The Gabriel Stone: what does it tell us?

[polonius]

There is a considerable debate among archeologists as to when the “Gabriel Stone� was written. If written before the time of Christ, could this be the basis of the Resurrection stories?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/3 ... 84953.html

Any opinions?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #18]

Huh, learn something new every day. I didn't realize that some apologists were trying to torture scripture so it fit into 3 full days and 3 full nights by backing up Jesus's death to a Wednesday. They seem to be fine 'interpreting' things to smooth out these kinds of issues in other ways so not sure what's happening here. They are fine saying one name means another name, but can't simply use the tradition of rounding up partial days/nights?

Take the Catholics:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... -wednesday

In the Bible, parts of time units were frequently counted as wholes. Thus a king might be said to have reigned for two years, even if he reigned for only fourteen months. In the same way, a day and a night does not mean a period of twenty-four hours. It can refer to any portion of a day coupled with any portion of a night. The expression “three days and three nights” could be used as simply a slightly hyperbolic way of referring to “three days.”

Oh well, fun to watch creating bad apologetics when it wasn't even really necessary.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #18]

Huh, learn something new every day. I didn't realize that some apologists were trying to torture scripture so it fit into 3 full days and 3 full nights by backing up Jesus's death to a Wednesday. They seem to be fine 'interpreting' things to smooth out these kinds of issues in other ways so not sure what's happening here. They are fine saying one name means another name, but can't simply use the tradition of rounding up partial days/nights?

Take the Catholics:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... -wednesday

In the Bible, parts of time units were frequently counted as wholes. Thus a king might be said to have reigned for two years, even if he reigned for only fourteen months. In the same way, a day and a night does not mean a period of twenty-four hours. It can refer to any portion of a day coupled with any portion of a night. The expression “three days and three nights” could be used as simply a slightly hyperbolic way of referring to “three days.”

Oh well, fun to watch creating bad apologetics when it wasn't even really necessary.

It happened quite often on my Other board when the matter came up. I had a long and denialist discussion with a Christian who tried everything he (I suppose) could think of to make Friday to Sunday into something else. Though I gave him an out through 'The third day' (which it was) will do b, while Three days (which it isn't) will not work.

Even the need for dinosaurs on the Ark (shocked me when i first heard it) has a reason. At first I would have thought the Flood explains the extinction, so why make a tough ask even tougher by having all the prehistoric critters aboard as well?

I found out it was because of dinosaur herd tracks found on what was supposed to be 'Flood' layers, so the dinosaurs had to be on the Ark too.

But I can see no need for 'Three full days' when 'the third day' (which is what it says) will do. I don't get it. Unless they got a mistaken idea in their heads and since any Biblical things they get in their head must be from God (as that is how Faith works) it must be Gospel Truth even if the Bible says no such thing.

[Difflugia]

I didn't realize that some apologists were trying to torture scripture so it fit into 3 full days and 3 full nights by backing up Jesus's death to a Wednesday.

The problem is that Matthew changed Mark's "after three days" (Mark 8:31, et al) to "three days and three nights" (Matthew 12:40). Luke changed it to "on the third day."

I'm guessing both Matthew and Luke saw Mark's sloppiness as a problem. Luke fixed it by keeping Mark's timeline and changing the prophecy to be less ambiguous. I think Matthew went the other way. He made the prophecy into an explicit three full days, but had to change the timeline, too. When the gospels began to be circulated together and the contradiction became meaningful, It was changed back by a later scribe. Matthew 27:62 as we have it reads:

The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate

That's the only verse in Matthew that anchors the crucifixion to a day of the week, but "after the day of Preparation" is a super weird way to the refer to the Sabbath. I think Matthew changed the day of crucifixion to Thursday, the "next day, that is, the day of Preparation" is when the Pharisees gathered before Pilate. This conflicts with Mark 15:42 ("And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath"), so a scribe threw an "after" back into Matthew 27:62. This reconciled Matthew's timeline with Mark's again, but forever made Matthew look like a bumbling fool.

[1213]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #18]

Huh, learn something new every day. I didn't realize that some apologists were trying to torture scripture so it fit into 3 full days and 3 full nights by backing up Jesus's death to a Wednesday. ...

Why do you think it was not Wednesday? Bible doesn't say it was Friday. Bible tells Jesus was dead 3 days, and the tomb was found empty Sunday morning, so logically it can't be Friday.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #18]

Huh, learn something new every day. I didn't realize that some apologists were trying to torture scripture so it fit into 3 full days and 3 full nights by backing up Jesus's death to a Wednesday. ...

Why do you think it was not Wednesday? Bible doesn't say it was Friday. Bible tells Jesus was dead 3 days, and the tomb was found empty Sunday morning, so logically it can't be Friday.

No. The Bible shows that it was Friday (crucifixion) Saturday (Sabbath) when they rested. So even if it was a Passover for the priests, Passover for Jesus and everyone else had been on the evening of the arrest - if we trust the Bible. Next day, Sunday at dawn the women approached the tomb. Logically it can and really must be Friday so logically it can't be three full days, though the third day works. Tell me, why is it so all - fired important that it must be three full days and the last supper on Wednesday.? To me, it seems unimportant and there are greater problems with the Bible than that.

Incidentally, I had a look at the Gabriel stone transcription, and a lot seems to be missing. I'll have to pull back from the supposed plain idea of Gabriel saying the messiah will be raised after 3 days, though three days is mentioned, the rest of the message seems unclear.

Also while it placed in the 1st C AD typographically, one critic put it at 50 AD, which is when the Jerusalem church was in being. I gave the videos on the matter too much credit for the reading of the text being correct. I'll have to wait to see what the experts argue out about what the inscription says and what it means.

[Difflugia]

Bible doesn't say it was Friday.

Both Mark and Luke do so unambiguously.

And when even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, there came Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honorable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God; and he boldly went in unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.—Mark 15:42

And it was the day of the Preparation, and the sabbath drew on.—Luke 23:54

Matthew as we have it now also does so. The day following the crucifixion was the day after the Preparation, which means the crucifixion was on the day of Preparation.

John changes which day the passover is on, but still has Jesus crucified on Friday. In the Synoptics, Jesus and crew ate their Passover meal before the crucifixion. In John, the Passover meal hadn't been eaten yet, but the crucifixion still took place on the Preparation.

Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour. And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King!—John 19:14

For the Synoptics, the Last Supper was the Passover meal. John, however, wanted Jesus to be the Passover sacrifice, slaughtered before the Passover with the other lambs. The Last Supper wasn't called the Passover and the Passover meal hadn't been eaten yet when Jesus was arrested (John 18:28).

Bible tells Jesus was dead 3 days, and the tomb was found empty Sunday morning, so logically it can't be Friday.

Or you could just read the story that each of the four evangelists is telling you without creating a fifth story yourself.