"Good Friday" and Matthew 12:40

[ohio jones]

Since 325AD They have been saying this in the Nicene Creded, but a couple of dudes on an internet site have more insight?

It's precisely because the creeds (and the Gospels) say "the third day he rose again" that many of us question the conflation of the annual sabbath with the weekly sabbath.

[JayP]

Ok, but remember the part about humility.

A couple of internet dudes are right and all the Orthodox Church fathers, and Aquinas, etc. are wrong?

[ohio jones]

Well, once you disagree with Aquinas about several other things, what's one more? But you're right, minority views do have a higher burden of proof. The fringier the view, the more scrutiny it deserves.

At least for me, this issue isn't a major one, and it's more a matter of probability than certainty. But I had heard good arguments in favor of a Thursday crucifixion long before I knew who Al Gore was, so it's not just random internet dudes who are influencing my views.

[Valerie]

Well, once you disagree with Aquinas about several other things, what's one more? But you're right, minority views do have a higher burden of proof. The fringier the view, the more scrutiny it deserves.

At least for me, this issue isn't a major one, and it's more a matter of probability than certainty. But I had heard good arguments in favor of a Thursday crucifixion long before I knew who Al Gore was, so it's not just random internet dudes who are influencing my views.

That should be a topic all on its own. If one doesn't agree with "everything" a person claims, then should they dismiss "everything" else the person teaches?

Take for example Menno Simmons who has quite a vast amount of followers bearing his name of identification in faith.

Through the many years of reading the forum, it's been clear there are things that Mennonites on the forum disagree with him about. Yet still carry the identification of his name.

By the same token, aren't you suggesting that because you disagree with Aquinas on some things that JayP should not consider his (or the early church records of history which does exist) teaching on the crucifixion and when it took place? By the way, he is not the one who started the topic, who apparently is trying to rewrite history so he is here defending 2000 years of history being attacked "as if we know better now".