• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Matthew 28:1
Says after a sabbath, or, you might read it as after 'the sabbath', they go to the tomb, and find it empty. However, this occurs at dawn, not the evening.

Even if you observe the Saturday, Sabbat, then the verse has a inference to this occurence, being at dawn, not evening.

This means three days has to include Thursday, counting back, from 'after the Sabbath', that is, if one is presuming this to mean after the Saturday Sabbath.

So, basically three days would have to include Thursday, [probably starting in the morning, or very close to the morning.



The christians may have had a different Shabbat, either Saturday reckoned by solar timing, or, Sunday reckoned by solar timing, or two shabbats, since there is inference to 'Lords day', this being a deific reference, then it would seem to call it a day of rest, or a 'shabbat'.
The Essenes if using a solar calendar, would naturally have been calling 'after the Sabbath', at dawn, regardless, which day was meant, [if that is what is inferenced in this verse, ie sunday, 'after the saturday Sabbath'.

Since three days needs to be counted, regardless, then Thursday must be counted, unless the verse is referring to a 'Sunday Sabbath'.


shalom
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
A day ("yom") starts at sundown, so Shabbat actually starts on sundown Friday evening.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
A day ("yom") starts at sundown, so Shabbat actually starts on sundown Friday evening.
And yet Matthew 28:1 is clearly using a solar notation for not only a new day, also the start of a week.
Obfuscation aside, use of both 'day' and 'night', the verse seems to be using wording that is solar orientated.

Matthew could have just as easily written 'at sun rising', or 'day', without this solar notation usage. Ie the type of wording that matches solar Calendar day and night delineation, or whole day delineation, marking one day (whole day, from another.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
This is not rocket science. The Shabbat is simply Friday night sundown to Saturday sundown roughly. At twilight, the first day of the week begins. Then it speaks about dawn.

IOW the text supports the common Christian understanding of the resurrection being early Sunday morning. Dawn on Sunday morning is after Twilight on Saturday evening. No secret esoteric meanings here.

If you believe in the resurrection that is. I, of course, do not.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
That depends on the context, so one always has to keep that into consideration.
Context for your argument, how you are deriving 'three days', or, 'three days and three nights ', out of what at best would be close to two days, and more likely a day and a half.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
If you believe in the resurrection that is. I, of course, do not.
The Bible is clear about the Resurrection, therefore you are arbitrarily choosing which verses to take completely literally according to your peculiar opinions, and totally not believing other verses. That means you are arguing in a manner which negates your opinion in any contextual sense. These verses require cross referencing to other verses in the same Gospel, and also where noted [cross referencing, in the Bible.

So, thank you for clarifying the arbitrary nature of your musings.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Context for your argument, how you are deriving 'three days', or, 'three days and three nights ', out of what at best would be close to two days, and more likely a day and a half.
Jesus was crucified and died prior to sundown Friday (1st day), was in the tomb Saturday (2nd day), and arose early Sunday morning (3rd day).
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
YOUR Bible is clear about it. The Christian New Testament is not MY Bible. The NT is no different to me than the Vedas or the Quran or the Book of Mormon.
That statement isn't reflective of the fact that Xianity in all it's forms, has a different interpretation of both the Old Testament, and New Testament, from Rabbinical Judaism.

Therefore, if one argues about something in the religion of Canonical and Rabbinical Judaism, you would not use a Christian interpretation to do so, unless it matched. It's therefore contextual, and 'judaism says this isn't true', or such, is merely a statement about another religion, not a contextual argument unless the premise interpretations match.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Context for your argument, how you are deriving 'three days', or, 'three days and three nights ', out of what at best would be close to two days, and more likely a day and a half.

While the interval between the D/R, Good Friday afternoon until the dawn of Easter Sunday was hardly longer than one and a half days it is expressed in Biblical Jewish reason.
It follows the symbolic 'three day' motif of Hebrew Scripture.
'On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes....',
'On the morning of the 'third day' there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud upon the mountain.
'On the third day Joseph said to them 'Do this and you will live'
And lets not forget Jonah in the belly of the fish three days.
On the third day Esther put on her royal robe
Hosea 'After two days he will revive us, on the third day he will raise us up.'
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
That statement isn't reflective of the fact that Xianity in all it's forms, has a different interpretation of both the Old Testament, and New Testament, from Rabbinical Judaism.
The way you are wording it, that Judaism has a different interpretation of the New Testament, implies that we accept the NT as God given scripture but merely interpret it differently. We absolutely do not accept it at all. It is a book of legends and myths overlaying a skeleton of history. It's claims regarding the person of Jesus, and his "sacrificial" death are patently false. We reject it from the beginning to the end.

Consider the following. After two millennia of Christianity, a newbie on the scene named Joseph Smith writes a new canon, the Book of Mormon. His new church, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, claims to accept the Christian Scriptures, but believe that this new revelation is given by God and is therefore rightly added to it. This sends Christians into conniption fits -- add to what was already perfect?

But this is no different than what Christians did to Judaism. We already had our sacred texts and our covenant. We were fine the way we were. We had done well for a thousand years before Christians came on the scene. And then, suddenly, here were these newbies saying they had a new covenant to replace ours, and a whole New Testament to add to our sacred texts, which they offensively call the "Old" Testament, as if it is passed away.

They say that the reason God allows Mormons to exist is so that Christians will know how Jews feel.

Think about it.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
It is a book of legends and myths overlaying a skeleton of history.

As if Hebrew Scripture contained none of these?

We had done well for a thousand years before Christians came on the scene.

The first on the 'Christian' scene were not Christians at all, they were Jews.

We reject it from the beginning to the end.

You have that option, as Christians we do not as Christianity has no meaning without knowing the Hebrew experience with their God found in Hebrew Scripture. And that is Jesus' religious experience which formed his teaching from the heart of the Torah.


Enlighten us, who is 'they'?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
The way you are wording it, that Judaism has a different interpretation of the New Testament, implies that we accept the NT as God given scripture but merely interpret it differently. We absolutely do not accept it at all. It is a book of legends and myths overlaying a skeleton of history. It's claims regarding the person of Jesus, and his "sacrificial" death are patently false. We reject it from the beginning to the end.

Consider the following. After two millennia of Christianity, a newbie on the scene named Joseph Smith writes a new canon, the Book of Mormon. His new church, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, claims to accept the Christian Scriptures, but believe that this new revelation is given by God and is therefore rightly added to it. This sends Christians into conniption fits -- add to what was already perfect?

But this is no different than what Christians did to Judaism. We already had our sacred texts and our covenant. We were fine the way we were. We had done well for a thousand years before Christians came on the scene. And then, suddenly, here were these newbies saying they had a new covenant to replace ours, and a whole New Testament to add to our sacred texts, which they offensively call the "Old" Testament, as if it is passed away.

They say that the reason God allows Mormons to exist is so that Christians will know how Jews feel.

Think about it.

I suppose it's too bad you couldn't have put your input into the decision making process, when they Canonized the Jewish Bible. Anything you consider made up, read outright lies, you could have suggested they leave out. But that didn't happen. Now you are left talking about 'sacred texts', concerning the Old Testament, Tanakh, instead of using "Covenant", like when you are describing Christian religion.

The fact is, both the Christian Bible, and the Jewish Bible, were Canonized after Jesus was in Israel, and that is what we're dealing with, in a contextual manner.

The contradiction is that while you reserve the right to state an opinion, regarding the New Testament, as basically fact, you have your own ideas concerning the Jewish Bible; so, you are not being consistent in the manner in which you consider either the Old Testament, or New Testament.

Why you are commenting on Christian beliefs at all, which belief is correct, or incorrect, when you clearly believe it's all false, is another matter.
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
As if Hebrew Scripture contained none of these?
The difference is, Judaism does not depend on the historicity of i.e. the creation myths in Genesis, or the historicity of Jonah. Christianity on the other hand absolutely depends on the historicity of the gospels.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Now you are left talking about 'sacred texts', concerning the Old Testament, Tanakh, instead of using "Covenant", like when you are describing Christian religion.
I noted that your reply didn't really address much of what I said. There really was nothing much to reply to.

I simply called the respected collections of canon by what each religion calls them. For Jews, we call our sacred texts that are canon the Tanakh. It is an anagram TNK (Torah (law), Neviim (prophets) and Ketuvim (writings). Christians call their new canon the New Testament. I didn't use the word covenant to describe these texts. And yes, I usually do refer to the Chrisitan texts as the Christian Scriptures. I never, ever refer to the Tanakh as the Old Testament -- there is nothing Old about it.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
The difference is, Judaism does not depend on the historicity of i.e. the creation myths in Genesis, or the historicity of Jonah. Christianity on the other hand absolutely depends on the historicity of the gospels.

No it does not! But there is a reason both Scriptures make use of myth, to present a believed Truth that otherwise cannot be explained.

It's claims regarding the person of Jesus, and his "sacrificial" death are patently false. We reject it from the beginning to the end.

We, collectively? There are a number of Jewish scholars who disagree with you concerning the person of Jesus, though not the Christian claim as Messiah.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
No it does not! But there is a reason both Scriptures make use of myth, to present a believed Truth that otherwise cannot be explained.



We, collectively? There are a number of Jewish scholars who disagree with you concerning the person of Jesus, though not the Christian claim as Messiah.
Yes it does. Your Catholic Church accepts everything from the Virgin birth to the Resurrection. The myth of the Resurrection is in fact completely central to your theology of salvation.

Of course Jesus existed. He was an observant Jew who taught Torah. But we reject THE MYTHS, such as the Virgin birth, changing water into wine, dividing a few loaves and fishes to feed thousands, raising the dead, the resurrection, etc. We especially reject that he ever claimed to be God, and although it is possible that he thought himself to be the messiah, he died without fulfilling the prophecies, and therefore was not.
 
Top