Jesus said...
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Jesus died on cross and rose in three days ?
- Thread starter Bee1
- Start date
Jesus said...
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
....and so he was... ...according to how Jews reckoned a day and a night.
Sheeese why are people having a problem with this.
From Good Friday to Easter Sunday is three days according to how Jews reckoned a day and night.
Bee1
New member
Well at least the Jews version have three days and nights if you start on Wednesday night.
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
CatholicCrusader,
re: "Nevermind. I really don't have the energy to explain what was right there in front of you"
Maybe you'll find the energy in the future to explain what is in front of me in your link that proves that the weekly cycle has been interrupted. The link says "(the cycle of weekdays was not affected)". What am I missing?
re: "Nevermind. I really don't have the energy to explain what was right there in front of you"
Maybe you'll find the energy in the future to explain what is in front of me in your link that proves that the weekly cycle has been interrupted. The link says "(the cycle of weekdays was not affected)". What am I missing?
To get the calendar back on track the Pope deleted 10 days from October. After that leap years were added to keep it on track. Thats the simple version of it.
Watch this video from the 9 min 25 sec mark to the 11 min 18 sec mark:
Oh good grief. You are purposely ignoring that facts.
Bee1
New member
What are the facts. That the actually days does not matter, just as long as the event happen like Jesus said it would. I ok with that. Someone made a statement earlier that it's three days and nights according to how the Jews reckon a day and a night. Why should their reckoning be better than the Christians. What dog do they have in this fight? The Jews do not believe Jesus is God's son, therefore why are their explanation more plausible. I understand that Jesus was a Jew and he died as one so possible.
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
As we reckon them, thats right.
For the third or fourth time time, according to how Jews reckoned a day and night, Good Friday to Easter Sunday is three days.
CatholicCrusader,
re: "To get the calendar back on track the Pope deleted 10 days from October. After that leap years were added to keep it on track. Thats the simple version of it."
And that deletion did not interrupt the weekly cycle of days. Again from your link: "When the new calendar was put in use, the error accumulated in the 13 centuries since the Council of Nicaea was corrected by a deletion of 10 days. The Julian calendar day Thursday, 4 October 1582 was followed by the first day of the Gregorian calendar, Friday, 15 October 1582 ([the cycle of weekdays was not affected)."
re: "To get the calendar back on track the Pope deleted 10 days from October. After that leap years were added to keep it on track. Thats the simple version of it."
And that deletion did not interrupt the weekly cycle of days. Again from your link: "When the new calendar was put in use, the error accumulated in the 13 centuries since the Council of Nicaea was corrected by a deletion of 10 days. The Julian calendar day Thursday, 4 October 1582 was followed by the first day of the Gregorian calendar, Friday, 15 October 1582 ([the cycle of weekdays was not affected)."
Well, one certainly hopes so, but who can really say? We were dealing with ancient technologies. Can anybody REALLY say that things are still perfectly on track after 2,000 years?
No one is having a problem with it.
Jesus' words are three days and three nights. The plain meaning of that text is that He meant 72 hours. If you are making a claim to the contrary, it's on you to prove it. I'm not stupid because I don't take your word for it. Saying it does not make it so. Make the argument.
Clete
keypurr
Well-known member
CatholicCrusader,
re: "The correct day is the first day of the week, Sunday. That comes to us from scripture and early Christian writings."
From early non-scriptural writing yes; from scripture no.
As far as scripture is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody meeting on the first of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first.
The John reference has them together in a closed room after the crucifixion because they were afraid of their fellow Jews. Nothing is said about a celebration, worship service or day of rest. And it wasn't in recognition of the resurrection because at that point they didn't believe that a resurrection had occurred.
The meeting in the Acts reference might very well have brought them together to break bread with Paul because he happened to be in town and wanted to talk to them before he had to leave again. The "breaking of bread" mention here can simply be saying that the disciples got together to eat a meal on this particular first day of the week . The phrase, "to break bread", does not have to refer to a religious service - unless it is specifically stated - but to dividing loaves of bread for a meal. "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds" (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840.
But even if the breaking of bread mentioned always did refer to the Lord’s Supper, it had nothing to do with placing a special emphasis on the first (day) because Acts 2:46 says that they broke bread every day.
re: "The correct day is the first day of the week, Sunday. That comes to us from scripture and early Christian writings."
From early non-scriptural writing yes; from scripture no.
As far as scripture is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody meeting on the first of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first.
The John reference has them together in a closed room after the crucifixion because they were afraid of their fellow Jews. Nothing is said about a celebration, worship service or day of rest. And it wasn't in recognition of the resurrection because at that point they didn't believe that a resurrection had occurred.
The meeting in the Acts reference might very well have brought them together to break bread with Paul because he happened to be in town and wanted to talk to them before he had to leave again. The "breaking of bread" mention here can simply be saying that the disciples got together to eat a meal on this particular first day of the week . The phrase, "to break bread", does not have to refer to a religious service - unless it is specifically stated - but to dividing loaves of bread for a meal. "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds" (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840.
But even if the breaking of bread mentioned always did refer to the Lord’s Supper, it had nothing to do with placing a special emphasis on the first (day) because Acts 2:46 says that they broke bread every day.
You're a dope
That is an extremist POV and willful ignorance. History is history. Maybe you think there never was a George Washington because he's not in the Bible, right? Any theologian worth his salt reads early Christian writings. To ignore them is to CHOOSE to be ignorant. They may not be scripture but they are very valuable as an insight into what the first Christians did.
As I previously posted:
Acts 20:7 (New Living Translation)
On the first day of the week, we gathered with the local believers to share in the Lord's Supper. Paul was preaching to them, and since he was leaving the next day, he kept talking until midnight
Acts 2:42
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
From the First Century AD, before that was even possible, the following was written by Justyn Martyr, born in 100AD, and it describes today's mass perfectly:
On the day we call the day of the sun (ie first day of the week) all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.
When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.
Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.
When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.
Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.
He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.
When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.'
When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.
- St. Justin, Apol. 1, 65-67G 6,428-429; the text before the asterisk (*) is from chap. 67
Bee1
New member
As his name implies, he is a crusader for the Catholics. He will not go against
Catholicism, he can't. Sunday was the first creation day yes, but God rested on the seventh day ( sabbath) and said to keep it holy. That why Jews will not work or cook on Saturday. RCC came along and said they will worship God on Sunday, so be it, who's to stop them?
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
Last edited:
keypurr
Well-known member
Amen friend. He is returning for the folks that have the testimony of Jesus Christ and keep the Commandments in their hearts.
CatholicCrusader,
re: "History is history. Maybe you think there never was a George Washington because he's not in the Bible, right
Of course not. I am merely pointing out that when someone tries to prove the truth of "George Washington" with scripture that they can't because scripture is silent about it.
re: "History is history. Maybe you think there never was a George Washington because he's not in the Bible, right
Of course not. I am merely pointing out that when someone tries to prove the truth of "George Washington" with scripture that they can't because scripture is silent about it.
CatholicCrusader,
re: "The correct day is the first day of the week, Sunday. That comes to us from scripture..."
Look, for the purpose of this topic I'm not saying that the moving of rest and worship from the 7th day of the week to the 1st day of the week isn't a divinely approved change. Or that the phrase the "Lord's Day" cannot refer to the 1st day of the week - although I think the better case can be made that it doesn't. And I'm not denying the traditions of the RCC concerning the issue. I'm simply pointing out that scripture can't be used for proof of such a change since the Bible is silent about it.
re: "The correct day is the first day of the week, Sunday. That comes to us from scripture..."
Look, for the purpose of this topic I'm not saying that the moving of rest and worship from the 7th day of the week to the 1st day of the week isn't a divinely approved change. Or that the phrase the "Lord's Day" cannot refer to the 1st day of the week - although I think the better case can be made that it doesn't. And I'm not denying the traditions of the RCC concerning the issue. I'm simply pointing out that scripture can't be used for proof of such a change since the Bible is silent about it.
CatholicCrusader,
re: "From Good Friday to Easter Sunday is three days according to how Jews reckoned a day and night."
And how was that? A Friday to Sunday time period allows for only 2 night times. What examples do you have that show that the Jews reckoned a day or a night when no part of a day or no part of a night could occur?
re: "From Good Friday to Easter Sunday is three days according to how Jews reckoned a day and night."
And how was that? A Friday to Sunday time period allows for only 2 night times. What examples do you have that show that the Jews reckoned a day or a night when no part of a day or no part of a night could occur?