I've given a lot of thought (perhaps too much thought) to the chronology of "on the third day" vs. "after three days." In particular, I'd relate it to Psalm 90, and Revelations 20, and Matthew 24.
Psalm 90:4 A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
So if a thousand years is like a day, gone by, could the chronology of Biblical prophesies be off by a factor of 365,000?
Another thing to consider--how should we interpret three days? "After three days would generally imply, after 72 hours." However, I think I've rented videos where a three day rental means "If you rent it sometime today, it is due back sometime the day after tomorrow." Which could, in the most extreme situation (rented at 11 pm Thursday, returned at 1am Satureda) be as little as 26 hours..
This might be stretching that analogy beyond the breaking point, but I'm going to give it my best shot. The "prophesy" to be confirmed here is "Unless you return the video to Blockbuster on the third day, you will continuing to accrue further debt."
In this "Blockbuster video" analogy, the movie is "The Passion of the Christ." Let's say I rented it, and I was amazed at how boring it was, so I put off watching it. But then I never get in the mood to watch it, and I forgot I had it, so it stays on my shelf, and by the time I remember it, it's been a month, and I take it back to the video store, unwatched. Now I find that I owe $500.00 in late fees.
If only I had returned this video, immediately, I wouldn't have owed anything.
If "returning the video to Blockbuster" were analagous to all of humanity recognizing Jesus as Lord (e.g. doing what he says to do, adopting the Golden Rule; treating strangers with respect and kindness. etc) But for 2000 years, since Jesus was crucified, many Christians have elected, instead to focus on recognizing Jesus as God (e.g. justifying whatever evil things they want to do, are think necessary, through the blood of Christ.)
Their punishment, then, is to live in a world where debt continues to accrue, because evil is... well, evil. And the longer we leave "The Passion of the Christ" up there on the shelf; well, eventually Blockbuster will go bankrupt and send our debt to a collection agency.
I don't generally read Revelations for predictive purposes. The only good that can come from Revelations is by fulfilling the prophesies ironically, or by not fulfilling them at all. But when you look back over the last 2000 years of warring nations brutalizing each-other's people, you can see that in some sense, Revelations has never stopped being fulfilled. 1000 years of war, followed by another 1000 years of war. I could try to guess at what event represents an angel binding satan, or what event represents an angel throwing the devil into the abyss... or what event represents an authority ruling with Christ for 1000 years...
The timeline seems just perfectly set up for Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 20:7-10 - New International Version but with rounding off to the nearest 1000 years, that could be something that happened 100 years ago, or 100 years from now.
I think, if I could declare a prophecy fulfilled, Revelation 20:7-9 come true during World War II. But as for Revelation 20:10 I don't think that that can be regarded as true, unless people actually have a consensus on who is the devil, and who is the false prophet.
My hypothesis is to say that John, the writer of John's gospel, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelations wants the honor here. Once we recognize that John wants to be read ironically--that John is playing the part of "the Devil"... (oh, and he also gives a call out, to Job, I think, as the false pro(f)it.) By reading these books, understanding the irony implied, we might come to understand
Matthew 24 :6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
What do you look forward to "the end" of? If this is meant to be a comfort, then it should be the end to wars, and rumors of wars, and I think it is meant to be a comfort.
There's this question though, whether we, as humanity, can make a collective choice to call evil "evil", and call good, "good" and strive to do the right things for the right reasons? What would that "good" look like? If we could make this collective choice, to stop doing things for the sake of "power" over others and "money" and start doing things more for the sustainable good of ourselves and for others?
There's a mountain in the way. We trust the cynics because they have been proved right, so often in the past. And we despise the optimists, because they are clearly fools. So we continually defend ourselves against the inevitable bad-apple, and don't realize that we've become the bad-apple ourselves.
I agree. Pretty much, don't agree, but follow. As for the 1000 years war followed by another 1000 years of war, I thought about that earlier.
As for three days and two nights, doesn't it say "three days and three nights"? Or just three days? If so, I have no problem with understanding that from Friday to Sunday is three days. But not three nights, for sure.
Also, I've noticed that John is pretty much what Catholicism and maybe Christianity is all about. If the New Testament had left John out, the Christianity would have much more rough times explaining certain things that the Church represent nowadays. Also, being close to Judaism and Islam would be clearer, had not there been John's part.
I'm glad you follow. Of course my interpretations are somewhat speculative... All I can say is they seem "right" to me. In fact, once a memorable interpretation enters my ear, I can't often "unhear" it.
You can see some of this confuddling of days and nights inZechariah 14:7-8. And the extension of time, where day has summer and winter. And "in the evening there will be light" goes along with Matthew 24:21-23: "If those days had not been cut short, no one would have survived."
Nobody ever quotes from Zechariah, because the whole thing argues with itself, e.g "The Lord said ...one thing" but "An angel of the Lord said...something entirely different." I think Zechariah sort of introduces Satan, Zechariah 5:5-11, an Angel of the Lord who demonstrates iniquity and wickedness, while pretending to teach righteousness.
Anyway, my arguments for peace do not require verses of the Bible to support. But I feel that since there are billions of Judeo-Christian people in the world who either think that Jesus was a prophet, or the Messiah, or the Son of God, it seems reasonable to find some sort of interpretation of these prophecies that don't come to a bloody apocalyptic mess.
You're right: Matthew 12:39-40 does say three days and three nights.
Much later in the same gospel, Matthew 24:21-23 says: "If those days had not been cut short, no one would have survived."
There seems to be a tense error, but it might mean "the days of the third night I have prophesied have been cut short" but lets say World War I is the first night. World War II is the second night. World War III is the third night.
---
For another "Follow" but not necessarily agree, consider this idea:
This says, for someone who has insight... I do have an insight, that John is false, so when he says it is the number of a man, it is his own number, which he put into his own book:
Some people say this is actually supposed to be 616. So look atRevelation 6:16 , (They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!") In context, this is said by the 6th group of people, ((Kings, Princes, Generals, Rich, Mighty, Everyone Else) in the 6th item found (Earthquake, Sun, Moon, Stars, Heavens, Humans), under the 6th seal, in chapter 6, of the 66th book of the bible.
So who is John pointing his finger of condemnation at? Is he condemning everyone except the Kings, Princes, Generals, Rich, and Mighty? Or is he condemning everyone?
We're on the verge of perfect secrecy in electronics, so that people can keep their secrets. The problem is, there are two types of secrets. Secrets that are nobody's business, secrets that could make people sad or jealous, and secrets of actual evil intent and process. People want to keep secrets to maintain their dignity and avoid public criticism. But instead of working toward a world where people are given their dignity, they argue we argue for better and better secrecy, thus protecting "criminal" behavior, and maintaining hypocritical standards.
I am troubled because I listen to podcasts like "geekspeak" and "Skeptics Guide to the Universe" and they seem like very reasonable people who give very reasoned arguments to say "We Must Have Perfect Security In Our Transactions"
I wonder, though... Who benefits more in an environment of perfect secrecy? The trustworthy person or the criminal? I'm pretty sure that a trustworthy person is going going to be murdered or taken advantage of more often in a world of perfect secrecy. And the criminal could not survive in a world of perfect transparency, because everyone would know he was a criminal.
I have always been very pro-transparency, in government, in business, in open-source software, etc, but if it weren't for "the number of the beast" here, I would probably not take an active interest in this topic of transparency vs. secrecy in our digital media.
I'm not saying Jesus never used irony. But this is not the sort of "a bit of innocent fun" sort of irony that I think a worthy Messiah would use. This was what in the modern era would be similar to: Making a false Bomb Threat
In the U.S. indviduals who willfully make a threat or maliciously convey false information concerning an attempt to injure, kill, or destroy property through the use of explosives can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.
Regardless of what John said Jesus MEANT, what John says Jesus SAID was "“Destroy this temple,"
It's not like it was unclear... In John 2:20, the Jews ask for clarification. They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?”
And Jesus did not reply to them. Instead, (John 2:22) It was only after he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
So while John-Gospel-Jesus actually SAYS Destroy this Temple. And that was UNDERSTOOD by the Jews to mean "Destroy this Temple" and it was apparently UNDERSTOOD by his own disciples to mean "Destroy this temple" for the next several days.