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?

[Difflugia]

Bible doesn't say it was Friday.

Yes it does. In post-exilic Jewish literature, the day of Preparation always meant Friday. Always. All four gospels establish that one of the days was Friday and the other days can be extrapolated from that.

It is only a poor interpretation that doesn't take into account that there was also the Shabbat day of the feast of the unleavened bread, which also has a preparation day, which in this case was most likely Wednesday.

As opposed to a poor harmonization into which the text has been shoehorned?

Jesus was captured and killed on 14th day. The next day was a Shabbat day by Lev. 23:6-8 and it was no the same as weekly Shabbat.

How did you establish this? All three Synoptics say that Jesus ate the Passover the evening before he was arrested and that he was crucified the next day, which was Friday.

John changed the story so that Passover meal would have been eaten the day following Jesus' crucifixion, but he was still crucified on Friday. In John, Passover was on the Sabbath ("for that Sabbath was a high day," John 19:31).

[Difflugia]

But, for me truth matters.

Not as much as inerrancy, it seems.

The Leviticus tells how Passover was held.

Or how it should have been, anyway.

The accounts show it was not Friday, for example by telling 3 days.

Each account tells us when Friday is. How you reconcile the rest is up to you.

Other great hint is John saying the Shabbat was a particularly important, or special or great:

Yes. John changed the Passover from Thursday to Saturday.

That the Shabbat day was called great could mean also that there were actually 2 Shabbat days on a row, which is why it could maybe be so that Jesus died on Thursday.

It could mean that the leprechauns would return that day riding their unicorns. It probably doesn't, but it could. What it almost certainly means is that in John, the Passover was on the Sabbath of that week.

[benchwarmer]

Bible doesn't say Jesus died on Friday.

That doesn't alter the fact that it was Wednesday when Jesus died.

The Bible also doesn't say Jesus died on a Wednesday. Besides, when does what the Bible actually says matter to you? In previous exchanges you were happy to interpret what was actually written to your preferred view. We now see it happening here again. You are correct, the Bible doesn't directly say "Jesus died on Friday" just like it doesn't directly say "Jesus died on Wednesday". However, all the other things that it does say logically make Friday the correct day. Only by squinting really hard and torturing what's actually written can you massage it to mean Wednesday.

It seems you are willing to die on this pointless hill to keep inerrancy alive when it's not even required here. I guess it is enlightening for viewers though to watch the lengths some will go in order to start with a belief and then ignore any actual data that goes against it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Bible doesn't say it was Friday.

Yes it does. In post-exilic Jewish literature, the day of Preparation always meant Friday. Always. All four gospels establish that one of the days was Friday and the other days can be extrapolated from that.

It is only a poor interpretation that doesn't take into account that there was also the Shabbat day of the feast of the unleavened bread, which also has a preparation day, which in this case was most likely Wednesday.

As opposed to a poor harmonization into which the text has been shoehorned?

Jesus was captured and killed on 14th day. The next day was a Shabbat day by Lev. 23:6-8 and it was no the same as weekly Shabbat.

How did you establish this? All three Synoptics say that Jesus ate the Passover the evening before he was arrested and that he was crucified the next day, which was Friday.

John changed the story so that Passover meal would have been eaten the day following Jesus' crucifixion, but he was still crucified on Friday. In John, Passover was on the Sabbath ("for that Sabbath was a high day," John 19:31).

Because it is what the Bible says, with a bit of brainwork. Jesus sends his boys out to rent a room to hold Passover. That evening it is apparently done, though it has been noted it looks more like Eucharist than the Seder. But if you reject this as the Passover feast (as I do), you have invented your own dogma.

After they say a prayer, they go out to Gethsemane (of course IF any of the story was true, the Room would be at Lazarus's house at Bethany not in the city, or that's how i read it) and he is arrested on the next day post evening, grilled overnight, tried in the morning and executed the same day before sabbath. So if the crucifixion is Friday, the last supper is Thursday, not Wednesday. There is even less excuse to fiddle an extra day between the last supper and the arrest than between the crucifixion and the Sunday. I could understand the need if there was some doctrine that had to be saved, but Matthew's minor slip doesn't even matter. Why you have to rewrite the Bible over such trivia I have no idea.

[1213]

...However, all the other things that it does say logically make Friday the correct day...

The other things say for example, 3 days and nights in the grave, which makes the Friday wrong instantly.

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Matt. 12:40

[1213]

How did you establish this? All three Synoptics say that Jesus ate the Passover the evening before he was arrested and that he was crucified the next day, which was Friday.

John changed the story so that Passover meal would have been eaten the day following Jesus' crucifixion, but he was still crucified on Friday. In John, Passover was on the Sabbath ("for that Sabbath was a high day," John 19:31).

Firstly it would be good to understand, the Jewish days begins at 21:00, not 24:00. This means, the timing of the Passover went like this:

14th day of the month (Wednesday)
First hour of the night disciples of Jesus ate the meal.
After that they went to the garden where Jesus was captured.
Sixth hour of the night (about 24:00), Pilates speech and judgment.
After that Jews who had not yet eaten the Passover meal had still about 6 hours to eat the Passover meal, without braking the rules for it.
3th hour of the day (about 8:00) crucifixion.
6th hour of the day, darkness came.
9th hour of the day, Jesus died.
And the burial was at the same day, before night (before 21:00).

15th day was the Shabbat day of the feast of the unleavened bread. (Thursday)
Disciples did no work.

16th day, preparation day for the weekly Shabbat, disciples prepared the things that they would bring to the tomb.

17th day, the weekly Shabbat (Saturday)
No work that day.

18th, First day of the week, Sunday
disciples went to the tomb early in the morning.

John doesn't change the story so that Passover meal would have been eaten the day following Jesus' crucifixion. John doesn't say Passover was on the Sabbath, John 19:31 says:
Then, since it was Preparation, that the bodies not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for great was the day of that sabbath, the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and they be taken away.

[1213]

....Where is n the Bible does it say two days? ...

1) It says three days and nights in the grave.
2) It says there is the Shabbat day of the feast of the unleavened bread.

When those two facts are combined, it means Jesus died on Wednesday, if Bible is true entirely. Obviously you can cherry pick just the scriptures that fits to your beliefs, but that is the situation, if all scriptures are taken into account.

[TRANSPONDER]

Apart from that they say only that the women approached the tom at dawn of the first day of the week. I can only say that nobody says that there were two days between the day of the trial and crucifixion (preparation day) and the first day of the week, only Luke's implication that it was one day.

You have absolutely nothing to validate a second day of preparation after the day of resting, which when you think of it, makes no sense. if a day of preparation followed the crucifixion, you'd need a Shabbat and then a second day of preparation after that and another Shabbat, so two extra days, not one, which makes nonsense of whatever argument you make from Leviticus.

Give it up. You have invented a day (in fact two extra days) that the Bible gives no hint of ("The Bible does not say that" to use your own ploy) and it doesn't even matter.

....Where is n the Bible does it say two days? ...

1) It says three days and nights in the grave.
2) It says there is the Shabbat day of the feast of the unleavened bread.

When those two facts are combined, it means Jesus died on Wednesday, if Bible is true entirely. Obviously you can cherry pick just the scriptures that fits to your beliefs, but that is the situation, if all scriptures are taken into account.

The first is not a fact, it is a claim and is plainly a mistake. It is far from the only one and is relatively unimportant. There are worse ones in the resurrection which you tried to explain away and even ignored contradictory "Facts".

If the Bible is true entirely? Clearly it is not.

There is indeed a Shabbat (day of rest) after the day of preparation (day of trial and crucifixion). That day it says a tomb guard was appointed. It makes no sense to have a day for preparing oils and spices which is also a Shabbat (day of rest which has to follow the preparation day) so that prepartion (Luke hoped) can be in the last hours before the end of the crucifixion day. .


You have absolutely no evidence for some extra Shabbath day which would also rrequire its' own day of preparation, right? The obvious answer with the talk or a great or high Sabbath is that the Passover also fell on the saturday. Otherwise it is notrhing remarkable. Any passover is going to fall within a couple of days of the Saturday. You are creating an unworkable scenario out of nothing but a really trivial need to make matthew Bible -literally inerant, which no Bible critic, atheist or unbeleiver would bother about.

No angel at the tomb in John is more of a problem.

[benchwarmer]

...However, all the other things that it does say logically make Friday the correct day...

The other things say for example, 3 days and nights in the grave, which makes the Friday wrong instantly.

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Matt. 12:40

I never said there weren't contradictions and errors in the text as well. Congats on finding one. It seems you would rather ignore all the other text in favor of something the author of Matthew wrote (who famously likes to make mistakes around trying to make prophesy true).

This is a case of trying to make errors part of the 'truth' rather than just admit an author either made a mistake or made something up to push an idea. Readers can read the actual texts and decide for themselves which is more plausible.

It might also be instructive to learn about whale anatomy or fish/sea mammals in general. Hint, there is no breathable air chamber inside anything's stomach assuming a human could even end up there (maybe in a sperm whale). Most humans would die without oxygen after about 6 minutes. The world record for holding one's breath is around 25 mins. There's no way anyone is lasting 72 hours without modern breathing apparatus and full skin protection from the enzymes trying to consume them! Let me guess - god magic! i.e. if the Bible says it, it must be true (except when it conflicts with your theology of course).

[TRANSPONDER]

...However, all the other things that it does say logically make Friday the correct day...

The other things say for example, 3 days and nights in the grave, which makes the Friday wrong instantly.

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Matt. 12:40

I never said there weren't contradictions and errors in the text as well. Congats on finding one. It seems you would rather ignore all the other text in favor of something the author of Matthew wrote (who famously likes to make mistakes around trying to make prophesy true).

This is a case of trying to make errors part of the 'truth' rather than just admit an author either made a mistake or made something up to push an idea. Readers can read the actual texts and decide for themselves which is more plausible.

It might also be instructive to learn about whale anatomy or fish/sea mammals in general. Hint, there is no breathable air chamber inside anything's stomach assuming a human could even end up there (maybe in a sperm whale). Most humans would die without oxygen after about 6 minutes. The world record for holding one's breath is around 25 mins. There's no way anyone is lasting 72 hours without modern breathing apparatus and full skin protection from the enzymes trying to consume them! Let me guess - god magic! i.e. if the Bible says it, it must be true (except when it conflicts with your theology of course).

So far as I can see, Matthew added himself the bit about the sign of Jonah.

Mark 8 seems to be the version of this Matthew 12 passage

Mark 8.1 The Pharisees arrived and began arguing with Jesus. They tested him by demanding from him a sign from heaven. 12 He sighed deeply in his spirit and remarked, “Why do those living today[g] demand a sign? I tell all of you with certainty, no sign will be given to this generation.”

Nothing bout the sign of Jonah or three days. It looks like Matthew has added this on as a retrospective prophecy.

Matthew 12.38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40 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.

If anyone can find a better correlation than this let him do so, but it looks to me like Matthew simply added his retrospective prophecies onto the simple passage reported by Mark 'No sign'.

I don't think it is in Luke so it is 'M' Material - the gospel that Mark and Matthew used (with the other feeding of 4,000, the syrio- phoenecian woman and the cursing of the fig tree , and other stuff not found in Luke (1) Matthew is written later. Quite a bit later. If we couldn't guess it by the need to invent a nativity to wangle Jesus being born in Bethlehem where 2nd c AD John could only bluster about Jesus not being born in Bethlehem when he should have been, Matthew also lets slip that in his day, later on after these events, the Jews were claiming that the disciples stole the body.

The point being that I think Matthew is using a tradition in his day that Jonah symbolises resurrection (the Talpiot tomb graffiti appears to show this) . So, IF this is an amended gospel used by Mark and Matthew to have a request for a sign and Mark represents what the reply was (No Sign), the Matthew has evidently put this 3 day resurrection into the mouth of Jesus that was not there before.

What this means is, if there is value in the account of the crucifixion, it was from last thing Friday to (at best) before dawn Sunday. Just over one and a half days. Matthew took this third day claim (which is ok) and had to change it to three full days because the Johah resurrection tradition needed it to be three days, even though it wasn't.

(1) I suspect the passage from Psalms in aramaic on the cross. I think this was just a loud cry and Luke doesn't change the quote and add his own last words. I think there was just a loud cry and Luke added what he considered a suitable comment. All the differences are because they amended the Bible to suit themselves.