"....don't do a "deymeyer" on me...."
I laughed out loud in the library when I read that and everyone looked at me for a second ! Very funny ! I want you to know that there is peace between Ken and I. We agree to disagree and I admire his posts.
When you insult the scholarship of Dr. Scott and say nothing to show his error it makes me lose interest in the debate.
Brian, Dr. Scott is the brighest scholar to ever open a Bible. Even his worst critics cannot find fault with his eminent position as God's master domata (gift minister Eph.4:11). The mantle of G. Campbell Morgan is upon him. You could not be anymore wrong about him.
If you want me to continue the debate then you need to refrain from the name calling. I readily admit that I will concede the debate and take the perceived hit to my reputation rather than give audience to someone who throws pebbles at a giant from the comfort of the internet.
Dr. Scott's entire ministry is paid for by people who respond to the quality of the teaching. Dr.Scott says " eat at my spiritual table and then pay what you think it is worth ". Nobody is allowed to give a dime for any other reason, if they include any other reason with their offering it is returned. He voluntarily pays taxes even though by law the Church is exempt. He smokes a cigar to infuriate the fundementalists and he owns the exact flower pot that Morgan used to stamp out his cigar on the way to his pulpit.
Prior to this topic - I would always read everything you post. CA too but he hardly ever posts. I know you are a scholar and your level of history knowledge surpasses my own and can only be comapred to others in my circle of friends.
Mutual scholarly respect for Dr. Scott is a must or I cannot participate in this debate with you.
Dr. Scott utilizes the gestalt method of teaching. He does the work of supplying the whole field and if a person pays attention their mind absorbs the whole field. He points out that which is already there.....it isn't true because he says so .....it is true because he shows it to you and you say "Oh yeah I see it".
Brian, I respectfully request that you comply with the spirit of this post ? What do you say ? If you request something of me, then the answer is yes in advance - just say it.
In this present issue :
The first section of the post SEEMS to say that I do not understand that the Jewish day begins and ends at sundown.
The post that started this present issue (mine) clearly proves that I do know that the Jewish day begins and ends at sundown.
Yes I ignored your scriptural examples. They are irrelevant to the issue. You are trying to evidence something that doesn't make sense nor is it true. You are trying to defend a crucified Christ entombed by sundown Friday.
The reason I ignored your verses is because the controlling verses are the gospel accounts where Jesus Himself inextricably links His death to the SIGN of the prophet Jonah. Jesus says He will be dead "three days and three nights" THEN raise according to the promise of the Father.
Any attempt to explain that "three days and three nights" does not mean 72 hours defies the original greek and the english translations.
To argue that Judaism would render such an inexact interpretation of calendar time is altogether ignoring the specifics of the claims of Jesus in regards to the sign of Jonah.
Your interpretations of words in verses defy the obvious intent of meaning (three days means 72 hours), to claim that partial days or nights qualify as a whole 24 hour period is erroneous.
Brian, where did I ever say that sunrise begins or ends a day in question ?
BRIAN QUOTE :
According to Scott, Jesus died on the Wednesday afternoon before sunset, he had to be taken down from the Cross and placed in the tomb before the Sabbath began. So he died on the Wednesday afternoon, the first day, then the transition from ‘day’ to ‘night’ begins before sunset and last until just after sunset when the second day (Thursday according to Scott) begins, so any reference to any part of the day would include a ‘day and a night’. From the Wednesday afternoon, when Jesus died, to just after sunset, when the Thursday begins, would be a period of two days and two nights. END BRIAN QUOTE
Negative, the day in question was a sabbath, a "High Day" sabbath - the Passover. Bodies could not be left on the cross from a sabbath going into the next "day" (which was actually night), which began the feast of Unleavened Bread, which is a feast within a feast.
Our differences are over what constitutes a day (I say it is a 24 hour period from sundown to sundown) and you insist any part of any day (or night) qualifies as a day.
With all due respect your scriptural references in evidencing your claims here can be interpreted otherwise.
BRIAN QUOTE :
What about the Scripture that says "and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life". END BRIAN QUOTE
The third day means at the end of 72 hours. As was Jonah "three days and three nights in the whales belly......"
In the middle ages the Church adopted customs from Babylonian mystery religions, which included the pagan practice of recognizing Nimrod's widow and Tamuz being reincarnated via a sunbeam, hence the sunrise resurrection and the sunburst emblems. These pagan practices celebrated these mythological events on Friday through Sunday mornings, they were festivals/parties. The Church couldn't stop the parties so they joined in and transposed the myths of Tamuz onto the similarities of Christ's Resurrection.
Source : "Babylon Mystery Religion" author Ralph Woodrow
™ Version 4.2