Search results

I know that is the case with me. Nor has anyone that I have asked to demonstrate such an ability complied with the request.

So if someone back then had said that yesterday they had studied the torah night and day that no one would have thought that at least a part of a night time would have to have been involved?

So you're saying that it was common in Hebrew usage to say that a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a night time could be. What examples do you have to support that assertion?

You said parts of three nights. There's no part of a third night with a 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection.

But not with a 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection.

How would you word it? The topic is about the commonality of saying that a daytime or a night time would be involved with a event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could be involved. I don't see how that is misleading. I don't see how it's misleading. If someone believes...

Hey, I was just wondering how it was equal.

And remember, the "someone new" needs to be someone who believes the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with a 1st day of the week resurrection, and who thinks that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb, and who tries to explain the lack of a 3rd night by saying that...

re: "As God, he took the equivalent of suffering for the elect sinner's eternity in Hell." How is suffering for part of a day equal to being tortured 24/7 for eternity? re: " God was satisfied even if you are not." That's a different issue.

And what was the wrath that He took that would otherwise have to be taken by the elect?

But that is not what you initially wrote. You wrote - "Jesus took the wrath of God in place of the elect ..." I took that to mean that the Messiah took the wrath that would otherwise have to be taken by the elect. I was simply asking what the wrath was.

So, what wrath did He take that would otherwise have to be taken by the elect?

Sorry, I misread your statement. What do you mean by - "Jesus took the wrath of God in place of the elect ..."?

So you're now saying He didn't take the wrath that would otherwise have to be taken by the unsaved. You might want to edit your post #17 to correct your statement.

That doesn't sound right. If the wrath amounted to total and final death in hell, how did the Messiah take it.? He was only dead for three days and three nights.

Any particular reason for quoting Stravinsk's comment with regard to Luke 23:43 and then not addressing it?

I'm sure (figure of speech) that you've seen one of the explanations for that.

Wouldn't have been before the crucifixion since he reviled the Messiah while they were on the cross.

Well, they both reviled Him so something must have caused a change in the one thief between then and his statement - "Lord, remember me when you come into Your kingdom."

Any thoughts on what the death was that would otherwise have to be experienced by us?