Torah Times Messianic Ministry

Navigation: Home | Order Books | Calendar | Contact | Articles

When Did Messiah Die and Rise Again?

And Why Did He Do It?

When Christianity rejected the Torah, the Law of the Almighty, and particularly the seventh day Sabbath, it changed the resurrection day from the first of the Sabbaths after Passover to Sunday. It changed the timing to avoid the Biblical Sabbath, and it also changed the reason Messiah Yeshua suffered into a false gospel based on sacraments and believing doctrines at the expense of true repentance and faithfulness. At first these changes were reinterpretations of the existing Greek Text and misunderstandings of the Hebrew Torah. But later these reinterpretations were inserted into translations of these texts. The true faithful that kept the original truth were marginalized to fringe status by the Church, which over time allowed itself to be controlled by an Ecclessiastical Deep State of clerical bureaucracy, promoting false traditions, so that, it could attract the massses of the nations with its corrupted gospel. It is now chained to this Ecclesiastical Deep State. And it has been, and is becoming, and will be the whore of Babylon. It claims the legacy of Messiah, and dresses itself as a lamb, pretending to speak for Messiah, but it speaks the words of the serpent.

The chart below gives the true chronology. There is much to say about it, but for this article I will focus on just one point, Matthew 12:40 and Luke 24:21.

Most of those who take Matthew 12:40 literally are part of a faction opposing the mainstream Church which I will identify by a political analogy. They are controlled opposition. What is controlled opposition. Controlled opposition is when one wishes to teach a lie, one also creates opposition to the lie, and pretends this is the other side of the argument. It is a sort of straw man, like the Republicans in the United States Congress that claim to be conservative, but are actually colluding with the communists we call democrats. So Satan is clever, and takes those who disagree with his narrative, yet still believe in enough of it for his purposes, and he promotes them as the alternative view, knowing that they will continue to teach his other important lies. And while the two sides are arguing with each other, no one considers that third party which really is biblical. This is the party that is ignored and censored.

Matthew 12:40 is only one piece of evidence in a much more complex problem. And the problem is this. The Ecclesiastical Deep State is responsible for producing all the common translations of the Scripture. No one who deviates from approved renderings, even if they be incorrect, gets published. There are exceptions where the text is correctly rendered, but it is so rare that most are not even aware of it.

The controlled opposition may believe Matthew 12:40, but they also believe the controlled translations. That is, translations controlled by the Ecclesiastical Deep State. And this is the problem, because while they themselves make better sense of Matthew 12:40, their results are easily disproved when other texts are taken into account that are sponsored by the EDS! For example, Ecclesiastical Deep State translations say in Luke 24:21, “today is the third day." And this contradicts the usual Wednesday Crucifixion and Saturday afternoon or evening resurrection narrative, because the statement was made on Sunday, and that would be the fourth day, or more strictly, the fifth, if one were to include Wednesday in the count.

So now since the controlled opposition accepts the controlled translation, they are now made to look stupid for literally believing Matthew 12:40.

But what if Luke 24:21 is mistranslated in the official version? Then in that case, it would be circular reasoning to use a mistranslated text to claim that taking Matthew 12:40 literally contradicts the timeline. And this is what happened. In fact Luke 24:21 had to be deliberately mistranslated, because as it stands in the EDS versions (Ecclesiastical Deep State), it breaks several grammatical rules.

The Good News of Messiah gives the actual sense, “The time is passing a third day, this day, from when these things happened." You have to be a scholar and well versed in grammar to understand how this is so. But I can point out the obvious problem with “Today is the third day." There is no plain “is" in the Greek sentence, nor an plain implied “is". And besides being no “is" there is a verb that is not translated at all, which in the GNM I have rendered “passing." Young’s Literal Translation acknowledges the presence of this other verb: “This third day (subject) is passing today" (YLT).

And still Young’s version is an EDS version. Why? Because Young changed “third day" to the subject of the verb when in Greek it is clearly the object of the verb, viz. “It (subject) is passing a third day (object), this day (object)." Now the subject is “it" and “a third day" is the object, and “this day" is also an object of the verb!

I have clarified in GNM that the subject “it" refers to the “time" that had passed. Now we can express the objects of the sentence separately: (1) “It is passing a third day" and (2) “It is passing this day." Putting “time" as the subject that “it" refers to, (1) “The time is passing a third day," and (2) “The time is passing this day." Putting the two objects in the same sentence: “The time is passing a third day, this day." Or “It [the prophesied time] is passing a third day, this day." If one were to read the text more literally, “A third [day], this day, it is passing." But it makes the same sense as “It is passing a third day, this day."

It would have been dumb to complain about the allotted time running out if indeed it had not yet run out!

If someone says in English, “I should have been at my appointment at 10 o’clock, but it is passing 10 o’clock this morning" we know that 10 o’clock has just come and gone, perhaps by a few seconds or minutes, or perhaps by half an hour. Similarly, when the two men say “it is passing the third day, this day" they mean the time has come and gone with the arrival of the new day, if only just past from their perspective. The arrival of the new day is what they mean by “this day," or the critical point on it at which the prophesied third day ended.

If someone should say that “It is passing this day" that this should mean the time is still going on at that moment and has not exceeded the third day yet, because the verb is in the present tense, then the proper answer to this is that just like the 10 o’clock example above, the present tense is used to express the expiration of the time more vividly and up close because it has just passed. One may say about a bus they wish to catch in despair “Oh no, the bus is passing" when the bus has technically already passed and reached the bus stop a quarter mile away, and you have no time to reach the bus stop before the bus leaves the stop. It is in a similar attitute that the two men have made their remark.

So to summarize, the text does not say “this is the third day" or even “the third day is passing" as if right now, but it says “It is passing the third day, this day." In as much as the prophesied third day was calculated from dawn to dawn, and the Sabbath that day was from evening to evening, the third day passed on that day at dawn on the Sabbath. And one can see this in the chart.

One thing is perfectly clear about the EDS translations, and that is this. Even if the GNM could be interpreted by some to agree with the EDS translations, it is not hard to see how it has the meaning that I have stated here. What the EDS translations don’t give the reader is a choice based on the context. Therefore the EDS versions take the liberty to ignore the verb and leave it untranslated and then act as if that day is equivocated with the third day by interpolating the word “is." Furthermore, the EDS versions take two clauses “a third [day]" and “this day" which are in the accusative case in Greek, and therefore are supposed to be treated as objects of the untranslated verb, and then they make them equal, viz. “today is the third day." This is justified by the assumption of the Friday to Sunday narrative. But in reality it violates the rules of Greek grammar to make the text agree with what is assumed and not proved.

Do not expect a representative of the EDS with credentials to admit this. Nay. Their typical response is to slander the messenger. If you want a second opinion, it is best to talk to a secular atheist who has expertise in classical Greek, and to see what he says about these facts. Even so called Messianic leaders are in bed with defending the EDS status quo. If you don’t think so, then consider the next part of this essay. They are all on board with the penal substitution theory, which the Scripture does not teach. And I mean to work the chronology back and forth with this theme, because I judge it the best way to rattle the faithful, who are being deceived, out of their complacency.

I was reading "Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament" for Luke 24:21. It is interesting to see what he admits and also most instructive to see how he deals with it. He states, "To-day is the third day (τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει σήμερον). The best texts omit to-day. The phrase forms an idiom which cannot be neatly rendered. Literally, it is, "He (Christ) is passing (ἄγει) this day as the third." Rev., It is now the third day since, etc" (page 435, Vol. I, Luke 24:21).

Vincent is correct to omit σήμερον because the best texts do not have it, but if it were present, then the text would say literally, "a third, this day, passes today" and it would just be redundant, because "this day" and "today" mean the same thing. And therefore I did not bother to mention it earlier. Vincent then claims it is an idiom. I can only figure that he says this to give him some license to interpret the text in less than the obvious way and convince his naive audience that because he says it is an idiom, such license is allowed to him the expert and academic. But the EDS has a habit of claiming something is an idiom and then invoking academic rank to seal the deal. All too often they are lying, and we cannot trust them. In his so called literal translation there is one word that does not belong in it, which has no representation in Greek. It changes the whole meaning, and gives a perfect reason to disbelieve him. He puts the literal down as "this day AS the third." The "AS" is not literal. There should be a comma in this place. The "AS" serves to equate "this day" and "the third," but we see from the actual literal text, we are allowed not to equate them. "This day" is the day the remark is made by Cleopas, and "the third" is the third day of the prophecy. Since the verb ἄγει is for a third person singular subject, Vincent takes it to refer to "Christ," to which I have no fatal objection, but it does not change the result. I refer the subject of the verb to "it" which refers to the prophesied time. To say "Christ" is just a proxy for saying he exceeded the time he allotted. And so since Vincent has commented on this verse, as scholars invariably comment on everything, he has exposed a deep pit for the EDS which had he been wiser should have been left undistrubed in order to avoid the obvious and well deserved criticism I make.

The Ransom for Israel

Did you notice that the two men on the road to Emmaus considered Messiah to be about to ransom Israel? A ransom is a price paid by a king to gain the freedom of captives held by an enemy. And so Israel is held captive by the nations and by the Ecclesiastical Deep State, which is Mystery Babylon. And indeed Messiah will spend much treasure to rescue his people. He will spend nations and whole sectors of creation to effect their rescue. But he also paid a personal price for this rescue in the flesh. Because Messiah is the Almighty Son who took on our flesh and blood. Becoming one of us was part of his rescue plan. Because Israel has Stockholm syndrome caused by Satan’s slave masters, the nations and the EDS. By suffering in the flesh, the Most High is showing how our sin caused him to suffer in the Spirit. He requires us to realize this and repent of our sins, because it is our sins that caused his suffering.

So the two men on the road did not realize that not only would Messiah pay the ransom, but he himself would become part of that ransom price. It was sin and lawlessness that charged the price. He and his Father paid this price because the Almighty loves his people, and he loves the world and wants it to repent.

Did you know that false Christianity did not just change the timing of events. They did not just rewrite the history of Messiah's death and Resurrection. They also changed the explanation why he died into a false gospel. While the Gnostic Heresy was causing many to fall away, the Ecclesiastical Deep State came into being around the end of the first century AD. The revised gospel was that forgiveness of sin would be received through sacraments administered by a new class of priests who assumed authority over the ecclesia. The priests and the rituals were ascribed the power to make men right with God, and to channel the grace of God to men. Messiah's death was explained by them as the vehicle that infused the sacraments with their grace channeling powers. Believers were told that by doing the sacraments under the guidance of priests would make them right again if they sinned.

But we must understand that the Good News is a message of forgiveness for the repentant, and a message of the power of the Most High to transform the faithful into the righteousness of God through keeping his commandments from the heart. The good news is based on faithfulness, and not upon sacraments. Sacraments are superstitions, the proverbial magic wand, or placebo that makes one feel better, even though they have no power. And if it be said to be symbolism only, then this is to admit that sacraments are not transformative. Sacraments are a bait and switch by the EDS. Where the Almighty expects faithfulness, the EDS has switched it to sacraments.

Now the Ecclesiastical Deep State appears as a lamb, looking like it carries the legacy and mantle of Messiah, but it speaks as a serpent. Both horns of this lamblike beast teach a false chronology of Messiah's suffering and a false gospel based on sacraments or gnostic faith and doctrinal belief. They give the chronology to deter believers from the appointed times in the Torah. And they give the sacraments or doctrines to draw them away from what really matters to the Most High: true repentance faithfulness. Truly there are a few snared in the EDS trying to head in the right direction, but eventually to fully be faithful to the Almighty, they have to exit it. This is why it is called Mystery Babylon. And the faithful are called to come out of it.

The Gnostic horn of Christianity specializes in legal corruption of the meaning of Messiah's death, especially in the west. They teach the false doctrines of Anselm and Augustine. They reinterpret the meaning of Messiah’s death so that it is not perceived as the ransom cost that it is. They teach that Messiah’s death is a legal payment to the Father to satisfy the legal demand of the Father for wrath against sin. But this is not so. There is not a line of Scripture that speaks about the Father being paid off. The Father does not demand payment, but he wishes to forgive all who repent from their sins, and to bring you this message, the Almighty Son was willing even to suffer in the flesh. Because, the faithful have a bad case of sympathy with the enemies of the truth, the Son took it upon himself to demonstrate the cost of his efforts in his suffering. He demonstrated those costs as one of us in order to draw all men back to himself and his Father.