Jesus didnot fulfill his prophecy in the bible..Can anyone answer it!!!!!!!!

[Sparkey]

Check out John 39:39 and John 39:40. Someone did have some burial spices....

Look at your references again please as I suspect a typo.

[John 19:39-40 KJV] 39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound [weight]. 40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.​

:nod Oh, and thank you for bringing this to our attention!

 

[Slider]

Look at your references again please as I suspect a typo.

Yes, my mistake....

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Yea... About that.... Everyone is assuming that no one annointed the body. Now, no one has given satisfactory answer about when the women bought spices and when they prepared them. But no pun intended.... The body of Jesus was annointed before the burial to a degree.... Check out John 39:39 and John 39:40. Someone did have some burial spices.... Perhaps they did purchase them in haste, but the Bible doesn't say that.

Again, nard was a perfume and a food and beer additive, not a burial spice.

Yea well, you are going on that Jesus rose on Sunday at the rising of the Sun, and every Gospel says by that time he was already risen. Matthew says he was out of the tomb by 6 PM on Saturday, thus making it a perfect 3 days and 3 nights.

If you can include almost the entire night in the previous day, perhaps. But you can't. No more than, according to those who don't believe in a Friday crucifixion, there is no third night in that scenario. The problem is, it is only in Matthew that the term " ... and three nights" is used, and that is followed by the phrase "in the heart of the Earth." The word "heart" is kardia in the Greek, and it should be obvious that refers to the human organ, but in relationship to inanimate objects, i.e., the Earth, it meant the central part of that inanimate object.

An above-ground tomb is not "the heart of the Earth." However, death was seen by the Jews and the Greeks as a passing into what the Greeks called Hades and the Hebrews considered Sheol, which at that juncture did not mean hell (by the writing of the apostolic letters, it had come to mean hell), but meant the "holding place" of those dead, which was also at the center of the Earth. It is possible, though not likely, I admit, that by Christ's death, Matthew saw that as a "night" of sorts.

The fact the other gospels don't refer to "three nights" leads me to believe Matthew has been inadvertently added to by a scribe somewhere along the way, and the fact that the Jews saw a portion of a day as a day, in reference to counting days in which a contract was to be fulfilled or a passage of time when referencing a past event. That would indeed by three days, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. I don't see any reason to think Christ was resurrected in darkness, given He is the Light of the world, nor do I see any reason to believe the women arrived before sunrise. Therefore, I continue to adhere to a Friday crucifixion.

 

[Free]

The reason is simply this, Yeshua said to them, “Are there not twelve hours in the day?

I actually had another person argue with me how many hours there were in a day (aren't there 24?) but I pointed out this meant the daytime (but they apparently did not agree or understand).

But I understand. The issue is not how many hours, but the statement makes sense. I knew Yahweh made me into a gnomonist for a reason. That statement is a code for us sundial makers as to how they kept time, Roman, Greek and Hebrew kept 12 hours in a day, and that was represented (maybe Yeshua was even thinking of it) by a hemispherium sundial. The point being is that since Yeshua was defining a day as 12 hours, something very precise measured by sundials, then he was being specific when he later stated "3 days and 3 nights" as in Genesis --- these are entire days, just as in Genesis. So, we can multiply 6 x 12, can't we? and get the total hours in the grave.

This is not at all necessarily the case. You simply cannot take one statement about the number of hours in a day and apply it to some other statement about days (or nights). The fact is that the use of "day" throughout Scripture is used for an indeterminate period of time, 24 hrs, and anything less than 24 hrs, even 1 hour. So, it is perfectly acceptable to say that, regardless of what day of the week Jesus was crucified on, he was buried for at least a part of that day, hence, that counts as one day in the tomb.

From John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:

"whatever was done before sun setting, or after, if but an hour, or ever so small a time, before or after it, it was reckoned as the whole preceding, or following day; and whether this was in the night part, or day part of the night day, or natural day, it mattered not, it was accounted as the whole night day: by this rule, the case here is easily adjusted; Christ was laid in the grave towards the close of the sixth day, a little before sun setting, and this being a part of the night day preceding, is reckoned as the whole; he continued there the whole night day following, being the seventh day; and rose again early on the first day, which being after sun setting, though it might be even before sun rising, yet being a part of the night day following, is to be esteemed as the whole; and thus the son of man was to be, and was three days and three nights in the grave; and which was very easy to be understood by the Jews; and it is a question whether Jonas was longer in the belly of the fish. "

 

[Sparkey]

Again, nard was a perfume and a food and beer additive, not a burial spice.

I consider the prophetic use as well, seen in the Love story between a Bride and her King. Song of Solomon 1:12;4:14. Who can smell this above the stench that sometimes arises between brothers not yet mature? Answer: We can. It is our smell that shall arise before Him our King. Ours.

Barnes' Notes on Song of Solomon 1:12

The bride's reply Song of Solomon 1:12 may mean, "While the king reclines at the banquet I anoint him with my costliest perfume, but he has for me a yet sweeter fragrance" Sol 1:13-14. According to Origen's interpretation, the bride represents herself as anointing the king, like Mary John 12:3, with her most precious unguents.

Clarke's Commentary on Song of Solomon 1:12

While the king sitteth at his table - במסבו bimsibbo, in his circle, probably meaning the circle of his friends at the marriage festivals, or a round table.

Song of Solomon 4:14 American Standard Version (ASV)
Spikenard and saffron, Calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; Myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices.

Wesley's Notes on Song of Solomon 4:14

4:14 All trees - Such trees as produce frankincense.

And the context of chapter 4? It includes her command to the North Wind and to the South (I love it when the winds themselves are commanded, don't you? When do we see that happen in other parts of the Word of God?). The words of the Shulamite include a different and transcending time:

6 Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, I will get me to the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense.

7 Thou [art] all fair, my love; [there is] no spot in thee. ...

10 How fair is thy love, my sister, [my] spouse!
how much better is thy love than wine!
and the smell of thine ointments than all spices!
... 12 A garden inclosed [is] my sister, [my] spouse;
a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.​

13 Thy plants [are] an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits; camphire, with spikenard, 14 Spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices: 15 A fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon.

16 Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, [that] the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.

[Song of Solomon 4:6-7,10,12-16 KJV]​

1 [[A Song of degrees of David.]] Behold, how good and how pleasant [it is] for brethren to dwell together in unity! 2 [It is] like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, [even] Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; 3 As the dew of Hermon, [and as the dew] that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, [even] life for evermore.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I consider the prophetic use as well, seen in the Love story between a Bride and her King.

I don't see Song as a prophetic book, and neither did the prophets, priests and kings of Israel. It is a book of love, not between Christ and His church, but one between a husband and his wife, a biblical picture of the sexual relationship that is sacred to the marriage. In other words, the Rose of Sharon is not Christ. It is a term of endearment common to the culture of the time.

 

[tim-from-pa]

This is not at all necessarily the case. You simply cannot take one statement about the number of hours in a day and apply it to some other statement about days (or nights). The fact is that the use of "day" throughout Scripture is used for an indeterminate period of time, 24 hrs, and anything less than 24 hrs, even 1 hour. So, it is perfectly acceptable to say that, regardless of what day of the week Jesus was crucified on, he was buried for at least a part of that day, hence, that counts as one day in the tomb.

Why? What's then the point of saying about 12 hours in the day, which he meant the daylight (and not night) which goes without saying, so that if he was asked just what he meant by a day, this passage answers it? Also, to use the phrase 3 days and 3 nights is too precise to be an idiom. Otherwise, the same idea could be applied to Genesis (i.e. night and day) and then be said that it's not a full day.

OK, so I'm presuming many here go with the majority (just as most people go with a Microsoft computer ) in agreement with what's been taught to everyone over the years, that is to day you believe he died and was buried Friday. That would make Saturday, the Unleavened Bread feast day and also a weekly Sabbath, the SECOND day of his burial. So.... just how is this then a fulfilment of Unleavened Bread if that was not his first day? They partake of the Passover meal symbolizing Christ's death on the first night, not second. Yeshua is the first of everything.... the Firstfruits, the Firstborn, not second, third or even seventh.

Likewise, many probably believe he arose at Sunday dawn. The wavesheafs were cut down at sundown Saturday night, symbolizing the risen Christ. So, how would that ceremony be practiced before the risen Christ? The day of Firstfuits represented the resurrection, and thus could could not be dead any part of the day. The feasts had to be fulfilled at their proper times by Yeshua.

I think the Hebrew calendar and feasts got Gentilized over the years, which is why it's both important and scriptural to keep them at their proper times, and also this is why there is confusion introduced regarding the timing.

I hold my ground. The 12 hour mention is too strong for a person like me with that understanding to ignore --- that will however go over the top of those who are not familiar with that.

 

[Sparkey]

I don't see Song as a prophetic book, and neither did the prophets, priests and kings of Israel.

Your brother in Christ does. Oh and by the way, you (if you are the least) are greater than the greatest. That's pretty hard to understand (maybe) but it is where we are called. Go there. I want to.

Have you read Hosea 2:14-23 recently? Do a word study on the words Allure, Ishi, Baali (if you haven't already, refresh if you have).

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Have you read Hosea 2:14-23 recently? Do a word study on the words Allure, Ishi, Baali (if you haven't already, refresh if you have).

I have, and I just looked at them again. Powerful language, images of Christ to come, certainly, but Hosea is not Song. It has no bearing on Song. Prophecy is not why Solomon wrote Song.

This book remains singular within the Old Testament for at least two reasons: its character as a single poem and its subject matter, particularly the frank discussion of love between a married couple. The Song of Solomon’s willingness to broach the topic of physical love within marriage has made many of its readers throughout history uncomfortable, so much so that Rabbi Aqiba had to vigorously defend the book’s place in the Jewish canon even as late as AD 90 at the Council of Jamnia. But as a testament to the beauty of the marriage relationship in its fullness, Song of Solomon stands out with its uniquely detailed vision of this beautiful reality.

The fullness of the union that takes place at marriage is described in some of the most splendid poetic language in the entire Bible. In a world where so many speak of God’s special gifts with coldly clinical or apathetic statistical language, the passion of Solomon’s poetry refreshes a world thirsty for the truth about marriage. Solomon began his rendering of this relationship with the two lovers in courtship longing for affection while expressing their love for one another (Song of Solomon 1:1–3:5). Eventually, they come together in marriage, the groom extolling his bride’s beauty before they consummate their relationship (Song of Solomon 3:6–5:1). Finally, she struggles with the fear of separation, while he reassures his bride of his affections for her (Song of Solomon 5:2–8:14). All of this reinforces the theme of the goodness of marriage. Some -- obviously you among the Sparrow, but this is a minority opinion -- suggest the book also pictures in a more general way Christ’s love for His bride, the church. It does, but only secondarily, and has nothing to do with prophecy.

Song of Solomon poetically presents a broad range of events and feelings in the days leading up to and during marriage, offering encouragement toward an enduring love amid the petty jealousies and fears sure to threaten even the strongest of relationships. We should heed the Song’s sublime words by continuing to value marriage as one of the bedrocks of society, appreciating the goodness and the beauty borne out of the union of two people in holy matrimony.

 

[Sparkey]

Hosea is not Song. It has no bearing on Song. Prophecy is not why Solomon wrote Song.

Agreed (about Hosea, that is). Hosea is a prophet. I doubt that you will say that he did not speak prophetically. The Book of Hosea is one of the books of the Hebrew Bible. It stands first in order among what are known as the twelve Minor Prophets. The book of Hosea speaks of marriage. The revelation of Jesus to John might be said to be a revelation and not prophecy. The book of revelation speaks of marriage. I believe the whole bible was written for one purpose. That includes the prophecy that I see in the Acts of Abraham regarding his son and the sacrifice, as well as the Acts of Abraham regarding the wedding of his son. Genesis speaks of marriage. So also is what we find in the book of Esther. The Book of Esther is a book in the Ketuvim ("writings"), the third section of the Jewish Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) and is part of the Christian Old Testament. Esther speaks of marriage. None of this shall pass away. There are many voices, Solomon's is one of them. Solomon speaks of marriage. So do all four of the gospels. So does your voice. So does mine. Sometimes our voices may take on prophetic significance but only as we speak according to the will of God. Else, no.

The Words of Wisdom are found in the Song of songs. We both hear them.

• The Law (Torah) - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
• The Prophets (Neviim) - Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel (one volume), 1 & 2 Kings (one volume), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 12 Minor Prophets (one volume)
• The Writings (Kethubim) - Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah (one volume), 1 & 2 Chronicles (one volume)

Interesting that Psalms, Proverbs, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah (and others) are included in "The Writings," isn't it? Does that mean that none of the words recorded in those books may be seen as prophetic? I, for one, don't see it that way. Also interesting that Joshua, Judges and the others are included in "The Prophets," no? So many seek to classify, I do too, but more-so to understand and I trust this is true for you. I've seen evidence of that fact.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Agreed. Hosea is a prophet.

Then I have to confess I'm missing your point.

 

[Sparkey]

Agreed. Hosea is a prophet.

Then I have to confess I'm missing your point.

The point is that although one may come and declare that a single book (The Song of Solomon) is not prophecy as you have alleged, we may then turn to what is agreed to be a prophecy and see the very same promise in Hosea 2:14-23. Both promises spoken of both poetically and both prophetically. Both equally able to "catch ones breath away." The point is that there are many, many prophetic statements in the bible that have yet to be fulfilled. The Bridegroom and the Lamb of God will do all that was given Him to do, including sanctify, cleanse, purge, speak to, care for, provide for, make a way for, encourage, admonish, rebuke, chasten, and love those whose hope is set into and onto the Name of Him who was sent to us, our savior and the representative of God, here on Earth as well as in heaven for evermore. Jesus was a man. He came in flesh. It is not good for a man to be alone. For this reason the two shall leave their father and their mother and the two shall become one flesh. Behold! I speak of a mystery.

There are many voices, but the sound of the Bridegroom and the sound of His Bride will not always be heard in the land. I hear the song of the turtledove and I smell the spices even now. Join me and listen with care for her voice. I do so long to see "her" even if only for a moment, as John the Baptist's father did live to see the day he longed for. This too, is prophetic to me.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The point is that although one may come and declare that a single book (The Song of Solomon) is not prophecy as you have alleged, we may then turn to what is agreed to be a prophecy and see the very same promise in Hosea 2:14-23.

The two are not corollary. Sorry.

 

[Sparkey]

The two are not corollary. Sorry

I've not counted but there are more than two. Count Abraham and Isaac and Rebecca, count Adam and Eve, count all mentions of marriage in the Holy Word as you consider Holy Matrimony and then look at the Wedding of the Lamb and His command, "Be thou holy, for I am holy," then turn to the Holy Spirit and seek His counsel, not mine.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I've not counted but there are more than two. Count Abraham and Isaac and Rebecca, count Adam and Eve, count all mentions of marriage in the Holy Word as you consider Holy Matrimony and then look at the Wedding of the Lamb and His command, "Be thou holy, for I am holy," then turn to the Holy Spirit and seek His counsel, not mine.

They may be the same words in English, but the tense and voice in the Hebrew give them separate meanings. Song is about human love, in the marital setting. Nothing more. I've studied this many times over the years, 'Hawke, and what you're saying is there, just isn't there. God bless.

 

[Sparkey]

I too have studied, that's not the point at all. This is a thread about prophecy that has yet to be fulfilled regarding Jesus. There are many weddings mentioned in the bible, the thread is not about those. It is about prophecy that has yet to be fulfilled. That would include parables of the Wedding Feast and that would include revelations given to John. It would also specifically include the actions of the Holy Spirit and the "Servants of God" who were sent in the latter times to those in the streets to invite them (bring them) in to the wedding feast. It includes the preparation and the adornment of the bride for it was to her that gifts have been given. It includes what each of us do with the gifts and the admonishment to put on the wedding robe and to keep ourselves spotless as we adore Him.

These things are prophetic statements about Jesus, the Lamb of God, who is also seen by Christians to be the Bridegroom. Let each who listen also listen with an ear to hear what the Spirit says. Revelation 22:17.

 

[Slider]

Again, nard was a perfume and a food and beer additive, not a burial spice.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt since I misquoted the scripture number (even though the correct numer was given later). The verse we are talking about is John 19:39 and 19:40.

"And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury."

I see myrrh and aloes, but I don't see nard, a perfume, a food or a beer additive. You can call them that if you like, but they still used it to spice the body!

This has been a nice diversionary discussion and all.... But it still doesn't discount the fact that Mark 16:1 says the women bought the spices AFTER the sabbath, and Luke 23:56 says they prepared the spices BEFORE the sabbath. This can only happen if there were two sabbaths on non consectutive days. Perhaps it was added inadvertently by a scribe somewhere along the way.

If you can include almost the entire night in the previous day, perhaps. But you can't. No more than, according to those who don't believe in a Friday crucifixion, there is no third night in that scenario. The problem is, it is only in Matthew that the term " ... and three nights" is used, and that is followed by the phrase "in the heart of the Earth." The word "heart" is kardia in the Greek, and it should be obvious that refers to the human organ, but in relationship to inanimate objects, i.e., the Earth, it meant the central part of that inanimate object.

That all really made no sense to me.... Maybe someone else can make sense of it all, but I can't.

It is possible, though not likely, I admit, that by Christ's death, Matthew saw that as a "night" of sorts.

I agree with you.... It's not likely. In fact it's not even worth considering as a possibility. I'd rather just believe it as it says it.

The fact the other gospels don't refer to "three nights" leads me to believe Matthew has been inadvertently added to by a scribe somewhere along the way,

I have an awful feeling you are serious about this... It seems to me that you would rather believe that parts of the Bible were falsified -- you are almost saying it is a forgery -- rather than believe what it says?

Let me show you how unbelievable that is.... In Matthew 12:40, Jesus was quoting the book of Jonah. If this is indeed an "inadvertent addition", then that same scribe inadvertently added to Jonah 1:17. They both say 3 days and 3 nights. Do you believe that Jonah 1:17 was also an "inadvertent addition"?

That's too far fetched and it really sounds like it is boardering on a conspiracy theory for me to take seriously. I cannot and will not read and believe the Bible wondering if the verses are genuine or not. Neither will I accept that as an excuse from anyone else.

and the fact that the Jews saw a portion of a day as a day, in reference to counting days in which a contract was to be fulfilled or a passage of time when referencing a past event.

You can keep claiming it as a fact all you want. You don't have solid Biblical proof, but you are going on heresay. On the other hand, I have submitted several things to you which counter that.

1. Jesus said there were 12 hours in a day.
2. the Jews seemed awfully keen on beginning and ending the sabbath on time to believe that 1-3 hours on Friday can be considered a whole day.
3. It doesn't even matter what the Jews consider a day, it matters what God and Jesus considered a day. God was the one who said it.

nor do I see any reason to believe the women arrived before sunrise. Therefore, I continue to adhere to a Friday crucifixion.

Mark 16:2 says they came at the rising of the sun. So if you want to believe that, it's ok. However, I'm not really interested in what your opinions are on this matter, I am interested in what the Bible says. In any sense, you are missing the extremely important point that Jesus was already risen BEFORE the rising of the sun. The verse does not say they got there after the sun rose, but at the rising of it. There is no way Jesus was in the tomb during sunlight hours on Sunday. John says it was yet dark when they arrived (John 20:1) and Luke (Luke 24:1) says it was very early in the morning. Again, Matthew says it was immediately after the Sabbath ended (Matthew 28:1).

Even if you hold to the Friday crucifixion date and hold to the belief that a whole day can be a mere 1-3 hours, that is only 2 days and two nights.

 

[Slider]

I hold my ground. The 12 hour mention is too strong for a person like me with that understanding to ignore --- that will however go over the top of those who are not familiar with that.

Amen to that!!! Let me back that up with the following statements:

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I suppose you could say it doesn't apply here because Jesus was speaking about the law and not his prophecy, but it at least shows that Jesus did believe that even every "jot and tittle" was important.

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him saying, it is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

It seems to me that every word is important. 2 Peter 1:19-20 tells us we have a more sure word of prophecy, and that it isn't subject to private interpretation. Thus, I don't believe we have the right to surmise that maybe a day is less than what Jesus said it is.

Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

It seems to me that if Jesus meant something less than 72 hours when he said 3 days and 3 nights, there is variableness in what he said, especially when he defined a day as being 12 hours.





<dir>
</dir>

 

[tim-from-pa]

I think besides the evidence that Slider and I gave about the specific mention of hours and days, the feast days, prophecy, order of events and so forth, I want to get off the defensive and ask those who do not believe Yeshua was in the tomb 3 days what their scriptural evidence for that is besides:

1) Well, Jews counted parts of days as a full day, so it's possible and
2) That's what church and tradition taught?

Regarding point #1, I'm sure there will be all sorts of scriptural references to parts of days. Agreed. But is that any more of a reason to connect that to Matthew 12:40 than my being accused of connecting the 12 hours to the length of a day in the same passage? What makes the former a stronger argument?

I wish people saw that if they were unchurched that they would not come up with a Friday crucifixion view, but since they are churched they are assuming a Friday position first and then forcing the scripture to support it somehow. And if it was this clear cut, why does even a child know to ask this question? Doesn't that at least bother anyone that the method of counting is all the way out to lunch? It bothers me, but then that's why I'm into math as one cannot be a mathematician and say something like that.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

This is a thread about prophecy that has yet to be fulfilled regarding Jesus.

No, the OP in this thread claimed that Jesus was not in the tomb "three days and three nights" as stated in Matthew 12:40. This thread has nothing to do with Song of Songs or yet to be fulfilled prophecy.

I have an awful feeling you are serious about this... It seems to me that you would rather believe that parts of the Bible were falsified -- you are almost saying it is a forgery -- rather than believe what it says?

Unfortunatley in the New Testament, there are many examples of additions and copying errors. The latter versions have far fewer than the KJV, but nonetheless, some have persisted. Or perhaps you can explain why Matthew is the only one of the four gospels that adds the phrase " ... and three night" whereas the others only refer to three days?