-afternoon the Sabbath still drawing near) .....
..... the women also, following after [in the procession after Joseph and Nicodemus carrying the body] .....
.....
who (having come with Him from
..... beheld ['saw into'] the tomb and how his body was placed then ('etetheh' Punctiliar Aorist) .....
..... and having returned [home] they BEGAN to prepare ('hehtoimasan' Ingressive Aorist) spices and ointments. .....
..... Strictly when it was Sabbath ['kai to men sabbaton'] they began to rest ['ehsuchasan' Ingressive Aorist] .....
..... according to the [Fourth] Commandment.
End of pericope.
1) What have WE, read of the Crucifixion? Nothing.
2) This was Friday? I think we agree, it was.
3) Was this Friday, beginning? No.
4) Was this, Friday, ENDED? No.
5) Was this, Friday, ENDING? From verse 54 up to 54A, it was.
6) Where is Friday, ENDED? From 56B on.
What have WE, read of the Crucifixion? Nothing.
What have WE, read of the BURIAL? ONLY, that, and how, and, WHEN, it was being FINISHED.
So, how long has this been AFTER the Crucifixion? FROM Mk15:42/Mt27:57, Jn19:31/38 and Lk23:50.
Since WHEN has it been the BURIAL therefore? FROM HAVING BEEN EVENING ALREADY ['ehdeh opsias genomenehs']
For how long has it been the BURIAL? ONE FULL DAY of night and day; no more; no less; Abib 15, inclusive.
The Crucifixion in Lk23:54-65? Sorry, could not be found.
God bless
GE
PS
My second delivery, DV to follow soon; please be willing to receive it.
Paul R. Finch:
Here's the
chronological break down.
Day One,
Friday, Calendar date Nisan 14.
Jesus
Crucified:
There they
crucified him Luke 23:33
And the day
was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on Luke 23:54
Day Two,
Saturday, Calendar date Nisan 15
Women return
to their homes and rest on Sabbath day according to the (fourth)
commandment Luke 23:56.
Day Three,
Sunday, Calendar date Nisan 16
On first day
of the week, women bring spices and found the stone rolled away. Luke 24:1.
Jesus risen on
the third calendar day. Any other scenario different from this one is reading
personal theories into the text that are simply not there. Any other scenario
is simply anti-biblical. Enough said! End of story!
Dear Paul R.
Finch,
Your 'breakdown'
includes events of Crucifixion day and IGNORES its ending as well as the
beginning of Burial day in Lk23:50, the parallel text of Mk15:42/Mt27:57,
Jn1931/38
KJV,
Lk23:54a, And that day was ...., is That Day was great day of
sabbath's esteem of Jn19:31, BUT, in Lk23:54 ending, whereas in Jn19:31 it
was beginning ..... The events that in between occurred filled those in-between-hours
from after that Now already it had become evening ..... until .....
mid-afternoon the Sabbath approaching.
A conception of
the three days that does not recognise the in-between-sabbath
/ the in-the-bone-of-day day / That Day, great day of
sabbath's-esteem of Abib 15, is INCOMPLETE and does not - yes,
cannot - provide a thorough 'breakdown'
of the three days and three nights-three days eschatological
wholeness and INTEGRITY!
But the fact you
are taking things seriously is promising of an honest and teachable
spirit.
11 December 2009
Second
delivery
Eschatological
Wholeness the three days and three nights-three days-sign
of the Prophet Jonah
Paul
R Finch:
Are
we to believe that after making such a point of his exact time
in
the tomb that no one was there to witness that factthat exactly one second
after 71 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds in the tomb Jesus suddenly opens his
eyesyet no one was even remotely aware of this fact, nor was it ever mentioned
in any literature until now that this was the all important aspect of the
Resurrection?
GE:
No, we are not
to believe it like you described here it is supposed, or for the reason
mentioned, making such a point of his
exact time. No, certainly not.
Yet, taken in
its eschatological wholeness the three days and three nights-three
days-sign of the Prophet Jonah and the other Prophets like Moses
as seen from the perspective of FULFILLED Word of God (retrospectively) it is a simple conclusion the prophetic three
days were usual solar days that in hours would count up to 72 hours. But surely that was not what Jesus meant as
any normal minded person will happily admit.
The Armstrongites went overboard, clearly; but now we must not follow
after them. .
Jesus with using
his illustration from Jonah, was referring to THE RELEVANT and SAME days so
OFTEN referred to in the Gospels as the three days on the third
day OF WHICH, He would rise from the dead again.
There is NO WAY
of denying the three, DAYS; there is NO WAY of denying the THREE, days;
there is NO WAY of denying they were THESE three days of the SIGN
of the PROPHET Jonah and PROPHECY in general and in WHOLE. And theres NO
WAY of the denying the THIRD day of these three days for having been
the Sabbath of Jesus Resurrection at last in fulfilment of the Will,
well-pleasing and rest of God. There is NO WAY of denying they were THE three
days of Jesus sin-atoning WOE, of his DESCENT into hells anguish of
Egypts ninth plague of THICK DARKNESS THREE DAYS, and --- heres the
significance of the in the heart of the earth three DAYS, AND, three NIGHTS
--- it would NIGHT AND DAY, BE DARKNESS! And on the third day, it would
DARKNESS OF HELL be OVERCOME AND EXPELLED!
Even the
darkness midst of day in the NOON of day, from the sixth to the ninth hour
when Jesus died, was STILL, Prophecy of the darkness when, Behold! (kai idou) Jesus
resurrected: from the DEAD
and from the DARKNESS of death MIDST of day / in the NOON of day Sabbaths
(sabbatohn-en-tehi-epifohskousehi). I-AM
The Light of the world even in resurrection from the dead.
Mark! the
darkness that marked the third days day, was NO worse than
the darkness that marked the first days day which was a
darkness both visible and physical of That night, but also was the
darkness of CHRIST IN HIS SUFFERING.
Christ in the darkness of suffering In the Kingdom of My Father
dying the death of hell which no mortal eye could behold and live. It was Christs anguish in the spiritual
darkness of the wages of sin: the IN
THE HEART OF THE EARTH three days and three nights- DARKNESS: That Night, of even the
first day already. This was the darkness of
THESE three
days of three days and three nights are ESCHATOLOGICALLY
VINDICATED even in THEIR first night UNTIL in THEIR third day
as the sign .... given
SIGN of the Eternal Covenant of Grace. (Not of 72 hours.)
These three
days were Gods CHOSEN three days. They THEREFORE from of old with the view to
Jesus Christ Crucified, and, Buried, and, Risen three days and three nights
were instituted, and in these last
days through the Son through Resurrection from the dead were VINDICATED,
BY, IN [[Mt28:1 sabbatohn Ablative
as well as Genitive]], the THIRD day according to the Scriptures of
THESE three days-three days and three nights:- Sabbaths,
So that God the Seventh Day, RESTED.
Paul
R Finch:
This
is why this question is so important. It shades the entire
essence
of what Jesus was trying to convey. In other words, if the day/night formula
was merely an expression indicating calendar days, then the emphasis of what
Jesus said was not the amount of elapsed time but on the Resurrection itself.
GE:
Which question? I assume, this question, Are we to believe
that after making such a point of his exact time in the tomb ..... that this
was the all important aspect of the Resurrection? Paul R. Finch is right. Let me return to this question of PRF
quickly. He answers the 72-hours theorists. He says, Are we to believe ..... that no one was there to witness that fact
..... no one was aware of this fact?
What does Finch mean was the fact? There is no possibility of a fact in the entire supposition; on
nobodys part except Christs own the fact of his Resurrection long before the
issue became one of a point of his exact
time. There existed no possibility
the text meant in the earth or in the
tomb as such. The three days and three nights have bearing on
Jesus whole EXPERIENCING OF BEING IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH
figurative language for to human perception invisible, spiritual, yea,
DIVINE, anguish; the affliction of DEATH of the conscious and alive Anointed of
God. Christ Anointed with the pangs of
death; Christ crowned with the glory of overcoming sin and death and darkness;
Christ victorious IN BATTLE! It makes it
ONLY Christs and His UNIQUE suffering dying death and enduring hells
self-consuming desires, EVEN, the first day and, That Day-in
the bone of day-day, and, the third day-First Sheaf Wave
Offering Before the LORD-day.
In the heart
of the earth is figurative language; three days and three nights
is literal language. Christs last SUFFERING for the sins of many lasted three
literal days of each a night and a day, that there can be NO DOUBT as to WHICH three
days and three nights-three days He was referring. They were the three
days of
Which Jesus and
all the Prophets spoke about. Which
truth annihilates the Friday died Sunday rose lie ..... Which truth annihilates
the Wednesday crucifixion nonsense ..... and the novelty of the Thursday
crucifixion Sunday resurrection innovation.
Paul
R Finch:
But
if the expression (in the earth three days and three nights) was to indicate
that 3 day periods and 3 night periods, consisting of 12 hours each, must
transpire, then the emphasis is only secondarily on the Resurrection, but
primarily on the exact timing for Jesus to be in the heart of the earth. Simply
put, it changes the entire color of the event from the miracle of restored life
into a stop-watch event which nobody, it seems, took special note of.
GE:
Absolutely
true! Then again, Absolutely, NO!
Because there will be NO difference if the
expression (in the earth three days and three nights) was to indicate that 3 NIGHT periods and 3 DAY periods, consisting of 12 hours each, must transpire.
There will be no
difference because what is it that ACTUALLY places the emphasis on the exact timing for Jesus to be in the heart of the
earth?
That there are, 3 NIGHT periods and 3 DAY periods? Well, is that not what Jesus said, having
said, in the heart of the earth three days and three nights?
No, says PRF,
Im talking of the SEQUENCE in the earth
three days and three nights.
So then is it
for nothing that you said, consisting of
12 hours each, must transpire? For
that, because Jesus did NOT SAY THAT, must be WHAT actually should have induced
the conclusion then the emphasis is
..... primarily on the exact timing for Jesus to be in the heart of the earth
and only secondarily on the Resurrection.
Paul
R. Finch:
Simply
put, it changes the entire color of the event from the miracle of restored life
into a stop-watch event which nobody, it seems, took special note of.
GE:
Yes; put like
that, its absolutely so. But who but
the Armstrongites insist on such stop-watch
timing? Now PRF in principle does
the very same thing they did; he only places the emphasis on the literal
sequence of night then day, instead of on the literal hours and minutes of three
days and three nights which in that sequence in any case are going to end sunrise
after 72 hours to the minute and even seconds!
So who is
placing the emphasis only secondarily on
the Resurrection, (and) primarily on the exact timing? Who, simply,
changes the entire color of the event from the miracle of restored life into a
stop-watch event which nobody, it seems, took special note of? WHO?
And what is the
partys formula for successfully
having avoided the fiasco? The formula to turn in the partys own
words idiomatic usage or idiomatic expression of days and
nights, into in literal sequence nights and days! It so depended on where
one would like to place the emphasis that makes all the difference ..... or
rather, it all depended on ones motivation to choose where to put the
emphasis.
Now it is
interesting despite its total clarity, the real reason behind peoples choice
to place all the emphasis on the time-element
no matter where or how. The real reason
is no mystery or secret; its so obvious it passes scrutiny after scrutiny
after scrutiny ..... like it passed this instance of the closest inspection of
Paul R Finch himself UNDETECTED! The
reason being? This part of the
expression of in the heart of the earth three days and three nights,
the In the heart of the earth
part. In the heart of the
earth is being confused for being in the earth; the figurative is
lost in the literal. Jesus live suffering dying death is reduced to his stay
in the tomb.
The real reason
behind peoples choice, the fact of the
Resurrection ..... on Sunday and its supporting fact, the fact that Jesus
died the day before the Sabbath , are the result purely of NOT seeing
..... no, of IGNORING or / and of DENYING
the ENTIRETY of That Day great day of sabbaths significance in
the Gospel accounts which ESSENTIALLY
WAS DAY FOR AND OF BURIAL which in-the-bone-of-day-was-day FOR
AND OF BURIAL..... on Friday, when NOTHING any longer had to do with the
Crucifixion! It is all to get out of
THIS dilemma, that EVERYBODY regardless get stuck on the PRESUPPOSED but in
reality non-issue of the time element
with regard to the three days and three nights utterance of Jesus in
Mt12:40.
In the very
first place the reason why an issue is made of the time-element in Mt12:40 and other Scriptures like Mt28:1 and Mk15:42
and Jn19:42 (and each and every Sabbath- or First Day of the week related
texts), is to get away with their tainted tradition of Sunday veneration. For
which hope and desire Christians consciously will lose conscience and go to
such lengths as to manipulate the Scriptures in favour of their
affections.
Paul
R Finch:
Another
very important factor to keep in mind is that if the
expression
is to be understood in the sense of 72 hours, is that, unless you begin the
timing of the event exactly at the beginning of the day, the only way that you
can total 72 hours is to spread the balance of the remaining day or night
portion not used in the beginning period to be applied to the fourth calendar
day. This is a very, very important factor to keep in mind throughout this
study.
GE:
Absolutely! You may add another dimension. One cannot
place the death of Jesus on the day BEFORE the three days and count
only his SUPPOSED stay in the GRAVE for the whole of three days without
adding another day. Together with the inevitable fourth day as the result of
what you have explained, Jesus death by inclusive reckoning three hours
before sunset adds up another and fifth day if the phrase three days and
three nights is regarded exclusively applicable to the three words He was in
the earth for meaning in the grave.
I think we still agree .....
Paul
R Finch:
Some
have maintained that since Jesus was entombed right at
sunset,
then there is no balance to be brought over to the fourth calendar day. This is
plausible.....
GE:
What
substantially is there plausible in
this? Nothing.
Not even the smallest of a fraction of a second, what some real extent
of time between two days that is neither the first nor the last. Its nonsensical implausibility.
Paul
R Finch:
But
there is one thing that doesnt sit right with this idea either. This would mean that Jesus was entombed in
reverse order of three nights and three days and not the other way around. Why
did Matthew get it backwards?
GE:
It
seems you backtracked. Now you are
saying that this [three days and three nights] was
an expression for calendar days, rather than ...... And before, you have
said, ..... if the day/night formula [three
days and three nights] was merely an
expression indicating calendar days, then the emphasis of what Jesus said was
not the amount of elapsed time but on the Resurrection itself.
Why
did you say, merely? And how could
you scrape off Bullingers remark, The
Christian Church ..... held .....
calendar day, because The
attention getting aspect [three days and three nights] certainly played right into the hands of
former soap advertising man turned Apostle, Herbert W. Armstrong?
However
.....
Paul R
Finch:
This [three days and three nights] would
mean that Jesus was entombed in reverse order of three nights and three days
and not the other way around. Why did Matthew get it backwards?
GE:
No,
there is no backwards or reverse order of three nights and three days. Its simply the way REFERENCE is being made
to the SAME group of calendar days on the Hebrew almanac or rather, on GODS
calendar of these, three, first, Passover of Yahweh days and their dates.
Jesus
intention in Mt12:40 is retrospective; He spoke from the point of view of after
the events as they happened. The events
of the three days-in-full-three days and three nights in
essence-in the bone of, were THREE only and in essence-in the bone of ONE only: HE IN IT (ALL) TRIUMPHED ..... He
hath quickened you together with Him having forgiven you all trespasses
blotting out the document against you .... nailing it to the cross.
There
is in the end NO distinction between Christ Triumphator quickened
and Christ Triumphator nailed to the cross. He is The Risen
Crucified. Christ, according to the
Scriptures, is Triumphator as much IN-THE-BONE-OF-DAY DAY and
DEATH, THAT-DAY of his BURIAL, as He is Christ Triumphator on the days
before and after even on the first day as on the third day
according to the Scriptures.
Sequence
disappears in the heat and DARKNESS of the battle. DARKNESS THREE
DAYS THICK three days and three nights INDISTINGUISHABLE. Three days-IN-FULL-three days
and three nights, DARKNESS!
Christs
Lordship and Lords Day are won, wrought, and obtained in
VICTORY in the days of battle, AS, in the Last Day of Celebration and Rest.
Christ even on the first day as at the table of the Lord and
CRUCIFIED, is entered in into the
Therefore
read, For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whales belly
which is possible only after that Jonas had been in the whales belly and in
being redeemed from it SO, shall
the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights
which like with Jonas is possible only after Jesus had been in the heart of
the earth three days and three nights. Therefore the focus is from
AFTER that He had risen from the dead; from AFTER that Jesus had availed, and
from AFTER He had been crowned the Anointed of God.
So
shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights IN THE HEART of the earth
TRIUMPHANT in Victory as in
The
order of days and nights is not reversed; it is seen in perspective the perspective of Christ in
the Finished, Sanctified and Blessed and Perfected Works of His Father through
Resurrection from the dead and from darkness of hell; with the last enemy,
death, DESTROYED In Sabbaths being in bright daylight!
(sabbatohn en tehi epiphohskousehi)
Paul
R Finch:
For
sure, it seems that his (Matthews) order was the traditional order of the
Hebrew term for calendar days, which are counted from morning to morning.
Indeed, this fact alone lends more weight to the idea that this was an
expression for calendar days, rather than trying to be precise in mapping out
the timing of the Resurrection.
GE:
Another instance
of premature and still born fact. It
seems, says PRF at first; but no sooner, says he, this fact alone lends more weight ......
That these three
days of three days and three nights were calendar days on the Hebrew calendar is surely correct, but
the fact has no bearing on either the word-order of the passage or the order of
sequence of night and day as a way to reckon the day-cycle in the Bible.
After the book
of Exodus and with it only the (partial) exception, there is no single case in
all of Scripture upon which to base the assumption Hebrew calendar days are counted from morning to morning.
SCORES of plain
statements and clear inferences and implications lie scattered throughout
relevant Scriptures in both Old and New Testaments with regard to the method
or tradition how Hebrew calendar days are
counted, showing and confirming and declaring it was from sunset to sunset
or from evening to evening, and not from sunrise to sunrise or from
morning to morning.
No matter which
way round days used to be counted,
it has no bearing on the meaning or the interpretation of Matthews use of
word-order in 12:40. This statement by
Jesus was never intended to show the order of how days ought to be counted or
reckoned.
That these three
days of three days and three nights Prophetic Significance were
calendar days on the Hebrew calendar is surely correct, but the fact has no
bearing on either
1) the word-order of the passage, or
2) the sequence of day then night or vice versa
as the way to reckon the day-cycle in the Bible, or
3) the length in measured time of these three
days of three days and three nights together (or one by one)
each of which
predispositions are abstract and arbitrary.
Actual fact is, the expression in the
heart of the earth three days and three nights in Mt12:40 DOES lend weight
to BOTH ideas,
1) that
this was an expression for calendar days and, for
2) precise
mapping out the timing of the Resurrection.
Why should the
two ideas be mutually exclusive? They rather
are mutually supportive and complementary.
Paul
R Finch:
Another
theory that has been advanced to solve the problem is
that
of Charles Kimbrough and Mark Carr. They see the three days and three nights
being literal and explain .....
GE:
It is true, the three days and three nights being
literal; it is not true literal means sequence first day then night.
Literal means in Paul R Finchs words calendar days; in other words, days as dates and dates as days,
full-cycle earthly solar days determined scientifically by the Hebrews
astrometrically from vernal equinox and first after new moon.
It is true, the three days and three nights being
literal; but it is not true literal demands day-night-order, or night-day-order. The religious tradition in our case the
Biblical tradition independent of the atrometric science by which the first
day of each year is determined is what indicates day-cycle-order; which I
believe in the whole Bible is first night then day (except in Exodus where both
the night-day and day-night orders are found).
Paul
R. Finch:
Charles
Kimbrough and Mark Carr ..... explain:
The
three days and three nights, then, began from the time he was
HANDED
over to Pilatewhich started AS IT BEGAN TO DAWN on Thursday morning the 14th
of Nisan, the DAY portion.
GE:
Kimbrough
and Carr
dont mention that Jesus Himself in so many words declared where and when HIS three
days of three days and three nights, had begun
In Luke, The three days and three nights in the
Life of Christ began from 22:7,
Then came
(began ehlthen de) the day of no-leaven / de-leaven when the
passover MUST be KILLED. And He sent Peter and John, commanding them: Go and
PREPARE US THE PASSOVER that WE may eat.
The Master
commands thee, Where is The Guests chamber WHERE I MUST EAT The Passover
(of Yahweh)? ..... And WHEN THE HOUR WAS COME HE SAT DOWN and the apostles
with him ..... the beginnings of the Son of God in descent into hell as
an analogy of the beginning of His Victorious Goings-Through and Crowning as
Risen Christ Set at the right hand of God.
And He said
unto them, WITH DESIRE I DESIRED THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME.
(Infinitive of Noun-force.)
This certainly
is one of the most meaningful sayings of Christ.
Here the
Anointed of God comes to stand before THAT FOR WHICH He was anointed his whole
LIFES PURPOSE.
This was Mine
hour of already in Jn2:4!
Lo, TO DO
THY WILL o God!
THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME
I DESIRED WITH DESIRE. Christ set his heart on this end before and above
everything.
He being in
the form of God for THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME, made
Himself of no reputation (and)
took upon Him
the form of SERVANT (of the LORD).
For THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME
He was made in the likeness of men.
For THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME
He humbled Himself.
FOR THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME
Jesus Christ BECAME OBEDIENT UNTO DEATH even the death of the cross.
FOR THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME
..... FOR THIS CAUSE UNTO THIS HOUR
..... CAME I
(and, came I
into the world).
THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME
..... THIS HOUR ..... WHEN Jesus knew that HIS HOUR WAS COME that He should
depart out of this world UNTO THE FATHER .....
THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME is THIS your HOUR and the power of
darkness.
And He TOOK
THE CUP ..... and declared ..... THIS
..... I will drink no more ..... UNTIL THAT DAY that I drink it NEW IN THE
THIS DAY
EVEN THIS NIGHT verse 30
My soul is
exceedingly sorrowful UNTO DEATH. 34.
In the
Therefore,
NOT
where or when or
from the time he was HANDED over to
Pilate ..... AS IT BEGAN TO DAWN on Thursday morning the 14th of Nisan, the DAY
portion
BUT
on the Fifth Day
of the week the 14th of Nisan
Now BEFORE
the Feast of the Passover ..... SUPPER ..... Jn13:1,
In the
evening Mk14:17,
Now when
even was come Mt26:27,
And the HOUR
was come Lk22:14,
and it was
NIGHT Jn13:30b,
is when and from
where The three days and three nights,
began.
Kimbrough and
Carr:
The
time while He was being prepared for burial before the High Sabbath; all of Thursday
(day portion of 14th), Thursday night, Friday (15th), Friday night, Saturday
(16th), and Saturday night up to the earthquake WHILE IT WAS YET DARK (John
20:1) on Sunday (Nisan 17), As it began to dawn toward the first day of the
week (Matt. 28:1). EXACTLY 2 DAYS and 3 NIGHTS!
GE:
The time while He was being prepared for
burial before the High Sabbath
Being prepared for burial can also be
interpreted for Christs suffering dying death and being crucified and
killed. That then, was as I have tried
to show above from the Last Supper the night and first part of the Fifth Day
of the week, that Night and its following day the whole day of Christs
Suffering unto death before and through his crucifixion. Christs
laying down his life by the Power invested in Himself as preparation to be buried honourably, Victor by feat of the death
of death in the death of Christ (Owen).
But I know the
intention is not Being prepared for
burial to be interpreted thus.
Therefore the time ..... being
prepared for burial is wrong; the
time ..... being prepared for burial cannot come before Crucifixion and
Death; it must follow Crucifixion and Death.
The time while ..... before the High Sabbath
was the day upon which Jesus was CRUCIFIED, The Preparation of the Passovers
(Feast Day) Jn19:14, Abib 14.
Even the
first day of the passover when they always killed the Passover
all of the Fifth Day of the week (Wednesday-night and Thursday day), which
fell on Abib 14 in that year.
And heres the
BIG difference:
The time while He was being prepared for
burial ..... AFTER SUNSET DURING THE NIGHT SINCE it was The
Preparation AND THAT DAY WAS High Sabbath
Jn19:31, now already having become evening ..... which is the Fore-Sabbath
Mk15:42 and Sixth Day of the week ..... BEGINNING when suddenly there was a
man named Joseph ..... he went unto Pilate while the body still
hung on the cross.
Only HERE the time while He was being prepared for
burial, literally began. And this,
That Day
OF AND FOR BURIAL EXCLUSIVELY,
Abib
15
in the bone of day-day,
all of its night-portion Thursday night, AND,
all of its day-portion Friday day
STARTING TO END,
here: Lk23:54 and Jn19:42,
MID-AFTERNOON
..... by the time of the Jews preparation
epefohsken
sabbaton ..... dia tehn paraskeuehn tou Ioudaiohn
beginning for
the weekly Sabbath day.
And therefore
THESE three days and three nights-three days of the passover,
the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the sixteenth days ONLY (not Nisan 17 also) these which each of,
was FIRST DAY of passover in own right according to the Scriptures:
1) the day They always killed the passover
(and) removed leaven;
2) the day you must eat it together with
unleavened bread;
3) the day after the sabbath of the
passover you must wave the First Sheaf before the LORD.
...... and Saturday night, does not feature
at all.
It cannot be
allowed to say that it was Saturday
night up to the earthquake WHILE IT WAS YET DARK (John 20:1) on Sunday (Nisan
17).
Saturday night up to the earthquake
..... Where is that written? Where is
just the word, night written?
No; on the
contrary, it is written, Sabbaths, full day, in the very light being of
Sabbath. (opse de sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi)
..... up to the earthquake ..... Where
is that written?
No; on the
contrary, it is written, WHEN THERE WAS a great earthquake .... descended
the angel of the Lord ......
..... on Sunday (Nisan 17) ..... Where is
that written?
No; on the contrary,
it is written, as it began to dawn TOWARDS the First Day of the week. (eis mian sabbatohn)
..... WHILE IT
WAS YET DARK (John 20:1) ..... Where is that, written?
No; on the
contrary, it is written, While it was still / yet EARLY darkness that is, after sunset; not
before sunrise.
..... YET
DARK ..... As it began to dawn .....
Where is that, written?
No; it nowhere
and in no manner, not even remotely in context, is written.
Paul
R Finch:
This
is a fascinating theory, but it is still based upon the
traditional
assumption that Matthews Hebrew expression was a stop watch event. In other
words, if Jesus was buried on Wednesday, Nisan 14, according to this new
theory, he was resurrected on the Sabbath, Nisan 17, the fourth calendar day
from the Crucifixion. The traditional view has Jesus arising on the third
calendar day, Nisan 16. Therefore, the entire subject boils down to whether
Jesus was trying to convey a stop watch event or merely used an expression
which was in vogue among the Jews.
GE:
..... the traditional assumption that
Matthews Hebrew expression was a stop watch event.
Ingenious! I have never before encountered either the tradition or the assumption the phrase, three
days and three nights in Mt12:40 is a Hebrew
expression, or, was a stop watch
event; nor have I seen another person who did.
.....Matthews Hebrew expression ..... I
read Greek here.
So SHALL (estai)
the Son of Man ....., the Future .....
The Future used
in the expression of a command .... the Imperative Future, Dana and Manty,
A Manual Grammar, ..... be careful NOT to take this idiom as a Hebraism, for
it is of frequent occurrence in Attic Greek. ..... It is just another case
where parallel idioms appear in both languages [Jonas in both Hebrew OT, and
Greek LXX], it being therefore, the frequency, and not the fact of the idiom in
the New Testament which shows Septuagint influence. Close quotation.
I would stick
out my ignorant neck and dare call this Future, a Gnomic Future. The
statement OF A FACT or performance. D&M.
[A fact necessarily, is a PAST performance.]
Gnomic,
Collins English Dictionary: of or relating to a writer of aphorisms (like
Jonas).
Aphorism a
maxim, definition, limit, boundary, expressed in a short, pithy, saying like
having been in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
Examples given
by D&M, ιkastos gar to νdion fortνon bastαsei - each shall bear his own
burden = each shall HAVE BORNE his own burden Gl6:5; scarcely for a
righteous man will one die = scarcely for a righteous man will one have died
Ro5:7; For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother = For this
cause shall a man have left his father and mother. The action is seen from a
retrospective future viewpoint as past and performed, fact.
Quoting Paul R. Finch, Passover
Papers, Note 394, ..... There are many places in the Scriptures that
link the day and night in referring to a calendar day in a historical event.....
In the creation story..... the Flood story[were all familiar with the forty
days and forty nights]..... Moses stay on
Indeed, Jonah, who WAS in the great fish FOR A
PERIOD OF three days and three nights...... the PERIOD seen from after to before after.
PRF makes
reference to the same source I have answered to in my my critique against the
view Thursday Morning Delivered,
Sunday Morning Resurrected, in
book 1/1, Crucifixion, pp 181, 183-185, Par. 5.1.1.6.5,
edition ISBN 978-0-620-41731-0; 978-0-620-41732-7.
Then yes, and in
each case, it is an instance of re-lating / re-telling history; narrating
something AS AFTER its actual occurrence and after that it HAD happened;
giving hindsight making retrospection.
Not in one
instance is it a commandment, an instruction or prescription to set the norm
(except perhaps from the nature of the case in the creation story), or an institutionalisation about
observance or reckoning or counting of days. One does not make law with
idiom that may be ambiguous. One tells stories,
using the tool of idiom, to make it interesting.
Then as soon
as these examples (of PRF) are analysed one by one, things begin to look quite
different.
For example, the
very first example, In the creation story.....
Always these expressions are given in the precise
order of the demarcation of a calendar day ...... That is Paul R Finchs
observation, not mine! Now at the time
of the creation there havent been any days yet, not to mention calendars. Non the less, WHAT IS, the precise order of the demarcation of ..... day(s), In the creation story? Was the light
before the darkness the First Day?
Enough said; it
is not now the time to go into these, or such, detail. It simply is not true
anywhere in the Bible a day-cycle must be regarded as from sunrise to sunrise
EXCEPT in Moses Second Book except, BEFORE the exodus. In other words, the
ONLY real observance of days from sunrise to sunrise ever in the Bible
occurred where the dominion of darkness sun-worship ruled the day and ruled
the world. Paganism is the environment of
the superstitious and idolatrous veneration of days, months, seasons, years
where the SUN is the first principle of the world around which days
revolved and TIME as such is regarded from that the sun-god rises and again and
again conquers days, seasons, years; days, seasons, years ..... (Gl4:10)
Where the sun is
the eternal, there days are worshipped (not simply
reckoned, but paratehrein) sunrise to sunrise. Where Yahweh is The Mighty,
there, HE I-AM The Eternal
is worshipped Sabbaths, from evening to evening, from
Sabbath to Sabbath and all other days are determined according-to-Sabbath,
the Hebrew idiom translated, of the week, even so that the days are NAMED of
the Sabbath: First Day of the Sabbath, Second Day of Sabbath
etcetera; in the New Testament, e.g.,
First Day of the week (eight times).
That is why the sunrise reckoning of the day is detectable in the life
of Gods People ONLY while they SERVED-WORSHIPPED UNDER EGYPTIAN
BONDAGE.
PRF:
The
Day of the CrucifixionFriday or Wednesday? the exact number of hours, minutes
and seconds of a stop-watch event? Or is the day/night formula to be taken
simply as an ancient expression of how the Hebrew people designated a calendar
day? This is an entirely reasonable question to ask without any fear
that
we are trying to compromise the words of Scripture.
GE:
If necessity
means reasonableness, this is a rather superfluous question to ask. I have several times now shown that without trying to compromise the words of Scripture
the true meaning in every respect of Jesus words in Mt12:40, so shall the
Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights, does
not require that the actual duration of these three days and three nights
should be compromised in any way
whatever! Three days will be the exact number of hours, minutes and
seconds long, irrespective. Why
compromise plain reality? Whether an ancient expression of how the Hebrew
people designated a calendar day or not, the earth is not going to rotate
faster or slower because of it!
Here, is nothing
to choose between; PRF is trying to stir up a storm in a teacup.
It also is
baseless, and biased assumption, to go on about the day/night formula to be taken simply as an ancient expression of
how the Hebrew people designated a calendar day in other words, to go on
calling the phrase three days and three nights a Hebraism, as if it
were Hebrew protocol. It is no Hebrew
expression of instruction it is no formula
of the Old Testaments or of the Hebrews of how days should be designated (as) calendar day(s), whether from
sunrise to sunrise or from sunset to sunset. The notion the Hebrew people designated a calendar day
as such to be designated .... sunrise to
sunrise is completely foreign and strange to Jesus statement or the other
examples given above.
PRF has not
progressed one fraction of a second AWAY from the Hebrew designated calendar day reckoned from sunset to sunset,
in whichever direction he aimed. I am
unable to see what Mr Finch is aiming at only to show Bible-days were reckoned
from sunrise to sunrise as if that alternative is necessary and conditional
to arrive at Jesus resurrection On the Sabbath or to start from the
Crucifixion on a Fifth Day of the week (Thursday)?
So, for now, What will PRF have reached, had he proven a
sunrise to sunrise Bible-day? All I
can say at this point in my study of his opinion, is, that Paul R. Finch is
going to have to explain very many Scriptures Old and New Testament which I
cannot see that he will be able to do, ever, if be his aim is to prove a
standard sunrise to sunrise cycle
of days in the Bible.
PRF:
Modern interpreters appear to be the guilty
party in running wild with speculative thought based upon a lack of
understanding of Hebrew usage. After all, we know that an entire calendar day
does consist of a 12 hour day portion and a 12 hour night portion? But if an
event occurs on a given calendar date, where is the justification to punch a
stop watch at that time and measure blocks of 24 hours when counting time from
that event, making sure that event only ends precisely at the same time of day
that it started? Is that what the writers were trying to convey in the above examples
when reporting these historical events? There are even further
examples
of this usage. Let us go on asking ourselves whether this is true as we go
along.
GE:
PRF found his
floor-space in horrible condition; so he starts painting it over; and painted
himself into a corner. No; his is all
talk and no more than talk. PRF has no real point to make; he is only
blurring detail, painting over and invisible the distinction made between days
that annoys him so much for as yet no apparent reason.
Now he, Paul
R. Finch argues, After all, we know
that an entire calendar day does consist of a 12 hour day portion and a 12 hour
night portion? Then he pleads, But if an event occurs on a given calendar
date, where is the justification to punch a stop watch at that time [at that time is meant at sunset, I
assume] and measure blocks of 24 hours
when counting time from that event [sunset, it must be], making sure that event [sunset] only ends precisely at the same time of day that it started? at sunset
of course.
So, merely assuming sunset, Paul R. Finch
with many repetitions on paper of an event
punch(es) a stop watch at that time and
measure blocks of 24 hours. But by merely
assuming sunrise, Paul R. Finch with many repetitions on paper of an event is of the opinion no one can punch a stop watch at that time and measure
blocks of 24 hours.
As long as the blocks of 24 hours fall in sequence of
first day then night, preciseness is welcome and actually mandatory because, after all, we know that an entire calendar
day does consist of a 12 hour day portion and a 12 hour night portion. If the opposite sequence first night then
day is required, its running wild
with speculative thought ..... punch(ing) a stop watch.
Meanwhile .....
Who is it who is waving arms running
wild with speculative thought, punching,
Look! It is ..... three > days > and > then > three > nights
on my stop watch, cant > you > see? Where is your justification to say its the other way around, and that I must
read from right to left: three < days < and < then < three <
nights? Who reads from right to left!? ..... forgetting he himself who is Paul
R. Finch, has called this phrase of
Hebrew usage.
If I may answer
and not get my head snapped off, may I ask,
But having read your examples, sir Finch, I have found, sir, that what
the writers were trying to convey in the above examples when reporting these historical events,
was, that when counting time, it was to make sure precisely the time of day. And, sir, if I may add, these writers, were
not prescribing or formulating protocol or formula
for dating calendar days.
Paul
R. Finch:
Further
examples of calendar days are found in the following
expressions.
In the case of Josephs brothers, he put them all together in prison for three
days. On the third day Joseph said unto them
Obviously,
here calendar days are referred to and it is seen to be in an inclusive sense.
Rehoboams
controversy with his subjects about taxation says:
he
said to them, `Come to me again in three days. So Jeroboam and all the
people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had said.
Again,
there is no question that calendar days are here referred to and measured
inclusively.
GE:
I am very sorry
to interrupt. But how am I to understand
you, dear Mr Finch? First you
consent: Obviously, here calendar days are referred to and it is seen to be in
an inclusive sense. Then you disagree: Again, there is no question that calendar days are here referred to and
measured inclusively.
...... Ah! Thank
you, sir; now I see ..... you are writing rhetorically! Again,
there is no question is negating while actually you are saying, yes! Yes! Obviously, here calendar days are referred
to and it is seen to be in an inclusive sense. Thank you very much. Sorry again, sir, that I
have interrupted.
Paul
R. Finch:
A
parallel account reads: He [Rehoboam] said to them, `Go away for three days,
then come again to me, So Jeroboam and
all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had said, Come to
me again the third day.
Also,
when Queen Esther was informed by her kinsman of the plan to exterminate every
Jew in Persia, she sent this message to him:
Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my
behalf,
and neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. Here again we have an
expression for a calendar day that includes the day and night formula. Yet in
chapter 5:1 it says that ON THE THIRD DAY Esther put on her royal robes
and
went to a banquet for the king in the hope of asking him to spare her people.
GE:
It is difficult
always to understand you, dear Paul R Finch.
Sometimes you write very ambiguously. Like here, Here again we have an expression for a calendar day that includes the
day and night formula. Yet in chapter 5:1 it says ......
Why, Yet? This word, yet, to me, supposes
contradiction. Then what was contradictory, while you have said, A parallel account reads.....; Also,
when.....; Here again .....? Arent we supposed to understand similar,
agreeing, cases of time being demarcated for instances of practical
application? Yet you write Yet? Is it because you made distinction between for three days and the third day on the one hand, and on
the other hand, ON THE THIRD DAY? How would such a distinction make a
difference to whether days are calendar
days or not?
Paul
R. Finch:
Once
again we are faced with a clear indication that the inclusion
of
the words day and night coupled to a time reference is
idiomatically
understood to refer to calendar days and not an indication to measure blocks of
24 hours of time from the event mentioned to the next.
GE:
Ah! I see
now! You do not make distinction; you equalise!
You are comparing the case when Queen
Esther was informed a case of a
calendar day that includes the day and night formula with chapter 5:1 where we have an expression for a calendar day that ..... says .....ON THE THIRD DAY!
So actually you mean it makes no difference HOW it is expressed. DESPITE yet the reading does not include the day and night formula but
says ON THE THIRD DAY instead, one
is STILL yet being confronted
with a calendar day ..... and,
alleges PRF, with the day and night
formula. Therefore alleges PRF
it must be throughout the Bible, a day ( any day ) consists of the order
first day then night. One must understand according to PRF the cycle-order of Bible-days is never SUNSET beginning of days because then
they are merely assumed. According to PRF (like in the given examples) calendar days whether just days or religious calendar days
shall always include..... the day and night
formula actually, shall always include
the day THEN night, formula. And therefore in all the rest of Scriptures,
always, and especially in Mt12:40, the order or cycle-formula for calendar days
and ordinary Bible-days, always shall be from
sunrise to sunrise. Who is trying to punch a hole in the dam? .....
Whether days are
calendar days, or just ordinary,
practical days without distinction in the Bible, according to PRF they are calendar day(s) that include the day and night
formula, idiomatically i.e., traditionally. (Matthews) order was the traditional order
of the Hebrew term for calendar days, which are counted from morning to morning
BY RULE because it automatically, INCLUDES
the ()day and night() FORMULA (..... written, or not
written). But concepts like idiomatic and the precise, literal, order
of the demarcation of a calendar day by the nature of language, are
incompatible and uncomplimentary. Idiomatic means the expression is not formulated by rule of grammar or syntax but by pure and
natural, or rather inexplicable and unnatural, semantics peculiar to a
specific language, OR, AND, peculiar to any more languages.
NO rule but the innate spontaneity of language is
cause of the structure or meaning in idiom. NOTE: NOT that I agree three
days and three nights is an idiom; it is no idiom! Nevertheless, order of words in an idiom
least of all needs determine or reflect order in or of eventuality of event, and nevertheless if it were
Hebrew and even Prophetic word-order of idiom which should better be understood from behind to before,
like in the literal statement of Jesus, As Jonah WAS in the belly of the fish three days and three nights,
SO, the Son of Man SHALL, in the heart of the
earth, three days and three nights. (The word estai translates shall;
the word be is supplied to form more than anything else, an English
equivalent for estai.)
The difference
between Jonas and Jesus is not in the three days and three nights
length of time that is or rather, was precisely the same; the difference is
between Jonas HAVING BEEN in the belly of the fish LITERALLY and the
Son of Man HAVING BEEN in the heart of the earth FIGURATIVELY. Therefore the order of words or events is of
secondary importance.
Paul
R.Finch:
These
Scriptures interpret themselves......
GE:
Yes, by intrinsic essence and inner rhythm and
flow; by no outer varnish of form or formula.
So is idiom idiom which Paul R. Finch insists the phrase three days and
three nights should be.
Paul
R.Finch:
.....
These Scriptures interpret themselves. They are a clear record of inclusive
time reckoning and not exclusive which is demanded by the stop watch method.
The third day can only mean the third calendar day in an inclusive sense and
can not in any way be interpreted as the fourth.
GE:
Absolutely! Who is it who claimed The third day CANNOT, mean
the third calendar day in an inclusive sense and must in every way be interpreted as the fourth? Let us for this debate, please ignore them,
because nobody today present in this debate, avers such things.
But in this
debate, this, These Scriptures interpret
themselves. They are a clear record of inclusive time reckoning and not
exclusive which is demanded by the stop watch method. The third day can only
mean the third calendar day in an inclusive sense and can not in any way be
interpreted as the fourth, IS NOT
WHAT it was about in JUST the sentences above! Also, Paul R.Finch has ALL ALONG
been arguing for his alleged from
sunrise to sunrise Bible-days in fact, under the audacious and pugnacious pronouncement, Sunset beginning of days is merely assumed.
NOW
suddenly, you, Paul R.Finch, come
CHANGE your tune your theme, your case
FROM,
from sunrise to sunrise day and night formula, instead of the merely assumed ..... sunset beginning of
days,
TO,
a clear record of inclusive time reckoning
and not exclusive and The third day
can only mean the third calendar day in an inclusive sense and can not in any
way be interpreted as the fourth.
From sunrise
instead of sunset beginnings of days, to
inclusive time reckoning and not
exclusive reckoning of days in faster-than-light-time.
Paul
R.Finch:
Once
again we are faced with a clear indication that the inclusion
of
the words day and night coupled to a time reference is
idiomatically
understood to refer to calendar days and not an indication to measure blocks of
24 hours of time from the event mentioned to the next.
GE:
We are faced
with a NORMALITY of the inclusion of
the words day and night coupled to a time reference .... from the event
mentioned to the next, in the
APPARITION of, to the left, calendar
days and, to the right, in the APPARITION of idiomatically understood reference.
What can the inclusion of the words day and night
coupled to a time reference in instances like forty days and forty nights..... seven days and seven nights ..... three days and three nights.... have to do with the fact or not
they are idiom or analogy or literal? Only that the inclusion of the words day and night coupled to a time
reference have the very OPPOSITE meaning of idiom or analogy, so
that the inclusion of the words day
and night coupled to a time reference will mean NOTHING BUT, a time reference a literal, time reference, NOT necessarily a calendar day-time reference, but NECESSARILY an earthly, solar, time-reference of a day or more than
one, day-cycles universally so, around the world, and not only or
necessarily in cases of Hebrew
days.
What can the inclusion of the words day and night
coupled to a time reference prove to prove sunset beginning of days is merely assumed?
What can it
prove to prove sunset begun days cannot be calendar or Biblical days?
Does from sunrise to sunrise days proven calendar
days, prove from sunrise to sunrise
days are the only Biblical days?
Are days when
proven Biblical and proven calendar days,
proven from sunrise to sunrise-days?
What can the inclusion of the words day and night
coupled to a time reference prove to prove SUNSET-begun days are a stop watch event being indicated?
What can the inclusion of the words day and night
coupled to a time reference prove to prove SUNRISE-begun days CANNOT BE a stop watch event being indicated?
Paul
R.Finch:
The
point is that in Hebrew usage the expressions after three days, yet for
three days, the third day three days and three nights were all idiomatic
expressions used to indicate on the third day only in a calendar sense and
never are we witnessing a stop watch event being indicated.
GE:
Idiomatic expressions if one has
available a calendar sense usage of literal every day vernacular,
are not necessary or a matter of course to
indicate on the third day in a
calendar sense or not.
The point, PRF, that in Hebrew usage the expressions after three
days is an idiomatic expressions
is your point. It is not to say it is
the point in the Scriptures concerned, or in the whole of the
Scriptures. One thing is for sure, that
nowhere in the Bible are the beginning of days a case of a stop watch event being indicated. You do find that sort of thing
with the Wednesday-crucifixionists; but not in the Bible. [It is astonishing how easily persuaded some
are that such nonsense is in the Bible.]
Another thing is
for sure, and that is that usage of
expressions like after three days, yet for three days, the
third day, three days and three
nights, is NORMAL, LITERAL, and specific linguistic usage in any language not only in
Hebrew. There is nothing peculiarly Hebrew or idiomatic in the usage
in any of the examples here
tabled. That is why Jesus DISTINGUISHED
his usage of the words, three
days and three nights as having been signally of the PROPHET Jonas;
and Paul his usage of the words the
third day, as having been the third day according to the SCRIPTURES.
Another thing is
for sure, and that is that NO example
which PRF supplied, provides a case of idiomatic
expression only used to indicate on
a day in a calendar sense. On the contrary, every example of his (with the possible exception in the creation story) has been of practical, real life events and
situations, irrespective, no matter, were they calendar days or not. They
still were three days after three days;
they still were three days yet for three
days; it still was the third day the
third day no matter any calendar.
So, three days and three nights in
the example, Mt12:40, meant three days ANYHOW yet also, THE three
days of Prophecy, Promise and Law the God-given and therefore
eschatological IMPERATIVE WHOLENESS of the three days and three nights-three
days of Jesus declaration in Mt12:40; the three days of Egypts
ninth plague and passovers calendar
days of 14, 15 and 16 Abib.
Three days and three nights IN MATTHEW 12:40