Resurrection after three days? What?

[oldbadger]

Can somebody just gently guide me through the timeline of the death of Jesus to his claimed resurrection ?
Three days? That's junk! A Friday evening to a Sunday morning looks more like 1.5 days to me.

Anybody who wants to use the Jewish 24hr cycle needs to stick with that clock throughout their guidance.
Anybody who uses the Modern 24 cycle might stick with that, please. No ducking and diving from one to t'other.

[TRANSPONDER]

I doubt the resurrection accounts entirely, I am prepared to entertain a basic true story in the crucifixion which is the place of all the skulduggery. So that aside, I'm talking what the gospels say or claim or there's no point in talking. But take it as read that I mean 'supposed death to claimed resurrection'. And the Three days or just 'the third day'is truly minor point in the debate, and, if I were a suspicious and distrustful curmugeon rather than the cherubic plaster saint which is wot I yam, I might see it as a Bible apologetics ploy to make a Big Fat deal out of nothing to fool the atheists into thinking it's a biggie, knock them down pretty easily and suppose that discredits any other arguments the doubters and skeptics may try to present. I'm too suspicious for my own good, that's what.

But I don't think that you have to talk to Christians on the basis of their ideas, beliefs and interpretations.
No......... Their concept of a God who built the entire universe just so that he could concentrate on this little planet and a recent species of creatures that look like him, and that he came to live here as one of that species and get executed so that he could amazingly pop in to view afterwards........ is so head bangingly strange that I don't think that I need to discuss the bible on their terms at all.......... rather to discuss it as a bundle of books written by various folks at different times who mostly did not think like Christians of today.... at all.

We can all be superstitious but how that belief got started and grew is just stunningly amazing.

The thing is, there are two separate debates, but the Religious think there is only one, as the Creator is of course the god of their religion. The 'Which god?'debate rarely gets going. But in a practicalsense it's always been about the validity of the Bible. And, as I say the resurrection. If that is shown doubtful,let alone nonsense, the case for Christianity collapses. It doesn't matter that the believers can swallow the excuses 'Mary and Mary split up...Mary Magdelene didn't go into the tomb...There are angels in John (but no message, and later on anyway), then disciples could have gone to Galilee in between Jesus appearing to them that night and again for their 40 day scripture lesson before ascending.

But I reckon that anyone looking at that will see clearly that the stories self -destruct. I firmly believe that no -one with a Really open mind (not gullible or uncritical, which is what the term means in Theist apologetics) will fail to see it once it's been explained. That's why tbehind the tactics (Bible apologetics) is the strategy - getting people Faithful and making sure they never hear anything to make them doubt.

Deconverts struggle with doubt and question anyway, some who don't convert, too, and that's fine for them. But I reckon the questions can be answered by those who already saw the answers. It has to make for a faster pit-stop.

[TRANSPONDER]

P.s Three days. Isn't it really resurrected after whatever days?Really? And it struck me that bleating about last hour Friday (1) half of Sunday and Saturday the only full day really means three days since the event spreads over the tree days nicely distracted the discussion to an irrelevance. On my former board it struck me how the apologists obsessed about this and to be fair, the atheist side seemed to like to make the point 'It wasn't three days'. Maybe the Believers see an easy rebuttal (and we all know about the One Shot Win ),or maybe the atheists used it as an easy snipe.But it's footling where there is so much bigger targets. Maybe they are harder to spot, but it's my job to paint circles on'em.

(1) and my snipe was more than that - John doesn't have to 'say that' for us to work out from what he says (and the other gospels) that the trial and crucifixion (according to the story) happened on the Friday.

[oldbadger]

The thing is, there are two separate debates, but the Religious think there is only one, as the Creator is of course the god of their religion. The 'Which god?'debate rarely gets going. But in a practicalsense it's always been about the validity of the Bible. And, as I say the resurrection. If that is shown doubtful,let alone nonsense, the case for Christianity collapses. It doesn't matter that the believers can swallow the excuses 'Mary and Mary split up...Mary Magdelene didn't go into the tomb...There are angels in John (but no message, and later on anyway), then disciples could have gone to Galilee in between Jesus appearing to them that night and again for their 40 day scripture lesson before ascending.

But I reckon that anyone looking at that will see clearly that the stories self -destruct. I firmly believe that no -one with a Really open mind (not gullible or uncritical, which is what the term means in Theist apologetics) will fail to see it once it's been explained. That's why tbehind the tactics (Bible apologetics) is the strategy - getting people Faithful and making sure they never hear anything to make them doubt.

Deconverts struggle with doubt and question anyway, some who don't convert, too, and that's fine for them. But I reckon the questions can be answered by those who already saw the answers. It has to make for a faster pit-stop.

There are countless debates and millions of religious people who follow that same 'creator god of their religion' just do not believe in the resurrection, and so to throw doubt upon the resurrection collapses nothing.

As you say, above, people were kept from any doubts by the stake and various other kinds of deaths, and the bible was kept from all but the initiates for centuries...... the people had a priest to tell them what the bible said.

The most effective evidence against Christianity is the bible, with its other Jesus who authors dared not to remove, the barabba who led a riot, the Jesus who people loved to the end and to pardon, the Jesus who insisted upon swords, the Jesus who came not for peace but for war, the Jesus who discarded family for friends, the Jesus who loved his meat and wine (sometimes to excess), the Jesus who was perceived to be a magi............the Jesus who nobody dared to remove. Introduce that guy to Christianity and then listen to its howls, because it is not so easy to burn folks these days.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #43]

As you say, millions believe and millions will keep believing. We should be thankful that we can expressour doubts pretty freely (there are some places where one can't,without risking jail) and we just have to carry on.

[boatsnguitars]

Good comments, guys. I struggle to not become angry at Religion, in general.

It seems so patently obvious - as in overwhelmingly obvious, like the Sun exists - that Religion is create for and by Men to control the population in big or little ways. No, it's not always nefarious, but when someone makes up a rule then declares "Hey, it's not me saying it! It's this unimpeachable source that I believe exists and will torture you if you don't agree!", I find that criminal.

More and more I see Religion as a huge scam. All the low-life scum, televangelist preachers, sex predators, grifters, cultists, etc., have found a perfect organization from which to operate and thrive. I have some sympathy for the average, non-zealot religionist who simply wants to find a little peace and comfort, but I can't abide by the Church leaders. They have a book, why do they need more? Why do they need millions of men (mostly men) providing their own commentary on the Bible? Why the trillions spent on buildings and art, all with different rules?
All so a guy can live in luxury, while filling his neighbors heads with dreams of Eternal Life?

If there was a God, it would seem obvious that we'd all have access to this Being without prophets, Bibles, omens, relics, etc. We'd simply all know God and interact with him in the same way, and come to the same answers. It's absurd to claim we can' because of sin - God would be able to override it. After all, every Religionists claims this happens - for them.

I once argued:

Jesus is not the Perfect Teacher

1. A Perfect teacher would know how to reach each student so that they each learned the same lesson equally.
2. Not all people have learned the lessons from Jesus equally
3. Therefore, Jesus is not the Perfect Teacher.

The basic idea is that you can't blame the student for not learning, if the Teacher is perfect at teaching.

So, it's clear to me, that Christianity is wrong, and all other religions are basically the same.

It angers me because you see so many people defending it with 'clever' arguments, or obscure reaches, or bizarre claims, etc. The Ontological argument, Jesus's face in toast, the Shroud of Turin.... all of these are far from proof. Worse, they are the weakest arguments ever. I wouldn't use them to argue for the existence of the Sun, let alone a supposed Omnipresent, All-Loving God.

More and more I find myself agreeing with one thing Paul said: That Christians are truly the most pitiful people on Earth, right along with all the other Religionists. And the Clergy preys on these pitiful people, which makes them evil.

[oldbadger]

Good comments, guys. I struggle to not become angry at Religion, in general.

Where I live an open vote in our Parliament just has just supported an outright ban on praying outside abortion centres, even silently. Living in such a secular country does help to take the heat out of any anger that I might feel for religion.

I once argued:
Jesus is not the Perfect Teacher

Correct...... even his mates couldn't understand many of his 'teachings'.

So, it's clear to me, that Christianity is wrong, and all other religions are basically the same.

Absolutely. but I don't mind the communities that form around it as long as they are kind communities. Many are not.

I just watched a tv program about a murder trial in Ohio..... the jury convicted the man, passed a death sentence upon him and then they all prayed, the tv presenter was told. That kind of community would affect me for the worse, considerably for the worse.

More and more I find myself agreeing with one thing Paul said: That Christians are truly the most pitiful people on Earth, right along with all the other Religionists. And the Clergy preys on these pitiful people, which makes them evil.

Anybody who wastes a lot of their life preparing for an existence that isn't there is a person to be pitied.

[rstrats]

[Replying to Eloi in post #34]


the second day after 'these things' was Saturday, sabbath.

What would the first day after 'these things' be?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Eloi in post #34]


the second day after 'these things' was Saturday, sabbath.

What would the first day after 'these things' be?

The first 'after' does not compute. in a bicycle race the second place comes after the first. The First does not come after anything. Get your terms and concepts straight. However the First day in relation to 'these things' Cleophas was on about was the Friday. Saturday (Sabbath, when they rested) and Sunday was the Third day when Cleophas was referencing what had happened on the first day relevant to the things about Jesus, though not the first day of the Week, which was Sunday. since the Jewish calendar follows the events of the creations...or maybe the other way around.

It may be worth setting out the timing and events as there seems so much confusion and disagreement about this.

Thursday disciples arrange for scoffing the passover which implies that is the Last supper. Thus it ought to be the day of preparation when the lambs were killed - as confirmed Mark 14.12).
Friday (starting at evening). Gethsemane and arrest, Questioning in the Priests' house, Sanhedrin trial at dawn,

Still Friday, morning. trial by Pilate. Day of preparation for the Sabbath and the priests had not yet eaten the Passover (John) so maybe Passover was also on the Sabbath as that would be a 'Sabbath of Sabbaths' (Or I think that's what it's called) and ritually the time for Jesus to be the sacrifice, just as the lambs were sacrificed in the Temple.
Crucifixion, temporary darkness . Entombment in the last hours of Friday.
Saturday Sabbath, It appears that the tomb - guard was posted today, though one could argue that it was done on the Friday. evening
Sunday starting at twilight. The women roll up towards Dawn and find the tomb open. Appearances of Jesus (according to the various stories) begin right away, Matthew on the way to the disciples, John after Mary and the disciples had been to look at the tomb, Luke to Simion (not explained) and to Cleophas and Friends at Emmaeus and in the evening to the 'eleven' (Luke) and ten with Thomas absent (John). And good luck with all that.

Some puzzles should be obvious, not least which day was the Passover eaten? I had a long discussion here about whether the Priests could eat the Seder later on than the Thursday as in the Synoptics). I think the evidence is against it. I have never heard of this in Judaism, though I am no expert - but that is all Pharisee tradition and the Sadducees (so I hear) had a different calendar,. So I'm leaving that one 'Arguable'.

Dudes, don't tell me I don't listen; I keep thinking it over, even after the other fellow has run away shouting "I Win!".

[rstrats]

The first 'after' does not compute. in a bicycle race the second place comes after the first. The First does not come after anything.

That is a different construct. To be analogous, you'd have to say: In a bicycle race, the first lesser place award to come after the first place award is the second place award. If there is a second day which comes after - let's say Tuesday - then there has to be a first day which comes after Tuesday, i.e., the first day which comes after Tuesday is Wednesday. The second day which comes after Tuesday is Thursday.

[Eloi]

And again and again and again and again and again and again and ...

Jesus showed in Luke 13:32 what it means "the third day", and in Luke 24:21 we can see that the first day is the day when he was killed.

With the development of events since Jesus' death in the afternoon, to the visit of the women to the tomb early in the morning on the first day of the week, Sunday, we can see that Jesus was three days (not 72 hours) dead. If Jesus died Friday, the third day is Sunday at any hour.

Friday 3.00 pm: Jesus died and is sepulted before the holy day.
Saturday: Nobody can go to see the body cause is holy day.
Sunday, early in the morning: women go the first time to see the body.

Disregarding the supposed literalness of the prophetic expression related to Jonah and mentioned only once in the entire NT (Matt. 12:39,40), we can see that the phrase on the third day is mentioned several times with reference to when Jesus would be resurrected; some are: Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 27:63; Luke 24:7,46.

(...) what Jesus meant with the third day (...) :

Luke 13:32 And he said to them: “Go and tell that fox, ‘Look! I am casting out demons and accomplishing healing today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be finished.’

When Jesus appeared to some of his disciples the same day he was raised from the dead, they told him:

Luke 24:21 (...)
καὶ σὺν πᾶσιν τούτοις __ and besides all these things
τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει __ this third day is running
ἀφʼ οὗ ταῦτα ἐγένετο __ since these things occurred.

So, when 'those things occurred' was the first day. (...)