Wednesday or Friday crucifixion

[Musicman1228]

When Constantine ordered the first "Sunday" laws in 3rd century AD it was to honor the "venerable day of the sun". It was offering an "olive branch" to idol worshipers to join christianity. For christians, it was a way to separate themselves from Jewish worshipers who still observed Saturday. There are other reasons.

Look up the history, what you won't find is a reason or an excuse based on the resurrection. It was a weak argument then and remains a weak argument today. That is a relatively modern idea largely successful because people don't know history. It's nothing more than a modern convenient excuse, for some. My experience has been it's an idea falling out of favor, using the resurrection to justify Sunday worship. It's to obvious a lie, intelligent people aren't so easily fooled these days.

The Catholic church is about as "honest" as it get's when it comes to Sunday worship. They claim responsibility and make no apologies for it. They say it is a demonstration of their power to change or appoint laws for God. They also point to the millions of people who believe in Sunday worship as evidence of their power to do so. They could care less WHY you think they changed the day of worship, pagan holiday, Sun day, resurrection day, nailed to the cross, whatever works for you.

So musicman, why do YOU think the day of worship was changed from Saturday to Sunday, and by whom?

All of what you have said is true and of value. But it is (from my perspective) merely looking at things the way you have been programed to look at the world. Do you not agree that Satan is the Prince of this world and has his filthy fingers in everything and anything that can deceive, thwart, stifle, anyone that has made the claim to be 'in the Kingdom of God?'. Why do you think (then) that Satan would leave this issue untouched. Anything that will tare people away from the 'TRUTH' about what Jesus said and did while here on earth is high on his agenda.

Is not the Sabbath a key component in recognizing those that are in the Kingdom of the Heavens? What possible motivation would God have in allowing Satan even a small inroad into the idea that the 10 Commandments must be obeyed in order for people to enter the Kingdom of the Heavens? Jesus said:

Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. Rev.12:17.

Satan became furious with the Woman, who is in the Heaven's and therefore untouchable by him because he has been cast down to earth. So he goes after the next people on the list who are the offspring of this Woman (not the church), who perform the two most important things that separate them from the kingdom of the world and place them squarely in the Kingdom of the Heavens; that is, KEEP the Commandments (the Ten), and hold only to the testimony of their King, Jesus Christ. It is this that PROVES that they are inside the Kingdom of the Heavens, and not outside looking in and wishing they were there, or worse believing they are in the Kingdom of the Heavens when they are not.

In manipulating the transcribing and translating of the events of Passover Satan has masterfully (he is not called the Great Deceiver because he is NOT good at it) twisted the telling of these events such that Jesus Christ was resurrected on a day of Satan's choosing. And this is by no means the only interference that Satan has done to produce the results that are necessary for him to get otherwise sincere people to believe a lie as if it is the truth, not by a long shot.

If anyone believes they already have the truth then they will never find it. There is one caveat that is paramount when searching for Truth, and that is self-honesty. We are much better at deceiving ourselves than anyone. All Satan has to do is give us a small nudge in a slightly wrong direction and off we go, chasing lies and believing that we are finding truth.

[Guest]

If anyone believes they already have the truth then they will never find it.

Does this mean that you will never find it then?

[ClubV12]

I won't "react" to every deceitful thing the evil one has done or will do. That would be endlessly complicated. You just do what needs to be done, what is right, and leave the rest in God's hands.

God's laws have always been, always will be. The 7th day is the Sabbath, I choose to honor that commandment. Regardless of how it may look to society, good, bad or indicative of some warped view they may hold. I'm not doing it to honor some idea or concept of man or the evil one. I'm doing it because God blessed it, asked us to keep it, for our own good, because He loves us.

In keeping the 4th commandment, or any commandment, if it appears that I'm supporting this or that biblical concept that society approves or disapproves of, I won't be influenced by that. I will simply do what God asked me to do, and leave the rest to Him.

[Johnnboy]

IN some circles it is a huge issue if Christ was crucified on Wednesday or Friday.

I just don't get the issue.

Most people will defend whatever their parents or their Church teaches.

Either day works for me..

Stan,

It is not difficult for us to know if we have the truth regarding the timing of the crucifixion and the resurrection, if we believe in Moses' writings and in the interpretation that the Messiah gave to these writings when He fulfilled the feast days relating to His first advent. Every type was fulfilled on the anti-type.

The Wave Sheaf ceremony was to be observed on the 16th day of the first month. And when Jesus, the Messiah fulfilled the Wave Sheaf on the 16th day of the first month, that day had to fall on the first day of the week, according to Moses. In Leviticus 23, it states that “the priest” shall wave it on the “morrow after the Sabbath.” Therefore, the type was performed on the morrow after a “shadow” Sabbath, and the anti-type occurred on the morrow after the 7th day Sabbath, making that Sabbath a high Sabbath (John 19:31). Therefore, the morrow after that day would necessarily be a “Sunday” or a first day of the week, that year.

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

Matthew 17:22, 23 “And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.”

Luke 24:20 “And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.

24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.

24:22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;

24:23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.

24:24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found [it] even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.

24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

24:27 And beginning at Moses ...”.

Notice the testimony of these disciples on the road to Emmaus, “today is the third day since these things were done.” This places the crucifixion on Friday, the day before the “shadow” Sabbath, and the 7th day Sabbath, that year.

To those who don't believe today, Jesus, the Messiah would say the same words, “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken...” Then He would explain beginning at the same point as He did to them, “beginning at Moses....”

Galatians 4:4, 5 “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, ...”

The true Messiah must come at the time appointed of the Father. He fulfilled the plan of redemption according to the schedule that He had given to Moses. He came to fulfill the type on the anti-type. He fulfilled each of these prophecies, He was the true Messiah.

[Musicman1228]

You are STILL ignoring the 'sign of Jonah' in which Jesus said he would be in the heart of the earth for 3 days and 3 nights. In other places it says 3 days. If you choose to only look at one side you will never see the truth found in looking at both sides.

The Matt. 17:22 verse in no way negates what Jesus said in Matt. 12:39-40. You cannot choose one in favor of the other. You must either use both or use none.

Luke is the ONLY gospel account that includes an angels saying anything about Jesus being resurrected on the 3rd day. Neither Matthew (eyewitness), Mark (writing for Peter, an eyewitness) and John (eyewitness) say anything about Jesus being resurrected on the 3rd day. Luke IS NOT an eyewitness, and his gospel supports in detail the writings of Paul who was Luke's mentor, and is unreliable as a factual account of the events of Passover (and of other things as well).

The preponderance of evidence seems to indicate a 3:1 ratio between the eyewitnesses and the non-eyewitness.

[Johnnboy]

I don't believe that we are on the same basis, as you are picking and choosing the evidence from the Bible that you accept and that you will reject. I believe all of God's Word, as Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

In the case of the sign of the prophet Jonah, he was a CAPTIVE for three days and three nights, he was not dead for three days and three nights--so the Messiah was kept a CAPTIVE for three days and three nights--from Thursday evening until the dawn of the first day of the week, subjected to whatever man inspired by Satan wanted to do against Him, "in the heart of the earth".

That's not too hard to understand if we take all the evidence, believing that the Bible does not contradict itself.

[ClubV12]

"...3 days and 3 nights." Or, was it "3 days?"

Matthew 17:1 mentions six days Jesus was with the apostles in solitude. Wait, Luke say's it was eight days, not six! Well, it all depends on who is doing the counting and how. Turns out, both Matthew and Luke were correct!

So in one place it says three days in the tomb, in another 3 days and nights. It's all about who is doing the count and how they are doing it.

Jesus was in solitude with the apostles for a total of eight days, six of which were spent in quiet reflection by the apostles of what Jesus had told them on the first day. The last day (day #8) came in the dark of night, TOWARD the dawn of the eigth day, (which culminated in the transfiguration).

Differing accounts, such as these, are fairly common in the bible (and in EGW writings as well). They leave a "hook" for someone to hang their doubt on should they be inclined to do so. While they may initially appear to be a contradiction, they are not, they are a "hook", a convenient escape for those looking for a way out.

[Kevin H]

Musicman, You are reading the 3 days and 3 nights from a Greek/Western not a Hebrew/Eastern mindset. Look at ancient literature written in the two different parts of the world. Read the works of the archaeologists and linguists studying the different mind sets.

[miz3]

Luke is the ONLY gospel account that includes an angels saying anything about Jesus being resurrected on the 3rd day. Neither Matthew (eyewitness), Mark (writing for Peter, an eyewitness) and John (eyewitness) say anything about Jesus being resurrected on the 3rd day. Luke IS NOT an eyewitness, and his gospel supports in detail the writings of Paul who was Luke's mentor, and is unreliable as a factual account of the events of Passover (and of other things as well).

I would beg to differ with you slightly. You make it sound as if Luke's only source was Paul. This is not true.

Luke was a contemporary of Jesus Christ. Luke has access to all the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life and death; DIRECTLY.

" 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Luke 1:1-4.

Sounds to me like Luke was an eyewitness himself to some things (see verse one).

Sounds to me like Luke was in contact with others who were eyewitnesses also (see verse two).

Not just any eyewitnesses but those who were with Christ from the "FIRST"!

I think thou dos't discount our brother Luke far too much!

[Musicman1228]

miz3 said, "I would beg to differ with you slightly. You make it sound as if Luke's only source was Paul. This is not true.

Luke was a contemporary of Jesus Christ. Luke has access to all the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life and death; DIRECTLY."

Luke NEVER knew Jesus. Evidence from within the textual criticism community points out that even though Luke had access to eyewitnesses his first priority was to communicate Paul's ideas and confirm Paul's gospel, which Luke did with great skill because of his obvious intellect. He was, after all, a physician. But remember, information is only as good as the source and while Luke did a great job of synthesizing Paul's thoughts into a gospel that is well written, the fact remains that that there are hundreds of discrepancies between the gospels of Matthew and John (particularly) and Luke.

One prime example is the conversion of the thief on the cross of which Luke writes so passionately, and reflects Paul's idea that all one needs is to be justified to be saved. Neither Matthew nor John (or Mark) include this version of the story of the thieves. In these other gospels the thieves curse Jesus to His face the entire time Jesus is on the cross, until the moment He dies.

So whom does one believe, the eyewitness disciples who spent a year with Jesus learning directly from the Master, or a person with an obvious bias that has little to no contact with the other disciples, never knew Jesus personally, was never instructed by Jesus, and learned what he wrote in his gospel from Paul, who had antipathy and mistrust for those very eyewitness disciples. This is an obvious conflict, the simplest explanation (always the best) is that Luke's version is fiction, virtual truth, and has no bearing on what actually took place.

[ClubV12]

"Luke's version is fiction, virtual truth, and has no bearing on what actually took place."

That's a pretty big "hook" you found to hang your doubt on! A dramatically bold statement.

[wayfinder]

And I would also add to MM's statement, that there is good evidence that Luke used Josephus's work for his source material for his "gospel", see this link.

http://www.josephus.org/LUKECH.html

Luke changed Josephus's "Jewish account" into a "christian account".

[miz3]

musicman1228,

Your assertion that Luke ONLY got his information from Paul is not found in the Bible but is the "guess" of those who hate the Bible.

You do not know Luke and what or what not contact he had with Christ or even those who were Christ's followers. You speculate on this point in order to bolster your narrow belief.

You act like Matthew, Mark, and John told us everything that happened. This is clearly not true.

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

John 21:25.

That is John, "the disciple Jesus Loved", who spoke those words. This text adds credibility to the fact that Luke could have written things that actually happened that the other "eyewitnesses" did not for whatever reason. Thus no one has written everything.

Luke is somewhat like a police investigator who talks to ALL the witnesses rather than rely totally on one, two, or even three witnesses and their versions of what took place.

Matthew and John were both there but both of them have a different agenda when talking about Jesus Christ. Both are true in what they tried to portray about Jesus Christ. Yet like the witnesses to a crime they do not see all the details and in fact may differ slightly as to the exact details even though their stories are essentially the same.

Your stretching to promote your point of view.

[ClubV12]

wayfinder, thats an interesting thought about Luke borrowing or being influenced by another writer. It reminds me of Ellen White, who also borrowed words, phrases, paragraphs and more from other writers when their "word smithing" fit her purposes. Today we might call such a thing plagerism, but it was a common practice before these modern times and was not considered unethical in their times.

I can see Luke, and many other authors of the bible, using passages and such from other sources. Of course being inspired writers, as Luke and Ellen White were, I have no problem with the accuracy of their counsel. The Holy Spirit is not slack concerning these issues and you can rest assured "truth" prevails in the end.

At times Ellen White, like Paul, states she is giving her own opinion on an issue. Which, like Paul's counsel, should be carefully considered for it's value, rather than easily excused or dismissed. Such is the work of Luke, at the very least, it should not be easily dismissed because of this or that "hook" associated with the details of how, when, where it was written.

[Nan]

Coming in late to a long discussion

According to Matthew's gospel, or my reading of Matthew's gospel-

Jesus was placed in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea in the evening of the day he died.

"The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate" to get his authorisation for a guard for the tomb.

I would conclude therefore that Jesus died on Preparation Day,

which as far as I know was Friday,

Or am I missing something?

(Matt 27:57-62)

[Musicman1228]

Coming in late to a long discussion

According to Matthew's gospel, or my reading of Matthew's gospel-

Jesus was placed in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea in the evening of the day he died.

"The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate" to get his authorisation for a guard for the tomb.

I would conclude therefore that Jesus died on Preparation Day,

which as far as I know was Friday,

Or am I missing something?

(Matt 27:57-62)

Yes, Friday is the preparation day for the 7th day Sabbath, but it is not the only preparation day that there is. The beginning day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is a 'high Sabbath', therefore, the day before that 'high Sabbath' would also be a preparation day. We also know that the Chief Priest and the Pharisees did not go into the Pretorium but demanded that Pilate come outside to talk to them. Why? Because if they would have gone into the Pretorium they would have been ritually unclean and unable to participate in the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and this they would NEVER do. So yes, Jesus did die on a 'preparation' day, but it was the preparation day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which was the day of Passover, and this was Wednesday not Friday.