The Crucifixion of Jesus and it's Relation to Eschatology

That's interesting! The Revelation was given to John after the death and resurrection of Jesus - so does the information that aligns with the book of Daniel mean something completely different? Trying to understand how that would fit in?

There is a slight problem with silentknight's theory, the age a when a man could enter into priestly service began at 25 not 30, this is directed to the Sons of Aaron only, these are those who performed the work in the Tent of meeting, this of course relates to the Tabernacle not the Temple.

This passage may lend to the confusion

This command regards only the descendants of Kohath, who is one of the sons of Levi. 
This is also true of the Gershonites and the Merarites:



There is no explanation as to why these in particular began their service later, perhaps it may have been because their job was so physical, they started when their bodies were more mature and for this same reason they served a shorter duration, but I am just guessing.

Furthermore, and more importantly, the age of service completely changed when there was no longer a need for a portable tabernacle

It is also very clear that after the Tabernacle was no longer needed and Solomon's temple was built that the service of the priests fell to the sons of Aaron, the descendants of his sons Eleazar and Ithamar (see 1 Chronicles 24) divided into 24 family divisions.


So when Christ lived the age a man entered into service was 20 years old. 

EDITED BY MODERATOR:  I edited this to ensure truth of the matter. Although it is my opinion, it is given without intent to deceive. The user was requested to leave due to his methods, not his arguments. Bringing disciplinary matters to sway public opinion after the fact, is an example of the unethical methods used for purposes of fomenting trouble, rather than acting in humility. Biblically, we are not called to bring our disagreements to the public, but to address matters with the person with whom we disagree, and to request intercession by leadership. If all this fails, we are to act charitably towards that person and forgive them their trespasses. Since this issue has been brought publicly, it must now (sadly) be addressed publicly, to the embarrassment of those who should rightly be embarrassed. I apologize to the users of this forum who must now endure this public display.

If requested by senior moderators or admin, I will return this post to its original state, having marked my changes with this font.

Note up front: This is not all my work and I had help putting it together - but it does express my thoughts and feelings.  This will be my last post, because the moderators have asked me to leave.  After they first said they were sad I left, now they want to leave and have not given me any reason.  Just asking telling me to delete my account voluntarily and go quietly.  

disciple4life ,

I have taken this to you privately, I have gone to leadership - they kicked me out asked me to leave. So now, I’m bringing this into the public. It is wrong of you to be so condescending toward other people’s beliefs. It violates rule #3 and it violates christian brotherhood. Furthermore, it violates the very stance that you posit in your own posts. You are saying one thing about being all open to ideas, while at the same time calling those ideas fantasies. You go farther and equate those belief’s with catholic tradition, false biblical interpretation, and myths. Even when people offer other options, you comment and then dismiss them. You continue repeating and repeating your position as if saying it often will change our minds. You continue to use information as “proof” that you admit may not even be correct. But you still list it. You say you don’t want to use your belief to beat people over the head, but you do just that. Adding a disclaimer to the top of your post on how you are a listener and learner does not justify the contents of the post.

Please review your post - which I see others have already liked - and see how everything I said above is true. Sure in this post you did not use the word myth, that was another post, but you used other ways to dismiss the validity of other people’s beliefs. There is a big difference between presenting arguments against positions and calling someone’s position a myth, or only a traditional belief, or “[defying] Biblical Interpretation and common sense.“ Now you are equating believing in Elvis as a witness is the same as believing in a Friday crucifixion. What new did you add to this thread? You simply brought the hammer down again.

It is clear that you and the leadership of this forum are not seeing things this way, and others, liking your posts are also not seeing things this way. So I hold the possibility that I am alone in my observations, but that does not make me wrong - and I would hope that someone would stand for truth and love and simply point this out to you other than myself. I guess SK said something a few posts ago, but that went ignored and now you just did the same thing as before his post.

To make matters worse, you then present a case of proving that scripture does not support Elvis as a witness, but your proof did not actually prove anything. You are using this as an example of how using scripture will show us that Elvis can’t be a witness - but the scripture you used does not prove that.





“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.
And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”
(Malachi 4:5)
Before we explore the Elvis Presley option, we have to address what scripture already says.



1 - this scripture may or may not be talking about the two witnesses

2 - this scripture only identifies 1 person, not two so the other person could still be Elvis

3 - John the baptist also came in the spirit of Elijah and so there could be a coming in the spirit of Elijah, through another person - even Elvis



So you use this example as a way to prove something and then just let it sit as if it really proved something. This violates the very hermenutic that you keep accusing others of violating. You are reading into the scripture something that is not there.






Let’s take on the 3 days and 3 nights right off the bat. You use the phrase “Christ’s own words” to try to add weight to the argument. But don’t we believe the whole bible is inspired by the same God? So this is a logic trick that fails the test. It is all the word of God. But if you want to use that as power then Christ also said he would be raised on “the third day.” He said this 6 times! Not one time. He only said the 3 days and 3 nights things once. I agree we can’t just dismiss it because he only said it once, but I’ll come back to that. Scripture then says at least another 6 times that Jesus was raised the third day. Scripture then also has several allegories that shows a third day event or rescue.

The preponderance of scriptural evidence says that Jesus was raised on the third day. So what does scripture say, “the third day” means?

Scripturally, it becomes clear that a part of a day is counted in as a day. Here are some examples:

And he put them all together into ward three days. And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; for I fear God: (Gen 42:17,18)

Joseph’s brothers were in prison for “three days” but were released on “the third day.”

And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.  (17) And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. (Gen 7:12,17)

Was it 40 days and 40 nights? Or 40 days? They mean the same thing. You actually use this as one of your "proofs", but these verses demonstate that your proof actually proves the opposite. To the jew reading these things, they mean the same thing.

(4:16)  Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.
(5:1)  Now it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king's house, over against the king's house: and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the gate of the house. (Est 4:16, 5:1)

Queen Esther went before the king on “the third day”, even though she asked her people to not eat “for three days, night or day”

Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. (Matt. 27:62-64)

Here we have yet another phrase “after three days”, but it is clear that the pharisees saw that as equivalent to the third day because they only needed the sepulcher to be sure until “the third day.” They did not say, he said 3 days and 3 nights so we should guard the tomb until the fourth day.

(5) And he said unto them, Depart yet "for three days", then come again to me. And the people departed.
(12) So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam "the third day", as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again *the third day*. (I kings 12:5,12)

The king tells the people to depart for three days, but they return on the third day, not on the fourth.

All the scripture that say Jesus raised on the third day would have to be changed to fourth day to match the one verse that says three days and three nights. But I have shown that the bibilical interpretation of three days and three nights is inclusive and means, on the third day.

Furthermore, there is strong allegorical precidence in scripture that Jesus would / should be raised on the third day:

- Isaac was delivered from being sacrificed on the “third day” (Gen. 22:9)
- Joseph released his brothers on the third day (Gen. 42:17-18)
- God came down to meet Moses on Mount Sinai on the “third day” (Exod. 19:11)
- When Joshua rallied the people to enter the promised land, he said the conquest would begin in “three days” (Josh. 1:11; 3:2)
- After Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days, he was delivered (Jonah 1:17)
- In Hosea, the people said, “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up” (Hos. 6:2)
- Hezekiah, the king of Judah, was healed from his sickness on the third day (2 Kgs. 20:5-6)
- Esther successfully interceded for the Jews on the “third day” (Esth. 4:16)

3 days and 3 nights
I have already shown how scripture verifies that 3 days and nights can mean on the third day. But also, What does Jesus say about 3 days and 3 nights. That he will be in the "heart of the earth." What does that mean? According to the hermenutic that you want everyone else to follow, you cannot add to scripture your own personal interpretation. So, you cannot say, absolutely that it means in the grave. Did it start when he was put in the grave? Cause he was not even put in a grave, but a tomb - above ground, likely. Did it start when he died? Did it start when he was whipped? Did it start when he was arrested? Did it start when he was praying "not my will but yours?" Did it start when he broke bread and said, "This is my body?" Did it start when Judas arranged to betray him?

Also, does this connect?

“And on that day,” declares the Lord GOD, “I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight.” (Amos 8:8–9)
“It was now about the sixth hour (noon), and there was darkness over the whole Earth until the ninth hour (3pm), while the sun’s light failed.”  (Luke 23:44,45)
God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” (Gen 1:5)

Even if one can't see the logic of the many, many examples of third day - this set of verses would allow for a extra night to be added in the middle of the day. Thus confounding the "wise."

Now before one says, Amos 8 is not talking about when Jesus died. How do you know? Tradition? Could it be talking about more than one thing like so many other passages?

The point is simple - to dismiss a Friday crusifiction based on 3 days and 3 nights mentioned one time is to ignore the weight of scripture demonstrating the third day. To then tell others they believe a myth or catholic tradition is inappropriate and not conducive to civil dialogue.



1. You are using a source the denies the diety of Christ as evidence of truth. Sure, you say we won't base doctrine on it. But you are using it to call other people foolish. Either it is true or not. If not, then stop using it. But even if it is true....
2. SK demonstrated an even better explanation for what happened then the crusifixtion does. SK's baptism on the day of atonement perfectly aligns with this Day of Atonment event. It might or might not be provable, but it is plausible and therefore should be just as credible as your hostile witness.
3. If you really want a hostile witness, why not take one from the scripture so that we can know it is true?

Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. (Matt 27:62-64)

Clearly, these pharisees were hostile toward Jesus - yet they understood the third day to be non contradictory to three days and three nights. They did not ask for the guard to be placed until the fourth day. It would have to be the fourth day if he was literally in the grave for three days and three nights.

There is a very simple scenario that is the simplest reading of scripture here. There is no need to complicate it.
Jesus died, but he had been on the cross for 6 hours already. People knew he was going to die. So they might have already been preparing for that. They might have been going out and getting spices, lining up the tomb, etc. They also had passover and the sabbath to deal with. But not everything had to happen after he died. Also, some of the men invovled where rich. They may have already had spices in storage. The scenario in the gospels, in a simple reading, is:

- Jesus died
- Joseph arranged to take his body
- Nicodemius brought spices
- They wrapped his body with linen and spices
- They started to run out of time because the Sabbath was approaching
- They put him in the tomb
- After the sabbath - early on Sunday morning, they came to finish the job and annoint him.
- But he had risen!

Why over complicate that. There is a phrase that says the women, had bought spices. So maybe that is throwing someone off. But the tense of that sentence is ambigous and could be interpretted two different ways. I certainly wouldn't say that to see it differently "defies common sense." But think about it. If they bought the spices after the Sabbath, why would they not have annointed him then? According to your schedule, they bought spices during the day on Friday. They had all morning and afternoon until the weekly Sabbath started. Why wait unitl Sunday - effectively two days later? That, in my opinion, makes much less sense. Somehow they had purchased some spices, maybe even from Nicodemis who had the other spices. We don't know, but this, in no way, proves anything about what day of the week it was. And if it does prove something, it would prove that there wasn't much time between Sunday and the "first" Sabbath. Making it more likely there was only one day of Sabbaths.



Well, I don't know, but if the first day of Unleavened bread fell on the weekly Sabbath, would they refer to that day as "the sabbaths"?
Also, the only mention of the preparation for a sabbath is in scripture is defined as the 6th day (Ex. 16:22) and did you know that even in modern greek, the word for Preparation day means Friday? Also, there is a distinction between no servile work and no work. Only the weekly Sabbath and the Day of Atonement required a preparation day.

"...the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work..." (Exodus 20:10)
"Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein..." (Leviticus 23:3)

According to scripture, no manner of work is to be performed upon the weekly Sabbath.

But for the Feast of Unleavens (1st and 7th days), we find:

"In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein....in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein." (Leviticus 23:7,8)

What is the difference of "no work" and "no servile work"? What does the term "servile work" mean?

Also speaking of the Feast of Unleavens, we see:

"...in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you." (Exodus 12:16)

This shows us that there was no need of a preparation day for the first day of Unleavens. Instead we see that food preparation is allowable upon these days. This is different for the weekly Sabbath:

"Then said the LORD unto Moses, 'Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no. And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily'...And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, 'This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.'" (Exodus 16:4,5,22,23)

As seen above, food preparation is to be done previous to the beginning of Sabbath, while on the other hand, food preparation is allowable directly upon the "no servile work" days. Therein then is the difference between "no work" and "no servile work."

This demonstrates potential error in your idea that the preparation day was refering to the First day of Unleavened bread - other than the fact that these Sabbath's fell on the same day that year.



You keep bringing up this point as if anyone who believes in a Friday crusificstion does so because of Catholism. That is just false. And, even more important, it doesn't prove anything. Even if that is true, it doesn't make them wrong about this area. You use it to discredit Friday by connecting it to Catholsim. You should stop bring this up.




I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. I guess that they could not have travelled on the Sabbath? But do we know what time of day they arrived in Bethany? No. Do we know where they rested the night prior? No. So we don't know when the arrived, and we don't know how far they travelled that day. So they may have been within the law if it was a Sabbath, or they may have arrived just as the Sabbath started on Nissan 8 - six days prior to Nissan 14. From the text, it appears that Jesus was coming from the wilderness of Ephraim when he approached Bethany. So he may have taken several days to travel this distance and the last day of his trip, he may have had less than a Sabbath days journey. There are so many possibilities. The Bethany trip offers no evidence regarding the death date of Jesus.


So, each of the arguments presented demonstrate that the items disciple4life keeps repeating prove nothing. But I will say this, the plain reading of scriptures does paint a pretty clear picture. He died, was "buried", and rose on the third day. Friday, Saturday, Sunday. Scripture say he died on the preparation day - that is the day before the weekly sabbath. Scripture says the first observation of him risen was on the first day of the week - the third day. The patterns of scripture abundantly demonstrate salvation on the third day. As others have said, we can't prove it either way unless someone receives some revelation (which someone has and has written about in another thread). But we certainly shouldn't call other options a myth, tradition, or bad use of scripture.

That is indeed amusing.  heh.


Thank you for continuing on SK.