When Did Jesus Rise

When Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?

‘Unknown’:

Those who teach a Wednesday or Thursday crucifixion and a Saturday afternoon/evening resurrection do so for two primary reasons:

First, they think they are correctly interpreting Jesus' statement in Matthew 12:40 that He would be in the grave a literal "three days and three nights." However, as we have demonstrated in Matthew 12:40 their theory flatly contradicts twenty-one other Bible texts. This is simply a case of standing the Bible on it's head.

Second, they hope to take the wind out of the sails of those who worship on Sunday by proving Jesus did not rise on Sunday. However, their assertion that Jesus rose on Saturday afternoon/evening flatly contradicts the grammar of the Greek language as well as the Bible's specific statement in Mark 16:9 that Jesus rose on Sunday morning.

Greek Grammar

The Greeks had four words to express "early morning," just as we have in English: “dawn,” “daybreak,” “sunrise,” and “morning.” When the Greek words are defined by the dictionary, and studied in their context, there is no doubt that they mean "in the morning as the sun is rising." Let's consider how these four Greek words are used and defined in each of the texts which record Christ's resurrection on Sunday morning and the subsequent visits by the women:

Matthew 28:1 - "epiphosko" (Strongs #G2020)

"After the Sabbath, at dawn ("epiphosko") on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb."

AT DAWN = The Greek "epiphosko" literally means "to dawn in the morning, to begin to be light." The root word is "phosko" meaning "to shine." We get our English word "phosphorescence" from "phosko." This word is used in Scripture twice: once in it's literal sense (Matthew 28:1) to mean "sunrise, dawn, as it begins to be light," and once in a metaphorical sense to mean "beginning of the day from a Jewish perspective, sunset" (Luke 23:54). This is the one text the "three days and three nights" advocates use to build their theory that Jesus rose at sunset on Friday. However, when taken in the context of the following texts, the grammar establishes beyond a doubt that the two Mary's came to the tomb at dawn on Sunday morning.

Mark 16:2 - "proi" (Strongs #G4404)

"Very early ("proi") on the first day of the week, just after sunrise ("anateilantos tou heliou"), they were on their way to the tomb"

VERY EARLY = The Greek "proi" means "early in the morning, the early morning watch which ushers in the dawn." This is the opposite of the Greek word "opse" which means "late in the day, evening." When Luke wrote Acts 28:23 informing us that Paul preached "from morning ("proi") until evening ("hespera") he used "proi" to indicate "morning/dawn/when the sun rises."

JUST AFTER SUNRISE = The Greek literally reads "anateilantos tou heliou" meaning "at the rising of the sun." Notice carefully that Mark clearly states when he uses the word "proi" he intends us to understand it the way the dictionary defines it: the time of day "just after sunrise." Thus, without question, when the two Mary's arrived "very early" ("proi"), they arrived at sunrise on the first day of the week (Sunday morning).

Mark 16:9 - "proi" (Strongs #G4404)

"When Jesus rose early ("proi") on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons."

JESUS ROSE EARLY = Here Mark once again uses the Greek word "proi." In verse 2 Mark already has defined what he means by "proi": "just after sunrise." Now Mark tells us Jesus rose "early in the morning, during the early morning watch which ushers in the dawn, at sunrise." Not only is this the dictionary definition of "proi," but it is precisely how Mark himself defined it in Mark 16:2. "Proi" is the opposite of the Greek word "opse" which means "late in the day, evening," thus "proi" cannot mean Jesus rose Saturday evening after sundown as darkness fell. When Luke wrote Acts 28:23 telling us that Paul preached "from morning ("proi") until evening ("hespera") he used this same word to indicate "morning/dawn/when the sun rises." There is simply no way to deny the grammar: Jesus rose at dawn as the sun was rising on Sunday morning, just a few moments before the women arrived at the tomb. To claim otherwise is simply to display an outright ignorance of Greek grammar, the Biblical context, and history.

Luke 24:1 - "orthros" (Strongs #G3722)

"On the first day of the week, very early in the morning ("orthros"), the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb."

VERY EARLY IN THE MORNING = The Greek "orthros" means "at daybreak, dawn, early morning." It is the opposite of the Greek words "hespera" meaning "evening;" "opse" meaning "evening, close of the day;" "nux" meaning "night;" "skotos" meaning "darkness." By using this third Greek word meaning "dawn, early morning," Luke affirms beyond question that the events of Christ's resurrection occurred on Sunday morning at sunrise.

Luke 24:22 - "orthrinos" (Strongs #G3721)

"In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning ("orthrinos")"

EARLY THIS MORNING = The actual date was Sunday, April 9, 30 AD. The Greek word "orthrinos" means "early in the morning." It is regularly used as a substitute for the word "morning." This word cannot be used in Jewish reckoning for the beginning of a day at sundown. It requires the light to be breaking (early morning), not the light to be waning (evening). Thus Luke has used two additional words, "orthros" and "orthrinos" to inform his readers the events of resurrection Sunday occurred very early in the daylight.

John 20:1 - "proi" (Strongs #G4404)

"Early ("proi") on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance."

EARLY = The Greek word "proi" means "early in the morning, the early morning watch which ushers in the dawn." As explained previously, "proi" cannot be used to refer to sunset, for it is the opposite of the Greek word "opse" which means "late in the day, evening." When Luke wrote Acts 28:23 telling us that Paul preached "from morning ("proi") until evening ("hespera") he used this same word ("proi") to indicate "morning/dawn/when the sun rises." This is the same word Mark used to state Jesus rose early on Sunday morning (Mark 16:9).

Summary

The Gospel writers are in full agreement that Jesus rose on Sunday morning at dawn. They went so far as to use every one of the four Greek words which mean "dawn, sunrise, daybreak": "epiphosko," "proi," "orthros," "orthrinos." One of them, Mark, even specified that he was speaking of that time of day which is "at the rising of the sun" (Mark 16:2). All of this was done so that modern readers would not have so much as a shadow of a doubt that Jesus' resurrection and the women's visit to the tomb occurred on Sunday at sunrise.

Conclusion

The "Three Days and Three Nights" proponents require exactly 72 hours to pass between the moment Christ died and the moment He was raised from the dead. This leaves them with only three options:

1. Advocate a Saturday evening resurrection. However, to teach Jesus rose Saturday evening after sundown contradicts Mark 16:9 which specifically states Jesus rose at dawn on Sunday morning. Furthermore, claiming Jesus rose after sunset on Saturday evening nullifies their argument that Jesus did not rise on Sunday, for (by Jewish time) Sunday had already arrived at sunset on Saturday.

2. Advocate a Saturday afternoon resurrection. To teach that Jesus lay in the grave 72-hours requires Jesus to rise on Saturday afternoon before sunset at the exact moment He was buried three days earlier. The Bible evidence is clear that Jesus was buried just before sunset. Thus proposing an afternoon resurrection, no matter what day, contradicts Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:1; Luke 24:22; and John 20:1 which state Jesus rose Sunday at dawn.

3. Advocate that it is not necessary to require exactly 72-hours (a literal three days and three nights) to pass between the moment of Christ's death and the moment of His resurrection. This admission defeats the entire purpose of advocating "three days and three nights" and thus nullifies any Wednesday/Thursday crucifixion theory. If "three days and three nights" does not mean literally 72 hours, then there is no justification for proponents to object to the Friday crucifixion/Sunday resurrection scenario.

From both context and grammar no legitimate case can be made for Jesus rising on Saturday afternoon or Saturday evening. The only possibility is that Jesus rose at dawn on Sunday, just as the Bible states. The Bible record is clear: Jesus was crucified at 3 PM on Friday afternoon (the "Preparation Day"). His burial was completed around 6 PM Friday afternoon before sunset. He rested in the grave through Saturday (the "Sabbath" which was also the day of Passover that year), and He rose from the dead at dawn on Sunday morning ("the first day of the week"). By the time the women arrived a short time later at daybreak Jesus had already risen.

This is the Biblical, historic, and consistent position Christians have held for 2,000 years.

When Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?

GE:

Who wrote this?

I do not know. Clifford Samuelson sent it. I promised him I’ll look at it. I shall do that now; it should take me some time though. Time I really don’t have. I planned to write on so many things .... but here I am, busying myself with this stuff over and over and over. If I were wrong it should have been clear by now. So let’s see if this Mr Unknown might prove ‘me’ wrong at last. I sort of hope so, because once proven wrong, I shall be able to quit; and I’m so tired, and don’t get time for the things I would much better like to do in my late sixties.

MU: for Mister Unknown – italics

GE: for Gerhard Ebersöhn – Verdana 12

MU:

“When Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?

Those who teach a Wednesday or Thursday crucifixion and a Saturday afternoon/evening resurrection do so for two primary reasons.....”

GE:

Please do not include me under either “Those who teach a Wednesday ..... crucifixion”, or “Those who teach .... a Saturday .... evening resurrection”. Also please exclude me from “Those who teach a Saturday .... resurrection”, first, because there is no difference between “a Saturday .... evening resurrection” and “a Saturday .... resurrection”— “evening” being Saturday’s last part ending. Next, please exclude me because I don’t believe “a Saturday .... resurrection”; I believe what the Scriptures indicate was – and would be – a “Sabbath’s” Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Mt28:1 AND all other Bible ‘Sabbath-Scriptures’, like the passover-Scriptures of it, en gross.

MU:

“Those who teach a Wednesday or Thursday crucifixion and a Saturday afternoon/evening resurrection do so for two primary reasons:

First, they think they are correctly interpreting Jesus' statement in Matthew 12:40 that He would be in the grave a literal "three days and three nights."”

GE:

This is getting tedious and utterly boring. First get your own statements in order, my dear fellow, MU. You say “they think they are correctly interpreting Jesus' statement in Matthew 12:40 that He would be in the grave a literal "three days and three nights."”— “..... in the grave a literal "three days and three nights”? Not me, sir; not me. “In the heart of the earth” a literal ‘three days and three nights’, yes! Cannot you see the difference my dear fellow? Can’t you see the difference between literal and figurative? Have you never noticed what Jesus said .... never mind what “they think”?

MU:

“However, as we have demonstrated in Matthew 12:40 their theory flatly contradicts twenty-one other Bible texts. This is simply a case of standing the Bible on it's head.”

GE:

So you are sommer taking on everybody of different than yours opinion together, as have they no differences between themselves, these Saturdarians.

But what have you actually done in this remark of yours? Have you proved anything that you may have the grounds to stand on to say what you have said? No. You just make wild statement based on no findings whatsoever. “As we have demonstrated in Matthew 12:40....” Who’s your ‘we’? Yourself. Yourself “have demonstrated in Matthew 12:40”. So yourself is the author “in Matthew 12:40”? Not? So how can you claim “as we have demonstrated in Matthew 12:40”? If you but ‘demonstrated’ you might have had the right to say “as we have demonstrated in Matthew 12:40”. But taking into account you ‘demonstrated’ sheer nothing “in Matthew 12:40”, shut up! Because you are the one who “flatly contradicts twenty-one other Bible texts” that eventually but not exactly in the same manner say the same thing Mt12:40 says.

Without having seen your theory, boy, I can tell already yours won’t be able to fit the three day parts and the three night parts of each of the 21 times repeated “three days”. You first ‘demonstrate’ how you, do that, before you pre-fixed declare your finding, “as we have demonstrated in Matthew 12:40 their theory flatly contradicts twenty-one other Bible texts”. No sir, I safely concluded yours, “is simply a case of standing the Bible on it's head”; I at least ‘concluded’ from absence – the absence of your ‘demonstration’.

MU:

“Second, they hope to take the wind out of the sails of those who worship on Sunday by proving Jesus did not rise on Sunday. However, their assertion that Jesus rose on Saturday afternoon/evening flatly contradicts the grammar of the Greek language as well as the Bible's specific statement in Mark 16:9 that Jesus rose on Sunday morning.”

GE:

Really? The same ‘scientific approach’ as above, I see. But let us give you a fair chance to explain yourself, I see you have something more to say on “the grammar of the Greek language”. I’m waiting anxiously.

MU:

“Greek Grammar

GE:

All right; thus far no “Greek words” yet, but already unhesitating conclusion upon conclusion.

Conclusion

1) “The Greeks had four words to express "early morning,"” --- “four words”? That’s scientific indeed! (You know, there are lies; then there are damned lies; then there are statistics.)

Conclusion

2) “just as we have in English....”

Conclusion

3) “words are defined .... studied in their context....” yet no definition; no context studied ....

Conclusion

4) “there is no doubt ....”

Conclusion

5) “they mean "in the morning as the sun is rising."”

Conclusion

6) “each of the texts .... record (sic.) Christ's resurrection on Sunday morning”.

Conclusion

7) “in each of the texts which record Christ's resurrection on Sunday morning and the subsequent visits by the women ....” despite not in any of the texts it is recorded Christ resurrected .....

8) Conclusion

“the subsequent visits by the women ....”

Which is which now?

“Jesus rose at dawn as the sun was rising on Sunday morning, just a few moments before the women [all, together, once] arrived at the tomb”;

“not have so much as a shadow of a doubt that Jesus' resurrection and the women's visit to the tomb [all, together, once] occurred on Sunday at sunrise”;

“that the events of Christ's resurrection occurred on Sunday morning at sunrise”— ‘events’ – the resurrection and the women’ arrival, all, together, once, at the tomb; “He rose from the dead at dawn on Sunday morning ("the first day of the week"). By the time the women [all, together, once] arrived a short time later at daybreak Jesus had already risen.”

First you spoke of a virtually with the Resurrection simultaneous, single, visit, “just a few moments” after “Jesus rose”; in the end you speak of “subsequent visits by the women ....”— more than one visit, and naturally at several and each time longer intervals after the Resurrection.

But let’s again wait and hear how you further are going to substantiate your ‘Grammar’ claims.

MU:

“Matthew 28:1 - "epiphosko" (Strongs #G2020)

"After the Sabbath, at dawn ("epiphosko") on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb."

GE:

I thought you said “the Greek words are defined by the dictionary, and studied in their context”, but now I see you skipped the ‘context’ before “AT DAWN”. Yes, ‘context’ after, “AT DAWN” as well. I see you also just ignored the fact there are Greek words here ‘translated’ with the English word “After”. But nevermind, its only ‘context’ you know, and a word you might not have liked to disclose the predominant and perhaps exclusive meaning of. So please carry on.

MU:

“Matthew 28:1 - "epiphosko" (Strongs #G2020)

"After the Sabbath, at dawn ("epiphosko") on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb."

GE:

Sorry to interrupt again. Please tell us the date of your edition of ‘Strongs’? You do not perhaps have an older edition? OK, thanks. I’m listening.

O, sorry! Is this your only ‘dictionary’ for this discourse today? Yes? Thanks hey.

MU:

“Matthew 28:1 - "epiphosko" (Strongs #G2020)

"After the Sabbath, at dawn ("epiphosko") on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb."

GE:

Stop! Who is here talking? ‘Strongs’, or Mr Unknown? Strongs? I thought Strongs had more to say on this one ..... I haven’t got an own copy, unfortunately. ‘Twas just something that flashed through my mind. So I’ll accept what you here are quoting is what Strongs has to say about “Matthew 28:1 - "epiphosko". So it is what Strongs has to say, is it? Yes? Thanks then. I’m listening.

MU:

“AT DAWN = The Greek "epiphosko" literally means "to dawn in the morning, to begin to be light." The root word is "phosko" meaning "to shine." We get our English word "phosphorescence" from "phosko."”

GE:

You say you are using Strongs and ‘context’ to show your understanding of the meaning of ‘epifohskoh’. But tell me, please, which is your source or dictionary where you say, “The Greek "epiphosko" literally means "to dawn in the morning, to begin to be light."”? Ag, it doesn’t really matter. Whichever – yourself or another ‘source’ – both are equally unreliable. In fact there is no single incidence of the use of this word from earlier than the third century of your definition of it, “to dawn in the morning, to begin to be light”; not one. If you know better, then ‘demonstrate’, please! I am waiting. Just one example; only one ‘demonstration’ from all the Greek literature of before the third century. It must be a vast ocean of ‘demonstrable’ incidences of this word’s, “literal”, use in the sense of “to dawn in the morning, to begin to be light”. I’m waiting. Or, in its “metaphorical” sense; doesn’t matter. I’m waiting.

You cannot give me one example; one ‘demonstration’? Well then, I’ll help you out. I shall give you, the precedental case of the use of the word ‘epifohskoh’ with the meaning of “to dawn in the morning, to begin to be light”. My book 2, ‘Resurrection’, par.

5.3.2.4.7.8.

Epifohskoh Changed from Meaning “Afternoon” to Meaning “Morning”

The meaning of “dawn” for epifohskoh had been referred to in Par. 5.3.2.4.3. As this term was used for the time of day before midnight, it got to be associated with the midnight watch or third watch of night. The midnight watch started with midnight and ended at 3 a.m.. The association of the word epifohskoh with the midnight watch developed into an association with the after-midnight night and the watch called the “cockcrow watch” – heh alektorofohnia. The name of this third watch of night – “cockcrow” – caused it to be confused with the fourth watch of night, the daybreak watch. Epifohskoh being associated with the midnight watch, it ended up being associated with the daybreak watch, and being used as equivalent for the “dawn” – “cockcrow”!

This etymological evolution can also be detected in the following extract from Pseudo-Clement, Homily 3:1 :

“After the duration of two days (duo men oun dielthousohn hehmerohn) and with the third day nearing (epifohskousehs de tritehs) …

while I, Clement, and the rest of us companions stood up (ecsupnistheis egoh Clemes kai hoi sunontos hetairoi) for the discussion with Simon (pros to dialegthenai tohi Simohni) about two o’clock cockcrow (hupo tas deuteras tohn alektruonohn fohnas) we found the lamp still burning (heuromen ton men luchnon eti fainonta) and Peter where he knelt down in prayer (ton de Petron gonuclineh proseuchomenon).”

“About two o’clock – cockcrow” is within the third watch, from midnight till 3 am. At the same time it is the “nearing” or “approach” – epifohskousehs – of the third day – tritehs. Daybreak-watch is imminent. It is on the third day because the Genitive is used. Epifohskousa here constitutes the beginning of day seen the Roman way. But in this instance epifohskousa still indicates a period of night pitch dark and far from actual daybreak.

5.3.2.4.3.

The emergence in time of the use of the term epifohskoh / epifohskousa with the meaning of “daybreak” can be traced in the word epifauoh. In the third century apocryphal “Acts of John” the story is told of the bedbugs that kept the apostle and his companions from sleep. John was obliged to command the bugs to assemble at one spot and leave the tired to rest. After the night’s sleep, John again commanded the creatures to find their way to their hiding–place. This was “at daybreak” – epifauoh. But this is not the meaning of the word in the New Testament. In the New Testament the use of epifohskoh in Lk.23:54 provides evidence enough of what the term should mean in Mt.28:1 as well. Because the Sabbath starts with sunset and the evening, the time in Lk.23:54 during which the “Jews’ preparations” ^Jn.19:42 were made and the Sabbath “drew on” was the Friday afternoon. Because in Mt.28:1 it was the First Day that “drew on”, the time during which it “drew on” was “the Sabbath’s afternoon”, and “in the Sabbath’s after–light–being” the text literally says. Of course, this would be “in the Sabbath late”, what the text also says: “high in the field of vision”!

Two examples of the use of ‘epifohskoh’ with the meaning “to dawn in the morning, to begin to be light.” But two example’s of the earliest use of the word in this sense, third century AD! Therefore, dear MU, your source, ‘Strong’s’, is strong on the post-Bible-meaning of the word, and helplessly weak on its Biblical and earlier than the Bible both Old and New Testament use.

MU:

“The root word is "phosko" meaning "to shine." We get our English word "phosphorescence" from "phosko."”

GE:

Doesn’t that tell you enough to know the word associates light of day and “the Sabbath’s .... being”— “Sabbath’s – centre – of – light – being” = ‘sabbatohn – tehi – epi – fohs – k – ousehi’. Is it not just honest exegesis? Especially since the most condensed ‘root’ of the word is ‘fohs’, ‘light’— the equivalent of ‘day’ or ‘daylight’? And since ‘epi’ means emphasis and centre, the “very light”; and ‘ousas’ means ‘being’— “the very being (of) light”; and the Dative also means emphasis and centre and duration all at once— “in / with / while being the very light day”. And all this belonging to the Sabbath, ‘Sabbath’s being Genitive of kind or quality or ‘Possessive’, “in / with / while being the Sabbath’s very own light day”. That’s Grammar and Syntax for you; or what would you call it? Rubbish?

MU:

“This word is used in Scripture twice: once in it's literal sense (Matthew 28:1) to mean "sunrise, dawn, as it begins to be light," and once in a metaphorical sense to mean "beginning of the day from a Jewish perspective, sunset" (Luke 23:54).”

GE:

“This word is used in Scripture twice”, you say, “once in it's literal sense (Matthew 28:1) to mean "sunrise, dawn, as it begins to be light" – morning; “.... and once in a metaphorical sense to mean "beginning of the day from a Jewish perspective, sunset" (Luke 23:54)” – evening.

What would make the difference? What makes the sense in Mt28:1 “literal” but in Lk23:54 “metaphorical”? What would make the difference? There is no difference. You try to create or pretend the idea of a difference.

In the evening for the Jewish mind the ‘light’, or ‘sun’, or ‘day’ no longer existed.

Why would the Gospel writers not have used the perfect and most natural word ‘diafohskoh’ in stead of ‘epifohskoh’ if they wanted the distinction that you claim there is between ‘epifohskoh’ – light – in the morning and ‘epifohskoh’ – light – in the evening?

‘Diafohskoh’ in the LXX without exception stands for the morning’s, “break-through/up-coming-light”.

‘Diafanehs’, “pure as clear glass”, of the city that needed not the sun for light, so bright! (Rv21:21). Therefore, ‘light’ after sunrise or ‘light’ before sunset, ‘tehi epi-fohs-k-ousehi’ is “in the epicentre of being as pure and clear” as the city’s streets-of-glass-LIGHT that from beneath, makes the sun from above (‘epi’) like no light! The glory of the ministration of the Law and death is like no glory against the Glory of the Ministration of the Gospel and the Spirit in the countenance of Christ Jesus. 2Cor3:7.

Therefore, in the first place “This word .... “The Greek "epiphosko" used in Scripture”, is not “the root word "phosko".

In the second place, whether ‘literally’ or ‘metaphorically’, “epiphosko” in “Luke 23:54 should be evaluated as it is “used in Scripture, to mean” not, “beginning of the day from .... sunset”, but, (from a Jewish perspective) the ending-hours of day before “sunset”, Friday.

And in Mt28:1, exactly so,

“Sabbath’s Day’s time”

the ending-hours of day before “sunset”.

“Literally”, “in the very midst being of light”,

‘clear and bright’; yes, brighter than the sun

FOR WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT MOMENT

IN RESURRECTION FROM BENEATH

OF THE LORD, VICTOR “IN SABBATH’S DAYLIGHT

FROM ABOVE”— “TEHI EPI-

FOHS-K-OUSEHI”.

In Jn19:42 Joseph closed the grave “by the time” – the ‘literal’ time “of the Jews’ preparations”, which in Lk23:54 exactly “literally” meant “in / with / while being the Preparation’s very own light day toward the Sabbath”!

It’s just the same in Mt28:1. It cannot be otherwise since “it's literal sense (Matthew 28:1)” is, “in / with / while being the Sabbath’s very own light day toward the First Day”.

And by the way, these are not the only two cases of the use of the word or virtually same word in the New Testament, or in the Old Testament as well. It is used at least in one other instance in the NT, besides other incidences where used in separated format. In the Old Testament the same basic word is used several times — and never does it mean “to dawn in the morning, to begin to be light”. In each and every instance, it has been used in its literal sense, for its simplest and only true meaning, “mid-afternoon”.

What is correct in anything you expect us to believe and learn for ‘Grammar’, dear MU?

MU:

“This is the one text the "three days and three nights" advocates use to build their theory that Jesus rose at sunset on Friday. However, when taken in the context of the following texts, the grammar establishes beyond a doubt that the two Mary's came to the tomb at dawn on Sunday morning.”

GE:

“.... their theory that Jesus rose at sunset on Friday”? “.... on Friday”? You mean, ‘at sunset on Saturday’, MU, surely?

Which text do you mean, MU? “Matthew 28:1”, or, “Luke 23:54”? Both these texts are necessary for a better understanding of the “three days and three nights” because “Matthew 28:1” ‘explains’ what happened on the third and last day of the “three days and three nights”, and “Luke 23:54” explains what happened on the day before the day “explained” in “Matthew 28:1”. (Refer verse 5a of Mt28!) All that is further needed to know is the texts that explain what happened on the first of the “three days” of “three days and three nights” or the first of the “three days and three nights” of “the three days”. They correspond, correlate and coincide.

But none of these texts will ever explain the “theory that Jesus rose at sunset on Friday” or “that Jesus rose at sunset on Saturday”; I don’t believe there is one text in all the Bible that would support either theory. The Law commanded: “Wave the sheaf before the LORD to be accepted for you (“who believe”, Ephesians 1:19b) : on the morrrow after the (passover’s) sabbath the priest shall wave it. .... ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf. .... Ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the (passover’s) sabbath the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering ....” (Lv23:11,15)

Which was the passover’s ‘sabbath’, Mr Unknown? Which? You tell me; not I tell you. You say Friday was? “(Luke 23:54)”? Yea! All the Church is unanamous on ‘Good Friday’ “(Luke 23:54)” was Nisan 15, High Sabbath of Passover, and I cannot more agree! (I said ‘all the Church’; but not so; the Greek Orthodox believe differently. They say Nisan 15 was the day of the month Jesus was buried “(Luke 23:54)”, yes. But they also say it can be any day of the week though. Therefore all the Church is unanamous on ‘Interment Friday’ “(Luke 23:54)” was Nisan 15, High Sabbath of Passover, and I cannot more agree!)

So, which day of the week is after Nisan 15, High Sabbath of Passover if Friday “(Luke 23:54)”? No other than the Sabbath Seventh Day of the week. And which day of the week therefore should the First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD be “waved”, and “brought”? If Nisan 15, High Sabbath of Passover is Friday “(Luke 23:54)” Sixth Day of the week, which day of the week therefore should the First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD be “waved”, be “brought”? I rest my case!

Therefore, how, can you, Mr Uknown, say, if Friday “(Luke 23:54)” was Nisan 15 high sabbath of passover, that First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD was “waved” and “brought” when “on Sunday morning the two Mary's came to the tomb at dawn”?

In other words, how can you claim “Jesus rose” when “the two Mary's came to the tomb at dawn on Sunday morning”, despite the fact “the day that ye brought the sheaf” was the day directly “after the (passover’s) sabbath”, and, despite the fact which you admit yourself, that Friday “(Luke 23:54)” was Nisan 15 and passover’s high day sabbath? (Jn19:31b)

Is that how you and your Sundayworshippers mates “establish” things “beyond a doubt”? Is that how “grammar”, “establishes beyond a doubt”, or beyond a doubt destroys, real facts from Scripture?

MU:

“However, when taken in the context of the following texts, the grammar establishes beyond a doubt that the two Mary's came to the tomb at dawn on Sunday morning.

Mark 16:2 - "proi" (Strongs #G4404)

"Very early ("proi") on the first day of the week, just after sunrise ("anateilantos tou heliou"), they were on their way to the tomb"

GE:

Thanks for the nice mess of ‘grammar’; I relish in it!

The following “grammar establishes beyond a doubt” .....

"proi" .... Very early ("proi") .... just after sunrise .... "proi" .... early morning watch which ushers in the dawn"”. So which is it? What does "proi" actually mean— “establishe(d) beyond a doubt”? “Very early / early morning watch which ushers in the dawn”, or, what “anateilantos tou heliou” according to MU means, “just after sunrise”? What does "proi" actually mean, before “dawn”, or, “after sunrise”? (Refer Afrikaans article, “Vroeg” and many other paragraphs.)

Who would mind what “proi” meant if it can mean both things? Fortunately Mr Unknown gave us this further information,

“VERY EARLY = The Greek "proi" means "early in the morning, the early morning watch which ushers in the dawn." This is the opposite of the Greek word "opse" which means "late in the day, evening." When Luke wrote Acts 28:23 informing us that Paul preached "from morning ("proi") until evening ("hespera") he used "proi" to indicate "morning/dawn/when the sun rises."” But unluckily Mr Unknown again has given us some dubious explanations for the meaning of “opse” this time.

Re: “"opse" which means "late in the day, evening."” “Grammar”, in this case, will not be of much help if one didn’t know the incidences of use of the words involved. Etymology will help even better than “grammar”.

For example, “"opse" which means "late in the day ...."” does not exactly mean, “late in the .... evening”. If meaning the “evening” “in the day”, we must remember we have to do with ‘Bible-days’. They don’t work like ‘our’, days. ‘Our days’, keep on until midnight before the next and new ‘day’, starts. So, for us, “late in the day” will include the ‘evening of the day’; even the night of the day until 12 o’clock. So it’s fine in our European ‘idiom’ to speak of “late in the day, evening”. But in Bible times and in the Bible land of the Jews, concepts of time and days were different. They thought of the ‘evening of day’ as its starting part; its early hours. And the New Testament writers who mostly thought like the Jews did – not always exactly, though – used another word for ‘evening’ than ‘opse’. They used a related word to ‘opse’ the Adjectival form, which was ‘heh opsia’, the Substantival form of ‘opse’. (“From ‘opis’”, A.T. Robertson.)

These two words are in the New Testament used with exact regularity— ‘Opse’ the Adjectival form, for ‘late (in the day)’, ‘day’ ending, before sunset; ‘(Heh) opsia’ the Substantival form, for ‘the evening’ beginning of ‘day’ (even though it was the night beginning), after sunset. There are no exceptions in the Bible; only one instance in a variant manuscript of Mk11:11 where ‘opsia’ obviously erroneously occurs in stead of ‘opse’.

Mr Unkown is in error therefore for having said, “"opse" which means "late in the day, evening." ‘Opse’ means ‘late’; that’s it; ‘opsia’ means ‘evening’; that’s it.

So, “Mark 16:2 .... early ("proi") .... on the first day of the week”, yes. But “Mark 16:2 .... early .... just after sunrise ("anateilantos tou heliou")”, no! It should, because it is “Very early (‘lian proh-i’), be, “before sun’s rising” (‘anateilantos tou hehliou’).

And, to be precise, it is not “.... they were on their way to the tomb"; it is, simply literally, “came they upon the tomb”.

MU:

“When Luke wrote Acts 28:23 informing us that Paul preached "from morning ("proi") until evening ("hespera") he used "proi" to indicate "morning/dawn/when the sun rises."”

GE:

Well yes; that may be possible. But the context of Acts 28:23 rather suggests an early after-morning, that is, daylight after sunrise until ‘late afternoon’–‘hespera’, scenario. Point being, “proh-i” can – and does in fact – indicate the “before- / first- / early- / beginning-part” of any given time-period. ‘Proh-i’ can – as in John 20:1 e.g. –, indicate “When yet it was early dark” (‘proh-i skotias eti ousehs’) – as an exact equivalent of ‘evening’-‘opsia’ after sunset until before dark.

MU:

“JUST AFTER SUNRISE = The Greek literally reads "anateilantos tou heliou" meaning "at the rising of the sun." Notice carefully that Mark clearly states when he uses the word "proi" he intends us to understand it the way the dictionary defines it: the time of day "just after sunrise." Thus, without question, when the two Mary's arrived "very early" ("proi"), they arrived at sunrise on the first day of the week (Sunday morning).”

GE:

Do you see!? Can you see what I mean? This is how everybody now-a-days seems to think proper and true translation should be made!! Ag, for crying out loud! “The Greek literally reads "anateilantos tou heliou" meaning "at the rising of the sun"”, BUT, “Notice carefully that Mark clearly states when he uses the word "proi" he intends us to understand it the way the dictionary defines it”!!! Mr Unkown composed the expression, “This is simply a case of standing the Bible on it's head”. Well, here you have it. “This is simply a case of standing the Bible on it's head”. “Mark intends us” to understand the word ‘proh-i’, “the way the dictionary defines it”!

Never! Because ‘the Greek’ literally reads "anateilantos tou heliou" meaning "at the rising of the sun”, THEREFORE, NOTICE CAREFULLY, that ‘the Greek’ of Mark, clearly – when and where Mark uses the word "proh-i" – ‘the Greek’ of Mark – he, Mark – intends us to understand "proh-i", ‘the Greek’ of Mark way! Definitely not, “the way the dictionary defines it”!! A good dictionary, should intend us, to understand the word ‘proh-i’ the way Mark defines it. P-l-e-a-s-e .....

What shall that, ‘the Greek’ meaning of Mark’s way of understanding the word ‘proh-i’, be then? It shall be

1) Mark’s own ‘Greek’ meaning literally – while carefully noticing

2) every of Mark’s own ‘Greek’ words. (Not only those we like because they get us nearer to ‘after sunrise’ and keep us away from ‘before sunrise’.)

That, ‘the Greek’ of Mark’s way of understanding the word ‘proh-i’, is:

“Lian proh-i anateilantos tou hehliou” – “Very early sun’s rising”. While the sun begins its ‘rising’, midnight, and keeps on its ‘rising’ until it again starts declining, noon of day, it is clear there are several stages of the sun’s ‘rising’. “Very early”, “the sun’s rising” should therefore be earlier and before, “at the rising of the sun”, earlier and before than daylight-time after sunrise. One cannot just forget about Mark’s own Greek, the word ‘lian’.

Then on the other hand, one cannot just put words in Mark’s mouth, and say, Mark’s own Greek because of the fact he did write, “Very early sun’s rising”, means, “Very early sun’s rising Jesus rose”. That is not the meaning Mark wrote or intended. Mark wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote and that is it. Mark wrote the time and the day that the women (un-named and un-numbered) got at the tomb, after – long after; the day after – “Jesus rose”. That, is ‘the Greek’ of Mark’s way of understanding the word ‘proh-i’.

What did it help you, Mr Unknown and your Sunday-resurrection hoax? Mark only destroyed your figment.

MU:

“Mark 16:9 - "proi" (Strongs #G4404), "When Jesus rose early ("proi") on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons."

GE:

‘Cut and paste ‘grammar’’, is useless. You just repeat what you have already said, and you, this second time, are doing worse than before, old chap. “The last error shall be worse than the first.” Now you say Mark “In verse 2 .... already has defined what he means by "proi": "just after sunrise." Now Mark tells us Jesus rose "early in the morning, during the early morning watch which ushers in the dawn, at sunrise."” I have answered you on this contradiction of yours which you try to make Mark’s. I shall not repeat myself further, but to ask, Again, what does it contribute to ‘demonstrate’ your Sunday-resurrection falsehood?

But much worse is your other error, MU, under pretence of truth, that Mark in 16:9 “.... Now .... tells us Jesus rose "early in the morning....."”. That is not what Mark tells us; that is what Mr Unknown and the Sundayworshiping hosts tell us for Divine Truth.

Mark tells us in 16:9 that Jesus, “As The Risen One, first appeared, to Mary early on the First Day ....”. (See book 2, ‘Resurrection’, et al.) Mr Unknown makes of the Adjectival Past Participle (Aorist) ‘anastas’, the Predicate – the finite Verb of the sentence. That is monstrous adulteration of Greek ‘Grammar’ and Scripture at once— in worship of the day of the pagan idolatrous lord Sun; by a Christian and billions of Christians Unknown. (Which doesn’t make it any the less worse.)

“.... the Bible's specific statement in Mark 16:9 that Jesus rose on Sunday morning” thus evidences Mr Unknown’s own, specifically stated, utterly un-grammatical, untruth.

MU:

“"Proi" is the opposite of the Greek word "opse" which means "late in the day, evening," thus "proi" cannot mean Jesus rose Saturday evening after sundown as darkness fell.”

GE:

Absolutely so; the Greek word ‘proh-i’, here, has got absolutely nothing to do with the time of day “Jesus rose”, or with the time of day “Jesus rose Saturday”. Even less has it got to do with the strange notion “Jesus rose Saturday evening after sundown as darkness fell.” (I, if I remember correctly, have never heard of it ....) How can a non-concept and non-reality be answered confirmingly or traversely?

MU:

“There is simply no way to deny the grammar: Jesus rose at dawn as the sun was rising on Sunday morning, just a few moments before the women arrived at the tomb. To claim otherwise is simply to display an outright ignorance of Greek grammar, the Biblical context, and history.”

GE:

Ja well ....

MU:

“Luke 24:1 - "orthros" (Strongs #G3722)

"On the first day of the week, very early in the morning ("orthros"), the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb."

GE:

How well does Mr Unknown explain .... himself, “Luke affirms beyond question that the events of Christ's resurrection occurred on Sunday morning at sunrise”! “.... the events of Christ's resurrection”? Where, my dear fellow, where, do you read anything Luke recorded of: “the events of Christ's resurrection occurred”? Where?! Nowhere man! Don’t make me shout! Nowhere! Read! Nowhere! Understand?! Nowhere! So don’t come with this lie of yours, and remind me of how without ‘love’ I am. I won’t have it! I won’t have a lie, for the love of Christ, I’m telling you!

You, telling everybody to “notice carefully” your sacred mantled chambering – just like in the instance of ‘proh-i’ – now "opse" meaning "evening, close of the day"”. “Evening”, is after, “close of the day”; is after, sunset the actual close of day; not before it. “"Opse" meaning .... close of the day” before sunset, is “late in the day”; is “in the end of” the involved day of when “the events of Christ's resurrection occurred”.

Where do you read of such a day or of such a time of day in Luke? Or in Mark for that matter? Or in John for that matter? You won’t read of such involved day when “the events of Christ's resurrection occurred” in any of them! You will only read of such involved day when “the events of Christ's resurrection occurred” in Matthew— and only in Matthew in 28:1 to 4; nowhere in all of Scripture in so many words anywhere! Notice Carefully!

Thus far, 2 July 2009. DV to be continued.

When Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?

Second delivery

Mr Unknown:

“Luke 24:22 - "orthrinos" (Strongs #G3721)

"In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning ("orthrinos")"

GE:

The contextual framework wherein these words occur:

Luke 24:1, “orthrou batheohs”— the women “very early morning came unto the sepulchre”;

verse 22, “orthrinos”— “some women of our company who were at the tomb astonished us; they told us besides not having found the body, they also saw angels who told them He was alive. Then certain of those who are with us, went to the sepulchre again, and found it even as they had said: they indeed did not find Him”—

obviously and unambiguously not, what MU says, “two .... words, "orthros" and "orthrinos" to inform Luke’s readers .... the events of resurrection Sunday occurred very early in the daylight.” That is what any normal person would call an unashamed, unabashed, unafraid, blatant, lie. No lie about the time of day or night, no; but a lie about “Sunday”, as “occurred”, “the events of resurrection” – of Jesus’ resurrection – on “Sunday”; as were they “the events of .... Sunday”. A turncoat of truth, “two .... words, "orthros" and "orthrinos" .... very early in the daylight” to cover up and camouflage Hermaphroditis, goddess of the ‘Queen of Days’ and lord of the ‘day-of-the-lord-Sun’. Shame on you, Christianity and Christiandom!

MU:

“John 20:1 - "proi" (Strongs #G4404)

"Early ("proi") on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance."

GE:

Ja; as you say, “As explained previously, "proi" cannot be used to refer to sunset, for it is the opposite of the Greek word "opse" which means "late in the day, evening."” Only remember it when thinking about Mt28:1, is all I’ll say now.

MU:

“Summary

GE:

Why should I also explain “As explained previously”? It obviously in view of the impressions my first comments have evoked, would be senseless and in vain attempt. “Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy Name give glory, for thy mercy, for thy truth’s sake.”

MU:

“Conclusion

The "Three Days and Three Nights" proponents require exactly 72 hours to pass between the moment Christ died and the moment He was raised from the dead. This leaves them with only three options:

GE:

Alright; I have already requested not to be classed under this class; therefore giving you the credit here doesn’t mean I admit your views are sound.

MU:

“The "Three Days and Three Nights" proponents require exactly 72 hours to pass between the moment Christ died and the moment He was raised from the dead. This leaves them with only three options:

GE:

There are those who are no “"Three Days and Three Nights" proponents”, but “according to the Scriptures” – the passover Scriptures – proponents. I wish to be reckoned under this class of simplest of believers.

We kind of Christians don’t “require exactly 72 hours to pass between the moment Christ died and the moment He was raised from the dead.” We never think in terms of hours as our basic supposition. There may be other kinds of Christians – maybe much better learned than us – who may go about the issue in this manner. We don’t care about them. Nor about the other sort of Christians like yourself. We are happy and content in “good conversation in Christ” and to “answer in good coscience toward God by the resurrection of Christ who is gone into heavenly exaltation and is set at the right hand of God— angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him”: through this very resurrection from the dead of Him “In Sabbath’s Day”. “And God the Seventh Day rested in that God finished all the works of God” through Jesus Christ our Lord, “Lord of the Sabbath Day”— “Lord : of the Sabbath Day” by the “power I .... by the glory of the Father .... have to take up my Life again”.

Associations and correlations I dare any of you to draw from the Scriptures with Sunday the day supposed. Why so quiet, are you?

The “Three Days and Three Nights” “according to the Scriptures” –the passover Scriptures – leaves us with only one option, that Jesus Christ fulfilled these “three days” of passover-prophecy and eschatology in truth and reality; no fooling around about the fact of it, whether seen as “three days” fulfilled, or seen as these “three days” in terms of full-cycle ‘days’ of night and day each the Bible-way fulfilled. Sundayists, show anything from the Scriptures just more or less like it in favour of a Sunday Resurrection!

I’ll put it in words all but one of which you, MU, have employed, (which you have employed to wrangle the truth of the ‘Saturday afternoon resurrection’):

‘A Saturday afternoon resurrection’, requires Jesus to rise on Saturday afternoon before sunset at the exact moment He died three days earlier. What is easier?

Abib 14: “when they had to kill the Passover” the Lamb of God laid down his Life and gave his spirit into the hands of His Father,

“And it was the ninth hour” ‘in being daylight mid-afternoon’— 3 p.m..

Abib 15: when they had to “take that which remained” to earth,

“And (it now) was Preparation the Sabbath approaching in being daylight mid-afternoon”— 3 p.m..

Abib 16: when they had to “wave the First Sheaf before the LORD”,

and God raised Him from the dead “In the Sabbath’s fullness Sabbath’s in being daylight mid-afternoon toward the dawn of the First Day of the week”— 3 p.m..

Re:

“The Bible evidence is clear that Jesus was buried just before sunset.”

We have gone through all this; it is not true “The Bible evidence is clear that Jesus was buried just before sunset.”. The Bible evidence is clear that Jesus was finished buried “Preparation, mid-afternoon towards the Sabbath”-‘epefohsken sabbaton’ (Accusative) before sunset, and “before / towards the Sabbath” a full three hours, Three hours before sunset and Sabbath’s beginning (Lk23:56b). Cf. Jn19:42: finished being buried; not beginning being buried! For the burial’s 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. beginning, page to Mk15:42/Mt27:57, Lk23:50, Jn19:31,38. In Lk23:54-56 and Jn19:42 you find the burial’s end 3 p.m. — 18 to 21 hours, later.

Re:

“Thus proposing an afternoon resurrection, no matter what day, contradicts Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:1; Luke 24:22; and John 20:1 which state Jesus rose Sunday at dawn.”

How you so ‘concluded’, is beyond me.

1) An “afternoon resurrection” is just what “Matthew 28:1” proves through circumstantial evidence and words saying.

2) Neither of “Mark 16:2; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:1; Luke 24:22; and John 20:1”, “state(s) Jesus rose Sunday at dawn”; it’s a flat, tasteless, but brightly coloured lie. Brightly coloured insects and things like frogs usually are cold, hurtful and venomous.

3) Neither of “Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; Luke 24:22; and John 20:1” tell of the Resurrection, ‘live’, like Mt28:1-4 does. They don’t even hint at the Resurrection. And every time – “Luke 24:22” only supposing – mentions the First Day. Strange? Not at all!

4) “Mark 16:9” indirectly implies the Resurrection because it says, “As the Risen One He appeared on the First Day”.

5) The contextual history after “Luke 24:22” only, brought the Resurrection to light— which for the disciples or the women untill then was not even a consideration.

That is how your witnesses, Mister Unknown, “state (that) Jesus rose Sunday at dawn.” No matter what you say, you, Mr Unknow, contradict Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:1; Luke 24:22; and John 20:1 neither of which state that Jesus rose Sunday at dawn of day before or after sunrise— ‘no matter what’!

MU:

“The "Three Days and Three Nights" proponents require exactly 72 hours to pass between the moment Christ died and the moment He was raised from the dead. This leaves them with only three options:

GE:

Your tactics are proven succesful considering how you have convinced even yourself. Cloud your own mind, flood the reader – drown him – in an ocean of insubstantial suppositions such as “it is not necessary to require exactly 72-hours”, “This admission defeats the entire purpose”, “nullifies any Wednesday/Thursday crucifixion”, “there is no justification to object to the Friday crucifixion/Sunday resurrection scenario” as if that proved your ‘Friday crucifixion/Sunday resurrection scenario’.

The mere fact you think you could swat two flies with one swipe as were a “Wednesday crucifixion” and a “Thursday crucifixion” the same, shows the shallowness and groundlessness of your arguments. A swatter is of no use with tatty gauze shutters.

Who ‘admitted defeat’? You just claim your opponents ‘admitted defeat’ without having allowed them one sentence to speak for themselves. You thought the count was out, and couldn’t see the KO coming.

It is your, false, idea that the Thursday Crucifixion Sabbath Resurrection truth “require(s) exactly 72 hours to pass between the moment Christ died and the moment He was raised from the dead”.

It is impossible to try to get “exactly 72 hours to pass between the moment Christ died and the moment He was raised from the dead”. Who, ever, said that, but MU? “Between the moment Christ died and the moment He was raised” was about 48 hours in total— three hours on Thursday, 24 on Friday, and 21 on the Sabbath.

But because the “three days” “according to the Scriptures” begin and end with ‘72 hours’ in between their beginning and end, and Jesus at his final “hour” at the beginning of them in victorious suffering began to “pass over” into the Kingdom of His Father, and “In the end of the Sabbath” “entered in” “by the glory of the Father”, 72 hours may be distinguished in between. Why not? But no one needs to count ‘72 hours’ to reach “three days and three nights” or “three days” — the, “three days” — of Jesus’ Passover “according to the Scriptures”.

Since not Jesus or Jonah spoke of ‘hours’, we don’t, and we don’t ‘require’ to. “To require exactly 72-hours” in order to get “a literal three days and three nights”, for no moment was “the entire purpose” of arguing the Thursday Crucifixion Sabbath Resurrection because the Thursday Crucifixion Sabbath Resurrection is the plain given of the Scriptures.

So Mr Unknown’s ‘conclusion’, “If "three days and three nights" does not mean literally 72 hours, then there is no justification for proponents to object to the Friday crucifixion/Sunday resurrection scenario” explains itself for the silly verbosity it is. “Grammar”? My foot!

MU:

“From both context and grammar no legitimate case can be made for Jesus rising on Saturday afternoon or Saturday evening. The only possibility is that Jesus rose at dawn on Sunday, just as the Bible states.”

GE:

Don’t you tire of repeating yourself and repeating your senseless and groundless assuming? How many times have you said the same thing – not once with a word of Scripture to back up “that Jesus rose at dawn on Sunday”? Thus proposing ‘the Friday crucifixion/Sunday resurrection’, no matter at dawn on Sunday or not, contradicts Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:1; Luke 24:22; and John 20:1 which all presuppose Jesus had had been raised long before Sunday at dawn.

MU:

“The Bible record is clear: Jesus was crucified at 3 PM on Friday afternoon (the "Preparation Day").”

GE:

For the cause of integrity, honesty, common sense, whichever virtue there in this life still may be, quote your Scripture for saying this!

But just let us believe you for a moment, just to see if the Bible is the lying book you make it out for, here, where your words are unambiguously: “The Bible record is clear: Jesus was crucified at 3 PM on Friday afternoon (the "Preparation Day")”. “When they had crucified Him .... it was the third hour; and they crucified Him” – 9 o’clock a.m., Mk15:24,25. Twice: “they crucified Him”: “when it was the third hour” in the morning. MU: “Jesus was crucified at 3 PM on Friday”.

All right, elke outjie maak ‘n foutjie. Everyone can make a mistake. That makes it even worse!

For the cause of integrity, honesty, common sense, whichever virtue there in this life still may be left, quote your Scripture for saying “Jesus was buried at 3 PM on Friday”!

Then just let us believe you for a moment, Mr Unknown, just to see if the Bible is the lying book you make it out for, here, where your words unambiguously are: “The Bible record is clear: Jesus was buried at 3 PM on Friday afternoon (the "Preparation Day")”. “At the ninth hour (‘3 PM’) Jesus gave up the ghost”, Mk15:34,37— that is, died! Mr Unknown, quote (after erratum): “Jesus was buried at 3 PM on Friday”. Like lightning it seems; the angel of the Lord must have buried Him, it seems. Because it does not seem Mr Unknown knows mistakes. But this one cannot be excused. Because he deliberated to vindicate the ‘Friday crucifixion/Sunday resurrection scenario’ at the expense of the plain truth of the Word of God.

MU:

“His burial was completed around 6 PM Friday afternoon before sunset. He rested in the grave through Saturday (the "Sabbath" which was also the day of Passover that year), and He rose from the dead at dawn on Sunday morning ("the first day of the week"). By the time the women arrived a short time later at daybreak Jesus had already risen. This is the Biblical, historic, and consistent position Christians have held for 2,000 years.”

GE:

Joseph “completed his burial” “by the Jews’ time to prepare” for the Sabbath, Jn19:42. Luke 23:54 describes Joseph as having closed the grave “mid-afternoon toward the Sabbath”-‘epefohsken sabbaton’. Afterwards he, “Friday afternoon before sunset”, returned home. Afterwards also the women, “afternoon before sunset”, “went home and prepared spices and ointments”. Only after they have finished preparing, did the women “begin to rest the Sabbath”— when the Sabbath had begun after, when the sun had set, “6 PM Friday”.

“By the time the women arrived .... dawn on Sunday morning .... at daybreak” it was no “short time later”. Three hours after Joseph had closed the grave until sunset is three hours; Friday night is 12 hours; and until “Late Sabbath’s mid-afternoon there suddenly was a great earthquake” (Mt28:1), is another 9 hours. Twenty four hours after Joseph finished to bury Jesus, “Jesus had already”, been, “risen”.

Regardless “Christians have held for 2,000 years” the false opinion Jesus rose at dawn on Sunday morning ("the first day of the week") by the time the women arrived at daybreak” — regardless “the traditions of men”, but with utmost regard for the Word of God only — this, is the Biblical, historic, and consistent position:— “Late Sabbath’s mid-afternoon toward the First Day of the week, there suddenly was a great earthquake ....”, (Mt28:1).

5 July 2009

Gerhard Ebersöhn

Suite 324

Private Bag X43

Sunninghill 2157

biblestudents@imaginet.co.za

http://www.biblestudents.co.za