The Unlikelihood Analysis
The Improbability of Improbability
The Greatest Hoax in history is the teaching that Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday morning. In fact he rose on a Sabbath morning. It is truly unlikely that all the Churches are wrong, all the preachers are wrong, all the commentaries are wrong, all the translations are wrong. It is truly unlikely that there are any holes in the Church’s argument for a Sunday resurrection unless one thing be true: It is a hoax. It is truly unlikely that a bulletproof and completely consistent case made be made for a resurrection Sabbath on the seventh day. If the Sunday resurrection be true, then it is unlikely that anyone could get very far in another direction. It is truly unlikely that the logical, chronological, textual, and other obstacles to a resurrection Sabbath should easily move out of the way if the Sunday resurrection theory be true. In this essay we will discover that the obstacles do move out of the way.
We will discover that what is unlikely is likely. And by proving that the conventional theory is a fraud and the unlikely likely we will demonstrate all the more that Messiah came out of the grave. The truth is always the best argument for the truth. But so many have made such a career of denying the real truth and making Christians believe it, that when the real truth comes out, the power of the argument for it is increased many fold in the face of its ability to overcome what everyone believes to be unlikely. The reason that the situation has come to be this way is not because atheists or pagans disbelieve the Scripture. The reason is because a controlling majority who say they believe the Scripture have chosen to be secretly lawless. The cabal of leadership in the Church has chosen to oppose the truth under the cloak of religion rather than from outside the Church.
Since I have written extensively already on many of the details of this topic, this essay will concentrate of appreciating the sum of unlikelihoods. In other words, I do not want to loose the reader in the details. The object is to see what hurdles the resurrection Sabbath is able to overcome and the presumed unlikelihood that said obstacles can be surmounted.
The Unlikelihoods Listed
1. There should be no sensible alternative to “first day of the week” in the resurrection passages, viz. Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19.
The texts all say “first [day] of the Sabbaths.”
2. There should be no sensible alternative to “After the Sabbath” at the start of Matthew 28:1.
The much more probable sense is: “And the late one of the Sabbaths”
3. There should be no sensible alternative to the supposition that “preparation day” only means Friday. John 19:14.
There is: the day before the annual Passover Sabbath.
4. There should be no sensible alternative to the teaching that a “high Sabbath” means when a feast day happens to fall upon the weekly Sabbath. John 19:31
There is: it is an annual Sabbath, and all annual Sabbaths are high Sabbaths even when they don’t happen to fall on the weekly Sabbath.
5. There should be no sensible explanation of Matthew 12:40 of three days and three nights other than Friday-Sunday.
There is: Wednesday dawn to Sabbath dawn contains three days and three nights.
6. There should be no sensible alternative to the “first day of unleavened bread” in the last super passages. Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7.
There is: “the head-most day of unleavened bread” is Nisan 14.
7. There should be no sensible alternative to the “on the third day” passages, where Messiah dies on the first of the three days and rises on the third of the three days.
There is when it is realized that the days go from dawn to dawn.
The unlikelihood of doing better
If the conventional theory is true then the resurrection Sabbath should not be able to solve any problems better than the Friday-Sunday teaching.
8. It should not be able to better explain why Messiah was buried in a linen sheet and that when he was raised the grave clothes are described as linen strips.
It does: they changed the grave clothes on Friday between two Sabbaths.
9. It should not be able to explain how the women bought spices after the Sabbath any better than the view that they bought them after sunset Saturday night and prepared them in the dark before Sunday morning. Mark 16:1.
It does: they did this on Friday.
10. The year for a resurrection Sabbath should not have a more likely explanation of the 15th year of Tiberius’ reign (Luke 3:1) that agrees with contemporary Roman chronology.
It does: the AD 30-34 ministry fits better.
11. If the conventional theory is true, then it is unlikely that a false theory should be able to locate Nisan 14 on a Wednesday in a year that agrees with Daniel 9.
It does: perfectly. 445 BC to AD 34 contain 7 sevens and 62 sevens in the space between.
12. If the resurrection Sabbath is false, then it would be most unlikely that the theory agrees with a chosen year well established in Church tradition for the passion.
It does: AD 34.
13. If the resurrection Sabbath is false, then it would be most unlikely that the Resurrection Sabbath theory chooses a Roman Month and day of the month that is only 1 day different than that which Church tradition historically preferred. It would also be most unlikely that a ready explanation is available as to why there is a one day difference. It would also be most unlikely that the preferred date is not a Friday.
Church date, March 25th. Resurrection Sabbath date: March 24th. In AD 34 this was Wednesday, and the 25th day is not a Friday.
14. If Friday-Sunday is not a hoax, then it is unlikely that the Resurrection Sabbath would fall in a year that gives a more likely length to Messiah’s ministry.
It does: 4 years as supported by many scholars.
15. If the resurrection Sabbath were not true, then it is unlikely that it could explain the strange passage in Luke 6:1 about the “second-first Sabbath” any better or at all.
It does: it is simply another way of saying the first Sabbath after Passover.
16. The explanation of Daniel 9 needed to go with the resurrection Sabbath should not be able to reveal which year is the Sabbatical year.
17. If the Sabbatical year were not true, then it should not be possible to map it out in the rest of Biblical chronology.
It has been done.
18. The chosen Sabbatical year would be unlikely to agree with Jewish tradition on the matter.
It agrees with a cycle admitted to be possible by Zuckerman, i.e. 1 year before his choice.
19. The explanation of Daniel 9 that goes with the resurrection Sabbath should not be able to explain the seven sevens better than the Friday-Sunday view.
It does. The conventional theory has no explanation.
20. The resurrection Sabbath should not lead to explaining the order of Ezra and Nehemiah any better.
It does with the seven sevens.
Since some readers are likely to be new to this, I will have to stop listing the spin off results, because some of them are so unlikely to believers in the conventional theory that they will just laugh at them. Needless to say, this list could go on many times longer using the resurrection Sabbath as the logical starting point for chronological deduction. The bottom line is this: there is simply no way that an alternative theory could overcome the conventional system unless it were true. And there is no way that the Almĭghty in heaven would ever permit the facts from totally pointing that way unless it were true. And there is simply no way that the enemy of Messiah would let the truth be told without creating his own system and then telling it in place of the true system. Finally, is is very clear that human nature and sin are on the side of the conventional theory.
21. Lev. 23:15 should not exist if Friday-Sunday is true.
22. The first Sabbath should not always come after Passover if Friday-Sunday is true.
23. Acts 20:6-7 should not actually be there if Friday-Sunday is true.
24. It should not turn out that the Hebrew idiom for counting days to the Sabbath does not fit the claims for Friday-Sunday if it be true.
25. In the face of counter arguments against “first [day] of the Sabbaths,” based on gender, it should not turn out that Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, and Luke 22:7 disprove them.
26. It should not be possible to refute all the claimed passages that are supposed to shorten three days and three nights so that it will work with Friday-Sunday.
The Implications of the Solutions
27. It would be highly improbable if the implications of the given solutions no where crash and burn when taken to their logical conclusions if Friday-Sunday were true.
At every turn, what is unlikely in the eyes of the world meets and overcomes every challenge, historical, astronomical, archaeological, textual, translational, and theological. Many a Christian has been reduced to unbelief, being a cynic, or worse by the arguments and inconsistencies surrounding the conventional theory. There is no doubt about it: the resurrection was on the Sabbath. And the results of building on this foundation have a proven track record.