Posted: 3/12/2014 8:18:06 AM EDT
| Why is Good Friday claimed to be a Holy Day by Catholics as well as Protestants when it is not even mentioned in The Bible? |
|
Since no one seems to have any factual evidence, only emotional feelings. I will try and explain. Verses like John 19:31 say that it was the day before the High Sabbath. A Greco-Roman mindset would have the reader rationalize that the day before a Sabbath would automatically be referring to the 6th day of the week (Friday).
[John 19:30-31 NASB] 30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit. 31 Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Sabbath is the 7th day of the week, that is set apart from the other days, but it is also used for the Holy Days that were set apart by our Father in Heaven, and were referred to as High Sabbaths. This High Sabbath mentioned in John 19:31 is the day after Passover, when the Lamb was slain, called Hag Hamatzah (the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread), that occurs on the 15th of the first month, commonly called Nisan, and has nothing to do with Friday. There is no possible way for our Savior to have been crucified on a Friday, then resurrected on Sunday. It just doesn't add up. As He Himself said: Mat. 12:40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. |
|
Quoted:
Since no one seems to have any factual evidence, only emotional feelings. I will try and explain. Verses like John 19:31 say that it was the day before the High Sabbath. A Greco-Roman mindset would have the reader rationalize that the day before a Sabbath would automatically be referring to the 6th day of the week (Friday). [John 19:30-31 NASB] 30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit. 31 Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Sabbath is the 7th day of the week, that is set apart from the other days, but it is also used for the Holy Days that were set apart by our Father in Heaven, and were referred to as High Sabbaths. This High Sabbath mentioned in John 19:31 is the day after Passover, when the Lamb was slain, called Hag Hamatzah (the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread), that occurs on the 15th of the first month, commonly called Nisan, and has nothing to do with Friday. There is no possible way for our Savior to have been crucified on a Friday, then resurrected on Sunday. It just doesn't add up. As He Himself said: Mat. 12:40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. don't you mean NISAN 14 |
|
Quoted:
Why is Good Friday claimed to be a Holy Day by Catholics as well as Protestants when it is not even mentioned in The Bible? You mean the bible doesn't discuss the day that Christ was crucified? 
Quoted:
The Bible isn't mentioned in the Bible either. 
good point! |
|
Quoted:
You mean the bible doesn't discuss the day that Christ was crucified?
good point! Quoted:
Quoted:
Why is Good Friday claimed to be a Holy Day by Catholics as well as Protestants when it is not even mentioned in The Bible? You mean the bible doesn't discuss the day that Christ was crucified?
Quoted:
The Bible isn't mentioned in the Bible either.
good point! All through The Bible Passover is discussed as the day that Christ was crucified. Mine says Bible right on the front cover, which is the best place to start reading it from. |
|
according to the lunar calendar that God gave the Israelites, the year began in the spring with the new moon nearest the spring equinox; the equinox usually falling on March 21, the first day of spring. Nisan or Abib, the first month, began with the visible new moon nearest that date. The celebration of the Passover took place on Nisan fourteenth, by which time the moon was full. With the Israelites, as with the Genesis account of creation, the day began in the evening instead of at midnight. That is why both Jesus’ institution of the Memorial after sundown on Thursday evening and his death the next afternoon took place on the same day.
|
|
Quoted:
according to the lunar calendar that God gave the Israelites, the year began in the spring with the new moon nearest the spring equinox; the equinox usually falling on March 21, the first day of spring. Nisan or Abib, the first month, began with the visible new moon nearest that date. The celebration of the Passover took place on Nisan fourteenth, by which time the moon was full. With the Israelites, as with the Genesis account of creation, the day began in the evening instead of at midnight. That is why both Jesus’ institution of the Memorial after sundown on Thursday evening and his death the next afternoon took place on the same day. When the sun sets on the 14th, it becomes the 15th. Where do you get Thursday from? |
|
Quoted:
he was put to death on the 14 th I agree, and never said different. My reference to the 15th was that it was the High Sabbath (Unleavened Bread), that was the Sabbath mentioned in John 19:31, not a weekly Saturday Sabbath that followed a supposed Good Friday. John 19:31 Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Mat. 12:40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The day of preparation was the 14th, when The Messiah was slain, at the same time that the Passover lambs were being slain by those that didn't know, or believe that Yeshua was our promised, unblemished Lamb. |
|
also Mark 15:42-46
Now as it was already late in the afternoon, and since it was Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43?there came Joseph of Ar·i·ma·the'a, a reputable member of the Council, who also himself was waiting for the Kingdom of God. He took courage and went in before Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44?But Pilate wondered whether he could already be dead, and summoning the army officer, he asked him whether Jesus had already died. 45?So after making certain from the army officer, he granted the body to Joseph. 46?After he bought fine linen and took him down, he wrapped him in the fine linen and laid him in a tomb that was quarried out of rock; then he rolled a stone up to the entrance of the tomb. |
|
Quoted:
Its not bro. Good Friday is not a Holy Day of obligation for Roman Catholics. Quoted:
Quoted:
Why is Good Friday claimed to be a Holy Day by Catholics as well as Protestants when it is not even mentioned in The Bible? Its not bro. Good Friday is not a Holy Day of obligation for Roman Catholics. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church does not celebrate mass on Good Friday. It's the only day of the year where that is the case. |
|
What I was asking is, why is it referred to as Good Friday when clearly there are not three days and three nights between Friday and Sunday?
Mat. 12:40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. |
|
Scriptures indicate that it was on a Friday afternoon that Jesus expired. For this reason Catholics and Protestants refer to this day as “Good Friday.” John 19:31 proves that Jesus must have died on a Friday. How so? Because it mentions that the sabbath that began three hours after Jesus’ death (he died at about 3 p.m.) was not just an ordinary weekly sabbath that begins Friday 6 p.m. and extends to Saturday 6 p.m. Remember, too, that Biblical days begin at 6 p.m., not at midnight as we now reckon days. John says “the day of that sabbath was a great one.” In other words, two legal sabbath days fell together during the same twenty-four-hour period, hence a double sabbath. According to the Law of Moses Nisan 15 every year must be a sabbath day regardless of what day in the week it falls. (Lev. 23:6, 7) The situation is like that of a national Gentile holiday. If such a holiday should fall due on a Sunday, then the populace have two holidays falling together on the one twenty-four-hour day, and this happens only once every so many years. So it was A.D. 33 that Nisan 15 coincided with the weekly sabbath. This proves that Nisan 14 must have begun on a Thursday evening at 6 p.m. and extended to Friday at 6 p.m. to make it possible for Jesus’ death Friday afternoon.
|
|
Again, how do you reckon three days and three nights from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning? I know that a new day starts at sundown, and that it was speaking of a High Shabbat. That wasn't the question.
Mat. 12:40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. |
|
Quoted:
In fact, the Roman Catholic Church does not celebrate mass on Good Friday. It's the only day of the year where that is the case. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why is Good Friday claimed to be a Holy Day by Catholics as well as Protestants when it is not even mentioned in The Bible? Its not bro. Good Friday is not a Holy Day of obligation for Roman Catholics. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church does not celebrate mass on Good Friday. It's the only day of the year where that is the case. +1 Common practice is to replace the Mass with the Stations of the Cross. |
|
Before I go into any more detail. What is the significance of your question? Are you stating that the time frame does not fit? Are you implying that Easter is a Pagan invention? Not sure where you are going with this, sorry for my ignorance, but I'm trying to understand your question a little better.
Pax |
|
Quoted:
Before I go into any more detail. What is the significance of your question? Are you stating that the time frame does not fit? Are you implying that Easter is a Pagan invention? Not sure where you are going with this, sorry for my ignorance, but I'm trying to understand your question a little better. Pax The old "Easter comes from a Germanic pagan tradition, spring goddess Eastre", which overlooks the terms for Easter in Romance languages. |
|
I hope this clears up the misunderstanding or at least gives you something to think about.
Many people think that Jesus Christ was crucified on a Wednesday (or sometimes Thursday), in accord with the "three days and nights" of Jonah's stay in the fish's belly, or that it was not possible for Jesus to be crucified on a Friday. Orthodox Christianity has always held that Jesus was crucified and died on a Friday afternoon (hence, Good Friday), and rose from the dead in the very early morning on the following Sunday (hence the Christian day of worship and Easter Sunday). The reason for this is as follows: "Three days and three nights" is simply Hebrew idiom. The phrase "one day and one night" meant a day, even when only a part of a day was indicated. We see this, e.g., in 1 Sam 30:12-13 (cf. Gen 42:17-18). We know that Jesus was crucified on a Friday because Scripture tells us that the Sabbath (Saturday) as approaching (e.g., Mt 27:62, Mk 15:42, Lk 23:54, Jn 19:31 - the "day of preparation" is Friday, the day before the Sabbath: Saturday, and the Sabbath was considered to begin on sundown on Friday, as with Jews to this day). We also know from the biblical data that the discovery of His Resurrection was on a Sunday (e.g., Mk 16:1-2-,9, Mt 28:1, Lk 24:1, Jn 20:1). And we know that "three days and three nights" (Mt 12:40) is synonymous in the Hebrew mind and the Bible with "after three days" ((Mk 8:31) and "on the third day" (Mt 16:21, 1 Cor 15:4). Most references to the Resurrection say that it happened on the third day. In John 2:19-22, Jesus said that He would be raised up in three days (not on the fourth day). It would be like saying, "This is the third day I've been working on painting this room." I could have started painting late Friday and made this remark on early Sunday. If I complete the task on Sunday, then the chronology would be just as Jesus' Resurrection was. The only difference is the Hebrew idiom "three days and three nights" which was not intended in the hyper-literal sense as we might mistakenly interpret it today. In fact, to say that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday or Thursday afternoon (apart from the biblical difficulties of this assertion) will not solve this problem for those who wish to interpret hyper-literally without taking into account idiomatic and non-literal, non-"scientific" expression. The only way to get three literal 24-hour days would be for Jesus to rise at the same time He was crucified, and then (technically) He would be rising at the beginning of a fourth 24-hour day, whereas the Bible says this happened on the "third" day. But He died at about 3 PM (Mt 27:46, Lk 23:44-46: "the ninth hour" is 3 PM, because it was figured by the Jews from 6 AM). So a literal "three 24-hour day" interpretation of a Wednesday crucifixion would have Jesus rising at Saturday at 3 PM, and a Thursday crucifixion would have a Sunday, 3 PM Resurrection (or the discovery of same, at any rate). The Bible, however, has the disciples discovering that the Lord had risen early on Sunday morning (Lk 23:56: they rested on the Sabbath; Lk 24:1: at "early dawn, they went to the tomb"); so early, in Mary Magdalene's case, that it was still dark (Jn 20:1). The understanding of idiom explains all this. For both the ancient Jews (6 PM to 6 PM days) and Romans (who reckoned days from midnight to midnight), the way to refer to three separate 24-hour days (in whole or in part) was to say "days and nights." We speak similarly in English idiom - just without adding the "nights" part. For example, we will say that we are off for a long weekend vacation, of "three days of fun" (Friday through Sunday or Saturday through Monday). But it is understood that this is not three full 24-hour days. Chances are we will depart part way through the first day and return before the third day ends. So for a Saturday through Monday vacation, if we leave at 8 AM on Saturday and return at 10 PM on Monday night, literally that is less than three full days (it would be two 24-hour days and 14 more hours: ten short of three full days). Yet we speak of a "three-day vacation" and that we returned "after three days" or "on the third day." A literal "three 24-hour day trip" would end at 8 AM on Tuesday. Such descriptions are understood, then, as non-literal. The ancient Jews and Romans simply added the clause "and nights" to such utterances, but understood them in the same way, as referring to any part of a whole 24-hour day. Thus the "problem" or so-called "biblical contradiction" vanishes. I hope this helps if not we can continue the discussion. Keep in mind when reading the scripture it must be read in context, for the audience in which it was intended, and through the lens of a first century jew or christian. If one reads scripture with a 21st century mindset they do violence to the text. We do not learn about the Word by reading. The Apostles and their successors, the Bishops were commanded to preach, teach and Baptize as commanded by Our Lord. They did not go around passing out the bible to christians. There weren't any and Christ never commanded the apostles to compile a book to evangelize. He gave us a Church. The scripture is not our authority, it is The Church. There are over 20,000 different Protestant denominations all reading the same bible, the same verse and giving 20,000 different interpretations. Here is my question to the person who holds to sola scriptura. Is it biblical? Plausible? Probable? Reasonable and Logical? None of those questions can be answered in the affirmative, if one wants to remain credible and intellectually honest. The continuous splintering of Protestant denominations described above demonstrates the futility of sola scriptura The scripture demonstrates this with even more clarity. Below is one example. Acts 8 26-40 "Then Simon answering, said: Pray you for me to the Lord, that none of these things which you have spoken may come upon me. [25] And they indeed having testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel to many countries of the Samaritans. [26] Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise, go towards the south, to the way that goeth down from Jerusalem into Gaza: this is desert. [27] And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. [28] And he was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. [29] And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. [30] And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? [31] Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. [32] And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth. [33] In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth? [34] And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man? [35] Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus. [36] And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized? [37] And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. [38] And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him. [39] And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more. And he went on his way rejoicing. [40] But Philip was found in Azotus; and passing through, he preached the gospel to all the cities, till he came to Caesarea." Let's consider a few points from the text. Phillip is preaching the gospel to spread and teach the word. Next St. Luke gives us some interesting details in this passage and since the scriptures are God breathed everything has meaning. The meaning is often lost when we come to the scripture with our pre conceived doctrine, and read it through that lens or bias. Notice a Ethiopian eunuch is reading the scriptures. The literacy rate in the first century was less than ten percent. Here is a man of pedigree and high education. He was the treasurer for the queen of Ethiopia. So he was obviously a man of character and high personal integrity. We can also place him as very cerebral, good with numbers, and above all a man of great prudence. That he had come to Jerusalem “to adore” the God of his fathers places him as a devout soul and highly familiar with the Scriptures of the Jews. Such Scriptural knowledge would have most certainly been with his people since the days of the Queen of Sheba. The very fact that he had a Biblical scroll in his possession more than proves this fact to our satisfaction. It is also quite certain that the common man would not have such an item as his possession or even under his care. So we can confirm quite easily from this passage that this is a man of wealth, education, and great wisdom we are reading about. According to Protestants the bible is an easy-to-understand book. And yet we have a curious question coming from such a man in response to the question asked him by St. Philip an uneducated fisherman: "And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him." (Acts 8:30, 31) So here is a man who is educated and wise that has the humility to cooperate with the grace he is being given. Here is a man who is trained to answer with an “I can” when asked by his monarch to do a task. And yet before the messenger of the Monarch of Heaven he humbly recognizes his utter inability to understand. His honesty and transparency before God will be instrumental in not only his own enlightenment, but that of his whole nation. But his humility doesn’t stop there in it’s efficacy. The Holy Ghost saw fit by the hand of St. Luke in Acts to include this narrative for our instruction as well. I do not pretend to exhaust the sublime teaching that the Holy Ghost would have us learn from this passage, I do think we can all put to rest a pernicious error that has scourged the earth for almost five centuries: Sola Scriptura. Notice that the Eunuch did not say, “How can I unless God shows me.” No. We must remember that this is a man who understands well the history of Israel. Whether Adam or Noah or Abraham or Moses or David or Elias, throughout history God had chosen a man to use as a priest or judge or lawgiver or prophet, namely as a messenger, with which to speak to His people. The Eunuch wasn’t looking for an audible voice from Heaven. To do so would logically be to presume to be God’s anointed messenger. Any thought that God would choose to speak audibly to everyman was unthinkable. God had not established this mode of communication with man from the beginning. No. Starting with the first man who was a priest with relation to his wife, God had established an ordered hierarchy among men. All men were not created equal in role, only in soul. And thus we read the Eunuch asking “how can I, unless some man shew me?” Since the Protestant revolt many have been taught to reject authority. The sin of pride is always before us but we see here a man who is very educated, and has a command of history. The average adult reading and comprehension today in the U.S. is on a seventh grade level. History is non-existent and yet we refer to ourselves as "enlightened." The ability to say, "I can't" with humility, is the difference between the more than capable Ethiopian, and today's prideful christian who wants to reject the very teaching of the text in order to pound a square peg into a round hole. The Bible is not written as a vast catechism of moral teachings clearly teaching in detail and in a systematic fashion every subject concerning faith and morals that could ever arise in the history of the world. The Bible is a collection of books that are indeed inspired and most certainly without any error in everything the books of Scripture address whether in faith and morals or in history or science. But the thing Protestants deny is the one thing that humility demands that we affirm: namely that the Bible is not designed to be exclusive and sufficient. Therefore the Bible’s meaning must be taught, as in all previous ages, by a man. The Ethiopian Eunuch understood this well. Once one wisely humbles himself. As a result he is enlightened with the gift of understanding. Those who follow after his example are enlightened and find life. The second man is puffed up with pride, the serpent enters in and he is darkened. Those who follow him walk in darkness and are separated from the light. This is only one example of many, that St. Luke and the rest of the apostles, continuously use to demonstrate, it is The Church and not the Bible that transmits The Truth. 1 Timothy 3-15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Pax |
|
Why do you think that 1 Sam 30:12-13 & Gen 42:17-18 were not speaking of three days? Yom (day in Hebrew) is a literal 24 hour period.
John 19:31 wasn't speaking of a weekly 7th day Sabbath, but a high Sabbath, specifically hag hamatzah, the feast of unleavened bread. |
|
Because we are dealing with Jewish idioms. Would you like some examples? Keep in mind two things, the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. And it's not a matter of "either or" but "both and" when we approach the scripture we must read it in light of jewish sensibilities.
1 Samuel 30:12-13 -- an Egyptian who is brought to David is said to have not eaten "for three days and three nights" (vs. 12). Does this mean he stopped eating exactly 72 hours ago? No, since the man replies his master abandoned him, he became ill, and presumably had no food at that point, which he says happened "THREE DAYS AGO." Again, counting the days inclusively we have a period of time less than 72 hours. Genesis 42:17-18 -- Joseph puts his brothers in prison "FOR THREE DAYS" and speaks to them that they might be released "ON the third day" -- an equivalent phrase (as above) meaning the days are counted inclusively and this is a period of time less than 72 hours. "Three days and three nights" (Matthew 12:40) should be understood "inclusively" as PARTS of three days as the Jews reckoned time, and we should not force the text into meaning "exactly 72 hours" or anything else that is unsupportable by any evidence. For more OT examples of "inclusive reckoning" If you force the text you do violence to the meaning. Here are two more O.T. examples. 2 Chronicles 10:5,12 -- King Rehoboam tells the Israelites: "Come back to me IN THREE DAYS" (vs. 5). An equivalent phrase according to verse 12 meaning "THREE DAYS LATER" -- taking the three days inclusively. Esther 4:16-5:1 -- Esther tells the Jews in Susa to fast: "Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king..." (NIV) Did she mean they must fast for exactly 72 hours? Definitely not, since Esther puts on her royal robes and goes to the king's palace to enjoy the feast set for them "ON the third day" (5:1ff). And so on.... May I ask which faith background you belong to, Seventh Day Adventist? Pax, Tarpeian |
|
Yom=Hebrew
Does not always mean a literal 24 hour day. The 'catch all' meaning of the word 'yom' is 'time period' The precise meaning of yom in tanach has 4 meanings depending on the context. Either Yom as in daylight (12 hours) Yom as a single day (24 hours) Yom as a year or two (As used in shmuel and Yehoshua) Yom can be an indefinite amount of time, such as the word 'b'yom meaning 'when, or the phrase 'Ad hayom hazeh' (until this day) Pax, Tarpeian |
|
Quoted:
Because we are dealing with Jewish idioms. Would you like some examples? Keep in mind two things, the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. And it's not a matter of "either or" but "both and" when we approach the scripture we must read it in light of jewish sensibilities. 1 Samuel 30:12-13 -- an Egyptian who is brought to David is said to have not eaten "for three days and three nights" (vs. 12). Does this mean he stopped eating exactly 72 hours ago? No, since the man replies his master abandoned him, he became ill, and presumably had no food at that point, which he says happened "THREE DAYS AGO." Again, counting the days inclusively we have a period of time less than 72 hours. Genesis 42:17-18 -- Joseph puts his brothers in prison "FOR THREE DAYS" and speaks to them that they might be released "ON the third day" -- an equivalent phrase (as above) meaning the days are counted inclusively and this is a period of time less than 72 hours. "Three days and three nights" (Matthew 12:40) should be understood "inclusively" as PARTS of three days as the Jews reckoned time, and we should not force the text into meaning "exactly 72 hours" or anything else that is unsupportable by any evidence. For more OT examples of "inclusive reckoning" If you force the text you do violence to the meaning. Here are two more O.T. examples. 2 Chronicles 10:5,12 -- King Rehoboam tells the Israelites: "Come back to me IN THREE DAYS" (vs. 5). An equivalent phrase according to verse 12 meaning "THREE DAYS LATER" -- taking the three days inclusively. Esther 4:16-5:1 -- Esther tells the Jews in Susa to fast: "Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king..." (NIV) Did she mean they must fast for exactly 72 hours? Definitely not, since Esther puts on her royal robes and goes to the king's palace to enjoy the feast set for them "ON the third day" (5:1ff). And so on.... May I ask which faith background you belong to, Seventh Day Adventist? Pax, Tarpeian I agree with your first paragraph 100%, but after that, I think that you are twisting Scripture to fit your dogma. Kind of like the man that shoots an arrow into a tree, then draws the target around the arrow. No, I am not a 7th Day Adventist. I am a follower of Yeshua. |
|
Tomorrow evening is Passover. We should remember our Messiah like He said, not from man made traditions.
Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer: Luke 22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. Luke 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: Luke 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. |