"So Let it Be Written... So Let it Be Done"

The life and times of a real, down to earth, nice guy. A relocated New Englander formerly living somewhere north of Boston, but now soaking up the bright sun of southwestern Florida (aka The Gulf Coast) for over nine years. Welcome to my blog world. Please leave it as clean as it was before you came. Thanks for visiting, BTW please leave a relevant comment so I know you were here. No blog spam, please. (c) MMV-MMXIX Court Jester Productions & Bamford Communications

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Good Wednesday makes more sense

It has been my goal with this week's posts to lead you down a certain road. I hope I have done this successfully. Here's why:
The church has traditions that are almost as old as the church itself. One of these traditions I question is Good Friday. Looking at this traditional holiday through the eyes of the Word of God makes me wonder, "Did Christ really die on a Friday?" Now I'm not questioning the reality of Christ's death, just on what day of the week it really happened. So I present to you the best Scripturally based (for that is always the key) argument I have read against Good Friday. Read this for yourself and make up your own mind if the argument Torrey makes makes sense.

Was Jesus Really Three Days and Three Nights in the Heart of the Earth?

by R.A. Torrey (1856-1928)

In the twelfth chapter of Matthew’s gospel, Jesus is reported as saying, “As
Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of
man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40).
According to the commonly accepted tradition of the church, Jesus was crucified
on Friday, dying at 3 PM, or somewhere between 3 PM and sundown, and was raised
from the dead very early in the morning of the following Sunday. Many readers of
the Bible are puzzled to know how the interval between late Friday afternoon and
early Sunday morning can be figured out to be three days and three nights. It
seems rather to be two nights, one day, and a very small portion of another day.

The solution proposed by many commentators to this apparent difficulty,
is that “a day and a night” is simply another way of saying, “a day,” and the
ancient Jews reckoned a fraction of a day as a whole day. So they say there was
a part (a very small part) of Friday (or a day and a night), all of Saturday,
another day (or a day and a night); and part of Sunday (a very small part),
another day (or a day and a night). There are many persons whom this solution
does not altogether satisfy, and I confess it does not satisfy me at all. It
seems to me to be a makeshift, and a very weak makeshift. Is there any solution
that is altogether satisfactory? There is.

The first fact to be noticed
in the proper solution is that the Bible nowhere says or implies that Jesus was
crucified and died on Friday. It is said that Jesus was crucified on “the day
before the Sabbath” (Mark 15:42). As the Jewish weekly Sabbath came on Saturday
(beginning at sunset the day before), the conclusion is naturally drawn that,
since Jesus was crucified the day before the Sabbath, He must have been
crucified on Friday.

However, it is a well-known fact, to which the
Bible bears abundant testimony, that the Jews had other Sabbaths besides the
weekly Sabbath that fell on Saturday. The first day of the Passover week, no
matter upon what day of the week it came, was always a Sabbath (Exodus 12:16;
Leviticus 23:7; Numbers 28:16-18). The question therefore arises whether the
Sabbath that followed Christ’s crucifixion was the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) or
the Passover Sabbath, falling on the fifteenth day of Nisan, which came that
year on Thursday.

Now, the Bible does not leave us to speculate which
Sabbath is meant in this instance; for John tells us in so many words, in John
19:14, the day on which Jesus was tried and crucified was “the preparation of
the Passover”
(italics added). In other words, it was not the day before the
weekly Sabbath (that is, Saturday), but it was the day before the Passover
Sabbath, which came that year on Thursday- that is to say, the day on which
Jesus Christ was crucified was a Wednesday. John makes this as clear as day.

The gospel of John was written later than the other Gospels, and
scholars have for a long time noticed that in various places there was an
evident intention to correct false impressions that one might get from reading
the other Gospels. One of these false impressions was that Jesus ate the
Passover with His disciples at the regular time of the Passover. To correct this
false impression, John clearly states that He ate it the evening before, and
that He Himself died on the cross at the very moment the Passover lambs were
being slain “between the two evenings” on the fourteenth day of Nisan. (See
Exodus 12:6 in the Hebrew, and the Revised Version margin.)

God’s real
Paschal Lamb, Jesus, of whom all other paschal lambs offered through the
centuries were only types, was therefore slain at the very time appointed by
God. Everything about the Passover Lamb was fulfilled in Jesus. First, He was a
Lamb without blemish and without spot (Exodus 12:5). Second, He was chosen on
the tenth day of Nisan (Exodus 12:3); for it was on the tenth day of the month,
the preceding Saturday, that the triumphal entry into Jerusalem was made.

We know this because He came from Jericho to Bethany six days before the
Passover (John 12:1). That would be six days before Thursday, which would be
Friday. Furthermore, it was on the next day that the entry into Jerusalem was
made (John 12:12 and following), that is, on Saturday., the tenth day of Nisan.
It was also on this same day that Judas went to the chief priests and offered to
betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:6-16 and Mark 14:3-11). As
it was after the supper in the house of Simon the leper, and as the supper
occurred late on Friday or early on Saturday, after sunset, after the supper
would necessarily be on the tenth of Nisan. This being the price set on Him by
the chief priests, it was, of course, the buying or taking to them of a lamb,
which according to law must occur on the tenth day of Nisan. Furthermore, they
put the exact value on the Lamb that Old Testament prophecy predicted (Zechariah
11:12 and Matthew 26:15).

Third, not a bone of Him was broken when he
was killed (John 19:36; Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12; Psalm 34:20). And fourth, He
was killed on the fourteenth of Nisan, between the evenings, just before the
beginning of the fifteenth day, at sundown (Exodus 12:6). If we take just
exactly what the Bible says, that Jesus was slain before the Passover Sabbath,
the type is marvelously fulfilled in every detail; but if we accept the
traditional theory that Jesus was crucified on Friday, the type fails at many
points.

Furthermore, if we accept the traditional view that Jesus was
crucified on Friday and ate the Passover on the regular day of Passover, then
the journey from Jericho to Bethany, which occurred six days before the Passover
(John 12:1), would fall on a Saturday- that is the Jewish Sabbath. Such a
journey on the Jewish Sabbath would be contrary to Jewish law.

Of
course, it was impossible for Jesus to take such a journey on the Jewish
Sabbath, because His triumphal entry into Jerusalem was on the Jewish Sabbath,
Saturday. This was altogether possible, for the Bible elsewhere tells us that
Bethany was a Sabbath’s day journey from Jerusalem (Acts 1:12 and Luke 24:50).

It has also been figured out by the astronomers that in the year A.D.
30, which is the commonly accepted year for the crucifixion of our Lord, the
Passover was observed on Thursday, April 6, the moon being full that day. The
chronologists who have supposed that the crucifixion took place on Friday have
been greatly perplexed by this fact that in the year A.D. 30 the Passover
occurred on Thursday.

One writer, in seeking a solution to the
difficulty, has suggested that the crucifixion may have been in the year A.D.
33. Although the full moon was on a Thursday that year also, the time was only
two and a half hours from being Friday. Consequently, he thinks that perhaps the
Jews may have observed the Passover on Friday, instead, and that the crucifixion
therefore took place on Thursday. However, when we accept exactly what the Bible
says- namely, that Jesus was not crucified on the Passover day but on “the
preparation for the Passover” (John 19:14) and that He was to be three days and
three nights in the grave- then the fact that the “preparation of the Passover”
that year was on a Wednesday and His resurrection early on the first day of the
week, allows exactly three days and three nights in the grave.

To sum it
all up, Jesus died just about sunset on Wednesday (April 5). Seventy-two hours
later, exactly three days and three nights, at the beginning of the first day of
the week, Saturday at sunset, He arose again from the grave. When the women
visited the tomb in the morning just before dawn, they found the grave already
empty.

From this, we are not driven to makeshift that any small portion
of a day is reckoned as a whole day and night, but we find the statement of
Jesus was literally true. Three days and three nights His body was dead and lay
in the sepulchre. While His body lay dead, He Himself, being quickened in the
Spirit (1 Peter 3:18), went into the heart of the earth and preached unto the
spirits that were in prison (1 Peter 3:19).

The two men on the way to
Emmaus early on the first day of the week, that is Sunday, said to Jesus, in
speaking of the crucifixion and events accompanying it, “Besides all this, to
day is the third day since these things were done” (Luke 24:21). Some people
have objected to this, and it is said that, if the crucifixion took place on
Wednesday, Sunday would be the fourth day since these things were done; but the
answer is very simple.

These things were done at sunset, just as
Thursday was beginning. They were therefore completed on Thursday, and the first
day since Thursday would be Friday, the second day since Thursday would be
Saturday, and “the third day since” Thursday would be Sunday, the first day of
the week. So the supposed objection in reality supports the theory. On the other
hand, if the crucifixion took place on Friday, by no manner of reckoning could
Sunday be made “the third day since” these things were done.

There are
many passages in the Scriptures that support the theory advanced above and that
make it necessary to believe that Jesus died late on Wednesday. Some of them are
as follows:

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s
belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of
the earth. (Matthew 12:40)

This fellow said, I am able to destroy the
temple of God, and to build it in three days. (Matthew 26:61)

Thou that
destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save Thyself. (Matthew
27:40)

Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive,
after three days I will rise again. (Matthew 27:63)

The Son of man must
suffer many things…and be killed, and after three days rise again. (Mark 8:31)

They shall kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he shall
rise again. (Mark 9:31 RV)

They…shall scourge him, and shall kill him;
and after three days he shall rise again. (Mark 10:34 RV)

Destroy this
temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made
without hands. (Mark 14:58 RV)

Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and
buildest it in three days, save thyself. (Mark 15:29-30)

Beside all
this, to day is the third day since these things were done. (Luke 24:21)

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three
days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple
in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple
of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered
that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word
which Jesus had said. (John 2:19-22)

There is absolutely nothing in
favor of a Friday crucifixion, but everything in the Scripture is perfectly
harmonized by a Wednesday crucifixion. It is remarkable how many prophetical and
typical passages of the Old Testament are fulfilled and how many seeming
discrepancies in the gospel narratives are straightened out when we once come to
understand that Jesus died on Wednesday, and not on Friday.

56 Comments:

At 12 April, 2006 10:24, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

Why does it matter if Jesus was wacked on Friday or tuesday? Don't you fire and brimstone types believe in symbolism? ;)

 
At 12 April, 2006 11:10, Blogger DaBich said...

Good logic, Green. I'd neer figure that out! lol

Scribe. Valid point. So, the entire Easter timing is based on symbolism. In any case, it works.

 
At 12 April, 2006 13:08, Blogger Kayla said...

Interesting post again, Green.
Any fun Easter plans? I'll be at the lake with my oldest brother and his family.
They have a really cool lakeside church (Baptist) the locals go to.

 
At 12 April, 2006 16:09, Blogger American Guy said...

Heretic!

 
At 12 April, 2006 16:10, Blogger American Guy said...

and don't mess with my long weekend

 
At 12 April, 2006 16:18, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

LOL

american guy makes a damn good point I don't mind saying my damn self!!! Dead Jesus=days off work!!! Amen to that!

 
At 12 April, 2006 17:16, Blogger lccb81 said...

Wait.

For those of us who believe that religion should not determine our holiday schedule (AHEM Christmas anyone?) what the &#*@!

AND if Jesus did die on a Wednesday, wouldn't that make the weekend longer?? (And I'm all for that!)

 
At 12 April, 2006 17:47, Blogger Tim said...

scribe: The goal is to be as Biblically accurate as possible whenever possible. The problem comes in where symbolism is unnecessarily used and therefore can distort or distract from what the Bible is actually teaching.
Plus, just becasue it's traditional doesn;t mean it's correct.

dabich: I never would have put these clues all together like Torrey did, which is why I ike his argument.

kayla: I'm just trying to make y'all think...
Easter plans: egg hunting in the AM before church and dinner at the parents house after church.
Sounds like fun. Will the weather be warm enough for an Easter swim? Have fun!

AG: some of the most influential church fathers were considered heretics...

scribe & AG: I doubt "the church" (R) will listen, so your long weekend is safe.

lccb: no it doesn't make the weekend longer, it just means that Jesus died on Wednesday.

 
At 12 April, 2006 17:50, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

Why does it matter??? How is it relevant???

 
At 12 April, 2006 18:14, Blogger Tim said...

It matters because tradition doesn't mesh with Scripture which is not a good thing.

It matters because if we take something of seeming insignificance, like on what day Jesus died, and rearrange it for "tradition" or "convenience" sake, then what are we likely going to do with the far more important teachings, especially when they say stuff that we don't like?

If we approach Bible interpretation casually, that's when Scripture gets twisted and non-biblical doctrines get added and are given influence like they were Biblical all along.

 
At 12 April, 2006 18:38, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

oh, so what? The Bible was nothing but a call to arms for the Jewish people anyway.

 
At 12 April, 2006 20:07, Blogger Tim said...

If that's all you think the Bible is then you obviously have never read it in any detail.

Especially since you are referring only to the Old Testament, since Jews do not accept the New Testament as part of their Bible.

 
At 12 April, 2006 20:32, Blogger Minister Scribe said...

Just because they don't accept the New Testament doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt at rallying the Jewish people. It failed and was summarily applied to the European model, wher eit met with hideous and destructive success.

 
At 12 April, 2006 21:41, Blogger lccb81 said...

Green, you mean like how some guys who really like Paul but thought he went to far out there decided to either a. insert a little snipet in 1 Corinthians saying that women shouldn't speak in churches and/or b. wrote in Paul's name (1 Timothy) to say that women shouldn't speak in churches? When Paul had very clearly named a woman emmisary in Romans Ch. 16 (her name was Pricilla)?

You mean that kind of loose interpretation?

 
At 12 April, 2006 22:54, Blogger Tim said...

lccb: Of course there is disagreement today over what Paul meant. Take the passages in context: In 1 Cor. 14:34-35 all of the commentaries I looked at seem to agree that this prohibition could a) pertain directly to a problem specific to the Corinthian Church AND/OR b) that per the order of creation in Genesis, man is given authority over woman, since man was created first from nothing then woman created from man. God could have created man and woman at the same time or woman first but it was not that way. So it seems that For a woman to teach a man on Scriptural matters would imply woman having authority over a man, which is not given anywhere in scripture Man's authority in scripture is given as the spiritual head of household, so that seems to be why women are instructed to ask their husbands at home, not in church. However there is no prohibition from women teaching other women or children. Even today in Israel, there are separate sections in synagogue for men and women, who aren't even allowed in the same room.

The passage in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 echos b) above.

It is undeniable that women were important in Paul's ministry as they were in that of Jesus. However it is the God given responsibility of the man to be the head of woman just as Christ is head over the church.

I am in no way implying that men should shove this Biblical authority in the face of women but that as equal members in the body of Christ we all have different functions to perform. Just so happens that certain responsibilities were ordained for men instead of women.

If we arbitrarily discard these passages because we don't like them or understand them then that opens the precedent to disregard any other passages in the Bible that we choose.

BTW Hey don't be upset at me, I'm just trying to apply the Bible's teaching consistently. Looks like you'll have something to talk to God about when you get to heaven.

 
At 12 April, 2006 23:11, Blogger American Guy said...

"It matters because if we take something of seeming insignificance, like on what day Jesus died, and rearrange it for "tradition" or "convenience" sake, then what are we likely going to do with the far more important teachings, especially when they say stuff that we don't like?"

I take it this same argument applies for when jc was born as well? Since pretty much everyone agrees he WASN'T born in December I expect you'll be leading the fight to move christmas to another part of the year. No?

And don't forget to get the whole milaneum bumped, as the babe wasn't born in the in the year 0 but somewhere 3 to 6 years on either side. You'll sort that out for us, won't ya?

 
At 12 April, 2006 23:20, Blogger American Guy said...

"per the order of creation in Genesis, man is given authority over woman"

and

"However it is the God given responsibility of the man to be the head of woman"

So now we add misogynist to your title in addition to racist (as you've demonstrated before with your 'we're better than them' attitude).

 
At 13 April, 2006 00:14, Blogger Tim said...

ag: well, no becasue there's no clear scriptural indication that I'm aware of anyway that gives the proper indication of where Christmas should be in the grand scheme of things.

Jesus had to have been born before 4 BC since that's when Herod the Great died. Most historians agree that Jesus was born in either 6 or 5 BC.

You like to harp on the race thing with me, don't you? I've adequately defensed my position on that in other comments in another post here on this blog and also on Saur Kraut's blog. Give it a rest.

As far as the comment on men vs. women above, I'm just trying to "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15) It's not my place to agree or disagree with it.

 
At 13 April, 2006 07:01, Blogger lccb81 said...

So even if Jesus probably would not have agreed with that statement (as there is an instance where he lets a woman talk back to him - the Canaanite woman in Mark or the Syrophenician Woman in Matthew and I'm not getting a Bible verses because the bible is not right by my bed) and Paul talking about there not being male and female because we are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians)and AGAIN Paul sending a woman to READ the letter he wrote which he clearly states in Romans Ch. 16, you are going to stand by this whole male , female thing, because CLEARLY the Bible doesn't contradict itself?

 
At 13 April, 2006 07:39, Blogger DaBich said...

OK, AG and Scribe, since you don't believe in God and don't celebrate religious holidays, you both have to work Good Friday. Why take off if you don't believe? ::grin:: Same goes for Christmas.

Green and lccb ~ This is where I have problems with the Bible and interpetations of it. it was written my men in men-dominated times. Of course, they put women down. It's all bullshit. Then the Roman Catholic goes and changes things as they see fit. Others they don't because they don't see fit. it's all bureauocratic crap!

 
At 13 April, 2006 08:58, Blogger Minister Scribe said...

Green,

why does AG keep calling you a racist?

 
At 13 April, 2006 17:06, Blogger Tim said...

lccb: No the Bible does not contradict itself, so I will stand by it 100%, even if that's not the popular position.

Usually if we think we find a contradiction in the Bible, it can be sorted out with more in depth study and prayer. I'll need verse references on the areas you suggest are contradictory so I can look into it further.

Romans 16:2 Paul commends sister Phoebe becasue she has been a great HELPER (Not teacher) to many including Paul himself. I don't read anywhere in ROM. 16 where she or anyone is specifically instructed to READ Paul's letter. Please correct me with the verse here you are referring to If it is not 16:2.

scribe: I have no idea why AG is calling me that. He has taken something I wrote out of context and turned me in to the 'r' word. Nothing could be further from the truth, actually.

dabich: yes the Bible was written by the hand of man but the ultimate author is God, who cannot lie and is perfect in everything, which is why you can feel confident in and trust what the Bible says. (See 2 Peter 1:20-21.

I'm definitely NOT saying there aren't difficult passages to understand, because there certainly are. What is in the Bible has been put in for a reason, so that we might benefit from it.

 
At 13 April, 2006 17:32, Blogger lccb81 said...

Ok, just one question: you do know that Paul's letters were read to assemblies or house churches, right? A simple yes or no will do.

 
At 13 April, 2006 17:32, Blogger Minister Scribe said...

Hey, if God cannot lie, is he then limited???

 
At 13 April, 2006 17:32, Blogger Minister Scribe said...

Whoa!!! Simulataneous lovin'!!!

 
At 13 April, 2006 17:37, Blogger Tim said...

lccb: yes.

scribe: I don't understand your question. How would that limit God? Can yo ube more specific?

 
At 13 April, 2006 17:40, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

Sho' nuff, dawg!!!


If you are saying God is actually incapable of an action (in this case LYING) you are imposing limitations on the creator who is supposed to be infinite and all-powerful and so tough he could totally beat up your dad.

 
At 13 April, 2006 18:17, Blogger Tim said...

scribe: God is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient. He can't lie because He is perfect in all of His attributes. Lying is a sin, and perfect beings are incapable of sinning. It's axiomatic. God is defined by His attributes, one of which is truth. (See John 8:42-44 and 14:1-7)

How is not being able to lie a limitation?

 
At 13 April, 2006 18:32, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

If perfection makes you incapable of something, you are no longer perfect, you are flawed. An interesting duality that really convinces me that if there is a God it is a dual being.

 
At 13 April, 2006 18:49, Blogger Tim said...

scribe: your argument is circular and makes no sense. If you are perfect you can't sin, becasue if you could you wouldn't be perfect.

So you are saying then that no one is perfect? Unfortunately you are correct. Humans are sinful beings, and are fully capable of lying so we cannot be perfect. There has only been one perfect person in history, which of course was Jesus. And He was equally God and Man.

 
At 13 April, 2006 18:51, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

Jesus was perfect? Hmmm, I guess those tantrums were thrown by somebody else. Oh, yeah, and that whole crisis of faith thing on the cross was a misprint. LOL

Anyway, my argument makes perfect sense to anyone who can think 3 dimensionally. A truly complete and perfect being would be capable of all things at all times, otherwise it is a powerful entity deluded by its own sense of grandeur.

 
At 13 April, 2006 19:04, Blogger American Guy said...

And Green, I had to pick myself up off the floor. You're accusing Scribe of using circular logic?

This from the man who argues that a) god is perfect b) the bible says he's perfect, and it can't be wrong because he's perfect. c) how do we know he's perfect? Well it's in the bible, and after all, he wrote it...

 
At 13 April, 2006 19:06, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

Oh, well since you put it that way, american...disregard.

 
At 13 April, 2006 19:21, Blogger Tim said...

scribe: as a man, Jesus had the full range of emotions, which includes getting mad. Why was he mad? Because people were buying and selling sacrificial animals in the Temple, where the Temple was a place of worship, not a store.

Crisis of faith on the cross? You must be reading a different account than I am.

You'll have to find a Bible and point out that one to me.

In the garden before the arrest it says in Matthew 26:37 that Jesus was sorrowful (grieved) and very heavy (deeply distressed)

In Mark 14:34 Jesus says His soul was "exceeding sorrowful to the point of death"

In Luke 22:44 it says that Jesus was in agony, so he prayed harder.

John mentions the account in the garden but doesn't mention that particular prayer.

All of these things Jesus felt are well within the reign of human emotion.

AG: Absolutely. People use Circular logic every day. Doesn't make it a bad thing when your argument makes sense, which neither of yours do. Your point goes back to scribes original thread, which I've already answered. You say "How do we know God is perfect?"

Yes, that's what God says in the Bible. If God said that and it weren't true, then God would be lying and therefore NOT PERFECT, which is as I said, impossible for God.

 
At 13 April, 2006 19:32, Blogger lccb81 said...

Ok, at this point, I'm just walking away while breathing deeply...


but one more thing before I go... so only if you agree with a circular argument, it's ok?

 
At 13 April, 2006 19:36, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

If I said my dog is purple because he said he's purple and therefore he is purple, how is that any less circular than how you claim to "know" of god's perfection?

 
At 13 April, 2006 19:42, Blogger Tim said...

where did I say or imply circular arguments are bad? They just need to make sense, is all.

lccb: makes your head spin, doesn't it?

 
At 13 April, 2006 19:43, Blogger Tim said...

you have a talking purple dog, scribe? cool. can you post pictures? LOL

 
At 13 April, 2006 19:44, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

Sure!!! It'll cost you, though. He's such a whore LOL

 
At 13 April, 2006 20:44, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

In answer to the when did Christ have a moment of doubt question:



"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

 
At 13 April, 2006 21:38, Blogger Tim said...

Self-doubt is a normal human feeling. Crises of faith are normal for humans too. But I contend that when Jesus said this it was neither self doubt or a crisis of faith.

If you look at the text contextually, this is a rhetorical question. Jesus full well knew this time would come, from eternity past. It fulfills the first prophetic statement recorded in the Bible (Genesis 3:15) He predicted His death and the manner of it many times during His earthly ministry. Why did He say it? Jesus was crying out in anguish for the only time in eternity because of the separation He experienced from His Heavenly Father, a voluntary separation as the PERFECT sacrifice for the sins of all men and women. A separation that you and I, with our finite minds, cannot possibly comprehend.

 
At 13 April, 2006 21:46, Blogger DaBich said...

All this has been very interesting, but why do you guys - Scribe and Green - ignore my comment that since you do not believe in God, nor religous holidays, that you shouldn't have off with pay? Why not work since you don't believe? Isn't that rather hypocritical?

 
At 13 April, 2006 21:54, Blogger Tim said...

dabich: You mean scribe and AG, who did not answer your question. I believe in God and I have to work tomorrow....now I asks you IS THAT FAIR???





NO.






But that's life so we deal with it.

 
At 14 April, 2006 08:25, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 14 April, 2006 08:26, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

I would gladly lose those days off if I never had to deal with someone trying to force Christianity into politics and society as a whole-until that day, they owe me.

 
At 14 April, 2006 13:34, Blogger Nunzia said...

i try not to focus too much on the days because even our christmas celebration is off if you look at the history/calendar. i try to keep the events in my mind all the time.. but i have a wandering mind and i fail all too often. Thanks for this though. God bless and hope you have a Happy Easter!

 
At 14 April, 2006 16:26, Blogger Kristi B. said...

Green,
Aside from the discussion going on, just wanted to wish you an enjoyable Easter weekend, as we celebrate our Savior's resurrection!

 
At 14 April, 2006 20:19, Blogger Ruth said...

HAPPY EASTER WEEKEND, GREEN!!!

 
At 15 April, 2006 07:50, Blogger DaBich said...

LOL Green, no, that isn't fair.

Scribe, that's another hypocritical piece of bullcrap, the world owes you? Pulease!!!
LOL, nice try, but no cigar.

 
At 15 April, 2006 09:58, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

Did I say the fucking world owes me??? Where? Show me! UH-huh, thought not. I said those who would force Christianity on me owe me.

 
At 15 April, 2006 10:39, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

Apologies for swearing on your blog, green. I know "uh-huh" is not acceptable to Christians.

 
At 18 April, 2006 06:06, Blogger DaBich said...

Scribe....you change the subject, but do not address it. But that's ok, I made my point. And AG never answered the question.

 
At 18 April, 2006 16:12, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

No, you just missed the point again.

 
At 19 April, 2006 10:11, Blogger DaBich said...

No I didn't.

 
At 19 April, 2006 18:31, Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

you did but that's OK. Jesus still loves you.

 
At 20 April, 2006 07:11, Blogger DaBich said...

Yeah, but do YOU? That's more important :(

My point is that you ar so wrapped up in making (scoring) points, that you take advantage of all the hype anyway. If you feel so strongly about it, WORK THE HOLIDAYS!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home