Re: Religion returns to Easter

"Dorothy J Heydt" <djheydt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:JxuD1H.Fvq@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <frjm3b$lp8$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>>I don't know what the holidays were like in ancient Judea.  Maybe they
>>stuffed an extra day in the *middle* of the weekend, given that it was
>>somehow three days from Good Friday to Easter Sunday.
>
> It's not "three days," it's "on the third day."

Matthew 27: 63 "Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still 
alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.'"

Mark 8: 31 "He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer 
many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of 
the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again."

Mark 9: 31"because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, "The 
Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill 
him, and after three days he will rise." "

Mark 10: 34 "who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. 
Three days later he will rise.""

>This has
> something to do with the way Greek and Latin talked about time.
> You can't, e.g., say in Latin "three days is longer than two
> days."  You have to say "the third day is later than the second
> day."
>
> So it's not that a total of 72 hours elapsed, but that a part of
> each of three days were involved.

That spin attempt only sort of works if you look at a few lines and 
ignore context. Matthew 12:40 makes the context clear.

Matthew 12: 40 "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the 
belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three 
nights in the heart of the earth."

Karl Johanson