Can Jesus' rising "meta" three days match a 3rd day rising?

[rakovsky]

On the thread "Strongest, most direct evidence to doubt the Resurrection?" (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1970&start=10), Bernard Muller proposed that Mark's reference to resurrection "meta" (after or with) three days can only mean resurrection on the fourth day or later, and thus it drastically contradicts the narrative of a third day resurrection in the gospels. In reply, I pointed out:

(1) There are multiple reasons why Mark's and Matthew's references to a resurrection "after/with (meta) three days" could be read as including "on the third day". It's apparently used that way once in the Old Testament, although it *could* be an interpolation; "Meta" means not only "after", but also "with" and has been used that way frequently, including to discuss events and actions; Mark himself elsewhere considers the resurrection to be on the third day; all the actual detailed narratives of the gospel appear to place it on the third day; if the gospel writers had been making things up they could have corrected what would have been such a stark error of speech; they had different ways of talking about and counting time in colloquial speech as the Talmud's reference to a part of a day being counted as a full day shows; even Luke 24 in another context has the travelers say that the day of Resurrection was the "third day since these events occurred", so it's not as if the later gospel of Luke was trying to censor this meaning.
(2) Even if "after three days" is meant literally as we would normally count it now, there are still two more reasonable explanations: (A) The resurrection was in fact on a predicted fourth "day" because there was an extra night-day cycle during the crucifixion; (B) there were two Sabbath days during this four day period, and the Crucifixion was on a Thursday.

I would ask you, Bernard, to continue to discuss the topic further on this thread. I would also recommend that you move your posts on the topic to this thread.

[rakovsky]

I will start by noting your proposal that since decay sets in on the 4th day that there must be a 4th day resurrection because death only could be on the 4th day with the decay.

However, Psalm 16 says that the body of the holy one won't undergo corruption. I have seen an apologist use this verse as a proof that the body wouldn't be in the grave longer than the 3 day period. After 3 days the body decays, so the resurrection of Jesus couldn't take place beyond 3 days, as at that point decay would normally set in. Thus, Psalm 16 was a prophecy of a 3rd day resurrection.

It's true that in Christian/Jewish thinking the soul leaves the body at the ending of a three day period. But remember that I said that in the Talmud a part of a day counts as a full day.
(SOURCE: https://www.google.com/search?q=Talmud+ ... 8&oe=utf-8)
First, waiting 4 days is unneeded for Jesus to have "died", since the 3 days are just for the separation from the body, not the death itself. A dead body with a soul is still dead. Jesus suffered would have death in his body, but not in his divinity, since God is immortal.
Second, if the resurrection was on the 3rd day it would still count as a three day period as per the Talmud's counting above.

[theterminator]

Jesus suffered would have death in his body, but not in his divinity, since God is immortal.

so what exactly in god became weak and created?
if god is unseen person with no flesh parts, then what exactly in this god became weak?

if divinity is always part of this god, then what in it became weak?

why is it convenient for you people to created separation between the suffering person of jesus and the divine person? don't the two mix, if not then does that mean incarnation never took place?

[rakovsky]

((
so what exactly in god became weak and created? if god is unseen person with no flesh parts, then what exactly in this god became weak?))
It means that God put on flesh and it is the flesh that is weak.
A nature is a collection of properties. God being divine keeps his divine properties like immortality. But taking on a human nature as an addition, he takes on human qualities like mortality. So his human flesh died. Nothing in the divinity became weak, but rather the human quality of flesh was, like flesh, weak in that it died.
The Divine nature and human nature do not "mix", according to the Chalcedonian Creed. But just because the divinity and humanity retain their own properties, this does not mean that God in the person of Jesus did not take on flesh or human properties that could die.

Much of this is abstract philosophy. It doesn't prove whether it happened or not, just that people can make logical arguments different ways.

[theterminator]

"A nature is a collection of properties. God being divine keeps his divine properties like immortality. But taking on a human nature as an addition,"

now you are playing games. god added on to himself stuff? so he didn't become anything? what did god increase himself in if addition means increase? i asked you what IN this god changed and became weak, i did not ask you what your god ADDED to himself.if nothing became weak then god did not become mortal.




" he takes on human qualities like mortality."

now it is no more god became but god takes on.



" So his human flesh died. Nothing in the divinity became weak,"

if divinity is ALWAYS part of the person , what does it mean "his human flesh died" when the "his" in your sentence is immortal and nothing within it became weak?

what you are saying is that god has an addition which he does not experience as a human at all because his powers prevent him from experiencing additions he makes unto himself .
" but rather the human quality of flesh was, like flesh, weak in that it died."

if god is an unseen being ,who isn't flesh, then what in that unseen being became weak, if nothing then god didn't become man.









" But just because the divinity and humanity retain their own properties, this does not mean that God in the person of Jesus did not take on flesh or human properties that could d"

if the divinity is always part of an immortal god and nothing in that divinity became weak, then either jesus is 2 persons or no incarnation took place.




if divinity is always part of an immortal god and nothing finite can affect it, then nothing in god became weak or changed. you christians don't point to jesus and call him " flesh disguise" or "flesh walked the earth"

you point to him and say " god walked the earth" so even in your language you give direction, time and location to your finite god.



did jesus' person with divine nature learn , forget, remember and suffer?


if not, then

incarnation never took place.

[rakovsky]

^I think you are reasoning about a broad philosophical problem based on broad problems, to conclude that there is no way to resolve it and so it can't be true.
For example, it is said that God is immortal and then it says that Jesus died. So some people answer that this means Jesus cannot be God.
But it is hard to establish things so certainly with this strategy because it works at an abstract level. People can give all kinds of abstract answers to this abstract question, but the argument doesn't show which side is right.

For example, the rabbis say that there can be no atonement with another person's death to substitute for another. However, this principle actually exists, like in the Torah when Moses offered to be a sacrifice for his people. Just because God did not accept Moses' offer though does not mean that there could be no sacrifice acceptable.

Or for example, someone could say that since an airplane is heavier than air, that an airplane cannot fly in the air. And then people go around in circles based on broad principles. It is like that with the issue of whether God takes on flesh. For me, this is not a crucial problem for Christianity. God can do anything, so if he wanted to take on flesh and experience the death of the flesh, He could do that. But I imagine that you would reply with more arguments that will go in circles.

That's why I think that the evidence I gave in my last thread was stronger.

[theterminator]

For example, the rabbis say that there can be no atonement with another person's death to substitute for another.

yhwh likes death of animal flesh and the pagan gods like the slicing of human baby flesh because it seems that violent human sacrificial and animal rituals are more closer to these gods hearts. i never read in the entire torah where yhwh makes an offering of himSELF to appease himself. animal offerings go to this god, he don't make offering of himself anywhere in the jewish torah.

since your god can do anything this would mean that he in his unseen divine nature can become weak and cease to exist because for you "god can do anything"

maybe your god, in his all seeing divine nature can go blind for a few days?

if he can, then how is he ALL seeing? maybe he can take off his divine nature and hand them to another and make another god because "god can do anything"


so i ask again, can jesus' person WITH divine nature go blind, forget, remember and learn to read? if "god can do anything" then the answer must be yes.


back to the topic, bart ehrman said


Doctor Ehrman

when mark uses meta for jesus’ “after 3 days…”

does the “after” imply resurrection on the 4 day ?

would this contradict the claim that it was resurrection ON the 3rd day in the other synoptics?

is it possible mark contradicted himself because elsewhere he implies resurrection ON the 3rd day?

if you can please clarify use of “meta” in mark




quote:

Bart November 29, 2015
Yes, META with the accusative means “after.” It is usually thought that any part of a day counts as a full day, so that Sunday would be after three days; but I’m not sure the math actually works.



i don’t understand some of your reply doc

” but I’m not sure the math actually works.”

so sunday cannot be after 3 days, for the maths to work out it has to be after sunday?


Bart November 30, 2015
Yes, that’s how I would do the math as well.

[Bernard Muller]

My computer crashed for a while. But I am back!

Yes, META with the accusative means “after.”

So it is "after", not "with".

It is usually thought that any part of a day counts as a full day

OK, even if these about 40 hours of Jesus' death (spread over 3 calendar days) count as three full days, then "after three days" points to the fourth day, not "on the third day".

so that Sunday would be after three days; but I’m not sure the math actually works.

Bart is guessing here from the top of his head.

Consider Hosea LXX:
6:1 Let us go, and return to the Lord our God; for he has torn, and will heal us; he will smite, and bind us up.
6:2 After [meta] two days he will heal us: in the third day we shall arise, and live before him, and shall know [him]:

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

You appear entrenched in your position that the use of the term "meta" (after/with in Greek) can only mean "after" 3 days in the strictest sense following exactly 24 hours, not a flexible one in common speech like "With three days' sail you will reach your destination," which could allow a third day arrival.

"with three days" as in "... and they will kill him; and when he is killed, WITH three days he will rise." (Mk 9:31 RSV)
Why would Jesus indicate a period of three days is needed in order to resurrect? (as a three days' sail is required to reach destination). Would it take several days of effort for God in order to complete a resurrection?

The Feast of Unleavened Bread (Hag HaMatzah) is a high sabbath day. A high sabbath in Hebrew is called a shabbaton. During Passover, there is an extra sabbath besides the weekly sabbath. These sabbaths are called high sabbaths. The high sabbath of Unleavened Bread can be seen in John 19:31.

Neither gMark, gLuke, gMatthew considers the first day of Passover as a Sabbath day, because they consider that day as the one of preparation for the Sabbath, the 7th week of the week. Furthermore, even considering the first day of Passover as a Sabbath, Jesus' death is said to occur about three hours before the end of that day. So it can only be one Sabbath day in the next seven days.

And gJohn, with full knowledge of gMark, tries to fix up its problem on this matter: No "after three days" or "on the third day". However Jn 2:19-21 gives the indication Jesus' death lasts (about) three days. In order to accomplish that, one normal day would have to be included between the first day of Passover and the 7th day of the week, in order to have about "in three days". That extra day goes against what is in the Synoptics.

Cordially, Bernard

[John2]

I came to this thread via Rakovsky's resurrected "Strongest, most direct evidence to doubt the Resurrection" thread
(viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1970). After getting caught up with that (and reading Bernard's link to his after three days vs. on the third day webpage), two comments stood out to me. First, Rakovsky wrote:

Marl 8:31, your [Bernard's] main verse of focus says:

"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again."

What you need to ask here is " After three days of what?" Naturally, it's three days of this experience of suffering that included rejection and killing.

The first day can be Thurday, when the elders rejected Him and Judas betrayed Him as they asked, Friday is the crucifixion, and then Saturday is the burial. After three days of that, he resurrected on Sunday. You can count the darkening of the sun on Friday as an extra night/day cycle if you need to. The answer of Theophilact the Bulgarian was that the counting started at the last supper ... in Jesus' case, Mark 8:31 does not mean after three days have passed after the killing occurred He would rise, but after three days of suffering and rejection He would rise.

That's an interesting angle, that the "three days" possibly includes time before Jesus was killed, when he suffered and was "rejected" (which would be late Thursday). It might not be applicable though if it was after sunset (and I reckon that it was), since then it would already be Friday by OT/Jewish reckoning.

Rakovsky also wrote:

What is difficult to understand?

Jesus' claim about rebuilding the temple "not made with hands" (His body) "within three days" has to match exactly the predicted duration of Jesus' death ("after three days He would rise") because Jesus was talking about the same thing - the resurrection of His body.

I don't think this applies to the "after three days" issue (at least in Mark) because in Mark "in three days" is only the false testimony of Jesus' accusers and Jesus himself (in Mark) always says "after" three days. Same goes for Mk. 15:29-30, since I reckon it is only echoing the false testimony against Jesus in 14:56-59.

Mk. 14:56-59:

Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.

Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’ ” Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

Mk. 15:29-30:

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!”

I recently looked into the "three days" issue and could not figure it out to my satisfaction. While I'm willing to accept Ben's view that "after" three days is the same as "on" the third day, something about the fact that Jesus himself always says "after" three days in Mark, and because Mark in my view is very Danielic, makes me still think that Jesus' "after" three days could have something to do with Daniel's "time, time, half a time," so maybe including Thursday as the first day would solve that.

And maybe this possibly Danielic "after" three days element ("time, times, half a time) was never appreciated by the disciples (including, through them, Paul, re: 1 Cor. 15:4). After all, I gather that the disciples are presented as not fully understanding Jesus. Mk. 8:31-33, for example, says:

He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter.

And Mk. 9:31-32 says:

He said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.” But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.

This, in my mind, would explain why Paul (via Jesus' disciples) says "on the third day" and why Mark (if we don't count Thursday) also has Jesus rise on the third day (Friday though Sunday), since in my view (as per Papias) Mark was a follower of Peter. Even if Peter and others eventually figured out Jesus' suffering philosophy, they may not have ever fully understood the possible Danielic significance of Jesus' "after" three days sayings.