posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by Cobra.EXE
As people have pointed out, the suggestion of a "three day gap" has been made many times before.
I have in front of me Bishop Westcott's "Introduction to the study of the Gospels" (1881), which makes a case based on an argument which is simpler
and less contrived than the new theory seems to be.
The new theory is based on the idea that different groups of people were operating different calendars.
Bishop Westcott simply points out that the word "sabbath" has a double meaning. Apart from the weekly sabbath, there was also a special Passover
sabbath beginning at sunset after the killing of the lamb.
If the Passover lamb was killed on a Thursday that year, then Jesus would lie in the tomb on Friday (Passover sabbath), as well as Saturday (ordinary
weekly sabbath), making the full "third day" on Sunday.
He also observes that, for the same reason, the Last Supper could not have been a true Passover meal- or at least, not one held at the same time as
everybody else. Because the Passover meal did not take place until the Passover sabbath had already begun. Therefore all the actions following the
Last Supper, including the arrest and the crucifixion, would have been impossible under sabbath regulations, if it was a true Passover meal.. It would
have to be a substitute Passover, held a day in advance.