Why do we call it "Good Friday" anyway?

[Colt]

IMOP it should be called "tragic Friday"!​

​

How do we read the parable of the absent landowner and conclude that it was the will of God that the Gospel message be rejected and his son killed???​

​

Matthew 21:33-46 reads:

“Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower and he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit and the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first and they did likewise to them. Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?” They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.” Jesus said to them,

“Have you never read in the Scriptures:
‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes?’

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it and whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”
​

Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them, but when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet.”

 

[Sand Dancer]

Supposedly it came from "God's" Friday, meaning Holy Friday.

 

[pearl]

In this parable there is a close correspondence between most of the details of the story and the situation that it illustrates, the dealings of God with his people. Because of that heavy allegorizing, some scholars think that it does not in any way go back to Jesus, but represents the theology of the later church. That judgment applies to the Marcan parallel as well, although the allegorizing has gone farther in Matthew. There are others who believe that while many of the allegorical elements are due to church sources, they have been added to a basic parable spoken by Jesus. This view is now supported by the Gospel of Thomas 65, where a less allegorized and probably more primitive form of the parable is found.
The word Good Friday comes from the sense 'pious, holy' of the word 'good'. Until 1955, the Latin term that was used by the Catholic Church was 'Feria sexta in Parasceve (Friday of Preparation).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In this parable there is a close correspondence between most of the details of the story and the situation that it illustrates, the dealings of God with his people. Because of that heavy allegorizing, some scholars think that it does not in any way go back to Jesus, but represents the theology of the later church. That judgment applies to the Marcan parallel as well, although the allegorizing has gone farther in Matthew. There are others who believe that while many of the allegorical elements are due to church sources, they have been added to a basic parable spoken by Jesus. This view is now supported by the Gospel of Thomas 65, where a less allegorized and probably more primitive form of the parable is found.
The word Good Friday comes from the sense 'pious, holy' of the word 'good'. Until 1955, the Latin term that was used by the Catholic Church was 'Feria sexta in Parasceve (Friday of Preparation).

We don't call it "Good Friday", we called "Long Friday".

 

[Colt]

In this parable there is a close correspondence between most of the details of the story and the situation that it illustrates, the dealings of God with his people. Because of that heavy allegorizing, some scholars think that it does not in any way go back to Jesus, but represents the theology of the later church. That judgment applies to the Marcan parallel as well, although the allegorizing has gone farther in Matthew. There are others who believe that while many of the allegorical elements are due to church sources, they have been added to a basic parable spoken by Jesus. This view is now supported by the Gospel of Thomas 65, where a less allegorized and probably more primitive form of the parable is found.
The word Good Friday comes from the sense 'pious, holy' of the word 'good'. Until 1955, the Latin term that was used by the Catholic Church was 'Feria sexta in Parasceve (Friday of Preparation).

Thanks, that's a good explanation.

 

[Jainarayan]

As I recall the Orthodox Church calls it Holy Friday.

 

[Apostle John]

“Have you never read in the Scriptures:​

​

‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes?’

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it and whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”
​

Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them, but when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet.”

Thanks for reminding me of the Psalm. The next verse reads:

This is the day that the LORD has made;
we will rejoice and be glad in it.

It’s tragic for those that reject the Gospel as The Lord Jesus told the viper’s nest of pharisees etc.

 

[Balthazzar]

Maybe it's about what was written in John when Jesus was speaking to his disciples. "I go to prepare a place for you that where I am you may be also." I think Thomas asked where he was going. The premise is based on the preparation of a kingdom and the necessary steps to make it happen. Jesus understood his role. Thomas didn't. Three days down, then God raised him up is how the story goes. I myself, and as the text suggests, view this as a spiritual uprising. This thought is further established in other texts such as 1 CORINTHIANS 15:42-58

That may be the reason it was declared good, yet also tragic. It was the beginning of a new understanding about the nature of life and how it continues via spiritual elements. 1 Jonn 4 suggests something similar. Christ was risen as spirit, those who understand this spirit can't truthfully say that Christ has not come in the flesh - namely ours. Truth and error -

A question about time and timelines: 3 days or 3 thousand years? I can see a possible on earth as it is in heaven on this timeline via living according to truth as opposed to error, facts as opposed to fallacies, the getting it right as opposed to getting it wrong - The spirit of truth, which is what he promised to send us as a guide and type of comforter, knowing that this guiding element of life can be trusted. Thomas ended up, in some circles, being viewed as the patron saint of science, which oddly enough (or not) necessitates validation. Objective verification and likewise subjective, based on personal experiences and how we process information as autonomous agents.

 

[Jainarayan]

It’s tragic for those that reject the Gospel

Stop your preaching.

Lord Krishna gives a great burn in Bhagavad Gita 9.11 “Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be.”

Purport: there are many foolish men who consider Krishna to be merely a powerful man and nothing more. Actually, He is the original Supreme God, as is confirmed in the Brahma-samhita (isvarah paramah krsnah); He is the Supreme Lord.

See how that works? Sauce for the goose. So, stop preaching. It’s getting old.

 

[Colt]

Stop your preaching.

Lord Krishna gives a great burn in Bhagavad Gita 9.11 “Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be.”

Purport: there are many foolish men who consider Krishna to be merely a powerful man and nothing more. Actually, He is the original Supreme God, as is confirmed in the Brahma-samhita (isvarah paramah krsnah); He is the Supreme Lord.

See how that works? Sauce for the goose. So, stop preaching. It’s getting old.

Son of the original supreme God. Jesus never declared himself to be God Absolute, always subservient to the Father.

 

[Estro Felino]

Here not. We call it Holy Friday.
And also: Holy Thursday (Last Supper) and Holy Saturday.

 

[Stevicus]

Fridays are always good. Saturdays, even better.

 

[Left Coast]

In this parable there is a close correspondence between most of the details of the story and the situation that it illustrates, the dealings of God with his people. Because of that heavy allegorizing, some scholars think that it does not in any way go back to Jesus, but represents the theology of the later church. That judgment applies to the Marcan parallel as well, although the allegorizing has gone farther in Matthew. There are others who believe that while many of the allegorical elements are due to church sources, they have been added to a basic parable spoken by Jesus. This view is now supported by the Gospel of Thomas 65, where a less allegorized and probably more primitive form of the parable is found.
The word Good Friday comes from the sense 'pious, holy' of the word 'good'. Until 1955, the Latin term that was used by the Catholic Church was 'Feria sexta in Parasceve (Friday of Preparation).

Are you quoting something here?

 

[pearl]

Are you quoting something here?

excerpts from the NABRE study Bible.

 

[Left Coast]

excerpts from the NABRE study Bible.

Cool. Just make sure to properly quote/cite other people's words.

 

[pearl]

Cool. Just make sure to properly quote/cite other people's words.

Normally just clicking on the highlighted verse will automatically take you to the source.
For some reason my pc would not allow me to copy and paste and I typed it out.

* [21:33–46] Cf. Mk 12:1–12.

 

[kadzbiz]

Also maybe because it’s a Friday of a four day weekend

 

[Jainarayan]

Son of the original supreme God. Jesus never declared himself to be God Absolute, always subservient to the Father.

Well, he did say "The Father and I are one". And when Caiaphas screamed “I adjure You by the living God that you tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God”. To which Jesus replied “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

So, y'know ... Sounds pretty definite and declarative to me, given Jesus's ability par excellence for tap dancing around a question. Which btw, I do think is pretty cool how he did that.