Re: Religion returns to Easter

"Dorothy J Heydt" <djheydt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:JxwL1L.8u9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <frn63b$kaj$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Except when a day starts at sundown, and your subject dies before
>>> sundown, it is another day.
>>
>>He died on a Friday, right?  Or are you saying the sundown began a
>>Friday, so he really died on a Thursday?
>>
>>> Also:
>>> 1. Friday
>>> 2. Saturday
>>> 3. Sunday
>>> Three days.
>>
>>You posted on a Monday.  I'm replying on the same Monday, about two
>>hours later.  So is it correct to say it took me one day to reply?
>>How about if I had replied just two minutes after you posted?  Would
>>that still be one day later?
>
> I repeat.  It was not a process that took 72 hours to complete.

I repeat, the prophecy was "3 days and three nights". It didn't work
out. Not that fulfilling a prophesy is proof (or even 'evidence') that
someone is omnipotent, omniscient & that they created the universe, but
you'd think failing prophesies would be a hint that they weren't
anything supernatural.

> It was a process that started on the first day, pretty much hung
> fire over the second day (unless you accept the story of the
> Harrowing of Hell, which I would love to do

What? You want Hell to be real? Ew. You want Jesus to have gone there 
scoped out the dammed then left them behind? And I repeat, ew. You want 
Jesus to have done like Thomas Aquinas said & shamed unbelievers in Hell 
(which would include all those who'd had no way of having heard the 
word), and again, left them there? Ew.

> although it's
> officially apocryphal), and concluded early on the third day.
> PARTS of three different days were involved.

Karl Johanson