Wednesday, 9 July 2008

Three Days


So, supposedly Jesus died and was resurrected after three days. So, he died on a Friday - which Xians now celebrate as Good Friday (Yay, Jesus is dead!) - and came back to life on a Sunday. Three days, Friday to Sunday......Oops.

33 comments:

Chad said...

Friday...Saturday...Sunday...1...2...3...are you serious?

GCT said...

Yes.

He died on Friday. From Friday to Saturday is one 24 hour period or one day. From Saturday to Sunday is one more 24 hour period or one day. This makes 2 days, not three.

Also, consider that he was supposedly risen on Sunday morning and died in the afternoon on Friday. This makes for less than 48 hours or less than two full days.

symbiontmusic said...

Ya know, I never though about that. Good point GCT. Three days from Friday is Monday. LOL, LOL, LOL

JayBird's Joint said...

You need to understand Jewish culture to understand this topic...which apparently you don't...I know only your culture is correct... study ethnocentricity first.

GCT said...

Then explain how less than two days is actually three days.

symbiontmusic said...

Explain Jaybirds Joint

JayBird's Joint said...

"The Bible does not specifically state which day of the week Jesus was crucified. The two most widely held views are Friday and Wednesday. Some, however, using a synthesis of both the Friday and Wednesday arguments, accept Thursday as the day.

Jesus said in 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." Those who argue for a Friday crucifixion say that there is still a valid way in which He could have been considered in the grave for three days.
In the Jewish mind of the First Century, a part of day was considered as a full day.
Since Jesus was in the grave for part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday—He could be considered to have been in the grave for three days. One of the principal arguments for Friday is found in Mark 15:42 that notes that Jesus was crucified "the day before the Sabbath." If that was the weekly Sabbath, i.e. Saturday, then that fact leads to a Friday crucifixion. Another argument for Friday says that verses such as Matthew 16:21 and Luke 9:22 teach that Jesus would rise on the third day; therefore, He wouldn't need to be in the grave a full three days and nights."
http://www.gotquestions.org/three-days.html

Not everyone agrees on the days, however you guy are assuming exactly 72 hours.

Festes said...

Who cares.The point is he was CRUCIFIED.He should be CRUCIFIED again.I'll do it right this time.
I hate JESUS. To see how much i hate JESUS visit my blog at http://cursejesuschrist.blogspot.com

symbiontmusic said...

Thank you for the education Jaybird. Now in regards to what you have said, am I to believe that 3 days from Friday is Sunday? What is 3 days from Friday to you? I wrote earlier that the details tend to work themselves out, but in Christianity, they do not. The details are contradictions. If I teach my child that 2+2=4 and explain all the details as to why, the details will back that up. The details in regards to your explanation seem to..........be lacking, they sound like a poor excuse/reason as to why 2+2 does not equal 4.

acidkoolaid said...

to quote jaybird, "in 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.'"

So whatever day, assume Friday, Friday night (1 night in the belly), Saturday night(2nd night in the belly), Sunday night (3rd ... oh no, not a 3rd night?)

GCT said...

I think you have to say that Jesus was crucified on Friday since it does say it was the day before the Sabbath, which orthodox Jews hold is Saturday. Anyone who tries to say it was Wednesday is invalidating part of the Bible, and that leads to the arguments of which parts can be invalidated and which can't, and how do you know?

"In the Jewish mind of the First Century, a part of day was considered as a full day."

Please support that statement.

I think Acid also rightly points out that Matthew 12:40 is both wrong and contradicts later passages. Instead of propping up your holy book, you've instead pointed out inconsistencies and problems.

JayBird's Joint said...

Hey, I'm not Jewish, it their understanding in ancient Judaism. Don't be so ethnocentric. Come on weak topic....make a new post.

Dave said...

Hey, Jaybird, what about the Jonah thing - three days and three nights. How do you reconcile the claim that it would be the same with Jesus? Seems like a prophecy unfulfilled.

GCT said...

"Hey, I'm not Jewish, it their understanding in ancient Judaism."

So, you can't defend it and now you are backing away. Consider that this claim of yours isn't about ancient Judaism, but about your version of Xianity, and it's all in the NT, which Xians hold as sacred and Jews do not.

acidkoolaid said...

i see that jaybird tucked his tail feathers and flew the coup. oh well, another xian confounded by logic

Dave said...

At first I didn't think completely through the Three Days discussion. After all, for convenience sake, it doesn't seem out of line for Christians to have simply picked Friday over any other day as the "Good" day when the god-son was crucified. Good Friday was a sort of shorthand method of telling the story.

However, if a believer accepts that the death of Christ might not have literally been on Friday, that three complete days didn't pass, in the same way as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the whale, then where does the believer draw the line?

Doesn't admitting that Christ wasn't dead for three days - in the way Jonah was stuck in the whale for three days and nights - lead inexorably to the conclusion that even the supposed resurrection might not have happened? That the resurrection of Christ is just part of a story - a sort of shorthand - that people long ago employed to discuss ideas about faith and social cohesiveness?

It must be discomforting to realize the impossibility of drawing a firm line of belief in the sand. So no wonder jaybird flew away.

Bennet said...

Jesus really fucked himself on timing.
Had he done this recently , oh say when digital video cameras, camera phones & live web feed had all been around his death, rise from death, & ascension might have creditability.

You'd think an all powerful , all knowing God would be aware of when to bring forth such miracles.
Bum luck.

JayBird said...

"i see that jaybird tucked his tail feathers and flew the coup. oh well, another xian confounded by logic"

What logic...In here? I don't see any logic.
Another Agnostic caught guessing...


"Hey, Jaybird, what about the Jonah thing - three days and three nights."

Okay so, Wednesday would make better sense...what's the problem?

Oh and before we go to far with this...Good Friday isn't even Biblical. We should celebrate His resurrection everyday not just one Friday. So your argument is useless.

GCT said...

Jaybird,
"What logic...In here? I don't see any logic."

You can assert there is no logic, but until you can point out the illogic of the argument, you're simply blowing in the wind.

"Okay so, Wednesday would make better sense...what's the problem?"

The problem is the unreliability of the Bible.

"Oh and before we go to far with this...Good Friday isn't even Biblical. We should celebrate His resurrection everyday not just one Friday. So your argument is useless."

Changing the dogma of when something should be celebrated to every day instead of the days that are specified by the Bible does not nullify the argument. If the Bible is wrong, you actually shouldn't celebrate the resurrection on any day, because we can't trust that it ever happened due to the inability to trust the source.

Dave said...

"Oh and before we go to far with this...Good Friday isn't even Biblical. We should celebrate His resurrection everyday not just one Friday. So your argument is useless."

So, the references to Good Friday are not biblical, although they are in the bible. Why should I then believe your claim that the resurrection is biblical? Because it's in the bible?

You're right, the day doesn't matter, because Christ wasn't crucified on that day. There was never such a person, and thus no resurrection, and no need to celebrate the event, except by those gullible enough, and willing to rationalize enough, to believe.

You're like the scientist, jb, who throws out results from experiments that don't match the prediction.

JayBird said...

"Changing the dogma of when something should be celebrated to every day instead of the days that are specified by the Bible does not nullify the argument."

The Bible doesn't say to celebrate it on Friday...
Get it through you head ah-theist.

"So, the references to Good Friday are not biblical, although they are in the bible."

The Bible doesn't speak of anything named "Good Friday" ...Genius.

"The problem is the unreliability of the Bible."

Jewish culture used part of a day as one day...You don't want to accept that this is how they applied it to writing Scripture...Can't help you here. I can't help it if you don't know Jewish culture...among many other things.

"There was never such a person, and thus no resurrection, and no need to celebrate the event, except by those gullible enough, and willing to rationalize enough, to believe."

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for Christ and Biblical accounts. However, You must ignore them to continue living your lifestyle... The Bible is the most accurate of all ancient writings...
Why don't you question whether Socrates existed?

Dave said...

>there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for Christ and Biblical accounts<

Can you give some? About Christ - you can leave out evidence for "Biblical accounts."

JayBird said...

"Can you give some? About Christ - you can leave out evidence for "Biblical accounts.""

Why would you want to exclude evidence for Scriptural accuracy?
If we can trust the accuracy of Scripture than we can trust that what Christ said and did was true.

http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm

Many diverse ancient writers like Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias, Tacitus, Quadratus, Suetonius, Thallus, Lucian, Celsus, and the Talmud and more, all speak of Christ and Christians, most of whom were not Christians themselves.

"There was never such a person"

Really? Than what were all of these ancient writers doing? They all go back to the 1st century or close there after...great evidence.

Even most non-christian historians would admit the a man named Jesus lived in Palestine, 2000 years ago and had a large following.

Join the club!

GCT said...

Jaybird,
"The Bible doesn't say to celebrate it on Friday...
Get it through you head ah-theist."

It does say that Jesus supposedly died on Friday.

"Jewish culture used part of a day as one day..."

So you assert, but I've seen no evidence to corroborate this. Plus, Jesus says three days and three nights in Matthew 12:40 as Jaybird's Joint has stated.

"Many diverse ancient writers like Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias, Tacitus, Quadratus, Suetonius, Thallus, Lucian, Celsus, and the Talmud and more, all speak of Christ and Christians, most of whom were not Christians themselves."

None of these writers were contemporary, and they simply give accounts of the existence of Xians and their beliefs. This is not good evidence for the actual existence of Jesus. For instance, if I report that some people actually believe that Harry Potter exists, would it make sense for someone to read my words at a later time and conclude that Harry Potter does exist and use my words as evidence for that? Of course not.

"Really? Than what were all of these ancient writers doing? They all go back to the 1st century or close there after...great evidence."

There is scant evidence that Jesus existed. It doesn't rule it out, however. If there was an itinerant preacher named Yeshua, however, it's doubtful that any of the things attributed to him were at all true, seeing as how they are all written well after the fact by people that were not there.

"Why would you want to exclude evidence for Scriptural accuracy?
If we can trust the accuracy of Scripture than we can trust that what Christ said and did was true."

I think Dave was simply trying to make things easier for you. If you want to talk about the accuracy of the Bible, let's look at Genesis or Exodus just to start. The universe was not created as god says it was (we can't even say it was created) and the Exodus surely never happened. We could also look at the numerous contradictions and contradictory accounts of the same stories. In short, the Bible is not reliable. Even so, you'd have the problem of circular reasoning and self-referential "evidence."

Dave said...

>Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias, Tacitus, Quadratus, Suetonius, Thallus, Lucian, Celsus, and the Talmud and more, all speak of Christ and Christians, most of whom were not Christians themselves<

Please, is that the best you can do? You're listing people who lived after Christ died or who were, at best, children when Christ was supposedly put to death.

You don't offer me one contemporaneous example of a record detailing anything about Jesus, because there isn't one. And there isn't one because there never was such a person, except in your mind and the minds of others as gullible as you.

Let's look at one "witness" you list - Thallus. Nine centuries would pass before the first mention of a Thallus. And that first mention of Thallus refers to a third century historian who supposedly mentioned a Thallus. What Thallus actually wrote, what the third century historian actually wrote, does not exist.

If you have faith, if you want to believe something, then why stoop so low as to quote something written 900 years after the fact?

However, you do seem to require, in your own mind, proof, rather than just faith, that your god trod the earth. Otherwise you wouldn't turn to "historians" to prove to me that there was such a person as Christ.

Just as you've put your faith in something as obviously absurd as your bible, so you are willing to accept something written third hand - and 900 years after the fact - as proof of your faith.

Dave said...

>Why don't you question whether Socrates existed?<

I've never thought about it much, but have wondered just that. Frankly, there are apparently only three people who we're fairly certain existed themselves, who have mentioned Socrates - Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes.

They at least claimed to be contemporaries of Socrates, unlike any of the sources you quoted.

Socrates was credited (by Plato) with, among other things, coming up with the Socratic Method. Whether or not Socrates existed, the philosophical concepts attributed to him, like the Socratic Method, do exist. Some of the other ideas supposedly put forth by Socrates make sense. Some obviously do not.

Whether or not Christ existed - and it should be obvious to any thinking person he didn't - the ideas he supposedly promulgated exit, too. Some of those ideas ascribed to Jesus might make sense. Some of them obviously do not.

Socrates, based on contemporaneous evidence, seems to have historical reality, although what he really thought, said, taught, etc., is lost to history.

There is no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus. There was and is no Jesus, except in the minds of those who believe in him, and what Jesus thought, said, taught, etc., are purely the inventions of human minds.

Dave said...

Jaybird, I've made some rather nasty comments to you. I apologize and if we continue the dialog, I will be civil.

JayBird said...

"Please, is that the best you can do? You're listing people who lived after Christ died or who were, at best, children when Christ was supposedly put to death.

You forgot something...This IS evidence for His existence. Whether they lived after Christ died or were children or not.
It would be difficult to find people at this time refuting the existence of Jesus, rather what we see is people being killed for claiming Him as God...more evidence for His existence.

You don't offer me one contemporaneous example of a record detailing anything about Jesus, because there isn't one.

Sure there is...The writers of the New Testament...they are contemporaneous. They lived at the time that Jesus did and wrote of the things spoken to them by Jesus Himself. Also the New Testament is the most accurate of any Historic/Ancient writings that exist, which preserves its reliability.

"Just as you've put your faith in something as obviously absurd as your bible, so you are willing to accept something written third hand - and 900 years after the fact - as proof of your faith."

Notice very carefully that all of these writers do not argue or write about the existence of Jesus, but rather they write ABOUT Him.
You don't seem to mention Josephus... Although he was not a Christian he still wrote about Jesus and His followers, never questioning the absurd fact of His existence. Josephus was more concerned about whether Jesus was the Messiah or not...all this within 60 years of Jesus.

It more seems that you don't want to accept these people as evidence, rather than the fact that they are evidences...

as I stated before...Even most non-christian historians would admit the a man named Jesus lived in Palestine, 2000 years ago and had a large following.

Dave said...

Jaybird:

>It would be difficult to find people at this time refuting the existence of Jesus<

Do you have evidence for this sweeping claim? I think plenty of people refuted his existence. Remember those stories of the Christians being fed to the lions? They were not fed to the lions by believers. Nor are there any stories of instantaneous mass conversions. Remember, too, even his own disciples rejected Jesus, until his resurrection was witnessed by their own eyes.

>rather what we see is people being killed for claiming Him as God...more evidence for His existence.<

Why would that be "evidence" for the existence of a god? People die for all sorts of things. Lots willingly drank Kool-Aid laced with poison in Guyana (and lots were forced to) in Guyana, because their spiritual leader, James Jones, told them to.

People will kill themselves for all sorts of ideas. Lots of Americans are willing to die, not for a god, but for their country. Their in Iraq and Afghanistan now, lives on the line, for the idea of a country.

Some sacrifice themselves for mere humans - for example, a soldier who throws herself or himself on a granade to save others.

Being willing to give up our lives for an idea, much less an imaginary being, is not unique to Christians, and in any case, such self-sacrifice has nothing to do with the concept of "evidence." I think you misrepresent the meaning of the word "evidence" when you use it this way.

Saying some people believe so strongly in the existence of something that they will die for it is not what the word "evidence" means, even if you wish it to be so.

I suggest you look up the meaning of "evidence."

Dave said...

Jaybird wrote:

>The writers of the New Testament...they are contemporaneous. They lived at the time that Jesus did and wrote of the things spoken to them by Jesus Himself.<

Have we not been through this? Matthew, Luke, Mark and John were not contemporaries of Jesus. And if they were, they had a terrible time agreeing on events.

>the New Testament is the most accurate of any Historic/Ancient writings that exist, which preserves its reliability.<

Even if the first part of that assertion was true (and of course it's only true in your mind), the second part - "which preserves its reliability - adds nothing, because it parrots the first part.

"It's the most accurate document" followed by "which preserves its reliability" says the same thing twice. And both thoughts are simply bald assertions on your part, with nothing to back them up.

I can say the opposite: "Your bible is the least accurate document of any ancient or historic documents that exist, which preserves its unreliability."

Either your or my assertion have nothing to do with evidence for the existence of a god.

You believe your assertions, though they are meaningless when it comes to proof, because they help you preserve your own belief in your concept of a god.

Why, Jaybird, do you think your bible is "the most accurate" such document? Because it says it is? Because YOU say it is? I realize this is not an academic forum, but why would I believe anything you say about a book that is so filled with obvious contradictions?

So far, you're falling short in convincing me there's any evidence of the existence of god (while plenty exists that there is no god).

Why do you even feel the need to present "evidence?" Are you beliefs, contradictory as they are, not strong enough? Of course, the evidence you do present is not evidence at all - only assertions, beliefs, ideas, all things that are only real inside your mind.

If you understood - or allowed yourself to understand - what the word "evidence" means, you might see the error of your ways. You are apparently not capable of understanding the common meaning of some words, like evidence. If you did, it would threaten the way you have viewed the world.

Dave said...

Jaybird asserts:

>Even most non-christian historians would admit the a man named Jesus lived in Palestine, 2000 years ago and had a large following.<

I have a question for you, Jaybird, and it's not rhetorical. A simple yes or no will do, although you can expound on it as you wish. The question comes a little later.

First, though, about your claim, above: making such a claim doesn't make it so. You have absolutely no evidence that most non-Christian historians accept the notion that Jesus was a real person.

You have not, for example, examined (i.e. read) every book about Jesus by non-Christian historians, you've made no study of books about Jesus by historians, and so you are in no position to make such a claim.

Here's the question I'd like you to answer for me, Jaybird: if you could do an exhaustive study of every non-Christian historian, and you discovered that most of them did NOT believe such a person as Jesus ever existed, would you then change your own belief, and admit there was no Jesus, and thus no god?

If you say you'd change your mind, then I say your current beliefs about your god are not based on evidence, but on untested beliefs.

If you say you wouldn't change your mind, then you have lost all credibility with me. For if you expect me to change my mind, to accept the idea that at least Jesus existed, based on the thoughts of non-Christian historians, I would expect the same change of mind from you, based on the thoughts of non-Christian historians.

But we both know that isn't going to happen - neither you nor I will change our minds based on your bald assertion, because neither of us can make that exhaustive study of non-Christian historians.

We don't need to. All I have to do is read the bible to uncover the contradictory nature of its claims. All you have done is blindly - that is without thought - accept what you've been taught.

Dave said...

You don't seem to mention Josephus...<

I did - I said all the human sources you cited as "evidence" were alive long after the fact.

>Although he was not a Christian he still wrote about Jesus and His followers, never questioning the absurd fact of His existence.<

You're right - "absurd fact." :-)

>Josephus was more concerned about whether Jesus was the Messiah or not...all this within 60 years of Jesus.<

You see, you've said it yourself - Josephus was writing long after the fact. I think if you were to attempt some critical reading about Josephus, you'd realize the authenticity of his "mention" of Jesus has been argued for hundreds of years, and argued against by many Christians.

Again, why bring up someone who wrote 60 years after your supposed god's death? You think, for a reason I don't fully understand, that this is "proof" that your god existed at one time on earth, in human form. Of course, it doesn't offer proof, because it comes so long after the fact, which you yourself admit.

Jaybird, there are no >contemporaneous< accounts. That is, there are no "eyewitness" accounts - only accounts about supposed eyewitnesses. That doesn't count as evidence - accept in your mind, of course.

You bring up Josephus, I suppose, because it's the best you got, which isn't much. Why bring him up at all? Isn't your faith enough?

Apparently not.

GCT said...

"You forgot something...This IS evidence for His existence. Whether they lived after Christ died or were children or not."

Simply writing about someone is not evidence for that person's existence, else we would have to count Harry Potter as having evidence for his existence.

"It would be difficult to find people at this time refuting the existence of Jesus, rather what we see is people being killed for claiming Him as God...more evidence for His existence."

Actually, many of the pagan writings against the followers of Jesus have been lost, but we know that some exist. Bart Ehrman recounts the writings of some early Xian that attempt to answer some of the pagan critics of the time. We don't have the original critique, but we know something existed, else this Xian author would not have been trying to debate.

"Sure there is...The writers of the New Testament...they are contemporaneous. They lived at the time that Jesus did and wrote of the things spoken to them by Jesus Himself. Also the New Testament is the most accurate of any Historic/Ancient writings that exist, which preserves its reliability."

The NT writers were not contemporaries of Jesus. The earliest writings were done by Paul who never claimed to meet Jesus while he was alive. The gospels were written well after the fact and those were cribbed from each other. The accuracy of the NT is also in question here. If the "eyewitnesses" were not eyewitnesses, then the authenticity of the events is seriously called into question, is it not? Besides, the authors can't decide what happened and when, and I seriously doubt that on Easter morning a bunch of zombies got out of their graves and strolled down the main street of a busy city with no one noticing or recording it.

"Notice very carefully that all of these writers do not argue or write about the existence of Jesus, but rather they write ABOUT Him."

Actually, many of those Xian writers do write about Jesus, but they are hardly non-biased. The non-Xian writers tend to write about the fact that there were people who followed a religious sect named after a reported person called Jesus. This is hardly the ringing endorsement you claim it to be.

"You don't seem to mention Josephus... Although he was not a Christian he still wrote about Jesus and His followers, never questioning the absurd fact of His existence."

As I mentioned above, he wrote that people followed someone they called Jesus, and that's about it. You should read it sometime.

"It more seems that you don't want to accept these people as evidence, rather than the fact that they are evidences..."

It is hard to accept them as evidence, especially since you have to tell half-truths and twist the timelines in order to make them fit your story.

"as I stated before...Even most non-christian historians would admit the a man named Jesus lived in Palestine, 2000 years ago and had a large following."

Many historians don't dispute that it's quite possible that a man named "Yeshua" lived at that time in that place and was an itinerant preacher that might have caused trouble for the prevailing hierarchy. This does not mean that it is so, it means that they are open to the idea. It also does not mean that Jesus was god, that the Bible accurately portrays what he said and did, or that anything supernatural happened.

I too am open to the idea that Jesus might have existed. I think the evidence for it is not as strong as you think it is or would hope it to be. But, as mentioned already, even if he did exist, it doesn't mean that he was god, that the events in the Bible happened as recorded, etc.