Adventist Online

In the lesson study for this Quarter, the author posit that that there were two messianic prophecies, and that the first century Jewish Messianic expectation was one-sided. Can this argument be substantiated? Are there two Messianic prophecies? If it is found that there isn't two messianic prophecies and that Jesus had not fulfill any of the prophecies given by God, would you give up the Christian walk, or would you continue to have a relationship with God and look for Jesus to come? How do you reason.

Views: 501

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You are in error.

See uploaded "The Hours of The Lord's Last Day" by E.W. Bullinger Appendix.

Attachments:

One cannot take one verse in isolation and make it contradict all the other verses. The Bible must harmonise with itself or the entire book becomes suspect. To employ a private interpretation in this way and thereby call into question the veracity of the entire Bible is to travel down the road to confusion and denial of the Bible as an inspired, trustworthy book.

So, let us review what the rest of the Bible has to say:  

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40)

And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. (Matthew 26:61) (Bullinger suggests that "within" is a better rendering in this verse.)

And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. (Matthew 27:40)

Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. (Matthew 27:63) (Bullinger states that, "This is how they understood the " three days and three nights".)

Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. (Matthew 27:64)

And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. (Mark 8:31)

We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. (Mark 14:58)

And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, (Mark 15:29)

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. (John 2:19)

Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? (John 2:20)

 

So we have one verse that refers to "three days and three nights", five verses saying "in three days" (one of which Bullinger suggests should be "within"), another one that is "within three days", one "after three days" and another "until the third day". So out of ten references there is only one that says "three days and three nights". Perhaps it is worth noting that this is not using the normal "evening and morning" construction by which the days of the creation week were defined.

 

The clearest explanation of the time period is still given by Luke:

And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. (Luke 23:54,55)

There is a very clear statement that Christ was crucified on the preparation day, which has to be Friday. Although there is a claim that it was Wednesday and the Passover was on Thursday this is not born out by scripture as the day is named as being the preparation day and therefore Friday. Whilst Passover was kept as a sabbath, the day before the feast day was not the preparation day. Only the weekly Sabbath had a preparation day and Friday was the only other day of the week apart from the Sabbath that was named rather than being referred to by a number. Mark's gospel affirms this:

"And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath," (Mark 15:42)

In John's gospel we have another affirmation of the Friday crucifixion:

"The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away." (John 19:31)

John's statement is important because not only does he say that Christ was crucified on the Friday but he also states that the Passover that year fell on the seventh-day Sabbath making it a "high" Sabbath.

One cannot find anywhere in the Bible where any of the feast day sabbaths were accorded a "preparation" day. So, for it to have been the Preparation Day (and all the gospel writers affirm that it was) it must have been Friday.

All gospel writers attest that Christ remained in the tomb on the Sabbath and that He rose on the first day of the week, Sunday.

Perhaps the most important evidence is often ignored. Luke 24:21 states that Christ rose on the third day not after. "and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done." (Luke 24:21)

To state that Christ spent three 24-hour days in the tomb, whether one advocates a Wednesday crucifixion or not, is denied by Luke 24:21 which says that Christ was risen on the third day not after.

http://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/passover-week-two-sabbaths.htm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover

Their timeline in above links and reasoning is accurate. You fail to understand that there was a preparation day and then the High Holy Convocation Passover and passover meal which started on the 15th of Nisan at dusk. This was also called the Feast of Unleavened Bread which lasted a week, with the last day also a High Holy Day, a holy Convocation.

This is not ro be confused with the weekly Sabbath. The true Biblical timeline was followed to the letter by Jesus and all events happened both as required by law and for Jesus to be the true final Passover Lamb.

If everything was not according to law as tradition violates the exact law and timing, then the sacrifice would not be according to God’s requirements and no one would or could be saved through Jesus Christ. But he did accomplish all things. Religious tradition of Good Friday to Easter Sunday breaks the law and historical and amazing accomplishment and timing of all events. The tradition is a travesty of misunderstanding and Catholic garbage which causes doubt, inaccuracy and confusion in anyone who seriously studies the legal requirements and Events carefully.

When these are properly understood in accordance with Hebrew calender in accordance with the Law pertaining to it, then the accomplishment that Jesus did is sure, historical, totally legally binding and completely true. Tradition on these matters make a mockery, brought by Lucifer to cause unbelief and gross errors causing inaccuacy and making Christianity look Foolish and untrustworthy. Most Christians can’t even get the day and events accrately portrayed in time and according to scripture and truth.

Most of Christianity so-called is mostly inaccuracy, unbelief, false religion and failure to walk in truth, love and power of the holy spirit and the majority are in apostasy.

Before replying further it may be worth admitting that some 20-30 years ago I was also teaching the possibility of a Wednesday crucifixion and there being more than one sabbath day in that week. However, since that time, with further study, I have rejected the idea. Much of my reasoning is laid out below and so I hope that any rebuttal will encompass all of the points laid out below, not just one or two. As I have taken the time to go through this subject again I pray that those reading it will give me the courtesy of a full reasoned rebuttal.

Firstly, let's get rid of the idea that this is a Roman Catholic idea. "Easter" was being celebrated from Friday to Sunday in the early church, long before there even was a Roman Catholic Church. In fact there was a lengthy argument in the 1st century church as to whether Easter should always fall over the weekend or whether it was a "movable feast". I object to this idea that if the RCC teaches something it is automatically wrong, otherwise we will not believe in kneeling in prayer or even that Jesus is the Messiah. IMHO it is used as a form of spiritual blackmail in place of reasoned argument.

Secondly, can you give any evidence of any day other than the weekly Sabbath having a Preparation Day? As the term Preparation Day means Friday, i.e. the day before the weekly Sabbath, I would like to see the term being used to describe a day other than the 6th day of the week.

In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. (Leviticus 23:5-7)

Is the suggestion that the 14th Nisan is the preparation day for the feast of Unleavened Bread? The same time that is referred to as Passover?

All the gospel writers refer to "the preparation day" but only John refers to "the preparation of the Passover" (John 19:14). However, John goes on to say, "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away." (John 19:31)

John says that it was the preparation for the sabbath day and then clarifies that, "that sabbath day was an high day". Or, in other words, that it was the weekly Sabbath that was a "big" or "high" Sabbath because the ceremonial sabbath also fell on that day - that was what made it a "high" ("big") sabbath. It was the very fact that the feast day fell that year on a weekly Sabbath that not only made it a "high" Sabbath but also meant that it was a complete fulfilment of the type. IOW God proclaimed the feast day to be "a" sabbath because He knew that in fulfilment it would fall on "the" Sabbath - and in this way type meets antitype fully and completely.

Thirdly, comes the problem that by making Matthew 12:40 literal rather than idiomatic one must, logically, contradict most of the other Bible passages that refer to the length of time Christ was in the tomb. As follows:

If Christ was in the tomb a literal 3 days and 3 nights, or 72 hours, then it matches Matt. 27:63 ("after 3 days") and Christ would have risen on the 4th day. 

But we then have a problem with the Jews requesting that the tomb remains sealed "until the 3rd day" in the next verse (Matt.27:64). Why not request it being sealed until the 4th day if it was the 4th day, not the 3rd, that they understood Christ as saying He would rise?

Again it would fit with Mark 8:31 ("after 3 days") that He would rise on the 4th day but not with Mark 14:58 ("within 3 days") as the 4th day is not within 3 days. Does this mean that Mark contradicts his own writings?

Same problem with Mark 15:29 ("in 3 days"), the 3 days have finished and instead it is the 4th day.

John 2:19 ("in 3 days") is then contradicted as it was not in 3 days but on the 4th day. Did Jesus contradict Himself? The Jews even challenged Him on this point in the next verse (vs.20 - "in 3 days"), were they right and He wrong as He rose on the 4th day?

Then we come to Luke 24:21. The disciples state that, "to day is the third day since these things were done" and yet Christ is risen! How is this possibly true if Christ were to spend a literal 3 days, 72 hours, in the tomb?

How can we explain Christ being risen on the third day if He was not supposed to rise until after the third day?

In an attempt to make Matt.12:40 literal the trustworthiness and harmony of all four gospels is destroyed; Jesus, Matthew and Mark appear to contradict themselves; Luke is just plain wrong and Jesus is no longer the Christ. It seems like a high price to pay.

However, consider Luke 18,

Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again(Luke 18:31-33)

Once again we are confronted by Christ Himself stating that He will rise on "the third day" not after the 3rd day. Perhaps what makes the difference is the starting point of the time period? Could it be that from the time of Christ being delivered into the hands of the Romans ("the Gentiles") this "clock" starts ticking? I offer this as one possible explanation not as doctrine.

In Acts 10:40 we have the same problem. Was Luke wrong when he wrote that "Him God raised up the third day"? Not after 3 days but on the 3rd day.

Lastly on this point, did Paul also get it wrong when he states in 1 Cor. 15:4 that Christ "rose again the third day according to the scriptures"? Paul says on the 3rd day not after and further says that this was in harmony with the scriptures. How can it be so if some scriptures refer to the 3rd day and some to the 4th.

Fourthly, if we accept that Wednesday was the day of the crucifixion and was a preparation day for the Thursday feast-day sabbath. Why did the women not come to anoint Christ's body on the next day, Friday? There would have been no restriction as that day was not the Sabbath but instead, according to this theory, they waited another two days until early Sunday morning. Why? We can understand that they went home and prepared the spices but why did they then wait a further two days instead of coming the very next day? There is no logic or sense to this.

Fifthly, according to the idea of 3 days and 3 nights being a literal 72 hours, if Christ died and was buried before sunset on Wednesday then He must have risen before sunset on Saturday, i.e. before the end of the Sabbath. Perhaps this is meaningless to someone who does not keep all 10 Commandments of God but for Seventh-day Adventists (and other Sabbath-keepers, including the Jews) this does pose a doctrinal problem as we have the Saviour on one hand claiming that He has not come to annul or change Law and even describing His followers as keeping the Law of God whilst on the other hand He appears to be breaking the 4th Commandment. As I say, this may be perceived by some as a weak point but for me it does appear to make Christ go against His own teachings and stop Him being our example.

The final and sixth point is the harmony of the phrase 3 days and 3 nights with other examples in the Bible. In the book of Esther we read,

"Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish." (Esther 4:16)

Esther states that she will fast for 3 days, night and day, and will then go to petition the king. Then we read in Esther 5:1 that "on the third day" she went before the king. Did she go a day earlier than she stated? In vs.4 she invites the king and Haman to a banquet "this same day", i.e. the third day, which the king and Haman attend. Is this another contradiction? She says that she will fast for 3 days and 3 nights but then we find her throwing a banquet on the 3rd day, which is before the end of the fast. Or is it that this phrase is idiomatic?

It brings me back to the Jewish method of reckoning time, that time can be reckoned inclusively.

Let me repeat what has previously been ignored:

"In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day; e.g., the day of the funeral, even when the latter takes place late in the afternoon, is counted as the first of the seven days of mourning; a short time in the morning of the seventh day is counted as the seventh day; circumcision takes place on the eighth day, even though of the first day only a few minutes remained after the birth of the child, these being counted as one day. Again, a man who hears of a vow made by his wife or his daughter, and desires to cancel the vow, must do so on the same day on which he hears of it, as otherwise the protest has no effect; even if the hearing takes place a little time before night, the annulment must be done within that little time." (The Jewish Encyclopedia Vol. IV, Funk & Wagnalls New York, art. "Day", p.475)

Plus a quote from Martin Luther:

"How can we say that he rose on the third day, since he lay in the grave only
one day and two nights? According to the Jewish calculation it was only a day and a half; how shall we then persist in believing there were three days? To this we reply that he was in the state of death for at least a part of all three days. For he died at about two o'clock on Friday and consequently was dead for about two hours on the first day. After that night he lay in the grave all day, which is the true sabbath. On the third day, which we  commemorate now, he rose from the dead and so remained in the state of death a part of this day, just as if we say that something occurred on Easter-day, although it happens in the evening, only a portion of the day. In this sense Paul and the Evangelists say that he rose on the third day." (The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther Vol. XI edit. by John Nicholas Lenker, p.239)

I know that this is a long post but I have taken the time to formulate it and write it. I don't copy/paste my replies but rather take the time to write out my thoughts on the subject. So, if responding, please do me the courtesy of reading the entire post before responding.

The Bible also says: 

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 

Good day John,

I have read what you and other respondents have said, and with the knowledge of how Jews count their days, has not changed for several millenniums, and as such for Elijah or yourself to say that the disciples counted Friday as how we count a day - that is 24 hours - must be questioned for they do no such thing as posit by Elijah in his argument. Amongst the Jews a day consist of 12 hours. Sunrise to Sunset. Withing that day an hour is 1/12th of any particular day. This day of reckoning have not change and have been consistent in Jesus' tenure. So my question put forward to you and other respondents is how come it switch to a 24 hour system. For I know the gospels' authors said that as it was drawing near to Sabbath, that is on the Friday eve, or the day of preparation, when the rich man went and put a request and got order to dress and rest Jesus body in his tomb. This statement of as it was drawing nigh to Sabbath is indicative that the Jews day of reckoning had not change. "It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning". Luke 23:54. So help me understand how Jesus got up on Sunday when it should be Monday. Matthew's version shows a 24 hour system when he said, "The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before..." Matt.27:62. here he referred to Friday as one day, and the next day, which is Sabbath or the whole of Saturday as another day. 

So Jason in response to your question, the disciples should have said that, good sir it is the second day since these things occur Because Jews do not deal up in our 24 hour system. Thus for they to make to make that statement leaves room for more questions to be asked. 

John, the Bible is not God - inspired, It is God - breathed as Paul said, and He referring to the Tanakh. But what is you position or frame of mind if the reality is that Jesus is yet to come. For looking at the past to present we are both knowledgeable parties too and witness of how the story of the Messiah's first coming. But if He is yet to come would you like me still be grateful that because of what is presented in the gospels you were led to Jehovah?

This thing is so simple, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. 

Here is a good example of how the Bible writers count days:

"Six days later, Jesus took Peter, James, and his brother John and led them up a high mountain by themselves. "Mathew 17:1

Now about eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John, and James with him and went up on a mountain to pray. Luke 9:28

Do you see a difference? The same event is being described here 

Garth,

I will repeat for the third and final time. According to the oriental reckoning of time any part of a day can be counted as a part of the day, hence the reckoning as given in the scripture.

Your refusal to accept that is really of no concern to me. It is a fact that can be easily checked, Google "inclusive time reckoning" and go and argue with the results that you find there.

Hi John,

In respect to your argument, not according to the Jews. It is there history, and I believe it is best to work with their knowledge

You may believe what you want Garth. Fact is you are wrong and do not want to accept that you are. A common human fault and you have it double dose.

That reminds me of Adam and Eve where you were not able to admit you were wrong. 

So you didn't Google the phrase. Ok, Garth, obviously you have come with both a closed and ignorant mind.

Garth said, "It is there [sic] history, and I believe it is best to work with their knowledge"

"In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day; e.g., the day of the funeral, even when the latter takes place late in the afternoon, is counted as the first of the seven days of mourning; a short time in the morning of the seventh day is counted as the seventh day; circumcision takes place on the eighth day, even though of the first day only a few minutes remained after the birth of the child, these being counted as one day. Again, a man who hears of a vow made by his wife or his daughter, and desires to cancel the vow, must do so on the same day on which he hears of it, as otherwise the protest has no effect; even if the hearing takes place a little time before night, the annulment must be done within that little time." (The Jewish Encyclopedia Vol. IV, Funk & Wagnalls New York, art. "Day", p.475)

Ignorance is one thing but to be wilfully ignorant and ignore what the Jews say whilst claiming to speak on their behalf is just dishonest.

Let me know if you want to honestly discuss the topic.

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2018   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service