Timelines of scripture have always been misunderstood and missapplied.

One of the most popular misunderstandings/ misapplications of time applied is to calculate the

Jewish Shepherds visit to the newborn Christ as closely corresponding with the visiting of the "

kings " to the Christ  CHILD .

As if they could have passed each other on the road.

Yet we know from historical fact that the command by Herod to kill all male children 1 year and

younger was not issued without an understanding of the age the child he was attempting to

kill had most likely attained.

In spite of this historical fact, to this day it is quite a common occurance in most Christmas plays

conducted in christian churches & schools to see the portrayal of the Kings visiting the baby in

the manger.

.

Mar 12, 2012 -- 9:38AM, smcisaac wrote:

yes, of course there is a discrepancy between the Biblical "three days" and 72 chronological hours

Gawd! I was beginning to wonder if anybody on Beliefnet was ever going to fess up to that. Finally! Thank you for having the courage to admit it.

.

Mar 12, 2012 -- 1:20PM, Svetlana wrote:

I think you'd have better luck at constructive conversation if you'd read people's posts with more attention.

What an interesting coincidence. I've been feeling the very same way about you and some of the others.

Mar 12, 2012 -- 11:47AM, Webers_Home wrote:

Mar 12, 2012 -- 9:38AM, smcisaac wrote:

but it is on its face an unimportant anomaly

Maybe to you it is on its face an unimportant anomaly; but not to me; not when the Lord's resurrection is one of the two essential facts of the gospel that must be accepted in order to escape the wrath of God.

Why?  What makes the particular way that you count the 3 days so important?  What makes the error (as you see it) in counting it differently so important?  What is it about the difference that you consider to be so significant?

Mar 12, 2012 -- 9:38AM, smcisaac wrote:

Is there a more profound conclusion that you are driving toward?  Perhaps you think it shows that the Bible is not perfectly inerrant, that it is inconsistent from some details to others at different places in the text?

I do not believe the New Testament's chronology of crucifixion week is inconsistent. Nor do I believe the record isn't perfectly inerrant. I do not believe the New Testament is the problem. I believe the problem is how people interpret it; and that problem is compounded by people's fallible comprehension. In other words: the problem is not with the New Testament, no, the problem is with the minds of the people reading the New Testament.

Okay, so now you've given us one reason why this issue is not important: you don't think it illustrates an inconsistency in the text.  But you still haven't given us a reason why it is important.

Mar 12, 2012 -- 11:25PM, Webers_Home wrote:

.
FAQ : Isn't Mtt 12:40-41 just a metaphor?

Well; as for me, I decline to accept that Jonah's burial constitutes a metaphor because the wording of the New Testament and the wording of Old Testament are essentially identical.

†. Jonah 1:17 . . Yhvh provided a great fish to swallow Jonah; and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.

†. Mtt 12:40-41 . . As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Since I know for proof positive from Mrk 9:31, Luke 18:33, Luke 24:6-7, Luke 24:46, Luke 24:21, and 1Cor 15:4 that Mtt 12:40-41 meant the Lord would revive on the third day instead of after the third day was over; then I believe it is perfectly safe for me to assume Jonah 1:17 means the very same thing; and John 2:19 too.

Note : the above FAQ is a real-life inquiry. I didn't make it up.

Cliff
/

So IF we read these two passages in concert, and IF we read them literally rather than figuratively, and IF we accept the premise that they are absoutely true and correct and in perfect agreement when interpreted literally, and IF we conclude that this means either a third nightfall or a third daybreak must have occurred after Jesus's burial and before his resurrection, that must mean that either Jesus died on Thursday or he rose on Monday.  But Matthew 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, and John 20:42 all explicitly agree that Jesus died and was buried on the "day of Preparation", which is the day preceding the Sabbath, i. e., Friday.  So he must have died on Friday, and risen on Monday. So that in turn would mean that the liturgical tradition of celebrating Easter on Sunday must be off by a day.

Which leads to the overarching question:  So what?  Some of us may doubt your interpretation, but even if this is the correct interpretation and other views are mistaken, so that the traditional celebration of the anniversary of the Resurrection is in fact off by a day, what difference does it make?

Moreover, if this interpretation is correct, why is it directly and clearly contradicted by every one of the four Gospels?  Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1 all explicitly agree that the empty tomb was discovered on the "first day of the week". The first day in both Roman and Jewish calendars was Sunday, not Monday. Matthew and Mark are even more specific in identifying it as the day following the Sabbath.   In other words, each Gospel testifies explicitly and consistently not only that Jesus died on Friday, but also that the empty tomb was discovered on Sunday.  How does your interpretation explain that?