Three days /three nights and the Pharisees

[rstrats]

When responding to the Pharisees, why do you suppose the Messiah made the specific point that He would be in the "heart of the earth" for 3 days and 3 nights?

[boatsnguitars]

I dont know...often the bible repeats 3 times for emphasis, so maybe "three" was to prove emphatically that he was dead...

Why wasn't his death idiomatic? He could have been sleeping in a cave for 3 days and nights - "dead to the world".

All we have is the biblical narrative which presents Jesus death as very literal.


JW

Depends on how you interpret it:

The Christian Faith was born in the experience that we have come to call Easter. It was this Easter experience that invested Jesus with a sense of ultimacy. It caused his followers to regard his teaching as worthy of being preserved. It was the reason that Saint Paul could write, “if Christ has not been raised then your faith is in vain.” Clearly without Easter there would be no Christianity. That assertion hardly seems debatable. At this point I discover that I am at one with the most literal fundamentalists.

What is debatable, however, is the question of what the experience of Easter really was. Here the distance between the Christianity of biblical scholarship and the Christianity of the fundamentalists opens and begins to widen. Fundamentalists are quite sure of their truth. On Easter the crucified Jesus, who was laid in the grave as a deceased man on Good Friday, was by the mighty act of God, restored to life on Easter. He had thus broken the power of death for all people. If the body of Jesus was not physically restored to life, the fundamentalists claim, then Easter is fraudulent. There can be no compromise here. Those who waver on this foundational truth of Christianity have, according to this perspective, abandoned the essential core of their faith tradition. Well, my only comment on this would be to borrow the words from an old song and say, “It ain’t necessarily so!”

When one reads the New Testament in the order in which these books were written, a fascinating progression is revealed. Paul, for example, writing between the years 50 and 64 or some 20 to 34 years after the earthly life of Jesus came to an end, never describes the resurrection of Jesus as a physical body resuscitated after death. There is no hint in the Pauline corpus that one, who had died, later walked out of his grave clothes, emerged from the tomb and was seen by his disciples.

What Paul does suggest is that Easter meant that God had acted to reverse the verdict that the world had pronounced on Jesus by raising Jesus from death into God. It was, therefore, out of God in a transforming kind of heavenly vision that this Jesus then appeared to certain chosen witnesses. Paul enumerates these witnesses and, in a telling detail, says that this was the same Jesus that Paul himself had seen. No one suggests that Paul ever saw a resuscitated body. The Pauline corpus later says, “If you then have been raised with Christ, seek the things which are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.” Please note that the story of the Ascension had not been written when these Pauline words were formed. Paul did not envision the Resurrection as Jesus being restored to life in this world but as Jesus being raised into God. It was not an event in time but a transcendent and transforming truth.

Paul died, according to our best estimates, around the year 64 C.E. The first Gospel was not written until the early 70’s. Paul never had a chance to read the Easter story in any Gospel. The tragedy of later Christian history is that we read Paul through the lens of the Gospels. Thus we have both distorted Paul and also confused theology.

When Mark, the first Gospel, was written the Risen Christ never appears. The last time Jesus is seen comes when his deceased body is taken from the cross and laid in the tomb. Mark’s account of the Resurrection presents us with the narrative of mourning women confronting an empty tomb, meeting a messenger who tells them that Jesus has been raised and asking these women to convey to the disciples that Jesus will meet them in Galilee. Mark then concludes his Gospel with a picture of these women fleeing in fear, saying nothing to anyone (16:1-8). So abrupt was this ending that people began to write new endings to what they thought was Mark’s incomplete story. Two of those endings are actually reproduced in the King James Version of the Bible as verses 9-20. But thankfully, these later creations have been removed from the text of Mark in recent Bibles and placed into footnotes. The sure fact of New Testament scholarship is that Mark’s Gospel ended without the Risen Christ ever being seen by anyone.

Both Matthew, who wrote between 80-85, and Luke, who wrote between 88-92, had Mark to guide their compositions. Both changed, heightened and expanded Mark. It is fascinating to lift those changes into consciousness and to ask what was it that motivated Matthew and Luke to transform Mark’s narrative. Did they have new sources of information? Had the story grown over the years in the retelling?

The first thing to note is that Matthew changes Mark’s story about the women at the tomb. First, the messenger in Mark becomes a supernatural angel in Matthew’s story. Next Matthew says the women do see Jesus in the garden. They grasp him by the feet and worship him. This is the first time in Christian history that the Resurrection is presented as physical resuscitation. It occurs in the 9th decade of the Christian era. It should be noted that it took more than 50 years to begin to interpret the Easter experience as the resuscitated body of the deceased Jesus. When Matthew presents the story of the risen Jesus to the disciples, it is on a mountaintop in Galilee where he appears out of the sky armed with heavenly power. Recall once again that when Matthew wrote this narrative the story of Jesus’ ascension had not yet entered the tradition.

Luke follows Mark’s story line about the women at the tomb, stating that they do not see Jesus in the garden on Easter morning. Luke, however, has turned Mark’s messenger into two angelic beings. He has also transferred the locale of Easter to Jerusalem specifically denying Mark’s words spoken through the messenger that Jesus will meet them in Galilee. Luke has heightened dramatically the physicality of Jesus’ resuscitated body. In Luke, the resuscitated Jesus walks, talks, eats, teaches and interprets. He also appears and disappears at will. He invites the disciples to handle his flesh. He asserts that he is not a ghost. Finally in order to remove this physically resuscitated Jesus from the earth, Luke develops the story of Jesus’ Ascension.

Even in the Ascension narrative, however, Luke is not consistent. In the last chapter of his Gospel the Ascension takes place on Easter Sunday afternoon. In the first chapter of Acts, which Luke also writes, the Ascension takes place 40 days after Easter. Whereas the messenger in Mark, who becomes an angel in Matthew, directs the disciples to Galilee for a meeting with the risen Christ, Luke specifically denies any Galilean resurrection tradition. He orders the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they are endowed with power from on high. The narrative is clearly growing.

In John, the Fourth Gospel (95-100), the physicality of the Resurrection is even more enhanced. In the 20th chapter of this Gospel Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene in the garden and says to her, “Mary do not cling to me.” One cannot cling to something that is non-physical. Then John suggests that Jesus ascends immediately into heaven before appearing, presumably out of heaven, that night to the disciples, who are missing Thomas. Though Jesus appears able to enter an upper room in which the windows have been closed and the doors locked, he is once again portrayed as being quite physical. This physical quality is further enhanced a week later when Jesus makes a second appearance to the disciples, this time with Thomas present. It is in this narrative that Thomas is invited to touch the nail prints and to examine the place in his side into which the spear had been hurled. All of these appearances take place in Jerusalem.

Chapter 21 of John’s Gospel portrays a Galilean appearance much later in time after the disciples have actually returned to their fishing trade. Here Jesus directs them to a great catch of fish, 153 of them to be specific. Then he eats with them. Finally he restores Peter after his three-fold denial.

The Easter story appears to have grown rather dramatically over the years. Something happened after the crucifixion of Jesus that convinced the disciples that Jesus shared in the eternal life of God and was thus available to them as a living presence. This experience was so profound that the disciples, who at his arrest had fled in fear, were now reconstituted and empowered even to die for the truth of their vision. This experience had the power to force the Jewish disciples to redefine the God of the Jews so that Jesus could be seen as part of who God is. Finally this experience was so profound that it ultimately created, on the first day of the week, a new holy day that was quite different from the Sabbath, to enable Christians to mark this transforming moment with a liturgical act called “the breaking of bread.”

When these biblical data are assembled and examined closely, two things become clear. First something of enormous power gripped the disciples following the crucifixion that transformed their lives. Second, it was some fifty years before that transforming experience was interpreted as the resuscitation of a three days dead Jesus to the life of the world. Our conversation about the meaning of Easter must begin where these two realities meet.

SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/JohnShelbySpong

[JehovahsWitness]

Why wasn't his death idiomatic? He could have been sleeping in a cave for 3 days and nights - "dead to the world".

Depends on how you interpret it ...

True. But when it comes to the execution of Christ the gospel writers refer to both Roman and Jewish authorities which literally existed and specifically state Jesus was condemned to death before real historical figures, there seems no viable reason to presume his [Jesus] death (arguably refered to by both the Christian and secular sources) was being presented in the text as an idiomatic nap.

I would be interested in any biblical reference to support such an alternative reading.


JW

[boatsnguitars]

Why wasn't his death idiomatic? He could have been sleeping in a cave for 3 days and nights - "dead to the world".

Depends on how you interpret it ...

True. But when it comes to the execution of Christ the gospel writers refer to both Roman and Jewish authorities which literally existed and specifically state Jesus was condemned to death before real historical figures, there seems no viable reason to presume his [Jesus] death (arguably refered to by both the Christian and secular sources) was being presented in the text as an idiomatic nap.

I would be interested in any biblical reference to support such an alternative reading.


JW

I've attached a very complete explanation for the reading. While you fixate on the idea that the Bible is a complete book, that magically formed because that's what god wanted to tell you is not my problem. Reality is what it is - we all know the Bible was voted on by Church fathers years laters, with the stories trickling in over the decades after Paul's death.
You are welcome to pretend there is some other Energy at work, but no one else does.
Believe what you will, but one could read the Bible as literal truth and still come to the conclusion that the death and resurrection of Jesus was metaphorical and that one's soul lives with God forever, and that a literal resurrection is only a idiomatic vehicle the early writers used to make it more accessible.

Please accept that you alone don't have the monopoly on how to speak for God.

[JehovahsWitness]

Why wasn't his death idiomatic? He could have been sleeping in a cave for 3 days and nights - "dead to the world".

Depends on how you interpret it ...

True. But when it comes to the execution of Christ the gospel writers refer to both Roman and Jewish authorities which literally existed and specifically state Jesus was condemned to death before real historical figures, there seems no viable reason to presume his [Jesus] death (arguably refered to by both the Christian and secular sources) was being presented in the text as an idiomatic nap.

I would be interested in any biblical reference to support such an alternative reading.


JW

I've attached a very complete explanation for the reading. ...

I don't see a single scripture that supports an idiomatic reading of the death of Christ. May I remind you this is T&D and not an discission of whether or not not the bible canon is complete.

Would you like to try again?


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Why wasn't his death idiomatic? He could have been sleeping in a cave for 3 days and nights - "dead to the world".

Depends on how you interpret it ...

True. But when it comes to the execution of Christ the gospel writers refer to both Roman and Jewish authorities which literally existed and specifically state Jesus was condemned to death before real historical figures, there seems no viable reason to presume his [Jesus] death (arguably refered to by both the Christian and secular sources) was being presented in the text as an idiomatic nap.

I would be interested in any biblical reference to support such an alternative reading.


JW

I've attached a very complete explanation for the reading. ...

I don't see a single scripture in your post that supports an idiomatic reading of the death of Christ. Furthermore may I remind you this is T&D and not an discission of whether or not not the bible canon is complete.

Would you like to try again?


JW

[boatsnguitars]

Why wasn't his death idiomatic? He could have been sleeping in a cave for 3 days and nights - "dead to the world".

Depends on how you interpret it ...

True. But when it comes to the execution of Christ the gospel writers refer to both Roman and Jewish authorities which literally existed and specifically state Jesus was condemned to death before real historical figures, there seems no viable reason to presume his [Jesus] death (arguably refered to by both the Christian and secular sources) was being presented in the text as an idiomatic nap.

I would be interested in any biblical reference to support such an alternative reading.


JW

I've attached a very complete explanation for the reading. ...

I don't see a single scripture in your post that supports an idiomatic reading of the death of Christ. Furthermore may I remind you this is T&D and not an discission of whether or not not the bible canon is complete.

Would you like to try again?


JW

I am responding according to doctrine - just not your specific doctrine.

Bishop Shelby Spong is a Christian. He believes in Jesus and that Jesus died for our sins. He wrote the explanation for his belief and - I might add - he's actually studied the Bible, not just Jehovah Witness propaganda. He believes the Canon is complete. This is not about that discussion.


Perhaps you'd like to get off your high horse in assuming you are the only one to determine which Christian is interpreting the Bible properly?

[JehovahsWitness]

I am responding according to doctrine...

I don't care about your church doctrine . If a reading is unsupported by scripture it has no place in a debate forum. If you have bible passages to support your "doctrine" present them.

If you feel unable to quote scripture yourself you could copy paste an extract written by someone else (the Bishop of your choice) but at least one which deals with the point under discussions, namely: an idiomatic death of Christ.

In any case, again so far I see a second response but still no scripture; would you feel more comfortable over at C&A where actual knowledge of the contents of the bible is less important?


JW

[boatsnguitars]

I am responding according to doctrine...

I don't care about your church doctrine . If a reading is unsupported by scripture it has no place in a debate forum. If you have bible passages to support your "doctrine" present them.

you just contradicted yourself - or, why would I post doctrine if you don't care about it?

If you feel unable to quote scripture yourself you could copy paste an extract written by someone else (the Bishop of your choice) but at least one which deals with the point under discussions, namely: an idiomatic death of Christ.

In any case, again so far I see a second response but still no scripture; would you feel more comfortable over at C&A where actual knowledge of the contents of the bible is less important?


JW

This is a Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma debate sub-forum. I am not questioning the legitimacy of the Bible. If you are welcome to interpret some passages as idiomatic, like the Flood, or the Tower of Babel, or the mass rising of the dead from graves, or the Sun stopping in the sky - you must allow others to see idiom and metaphor within the Sacred Document that is the Bible. I am not questioning the authority of the Bible - you are by thinking that it says something it doesn't.

The purpose of this sub-forum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

It's perfectly acceptable to believe in the saving power of Jesus and still believe that much written after Paul is idiom, metaphor, etc. In fact, I'll remind you that Christianity started because of what Paul wrote - so why do you have an issue with it? The books after Paul simply weave a richer tapestry.

Again, between Paul and Mark - people were becoming followers of Jesus based on Pauline works. Before they knew anything about Mark and the story of the Rez. Or do you think this is not true? Do you think Paul had a copy of the Bible? do you believe he had the King James version or the NWT edition?


But, I may have found why you're upset:
https://faithfoundedonfact.com/worst-tr ... the-bible/

3. The New World Translation

The NWT was originally published in the early 1950s by the Tract Society and Watch Tower Bible.

And guess what? The organization behind this project is the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

But what’s wrong with Jehovah’s Witnesses, you might say?

Well, they deny one of the central tenets of the Christian faith -the Holy Trinity i.e. the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit as one God.

However – if that’s not enough to put you off, there are plenty more nails in the coffin of the New World Translation.

Here are the main issues of this dubious translation:

Any notion or mention of the Holy Trinity that’s originally found in The Bible is carefully reworded and twisted
The person and deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is misrepresented
4 of the 5 men behind this “translation” had no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, while the 5th one couldn’t pass a simple Hebrew test
Plenty of red flags already if you ask me (as if there weren’t enough already).

But there’s more.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have gone to great lengths to ensure that the NWT matches their doctrine by distorting the real meaning of certain profound verses from the Living Word of God.

Some great examples are Acts 20:28 and Colossians 1:17.

In the Acts example, we see that the NWT authors bent the part that says “which He hath purchased with His own blood” (as found in the KJV and NASB), while going for the more anti-Holy Trinity-friendly “which He purchased with the blood of His own Son”.

And in Colossians 1:17, the JW representatives try to falsely portray Jesus as a created being and not the Creator of all things.

The false New World Translation reminds me of 2 Peter 3:16:

“As he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (Emphasis added)

2 Peter 3:16:
Every few years, the NWT committee issues an update, and every few years, they make it more distorted.

But here’s a sign of the times:

Even though the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been at it for over 70 years, they’ve already been outdone in the race to the bottom by the two other bad Bible translations above.

Let’s pray that these people repent and turn their hearts to our one and only Savior – Jesus Christ.

Meanwhile, the NWT should stay on your list of Bibles to avoid.

Apparently, JW wants to use his own Bible and own interpretation - then scream at people who interpret it differently than he does.

[JehovahsWitness]

... I am not questioning the legitimacy of the Bible. ...

Very wise of you. Since the bible is authoritive in this subforum it is a reasonable request that you support your theory with scripture. It is not an unintersting hypothesis that the bible is presenting Christs death as an metaphor for sleep and was hoping for something substanial in support this interpretation. Since I see no scriptures at all in in relation to this, I see no reason to take your argument seriously.

Why wasn't his death idiomatic? He could have been sleeping in a cave for 3 days and nights - "dead to the world".

... you must allow others to see idiom and metaphor within the Sacred Document that is the Bible...

This is not the Vatican and I am not the Pope; its therefore not a question of "allowing" people to see something (people can of course see whatever they wish, regardless of whether it is reality there or not) but this is a debate forum and if someone chooses to propose an interpretation then they should at the very least be willing to support their position with the relevant scripture.

I can see absolutely no relevance in a critique of the New World Translation to the question under discussion.

JW

[Eddie Ramos]

Thursday afternoon: night 1
Friday afternoon: night 2
Saturday afternoon: night 3

Why do you consider "afternoon" to be night-time?

For clarity, I should have said evening, since evening and morning constitute a full day.