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.

[1213]

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.
...

No. The Bible shows that it was Friday (crucifixion) Saturday (Sabbath) when they rested....

Bible doesn't say it was Friday. 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.

On the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread to Yahweh. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day you shall have a holy convocation. You shall do no regular work. But you shall offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh seven days. In the seventh day is a holy convocation: you shall do no regular work.'"
Lev. 23:6-8

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. And Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover meal early in the evening, right in the beginning of 14 th day. Not all ate it at the same time, but it had to be eaten before morning.

Now on the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying to him, "Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?"
Matt. 26:17
Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats: and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month; and the whole as-sembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at evening.
Exod. 12:5-6
Now when evening had come, he was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples.
Matt. 26:20
They shall eat the flesh in that night, roasted with fire, and unleavened bread. They shall eat it with bitter herbs. Don't eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted with fire; with its head, its legs and its inner parts. You shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire. This is how you shall eat it: with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste: it is Yahweh's Passover.
Exod. 12:8-11

[TRANSPONDER]

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.
...

No. The Bible shows that it was Friday (crucifixion) Saturday (Sabbath) when they rested....

Bible doesn't say it was Friday. 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.

On the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread to Yahweh. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day you shall have a holy convocation. You shall do no regular work. But you shall offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh seven days. In the seventh day is a holy convocation: you shall do no regular work.'"
Lev. 23:6-8

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. And Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover meal early in the evening, right in the beginning of 14 th day. Not all ate it at the same time, but it had to be eaten before morning.

Now on the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying to him, "Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?"
Matt. 26:17
Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats: and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month; and the whole as-sembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at evening.
Exod. 12:5-6
Now when evening had come, he was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples.
Matt. 26:20
They shall eat the flesh in that night, roasted with fire, and unleavened bread. They shall eat it with bitter herbs. Don't eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted with fire; with its head, its legs and its inner parts. You shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire. This is how you shall eat it: with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste: it is Yahweh's Passover.
Exod. 12:8-11

The Bible doesn't say "John denies the angelic message" nor does it say "Luke denied doubting Thomas" but put the accounts together and that is what it says. Never mind irrelevant bits of Leviticus that prove nothing. The sequence of events in the gospels show clearly Sunday women go to the tomb, day before they rested as it was a Sabbath Saturday, Passover or not, and the day before was the crucifixion, which makes it Friday, the last supper of course being Thursday.
The account hints at no other day shoehorned in there and I don't even understand why it is so important to you that it should be otherwise.

[1213]

The Bible doesn't say "John denies the angelic message" nor does it say "Luke denied doubting Thomas" but put the accounts together and that is what it says. Never mind irrelevant bits of Leviticus that prove nothing. The sequence of events in the gospels show clearly Sunday women go to the tomb, day before they rested as it was a Sabbath Saturday, Passover or not, and the day before was the crucifixion, which makes it Friday, the last supper of course being Thursday.
The account hints at no other day shoehorned in there and I don't even understand why it is so important to you that it should be otherwise.

I understand that for you these don't matter, because apparently you don't care if people are lost.

You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Matt. 22:29

But, for me truth matters. The Leviticus tells how Passover was held. The accounts show it was not Friday, for example by telling 3 days. Other great hint is John saying the Shabbat was a particularly important, or special or great:

Since it was the Preparation Day, the Jews did not want to leave the bodies on the crosses during the Sabbath, for that was a particularly important Sabbath. So they asked Pilate to have the men's legs broken and the bodies[The Gk. lacks the bodies] removed.
John 19:31 (International standard)
...that the bodies not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for great was the day of that sabbath...
John 19:31 (Green's literal)
so that the bodies wouldn't remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a special one)
John 19:31 (WEB)

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

The Bible doesn't say "John denies the angelic message" nor does it say "Luke denied doubting Thomas" but put the accounts together and that is what it says. Never mind irrelevant bits of Leviticus that prove nothing. The sequence of events in the gospels show clearly Sunday women go to the tomb, day before they rested as it was a Sabbath Saturday, Passover or not, and the day before was the crucifixion, which makes it Friday, the last supper of course being Thursday.
The account hints at no other day shoehorned in there and I don't even understand why it is so important to you that it should be otherwise.

I understand that for you these don't matter, because apparently you don't care if people are lost.

You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Matt. 22:29

But, for me truth matters. The Leviticus tells how Passover was held. The accounts show it was not Friday, for example by telling 3 days. Other great hint is John saying the Shabbat was a particularly important, or special or great:

Since it was the Preparation Day, the Jews did not want to leave the bodies on the crosses during the Sabbath, for that was a particularly important Sabbath. So they asked Pilate to have the men's legs broken and the bodies[The Gk. lacks the bodies] removed.
John 19:31 (International standard)
...that the bodies not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for great was the day of that sabbath...
John 19:31 (Green's literal)
so that the bodies wouldn't remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a special one)
John 19:31 (WEB)

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.

I see. So it's rewriting the Bible with some excuses (Two Shabbats in a row? Where do you get that from?) just so Matthew isn't found wrong even in an excusable slip. Well, Have your fun in swallowing a camel of major errors and straining at a fly of a slip of the tongue that doesn't even matter. The reading of the text makes it clear that friday crucifixion, Saturday sabbath and sunday resurrection all s followed each other and no hint of an extra Sabbath day in there. I've seen you make stuff up before (the marys splitting up invention , for instance) and ignore what the Bible says (John has no angelic message), using the frankly discreditable swindle of 'The Bible doesn't say that'. The Bible doesn't say 'the last Supper was on Thruresday', but it does indicate the days followed.

day 1 crucifixion, Entombing evening start of day 2.
My Bible say the Sabbath was 'a high day' and not Two days. Where is n the Bible does it say two days? My understanding is a great or 'special' Sabbat is when a Passover falls on a Sabbath which may be what John thinks we have here.
Matthew helps by saying that the next day following tghe day of preparation, the tomb guard was sent along (long after Jesus could have been taken out of the tomb, anyway)
Luke says 'they rested the Sabbath day'. We can go translation - shopping if you like, but it looks like Luke makes day 2 one day, not two.
We then get the resurection day and no indication that
I know you want to maintain the faith, though i think you wave away camels and strain at gnats as i said. But for me and for anyone reasonable, the third day is what we got and it is not 'Three (full) days and doesn't even need to be. I need hardly go into the elitist sauce of your suggesting that your Textual petifogging is intended to guide those who are lost. From where I stand you lost it long ago on matters of Biblical exegesis. Never mind the saucy swipe of I know not the scriptures. You appear to not want to know what scripture actually says, when the strands are put together, which is less than you inventing stuff like the marys splitting up or a 2 day sabbath when the text says no such thing.

I have never heard either from Leviticus or out of it that the Passover feast coinciding with Sabbath or not) made it spread over two days. You might propose that the Saturday followed Passover, but where does it say so? The omission of any explanation but resting on the Sabbath and going to the tomb when it was past indicates one day before Sunday.

You can try to make a case for a two day Passover rather than just citing Leviticus without a scrap of explanation. We can look at the greek words, but no Bible i have seen says 'The Sabbath..which was two days, not the usual one day'. "The Bible does not say that" to use your own words.