MeetChristians.com Tour

Private
Mailbox

Quick
Search

Detailed
Search

Member
Forums

Live
Chat

Polls
space

User
Tools

Help
space

Log Off
space
MeetChristians.com / Forums / Biblical & Theological Issues

No. 0     Original Topic:  Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Jan 20, 2013 at 8:14 AM   Viewed 26649 times     

Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion” with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey doesn't/can't include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?
No. 1     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  hhh   Gender: M   Age: 51   on  Jan 20, 2013 at 7:49 PM     
rstrats wrote:


Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion” with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey doesn't/can't include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?

.

?

.
No. 2     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Elijah674   Gender: M   Age: 80   on  Jan 21, 2013 at 6:58 AM     
Good post.. carry on! ...but most likely you are going way over most heads seen around here? Dan. 9:24-27

--Elijah
No. 3     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  texascowgirl283   Gender: F   Age: 46   on  Jan 21, 2013 at 7:12 AM     
Elijah said,
but most likely you are going way over most heads seen around here

Was that the comment from a reborn non sinner as you falsely claim to be or from a sinner with deeds as filthy rags?

In your wicked mind your a reborn christian but your actions always tells the truth. Have a nice day elijah
No. 4     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Apr 29, 2013 at 9:25 AM     
Since it's been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of some writing.
No. 5     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  hhh   Gender: M   Age: 52   on  May 5, 2013 at 4:46 PM     
rstrats wrote:


Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion” with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey doesn't/can't include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?

.

Here's the way I'm keeping time...

Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in a DAY?...
John 11:9

And GOD CALLED THE LIGHT DAY, and THE DARKNESS HE CALLED NIGHT. AND THE EVENING AND THE MORNING WERE THE FIRST DAY.
Ge.1:5

And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the THE FIRST DAY of the month, the waters were dried up from off the face of the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the earth was dry.
Ge. 8:13

And it came to pass at the end of four hundred and thirty years, even THE SELFSAME DAY it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.
Ex. 12:41

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, THERE SHALL BE A THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND NINTEY DAYS.
Da. 12:11

.
No. 6     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  May 5, 2013 at 5:03 PM     
hhh,

Do you have any of the information asked for in the OP?
No. 7     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  hhh   Gender: M   Age: 52   on  May 5, 2013 at 5:37 PM     
rstrats wrote:

hhh,

Do you have any of the information asked for in the OP?

.

You posted the OP on January 20th, I responded by posting "?" on the 21st...

I don't understand what you mean in your OP, hence, the question mark... I've waited over four months for you to respond to my question... then I posted an answer on how to keep time according to The Bible.

I thought you would agree that my sources can be dated to, or before the first century.

If you would take the time to respond to the question mark, I posted last winter... maybe I can respond to what you meant in your OP better?

Aloha

.
No. 8     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  May 5, 2013 at 6:32 PM     



hhh,

re: "If you would take the time to respond to the question mark..."

Sorry, I didn't see the question mark down in the corner of the screen.

To answer your question mark, I am looking for some writing from the first century or before that specifies a certain number of day times as well as a certain number of night times for a period of time where the period of time absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specified number of day times and at least a part of each one of the specified number of night times.
No. 9     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  hhh   Gender: M   Age: 52   on  May 5, 2013 at 7:13 PM     
rstrats wrote:




hhh,

re: "If you would take the time to respond to the question mark..."

Sorry, I didn't see the question mark down in the corner of the screen.

To answer your question mark, I am looking for some writing from the first century or before that specifies a certain number of day times as well as a certain number of night times for a period of time where the period of time absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specified number of day times and at least a part of each one of the specified number of night times.

.

How would you apply your theory, of keeping time like that... to adding up these days...?

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and nintey days.
Da. 12:11

.
No. 10     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  May 9, 2013 at 6:26 PM     
hhh,

re: "How would you apply your theory, of keeping time like that..."

I'm not aware that I've stated a theory. What do you have in mind?
No. 11     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  hhh   Gender: M   Age: 52   on  May 10, 2013 at 1:19 AM     


rstrats wrote:





I am looking for some writing from the first century or before that specifies a certain number of day times as well as a certain number of night times for a period of time where the period of time absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specified number of day times and at least a part of each one of the specified number of night times.



It looks to me like you are putting forth a theory, with all those confusing ways of keeping time... which I'm not even going to try quoting with out copy and paste on my phone.

.
No. 12     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Jeff74996   Gender: M   Age: 52   on  May 12, 2013 at 7:35 PM     
rstrats wrote:


Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion” with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey doesn't/can't include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?



Matthew 12:40

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.


We define a day (including the night with it) as the twenty-four hour period in which the earth completes one rotation. God's definition is not so limited.

Genesis 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and He called the darkness “night.” Evening came and then morning: the first day.

Before time as we know it existed(as measured by the movement of the earth around the sun), God created day and night by merely making a division between darkness and light. He called the light day and the darkness night. There was no sun at that time and therefore no means to measure the length of the first three nights and days. So going by God's definition, how long is a day?

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


And He can lengthen the days as in the book of Joshua, or shorten them as Jesus said will happen during the great tribulation.

Mark 13:20
And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake, whom He chose, He shortened the days.


According to God's definition of night (the darkness He called night), there was one short night during the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 27:45
Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land.
No. 13     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  May 12, 2013 at 7:45 PM     
Jeff74996,

Do you know of any writing as asked for in the OP?
No. 14     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  hhh   Gender: M   Age: 52   on  May 12, 2013 at 11:13 PM     
rstrats wrote:

Jeff74996,

Do you know of any writing as asked for in the OP?

.

I thought Jeff stretched himself pretty far; and did a fairly good job, to get what you were looking for?

Maybe if you word your question differently, it might help?

.
No. 15     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Elijah674   Gender: M   Age: 80   on  May 13, 2013 at 6:25 AM     
rstrats wrote:


Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion” with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey doesn't/can't include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?


Gen. 1 & 2 (any part of day one is part of DAY ONE)
--Elijah
No. 16     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  PeaceLover   Gender: F   Age: 58   on  May 13, 2013 at 2:00 PM     
rstrats wrote:
Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion” with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey doesn't/can't include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?

Hi rstrats,

As mentioned before, perhaps if you had worded your question differently, you may have received different results.:unsure:

Anyway, it appears to me your question corresponds to something you said in your intro: "...in a “discussion” with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day."

I took the liberty of searching Q&A discussions on why some Jewish people might count any part of a specified number of days as a whole day---even by excluding 'part' of one of those specified number of days.

The idiom basically stems from what had been passed down from 'oral' law, and traditions (particularly with regard to days of observing rites of purification/cleanliness).

So, you may be looking for something written in a Talmud.

I took the liberty of copying this section from a Q&A discussion on the same subject. Maybe this has someting to do with what you're asking??

Question: "Did the Jews of the first centruy really count parts of days as whole days as some Christians claim?"

[Note: although some did not answer yes, the answer below is from one who did answer yes.]

Answer:

"Why do non-Jews try to answer questions about Judaism?

The answer to your question is YES. This principal can be seen in various rulings found throughout the Talmud. Just a few:
1) When you sit shivah for a dead person- the day of the burial (though only a partial day) is counted as a full day- and the seventh day (the last day of shivah) is counted as completed from three hours after sunrise.
2) A women needing to count three days to start checking if she is finished menstruating counts the day menstruation starts, even if it was merely seconds before sunset as a full day.
3) A nazirite who needs to observe 30 days can make the sacrifices on the thirtieth day to end his period of nezirus and does not need to wait till the 31st day since the sacrifices are made at midday and it is considered the full day.

There are authorities in the Talmud that argue this principal, but they are considered the minority view and we rule according to the majoirty."


There is an English translation of the Talmud (Babylonian) online, but since these books are compiled into well over 6,000 pages...good luck finding the exact lines you're looking for. Only the sections concerning purity rituals for; mourning (shivah), female menstruation, and nazarite sacrifice would apply to the above quote.

Though extra-biblical, rabbinical literature (Talmud), or 'oral law' may have been considered by some as second only to the written Torah, the books of Moses, or the "law and the prophets" were to be followed first and foremost. Particularly when it came to observing new moons, sabbaths, and major feasts, a whole day began being counted from sundown and the rising of the North star, and the completion of counting a whole day was by the next sunset.
No. 17     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  May 14, 2013 at 1:05 PM     
hhh,

re: "It looks to me like you are putting forth a theory..."

I'm not. I would simply like to see if there is an actual example to support the 6th day crucifixion proponents' assertion that a stated specific number of day times and/or a specific number of night times doesn't have to include at least of portion of each one of them.
No. 18     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  May 14, 2013 at 1:14 PM     
hhh,

re: "I thought Jeff stretched himself pretty far; and did a fairly good job, to get what you were looking for?"

I wonder if you might point out where Jeff showed writing from the first century or before that specifies a certain number of day times as well as a certain number of night times for a period of time where the period of time absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specified number of day times and at least a part of each one of the specified number of night times?



re: "Maybe if you word your question differently, it might help?"

What is there about the question that you think is unclear?
No. 19     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  May 14, 2013 at 1:21 PM     
Elijaj674,

re: "Gen. 1 & 2 (any part of day one is part of DAY ONE)"

I'm afraid I don't see your point. I wonder if you might elaborate?
No. 20     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  May 14, 2013 at 1:36 PM     
PeaceLover,


re: "I took the liberty of searching Q&A discussions on why some Jewish people might count any part of a specified number of days as a whole day---even by excluding 'part' of one of those specified number of days. The idiom basically stems from what had been passed down from 'oral' law, and traditions (particularly with regard to days of observing rites of purification/cleanliness)."

I assume you are using the word "day" to mean a calendar day and not the light portion of a calendar day. As regards the Jewish practice of counting any part of a day as a whole day I would agree, but when "nights" is added to "days" to yield a phrase "x" days AND "x" nights it normally refers to a measurement of a consecutive time period where day refers to the light portion of a 24 hour period and night refers to the dark portion of a 24 hour period. No one In the history of apologetics as far as I know has ever presented any historical documentation that a phrase of "x" days AND "x" nights ¯was a unique first century idiom of Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek which could mean something different than what the phrase means in English.. If you have such documentation, I would very much like to see it.
No. 21     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Jeff74996   Gender: M   Age: 52   on  May 14, 2013 at 5:06 PM     
rstrats wrote:


I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey doesn't/can't include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?


It has always been common practice to include parts of days or nights in any given time range. "I'll see you next week" is never meant to be taken for exactly seven twenty-four hour days to the hour and minute. If I went to jail Friday night and got out on Sunday afternoon, I might say I spent the weekend in jail, even though I was a free man the rest of Sunday. This is the norm, and it should not be a big crack in our faith if there was part of a night or day out of the three that Christ did not spend in the lower parts of the earth. On the other hand, if the Bible had been written for scientists to conduct experiments according to exact scales of measurement, you might find what you're looking for. I do not expect scouring ancient world literature will be prove very fruitful either. But who knows? Maybe you'll find something of value. Great things have happened from some of the most unsuspecting places.
No. 22     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  May 14, 2013 at 6:48 PM     
Jeff74996,

re: "It has always been common practice to include parts of days or nights in any given time range."

In order for that statement to be valid, you should be able to support it by showing some writing from the first century or before that proves it to be valid. Otherwise how do you know it to be true?



re: " 'I'll see you next week. is never meant to be taken for exactly seven twenty-four hour days..."

Maybe not, but if I said that "I'll see you after one day and one night" wouldn't you expect at least a portion of one day time and at least a portion of one night time to be involved?



re: "This is the norm, and it should not be a big crack in our faith if there was part of a night or day out of the three that Christ did not spend in the lower parts of the earth."

But the 6th day crucifixion proponents don't say that. They say that there was not even a part of a third night involved.
No. 23     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Elijah674   Gender: M   Age: 80   on  May 15, 2013 at 9:17 AM     
rstrats wrote:

Elijaj674,

re: "Gen. 1 & 2 (any part of day one is part of DAY ONE)"

I'm afraid I don't see your point. I wonder if you might elaborate?


??? This is Wed. 5/15/2013. And my wife has gone to get some food stuffs.
And it seems that any part of this day still remains Wed.

--Elijah
No. 24     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  May 15, 2013 at 9:41 AM     
Elijah674,

re: "And it seems that any part of this day still remains Wed."


Agreed, but I don't see what that has to do with my request in the OP.
No. 25     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Elijah674   Gender: M   Age: 80   on  May 15, 2013 at 9:55 AM     
rstrats wrote:

Elijah674,

re: "And it seems that any part of this day still remains Wed."


Agreed, but I don't see what that has to do with my request in the OP.


Was this your question?

'Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion” with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey doesn't/can't include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?'

Well I am one of these people.
--Elijah
No. 26     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  May 15, 2013 at 10:07 AM     
Elijah674,

re: "Was this your question?... they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day."

No, that was a statement, not a question. My request asks for documentation that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and/or at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights.
No. 27     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Jeff74996   Gender: M   Age: 52   on  May 25, 2013 at 9:32 AM     
rstrats wrote:

Jeff74996,

re: "It has always been common practice to include parts of days or nights in any given time range."

In order for that statement to be valid, you should be able to support it by showing some writing from the first century or before that proves it to be valid. Otherwise how do you know it to be true?



re: " 'I'll see you next week. is never meant to be taken for exactly seven twenty-four hour days..."

Maybe not, but if I said that "I'll see you after one day and one night" wouldn't you expect at least a portion of one day time and at least a portion of one night time to be involved?



re: "This is the norm, and it should not be a big crack in our faith if there was part of a night or day out of the three that Christ did not spend in the lower parts of the earth."

But the 6th day crucifixion proponents don't say that. They say that there was not even a part of a third night involved.


I have not argued with 6th day crucifixion people. The main problem in most theological circles is the statement of the "three days and three nights" due to the fact that Christ rose on the third day. Most believe that Christ was crucified on Good Friday, and rose early Sunday, only allowing for the latter part of the first day (Friday), two nights (Friday and Saturday) and rising early in the morning on the third day (Sunday, the first day of the week). This might account for three days, but not literally, because Friday afternoon and Sunday morning are hardly complete 12 hour days. So many move the day to Thursday (or even Wednesday!), arguing for a double Sabbath. They see Friday as falling on a holy day the Jewish calendar making that a Sabbath according to John 19:31, (for that sabbath day was an high day), and then the weekly seventh day Sabbath after that, based on a passage from John's gospel. For Thursday crucifixion proponents, there is no discrepancy. For myself, I just go by God's definition of day and night: He called the light day, and the darkness He called night. So there is no discrepancy for me, going by God's definition for day and night.

Maybe not, but if I said that "I'll see you after one day and one night" wouldn't you expect at least a portion of one day time and at least a portion of one night time to be involved?


Probably. If you said after one day and one night, and you told me that today, I would expect that tonight would not count, because you said one day first, and then one night. So what I would expect is that after tonight, which is a whole night, then one day and one night, then I would see you after that, during part of the day following the night.

re: "It has always been common practice to include parts of days or nights in any given time range."

In order for that statement to be valid, you should be able to support it by showing some writing from the first century or before that proves it to be valid. Otherwise how do you know it to be true?


Okay, suppose I dig up some ancient Roman or Greek letter in which the writer informs the recipient that he would come to see him in two days. You expect me to also find where that writer was so specific to the recipient regarding the timing, as follows?

Dear John, when I come to see you, it will be in two days. These two days will not include this time in which I am writing, nor on Tuesday, when you should receive this letter. They will not include any part of the time following the two days. Start counting as soon as the sun disappears on Wednesday evening. When the sun disappears again on Friday evening, I will be at your door. So if you are reading this letter on Thursday, you only have Thursday night and Friday in the daytime before I arrive. Please be ready to open the door at sunset on Friday. Your friend, Sebastian.

If that is what you are looking for, good luck.
No. 28     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  May 28, 2013 at 6:23 AM     
Jeff74996,

re: "If that is what you are looking for...'

I'm only looking for some writing that states a specific number of day times and/or a specific number of night times for a period of time where at least a part of each one of the day times and at least a part of each one of the night times positively could not have been included in the period of time.

I probably should have addressed the OP to those who think the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week.
No. 29     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  PeaceLover   Gender: F   Age: 58   on  May 28, 2013 at 3:54 PM     
rstrats wrote:
Jeff74996,

re: "If that is what you are looking for...'

I'm only looking for some writing that states a specific number of day times and/or a specific number of night times for a period of time where at least a part of each one of the day times and at least a part of each one of the night times positively could not have been included in the period of time.

I probably should have addressed the OP to those who think the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week.

rstrats,

After viewing more of your wording on the subject, I think I'm understanding better what you ask. In the last post you responded to me (post #20), you said this:
rstrats wrote:
No one In the history of apologetics as far as I know has ever presented any historical documentation that a phrase of "x" days AND "x" nights was a unique first century idiom of Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek which could mean something different than what the phrase means in English...

I doubt you'll find what you seek in extra-biblical data, because you appear to be asking for someting defined in your own specific terms, and stated in a way that might meet your consideration. If the ancients had an exact question presented to them, perhaps they may have written on it.

Most apologetics are based on someone's understanding of scripture. Matt. 14:30 is found in scripture, the direction for calculating times and seaons, new moons, and sabbaths were recorded in scripture. So why wouldn't the answer to the three days & three nights question also be found in scripture?

It's not a matter of language differences there [Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic vs. English]. It's a matter of difference in the way that a people measured time, as opposed to the way another people calculates time. When Jesus specified three days and three nights, it was concerning a fulfillment, and He did not specify a restricted timeframe of 24-hour units.

For example, we may limit measuring consecutive days to 24-hour units-- counting from midnight of one day to midnight of the next day. Hebrew thought may count from sunset of one day to sunset of the next day, and consider any part of the day as a whole day.

In the creation account, darkness proceeded before the light. Thus, inclusive of the greater and lesser lights of the sun and moon, the evening and the morning were counted as the first day.

For the weekly Sabbath:
Sundown Thursday to sunset Friday = one day.

Sundown Friday to sunset Saturday = second day
Sundown Saturday to Sunday morning [though half a day] would be counted as a whole day = third day.


As for the three nights:
Considering the first-century Jewish way of counting time, Friday began being counted on Thursday evening at sunset (first night). The second day began on Friday at sunset (second night), and the third day began on Saturday at sunset (third night). Three days and nights are accounted for by that system of measuring.

So then it brings us back to the way of their counting any part of a day as a whole day.

Genesis 1
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

But even amongst some Hebrews, at that time, there became two schools of thought for reckoning time. Some recognized counting from sunrise-to-sunrise, and others recognized counting from sunset-to-sunset. Even in discussing the law, there were two (or three) schools of thought.

That was not to argue that I'm pro or con sixth-day crucifixion, but to give an example that there is not always concensus amongst Christians or Jews on the matter. If they can give you evidence from the scriptuire about the scripture I'd be looking for that.
No. 30     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  May 30, 2013 at 12:55 PM     

PeaceLover,

re: "I doubt you'll find what you seek in extra-biblical data, because you appear to be asking for someting defined in your own specific terms..."

Actually, they are the terms being put forth by those who maintain that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week, i.e., that 3 nights is a common Jewish idiom that actually means 2 nights.



re: "Matt. 14:30 is found in scripture, the direction for calculating times and seaons, new moons, and sabbaths were recorded in scripture. So why wouldn't the answer to the three days & three nights question also be found in scripture?"

If it really was a common Jewish idiom, I should think that one could indeed find proof of it in scripture. However, so far no one has provided such proof. BTW, I don't see the significance of Matthew 14:30 to the OP.



re: " If they can give you evidence from the scriptuire about the scripture I'd be looking for that."

Proof from scripture will be just fine - actually it would be preferable.
No. 31     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  hhh   Gender: M   Age: 52   on  Jun 1, 2013 at 6:32 PM     
rstrats wrote:

Jeff74996,

re: "If that is what you are looking for...'

I'm only looking for some writing that states a specific number of day times and/or a specific number of night times for a period of time where at least a part of each one of the day times and at least a part of each one of the night times positively could not have been included in the period of time.

I probably should have addressed the OP to those who think the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week.

.

I'm glad you finally agree, that you could have re-worded your question.

PeaceLover, Elijah, Jeff, and myself, have all used scripture refrences to show the way we keep time....

Because you asked for writings from the first century or earlier, PeaceLover searched the Talmud, and other sources to look for the answer to your question.

None of them answer your question, the way you want...

Now you ask for, "Proof from the scripture?"

Since you're the one who wants scriptures to fit into an obscure time frame.... and since two people already told you, you might want to word your question differently... why don't you see if you can find proof that any scriptures like what you are saying, you want us to look for, can be found in the Bible?

.
No. 32     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Jul 6, 2013 at 7:29 AM     
hhh,

re: "Since you're the one who wants scriptures to fit into an obscure time frame...."

I said that scripture would be preferable - I didn't say that it was required.


re: "...why don't you see if you can find proof that any scriptures like what you are saying, you want us to look for, can be found in the Bible?"

That is what I am trying to do - from scripture or from any other source for that matter. And I'm not asking anyone to look for it. If you're someone who thinks that Matthew 12:40 is an idiom, I'm merely asking if you KNOW of any writing that shows that it was a common Jewish idiom to state a specific number of day times and/or a specific number of night times where at least a part of each one of the day times and at least a part of each one of the night times positively could not have been included in the period of time.

Perhaps someone new looking in will know of some writing.
No. 33     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Aug 7, 2013 at 5:55 AM     
Since it's been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in who thinks that the crucufixion occurred on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that Matthew 12:40 is a common Jewish idiom may know of some writing.
No. 34     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  123john62   Gender: M   Age: 57   on  Aug 7, 2013 at 2:30 PM     
I don't know of any writing and doubt if you'll find anything.
However, may I put my two cents in and give you some ideas?
Different cultures based their understanding of a time period
such as a 'day' period of time differently.
To the Biblical Hebrews, for instance, a 'day'
consisted of both a day (light) and night (dark) time period; thus 'day
and night' which were essentially both part of only one time period.
The 'day' time period started actually at sundown and continued
until sundown. This 24-hour period was what we would term as 'day' to the Hebrews.
This was extremely important for them in keeping the Sabbath. I will use the Hebrew Sabbath as an obvious example, but every of days started and ended in the the same measured time-frame. The Sabbath started at exactly after sundown on what we now call Friday evening and continued until exactly after sundown on what we now call Saturday evening. The way that the Hebrews or ancient Jews counted days was also extremely important to them not only in keeping Sabbath laws but in other religious rituals ritual such as for cleansing. However, the problem arises, so to say, on how to you count days if you start something, for example, only fpr a short time before a day ends and another one begins? do you count it as a half day? A quarter of a day? What do you count it as?
Well, let's say an event started at 5:30 p m on on a specific day, but sundown was at 6:30. Well, the event that happened or started just one hour before sundown was COUNTED or considered as a FULL 'day'. In other words, it was not an actual day but considered as a day (DAY ONE) for simply counting purposes. As I said, this point was extremely important for religious rituals, cleansing, etc. to the Hebrews.
I know some people will argue that there were no watches back then and the telling of exact time, such as sundown was an inexact science. I would argue the exact opposite because it was so important to their religion and, therefore, their entire culture. The Hebrews after the fall of ancient Israel and later, of Judea, were dispersed throughout the world and had to have exact knowledge of time telling for knowing exactly when the sun would go down on their specific area of the world that they were living in to keep the important Sabbath and for religious rituals and cleaning periods.
I doubt if the Greeks or Romans (since you asked about the first century AD time period) counted a 'day' in the same way. Like I said,a 'day7 period is seen or understood differently by different cultures. Americans and most people western countries understand a day as a 24 hour time period now. However, the day begins after midnight until the next midnight. But even this or what was seen as a 'day' period was quite different when most of America was a rural, agrarian-based economy.
Again, if you're looking for specific documentation from the first century detailing what a day was or if a part of a day day or night was counted as a 'day' you're looking for something that will be impossible to find because you're dealing with different cultures (basically Roman and Greek) in trying to explain something that is seen (or counted) by Hebrew religious time framing.
Anyways, that's my two cents worth.
Hope it helps because that's only what I was trying to do.
Thanks.
No. 35     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Aug 11, 2013 at 9:31 AM     
123John62,

re: "I don't know of any writing and doubt if you'll find anything."

You may very well be right. I've asked the same question on a number of message boards and have yet to receive any writing. However, if the 6th day crucifixion proponents are correct in their assertion that Matthew 12:40 is a common Jewish idiom where at least a part of a specified day and/or at least a part of a specified night does not actually have to exist, you'd think that there would be at least one example to back up their assertion.
No. 36     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  123john62   Gender: M   Age: 57   on  Aug 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM     
rstrats wrote:
You may very well be right. I've asked the same question on a number of message boards and have yet to receive any writing. However, if the 6th day crucifixion proponents are correct in their assertion that Matthew 12:40 is a common Jewish idiom where at least a part of a specified day and/or at least a part of a specified night does not actually have to exist, you'd think that there would be at least one example to back up their assertion.

The problem is basically this above all and foremost; why would anyone write an explanation about something that is common or obvious in their time or culture? It would not only be redundant, but also quite boring.
Also, many things that are written down today, were simply passed on along orally and not written.
And lastly, even if an example was written about it so long ago, chances are that it was lost or destroyed in the sands of time.
However, even though I think the chances are almost impossible, have you ever tried finding it from a totally different angle?
For example, not looking at writings from Jewish or Christian writings of the early Christian period but in other eras of time and also in the writings of other cultures or religions that were trying to explain Judaism?
For instance, there was a time when Jews, Christians and Muslims lived side by side in Andalusia (arab-muslim controlled southern Spain). The muslim arabs in Andalusian Spain may have written about Jewish religion in trying to explain it while Jewish scholars, rabbis and philosophers might have written something about it to teach and strengthen their Jewish community. This was a great time and place for Jewish philosophy and intellectualism and there was a flurry of religious writing.
No. 37     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Aug 12, 2013 at 5:57 AM     
123john62,

re: "... why would anyone write an explanation about something that is common or obvious in their time or culture?

I'm not looking for an explanation. I'm looking for the actual use of a phrase which stipulates a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights where at least a portion of each one of the days and at least a portion of each one of the nights absolutely could not have been included.
No. 38     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Sep 11, 2013 at 5:51 AM     
Since it has been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of some writing.
No. 39     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Danny   Gender: M   Age: 54   on  Sep 11, 2013 at 6:05 AM     
What is the specific issue you are trying to resolve? Christ being in the grave for three days?
No. 40     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Sep 11, 2013 at 10:18 AM     
Danny,

re: "What is the specific issue you are trying to resolve? "

The issue of whether or not there could have been a common Jewish idiomatic usage concerning the days and nights delineated in Matthew 12:40. Specifically what I requested in the OP.
No. 41     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Danny   Gender: M   Age: 54   on  Sep 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM     
rstrats wrote:

Danny,

re: "What is the specific issue you are trying to resolve? "

The issue of whether or not there could have been a common Jewish idiomatic usage concerning the days and nights delineated in Matthew 12:40. Specifically what I requested in the OP.


You are trying to account for three full days in the grave in order for him to be resurrected on the Sabbath. Does your idiomatic usage delineate
Matthew 16:21 also? See the contradiction?

Mat. 16:21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

(He went to the grave on Wed evening, was in the grave thurs and fri, Raised the third day on Saturday, the sabbath. But this contradicts a verse in the very same book.)

......so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mt 12:40)

If we wish to split hairs, both verses can not be correct. You can however explain it off with the "part of a day" theory if you can not accept that there are errors and contradictions in scripture and call it idiomatic usage if you want.
No. 42     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Danny   Gender: M   Age: 54   on  Sep 11, 2013 at 5:31 PM     
Consider the writing of Josephus
(it is considered by many to have been interpolated and fathered upon this Jewish writer by some early Christian copyist)

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, but he appeared 'to them again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named after him, are not extinct at this day."
No. 43     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Sep 12, 2013 at 7:27 AM     

Danny,

re: "You are trying to account for three full days in the grave..."

That is incorrect. I'm only asking for 6th day crucifixion adherents to support their assertion that the 3 nights mentioned in Matthew 12:40 can actually mean 2 nights due to what they say is a common Jewish idiom.



re: "...in order for him to be resurrected on the Sabbath."

That would be incorrect. Mark 16:9 in the KJV says that it occurred on the first day of the week.




re: "Does your idiomatic usage delineate Matthew 16:21 also? See the contradiction?"

Not my idiomatic usage - the 6th day of the week crucifixion adherent's usage. But I don't see any contradiction.
No. 44     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Danny   Gender: M   Age: 54   on  Sep 12, 2013 at 7:39 AM     
rstrats wrote:
But I don't see any contradiction.


Really? Look again. You can not see the contradiction?

Mat. 16:21 .... he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

Mt 12:40......so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth"



No. 45     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Sep 12, 2013 at 9:05 AM     
Danny,

re: "Really? Look again. You can not see the contradiction?"


Are you saying that the 3 days and 3 nights stated in Matthew 12:40 means that there HAD to be 100 percent of each one of the 3 daylight periods and 100 percent of each one of the 3 night time periods?
No. 46     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Danny   Gender: M   Age: 54   on  Sep 12, 2013 at 3:31 PM     
rstrats wrote:

Are you saying that the 3 days and 3 nights stated in Matthew 12:40 means that there HAD to be 100 percent of each one of the 3 daylight periods and 100 percent of each one of the 3 night time periods?


Mat. 16:21 and Mt 12:40 do contradict each other. Yes. One is saying he was three full days and nights in, while the other states that sometime during that third day he rose.

No. 47     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Jan 31, 2014 at 7:15 AM     
Someone new looking in may know of some writing.
No. 48     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Elijah674    Gender: M   Age: 81   on  Jan 31, 2014 at 7:44 AM     
rstrats wrote:

Someone new looking in may know of some writing.


Just some good sense!:BlahBlah: :BlahBlah:
1 Cor. 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
And of course their are other 'spirits' as well who still like to stir up lunatic doubts as well!!

--Elijah
No. 49     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  texascowgirl283   Gender: F   Age: 47   on  Jan 31, 2014 at 7:49 AM     
your all heart Elijah.
No. 50     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Mar 2, 2014 at 6:17 AM     
Perhaps someone new looking in will know of some writing.
No. 51     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Apr 1, 2014 at 5:42 AM     
I should also have added to the OP: "...and who think that the 'heart of the earth' is referring to the tomb'..."
No. 52     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Elijah674    Gender: M   Age: 81   on  Apr 1, 2014 at 6:40 AM     
Same TRUTH!
Nothing New! God DOCUMENTS! Eccl 3:15

--Elijah

No. 53     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Apr 1, 2014 at 7:44 AM     
Elijah674,

re: "Eccl 3:5"

I'm afraid I don't see what that verse has to do with the OP. Perhaps you could explain?
No. 54     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Elijah674    Gender: M   Age: 81   on  Apr 1, 2014 at 7:54 AM     

rstrats wrote:

Elijah674,

re: "Eccl 3:5"

I'm afraid I don't see what that verse has to do with the OP. Perhaps you could explain?


It was Eccl. 3:15!
[15] That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.

--Elijah


No. 55     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Elijah674    Gender: M   Age: 81   on  Apr 1, 2014 at 9:17 AM     
Perhaps you are sincere? Just in case let me add a few other verses along with these? Every thing can 'almost' be used with these verses! (I mean seeing that you might be having trouble with this 'old' post?)

See Eccl. 1:9-10 along with Eccl. 3:15. (that is twice stated)

Then Gen. 41:32 for how God has again doubled the thing because He established it!

And we will see just how sincere you are huh, if you look them up???

Hey, just try it on the Broadway against the Narrow way ones, of course the Narrow way are the 'REMNANT' ones & the Broadway are the ones of Rev. 17:1-5 including ALL DAUGHTERS!

--Elijah

No. 56     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Gary208   Gender: M   Age: 66   on  Apr 1, 2014 at 10:07 AM     
Hi rstrats

I don't think there is a defining quote in any scripture, or Jewish teachings.

I was married for 20 years to a Christian of Jewish decent. All her relatives were Jewish.

I'm going to add a little more complication to the Jewish way of the telling of time.

What is called a "Day" is actually a time period "Longer" than 24 hours. Which causes a "Day" and a "Night" to overlap for a few hours.

What is considered a "Day," starts and ends at "nightfall." But the next "Calendar" day does not start at nightfall.

I think this is why there is always so much confusion as to exactly what day it really is.

Jewish people measure "Night" first and then "Day."

Let's say the Current Day is Friday, with the sun approaching Sunset.
All holidays begin at "Sunset" also known as "Nightfall."

Now here is the confusing part. AFTER Sunset, it is STILL Friday.

WHY?

A holiday that lasts for only one day (a night and a day, until nightfall), which started at "Sunset" on Friday, does not end until "Sunday," not "Saturday" as you might think.

There is a period of time AFTER Sunset, until the official time of Nightfall. The new day does not begin until "Three Stars are Visible in the Sky."

Now let's put this in perspective to the counting of a holiday.
A holiday starts AT SUNSET on Friday.
It is still Friday until the Three Stars are Visible.
When the Three Stars are Visible, it is now Saturday.
But the holiday does not end until the Three Stars are once again Visible, marking the end of the "Day of the Holiday."
As already explained, SUNSET is the start of the Holiday Day.
Three Stars is the end of the present Day, and the start of a new Day.
Because a Holiday does not officially end until AFTER the Three Stars are visible. A Holiday which started on Friday, does not end until Sunday.

More simply: The holiday begins at Sunset, and ends the NEXT DAY when the Three Stars become Visible.

This is a ONE DAY Holiday! But is technically taking place on THREE DAYS.
Day One: The last hour of Friday, from sunset until the three stars are visible.
Day Two: All day on Saturday.
Day Three: The holiday ends AFTER the three stars are visible, which means the day has already changed to Sunday, in order to mark the end of the holiday.

You can sorta compare this to a clock if you would like.
You have an all night and day office party at work.
This party starts after they close for the day on Friday, and does not end until After Midnight on Saturday, which really makes it Sunday morning.

If Sunset is at 9pm but the day does not end until midnight. It is still Friday. At midnight the official day changes to Saturday. But your all-day party does not end until After Midnight Saturday night. Which means it is officially Sunday.

You can line up at the time clock to punch out at Midnight, but you have to wait for the bell to ring first. Once that bell rings at the stroke of Midnight, it is now officially Sunday. So you are punching out on the time clock and the time will show the day as Sunday.

In the Scriptures. They begin counting a night (the beginning of their day) at Sunset, yet a "new day" does not start for a couple more hours, at "nightfall." The previous day does not END until Nightfall, which is AFTER Sunset.

So, the logic is simple. By some biblical authors. A night (after sunset), a day (nightfall to nightfall), is counted as two days. By other biblical authors, usually when speaking of a one day holiday and not a physical day, may refer to the holiday as A night, and a day, and a night. Which makes it sound like three days being mentioned here.

Going by a clock. A Jewish Holiday is roughly 26 hours in ONE DAY.
While a Jewish DAY is only 24 hours in length, as expected.

Easier to remember as from Nightfall to Nightfall is a calendar day. 24 hours.
But a Holiday is Sunset to Nightfall to the next Nightfall as a day. 26 hours.

TTUL
Gary
No. 57     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Apr 1, 2014 at 5:10 PM     

Elijah674,

re: "It was Eccl. 3:15! "

It was a typo - I inadvertently left the "1" out. The question still remains.



re: "Perhaps you are sincere?"

No perhaps about it.




re: "See Eccl. 1:9-10 along with Eccl. 3:15. (that is twice stated)"

re: "Then Gen. 41:32 for how God has again doubled the thing because He established it!"

re: "And we will see just how sincere you are huh, if you look them up???"


I sincerely still don't see what those verses have to do with the OP.




re: "Hey, just try it on the Broadway against the Narrow way ones, of course the Narrow way are the 'REMNANT' ones & the Broadway are the ones of Rev. 17:1-5 including ALL DAUGHTERS! "


Now I know you're just messin' with me. That has absolutely no relevance to the OP.
No. 58     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Elijah674    Gender: M   Age: 81   on  Apr 1, 2014 at 8:01 PM     
rstrats wrote:


Elijah674,

re: "It was Eccl. 3:15! "

It was a typo - I inadvertently left the "1" out. The question still remains.



re: "Perhaps you are sincere?"

No perhaps about it.




re: "See Eccl. 1:9-10 along with Eccl. 3:15. (that is twice stated)"

re: "Then Gen. 41:32 for how God has again doubled the thing because He established it!"

re: "And we will see just how sincere you are huh, if you look them up???"


I sincerely still don't see what those verses have to do with the OP.




re: "Hey, just try it on the Broadway against the Narrow way ones, of course the Narrow way are the 'REMNANT' ones & the Broadway are the ones of Rev. 17:1-5 including ALL DAUGHTERS! "


Now I know you're just messin' with me. That has absolutely no relevance to the OP.


????NO WAY! That is the Lords INSPIRATION! Eccl. 1
[9] The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

OK! Think! What was before the creation of Adams rebellion? (hint, it is seen in Eze. 28:12-19)

--Elijah

No. 59     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Elijah674    Gender: M   Age: 81   on  Apr 2, 2014 at 5:12 AM     

????NO WAY! That is the Lords INSPIRATION! Eccl. 1
[9] The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

OK! Think! What was before the creation of Adams rebellion? (hint, it is seen in Eze. 28:12-19)

--Elijah

Me back with just another question based on the first question...
Eccl. 3:15
[15] That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.


Back with the same question, do you believe God? And that is seen in two places of INSPIRATION! So check Eze. 28!

No. 60     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Apr 2, 2014 at 6:33 AM     
Elijah674,

I have no idea how your replies #58 and #59 are relative to the OP. I wonder if you might explain why you think that they are?
No. 61     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Elijah674    Gender: M   Age: 81   on  Apr 2, 2014 at 7:39 AM     


OK! Think! What was before the creation of Adams rebellion? (hint, it is seen in Eze. 28:12-19)

--Elijah

Me back with just another question based on the first question...
Eccl. 3:15
[15] That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.

Back with the same question, do you believe God? And that is seen in two places of INSPIRATION! So check Eze. 28!

God tells what was before in Eze. 28
There was a rebellion in heaven long before Adam & Eve were even created. 'IF' God can be believed?????

[12] Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
[13] Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
[14] Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

[15] Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
(both created + his first sin!)


[16] By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
[17] Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
[18] Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
[19] All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.


No. 62     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Elijah674    Gender: M   Age: 81   on  Apr 2, 2014 at 7:46 AM     


Be patient & 'i' will get there shortly!

--Elijah
No. 63     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Apr 2, 2014 at 8:44 AM     
Elijah674,

re: "OK! Think! What was before the creation of Adams rebellion?"

And once again, what has that got to do with providing writing from the first century or before which shows an actual phrase being used that delineates a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?
No. 64     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Elijah674    Gender: M   Age: 81   on  Apr 2, 2014 at 9:09 AM     
rstrats wrote:

Elijah674,

re: "OK! Think! What was before the creation of Adams rebellion?"

And once again, what has that got to do with providing writing from the first century or before which shows an actual phrase being used that delineates a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?


Nothing yet, but perhaps I am just wasting time working up to that? And it will prove NOTHING NEW as Christ in His Word documented! [NOTHING NEW WAS CHRISTS WORD!] If you can handle that!:smile:

--Elijah

No. 65     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Apr 2, 2014 at 9:23 AM     
Elijah674,

re: "Nothing yet,"


OK, I shall await your providing of some writing when you are ready.
No. 66     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Elijah674    Gender: M   Age: 81   on  Apr 2, 2014 at 10:15 AM     


rstrats wrote:

Elijah674,

re: "Nothing yet,"


OK, I shall await your providing of some writing when you are ready.


Hey, this post was old? Right? And I have provided that Christ Word said that there is NOTHING NEW, right? That surely includes Armstrong's theory of 3 days & 3 nights?

So it is seen that 'i' do not buy his theory, but hold to part of the day
equaling a day as is stated.

--Elijah



No. 67     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 74   on  Apr 2, 2014 at 11:47 AM     
Elijah674,

re: "So it is seen that 'i' do not buy his theory, but hold to part of the day equaling a day as is stated. "


In your post #25 you implied that you are a 6th day of the week crucifixion advocate. In order for a 6th day crucifixion to be true, one needs to get around the pesky three nights specified by the Messiah in Matthew 12:40. The most common way of doing that has generally been by saying that the Messiah is using common Jewish idiomatic language where His prediction of three nights actually means two nights. To support that idea, I am simply looking for an example of writing from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights.
No. 68     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 75   on  May 29, 2014 at 4:46 AM     
Since it's again been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in who thinks that the crucufixion occurred on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that Matthew 12:40 is a common Jewish idiom may know of some writing.
No. 69     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 75   on  Oct 25, 2014 at 5:24 AM     
Someone new looking in may know of some writing.
No. 70     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Jeff74996   Gender: M   Age: 53   on  Oct 25, 2014 at 9:00 AM     
As long as we continue within our own paradigm regarding to the definition of a day, we will probably never come to terms on that passage. For me, God settled it with His definition of day and night; and please note that He does not mention anything about a span of time (as in hours).

Genesis 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

So then we have this verse at the crucifixion:

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour.

For me, going with God's definition of day and night, this particular darkness (God called the darkness night in Genesis 1:5 above) easily makes up for any missing day and night. You do not have to agree, but I am satisfied.
No. 71     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 75   on  Jan 13, 2015 at 7:23 AM     



Since it has again been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in may know of some writing.
No. 72     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 75   on  Apr 1, 2015 at 11:56 AM     
Perhaps a slight rewording of the OP will make it a bit more clear: Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion” with 6th day of the week crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is using common Jewish idiomatic language I wonder if anyone knows of any writing that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights? In order to assert that the usage was common, there ought to be examples to support that assertion.
No. 73     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  Elijah674   Gender: M   Age: 82   on  Apr 1, 2015 at 1:22 PM     


rstrats wrote:

Perhaps a slight rewording of the OP will make it a bit more clear: Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion” with 6th day of the week crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is using common Jewish idiomatic language I wonder if anyone knows of any writing that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights? In order to assert that the usage was common, there ought to be examples to support that assertion.


Gen. 1
[31] And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the [sixth day].

About as good as 'i' can do?

Pieces or parts is about all that 'i' need! Again whatever Jim? OH! it is rstrats huh !!


--Elijah



No. 74     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 75   on  Apr 19, 2015 at 11:34 AM     
Someone new looking in may know of some writing.
No. 75     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  LadieBee72   Gender: F   Age: 69   on  Apr 30, 2015 at 11:18 PM     
rstrats wrote:
Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion” with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey doesn't/can't include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?


Rstrats, when considering the Jewish calender of the 1st century, Jesus gives us a clue in John 11:9, regarding the time and days. We count 24 hours as a day, but hear this: "Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walks in the day, he stumbles not, because he sees the light of this world."

Our counting of days and time is not according to how we count the time and days when Jesus was crucified or when comparing Jonah in the belly of the whale for three days and night. Therefore, the Jews counted from 6 am sunrise morning to 6pm sunset as one day, from 6pm to 6am is consider night. 12 hour in day light, and 12 hours night... one can't confuse what is written with our own thoughts, interpretation, and counting.

The Word is what it says, Jesus was in the grave for three days and three nights, and as Mark 16:1-2, points out: Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2. Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had rise.

First day of the week is Sunday, when its our Saturday, its was their Sunday morning. From Friday EVENING to early Sunday MORNING Jesus was in the grave, which will give you 72 hours if you count in 12 hour days... we are told JESUS was buried in the evening the day BEFORE the Sabbath, which would make it a Friday evening that Jesus was buried, UNDERSTANDING that Sabbath is a Saturday. Mark 15:42.42 Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day BEFORE the Sabbath

Hope this is what you're seeking, and that I am explaining it correctly, for understanding nevertheless, Jesus was buried on a Friday evening, and rose early on a Sunday morning before sunrise, 12 hour days and 12 hours nights according to Jewish time and calender days.
No. 76     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 76   on  Oct 12, 2015 at 7:03 AM     

Perhaps a further rewording of the OP will make it a bit more clear: Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a "discussion" with 6th day of the week crucifixion folks, they frequently assert that it is using common Jewish idiomatic language. I wonder if anyone knows of any writing that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights? If it is using common idiomatic language, there ought to be examples of that usage in order to be able to make that assertion, i.e., that is was common.
No. 77     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 76   on  Nov 11, 2015 at 7:08 AM     
LadieBee72,
re: "Hope this is what you're seeking..."

I'm afraid it isn't. See post #76.

BTW, how do you get at least a portion of a third night time from a 6th day of the week evening burial/first day of the week morning resurrection?
No. 78     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 76   on  Dec 19, 2015 at 6:21 AM     

Ladie Bee72,

You have a question directed to you in post #77.
No. 79     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 76   on  Jan 16, 2016 at 9:11 PM     
With the new year upon us, maybe there will be someone new looking in who knows of examples as requested in the OP and clarified in further posts. And again, remember that the purpose of this topic is not to discuss how long the Messiah was in the heart of the earth. As stated, there are other topics that do that. However, there are those who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language such as the Messiah saying that He would be in the heart of the earth for 3 nights when He knew that it would only be for 2 nights. But in order to say that it was common, one would have to know of other instances where the same pattern had to have been used. I am simply looking for some of those instances, scriptural or otherwise. So far no one has come forth with any.
No. 80     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  CAsandie   Gender: F   Age: 49   on  Jan 17, 2016 at 8:40 AM     
rstrats,

Are you seeking to understand the Jewish Calendar?

http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm

I think the Bible is the utmost authority and scriptures have been provided herein as far as the difference between day and night (literally when considering light and dark) and the actual 24 hours that designates a day (to include the morning, evening and night [parts of the day]).

Shabbat includes the night and the day (6pm Friday to 6pm Saturday) as it addresses the Jewish Calendar.

Blessings wished.


No. 81     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 76   on  Jan 17, 2016 at 9:33 AM     
CAsandie,
re: "Are you seeking to understand the Jewish Calendar?"

Not for the purpose of this topic. I am only interested in what is requested in the OP as clarified in subsequent posts.
No. 82     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  CAsandie   Gender: F   Age: 49   on  Jan 17, 2016 at 10:19 AM     
rstats,

I collect some writings and Bibles as it relates to discernment of the Word. My collection is still in boxes unfortunately after a relocation, so I am pulling this off the web:

"A short time in the morning of the seventh day is counted as the seventh day; circumcision takes place on the eighth day, even though, of the first day only a few minutes after the birth of the child, these being counted as one day." Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume 4, page 475.

Would the Jewish Encyclopedia count toward the documentation of first century accounting be what you are seeking?

In my own studies, I have found in interpretations that the culture as well as times must be understood for accurate understanding, so I very much appreciate your question here.

Thanks!


No. 83     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 76   on  Jan 18, 2016 at 8:47 AM     
CAsandie,
re: "Would the Jewish Encyclopedia count toward the documentation of first century accounting be what you are seeking?"

Only if it showed actual examples of where a daytime and/or a night time was counted as a daytime or a night time when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred.
No. 84     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  CAsandie   Gender: F   Age: 49   on  Jan 18, 2016 at 10:35 AM     
rstrats wrote:

CAsandie,
re: "Would the Jewish Encyclopedia count toward the documentation of first century accounting be what you are seeking?"

Only if it showed actual examples of where a daytime and/or a night time was counted as a daytime or a night time when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred.


rstrats,

I apologize then, I am confused on what you seek. Most certainly, the Lord's entombment had it been in the ground or in a tomb or the belly of a whale...all account for bodily death.

The Lord however did not die at all -- just the body.

It might help me if you explain your own interpretation of this scripture.

It is an intriguing discussion at least (even if we end up in disagreement).

Thanks!

No. 85     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 76   on  Jan 18, 2016 at 7:50 PM     
CAsandle,
re: "I am confused on what you seek."

There are some believers in a 6th day of the week crucifixion who try to explain the missing night of Matthew 12:40 by asserting that it is using common Jewish idiomatic language. I am simply asking for their evidence that allows them to legitimately say that it was common.
No. 86     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  CAsandie   Gender: F   Age: 49   on  Jan 19, 2016 at 12:04 AM     
rstrats wrote:

CAsandle,
re: "I am confused on what you seek."

There are some believers in a 6th day of the week crucifixion who try to explain the missing night of Matthew 12:40 by asserting that it is using common Jewish idiomatic language. I am simply asking for their evidence that allows them to legitimately say that it was common.


I see.

It is not just said in heart (a Hebrew idiom for thought to oneself). Hebrew has an oral tradition carried forth from generation to generation (I learned I am part Jewish this way [last names were converted into what House or Tribe a descendant falls under]).

It would probably be more profitable to ask this question on a Jewish forum, however I think Jeff and others did quite well here.

Here is a link that should aid in your question:

http://tzion.org/articles/threedays.html

I presented you with the Jewish calendar so you could see that days were from sun down to sun down (so in between our own calendar days), so Shabbat is Friday 6pm - Saturday 6pm (so in understanding Matt 12:40, you will see another night there having this understanding, no)? Thus, written is Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day.” Luke 24:46.

Then I provided an authoritative reference (the Jewish Encyclopedia), which states that "parts" of days/nights are accountable for a full day.

You will see in scripture that day and night will follow the instruction of "day" in some places, for example let's look at Esther:

Esther 4:16 Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast you for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in to the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish...5:1 Now it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel (<--the fasting ended "on" the third day). The night began at sundown accounting for the first night.

This is the oldest Jewish writing affordable to you. Would you not agree? Yet, I do sincerely see your request for early writings honorable.

Here are some interesting modern and early writings (and I thank you as this was a most interesting study ):

It is interesting that the tradition of a Wednesday crucifixion has an ancient origin. Philip Schaff, in his monumental History of the Christian Church, reports that a number of the early Christian congregations observed "the weekly commemoration of the sufferings and death of the Lord" on Wednesdays -- even while others observed Fridays. Gradually, however, the Wednesday tradition disappeared.

The Didascalia, an early Christian work, also supports the Wednesday commemoration of the Messiah's death

This link here contains a lot of Christian writings (and is a fascinating read):

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/3day3nite.htm

I would hope any of this was helpful.

No. 87     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 76   on  Jan 19, 2016 at 7:37 AM     
CAsandle,
re: "I see."

By that, I assume you are saying that you understand what it is that I am asking. I wonder if you might explain what you think that is?
No. 88     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  CAsandie   Gender: F   Age: 49   on  Jan 19, 2016 at 10:34 AM     
rstrats wrote:

CAsandle,
re: "I see."

By that, I assume you are saying that you understand what it is that I am asking. I wonder if you might explain what you think that is?


You stated it here:

rstrats wrote: There are some believers in a 6th day of the week crucifixion who try to explain the missing night of Matthew 12:40 by asserting that it is using common Jewish idiomatic language. I am simply asking for their evidence that allows them to legitimately say that it was common.


Am I incorrect in what you are asking? (I am uncertain again now if I have not offered anything you desired. I also extend apology if failing to -- as I have sincerely tried).

Blessings!

No. 89     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 76   on  Jan 21, 2016 at 3:10 PM     
CAsandie,
re: "You stated it here:...Am I incorrect in what you are asking?"

Not if you include my additional statement in post #83.
No. 90     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  CAsandie   Gender: F   Age: 49   on  Jan 21, 2016 at 7:49 PM     
rstrats wrote:

CAsandie,
re: "You stated it here:...Am I incorrect in what you are asking?"

Not if you include my additional statement in post #83.


Did you look at the links I provided? There are some extended early writings there as well as the Esther writing.

Blessings!
No. 91     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 76   on  Jan 22, 2016 at 7:54 AM     

CAsandie,
re: "Did you look at the links I provided?"

Yes, and I didn't see where they provided any examples where a daytime and/or a night time was said to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have taken place. This would also be true with regard to the Esther account.
No. 92     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  CAsandie   Gender: F   Age: 49   on  Jan 22, 2016 at 8:24 AM     
rstrats wrote:


CAsandie,
re: "Did you look at the links I provided?"

Yes, and I didn't see where they provided any examples where a daytime and/or a night time was said to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have taken place. This would also be true with regard to the Esther account.


Then I am sorry that I have not provided you what you were after. If I stumble upon anything in my studies at a later date, then I will come back and post this for you here.

God bless.
No. 93     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  prophecyireland422   Gender: M   Age: 43   on  Jan 22, 2016 at 11:48 AM     
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.


Jesus had not completed His task when walking around, that is why He was to not be touched. When further time was completed then He was the three days and nights in the earth, and Jesus can be anywhere He wants, try to remember this, He is God after all.
No. 94     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 76   on  Feb 21, 2016 at 6:38 AM     
prophecyireland422,

I'm afraid I don't see how your post #93 is responsive to the OP. I wonder if you might explain why you think that it is?
No. 95     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 76   on  Mar 22, 2016 at 6:33 AM     
prophecyireland422,

You have a question directed to you in reply #94.
No. 96     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 76   on  Apr 21, 2016 at 6:32 AM     
Perhaps someone new looking in will know of some examples.
No. 97     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 77   on  May 21, 2016 at 6:21 AM     
CAsandie,
re: " If I stumble upon anything in my studies at a later date, then I will come back and post this for you here."

Thanks, but you don't need to do that. I am simply asking those advocates of a 6th day of the week crucifixion who try to explain the missing night of Matthew 12:40 by asserting that the verse is using common Jewish idiomatic language for the examples they use to legitimately say that it was common.
No. 98     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 77   on  Jun 20, 2016 at 6:32 AM     
Since it has again been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in may know of some writing to support the idea that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language.
No. 99     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 77   on  Jun 29, 2016 at 5:45 AM     
It appears that there are no 6th day of the week crucifixion advocates who frequent this forum, or at least any that think that Matthew 12:40 is using idiomatic language.
No. 100     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 77   on  Sep 9, 2016 at 5:04 AM     
Nevertheless, there may be someone new looking in who knows of examples.
No. 101     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  CarolineIsland828   Gender: F   Age: 59   on  Sep 9, 2016 at 8:36 AM     
rstrats wrote:

It appears that there are no 6th day of the week crucifixion advocates who frequent this forum, or at least any that think that Matthew 12:40 is using idiomatic language.


Is this an argument about the Sabbath?
No. 102     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 77   on  Sep 9, 2016 at 8:47 AM     
CarolineIsland828,

re: "Is this an argument about the Sabbath?"


No.
No. 103     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  CarolineIsland828   Gender: F   Age: 59   on  Sep 9, 2016 at 9:43 AM     
rstrats wrote:

CarolineIsland828,

re: "Is this an argument about the Sabbath?"


No.


Okay, thanks. I was just trying to figure out why it matters. I mean, HE ROSE! Halleluyah!
No. 104     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 77   on  Oct 9, 2016 at 6:06 AM     
CarolineIsland828,
re: "Okay, thanks. I was just trying to figure out why it matters."


When asked by the scribes and Pharisees for a sign of his authority, the Messiah said that the only sign would be His time in the "heart of the earth" for three days AND three nights. If He didn't spend that time, then His authority could be questioned. So I would say that it does matter.
No. 105     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 77   on  Dec 8, 2016 at 5:06 AM     
There have been some advocates of a 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection who try to explain the missing third night time of Matthew 12:40 by saying that it is using common Jewish idiomatic language. Perhaps someone new looking in who believes in a 6th day of the week crucifixion and who thinks that the verse is employing a common idiom of the time, will know of examples to support a commonality of use.
No. 106     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 77   on  Jan 21, 2017 at 7:44 AM     


With another new year, maybe someone new looking in will know of examples as requested in the OP and clarified in further posts. And again, remember that the purpose of this topic is not to discuss how long the Messiah was in the heart of the earth. As stated, there are other topics that do that. However, there are some who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language to try to explain the missing 3rd night, which would have to be the case with a 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection. But in order to legitimately say that it was employing common, idiomatic/figure of speech/colloquial language, one would have to know of other instances where a daytime or a night time was predicted to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could occur. I am simply looking for some of those instances, scriptural or otherwise. So far no one has come forth with any.
No. 107     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 77   on  Mar 19, 2017 at 5:41 AM     
Is there anyone new looking in on this topic who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week?
No. 108     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 77   on  Apr 16, 2017 at 5:50 AM     
The Messiah said that 3 night times would be involved with His time in the "heart of the earth". However, there are those who believe that the Messiah died on the 6th day of the week and who think that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb or at the earliest to the time between the leaving of His spirit from His body and His resurrection on the 1st day of the week. But this belief allows for only 2 night times to be involved. To reconcile this discrepancy some say that the Messiah was using common Jewish idiomatic language. I am simply asking for examples to support that assertion; i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was forecast to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred.
No. 109     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 78   on  Jun 25, 2017 at 8:26 AM     
Someone new looking in may know of examples.
No. 110     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 78   on  Oct 24, 2017 at 4:08 PM     
Since it has again been awhile, someone new looking in who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week, and who tries to get around Matthew 12:40 by saying that it is using common Jewish figure of speech/colloquial language may know of examples.
No. 111     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  CAsandie   Gender: F   Age: 103   on  Nov 2, 2017 at 2:49 AM     

You are so patient and kind about this and I wish I truly understood the question (having already tried to answer it here).


Matthew 12:39 Jesus replied, “A wicked and adulterous generation demands a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

I can say though after more thought that there is no prohibition of 'part' of a day or 'part' of night still fulfilling what is known (this is applicable in the case of Jonah too).

I did find this article on the topic that has scripture showing that days in Jewish idiom can be in part:

A Jewish Idiom

The key to resolving the issue lies in an understanding of Jewish idioms. The Jewish idiomatic phrase, “three days and three nights” includes enough linguistic flexibility to cover a period of time from Friday evening to Sunday morning. Historically, the phrase was used to distinguish the daytime (dawn to dusk) sense of the word “day” from the 24-hour cycle sense of the word “day.” So if a writer wanted to refer to parts of a 24-hour period and not just the daytime aspect of the term “day,” that person would use the Jewish idiom, “a day and a night.”

In Jewish thought, a day referred to the whole 24-hour period or a part of the day (1 Sam. 30:12-13; 2 Chron. 10:5, 12; Esther 4:1; 5:1). So, as D.A. Carson points out in the Expositors Bible Commentary, the phrase “three days and three nights” cannot mean more than three full days, but it can refer to a combination of any part of three separate days. And since Christ remained dead for a portion of three 24-hour days – Friday, Saturday and Sunday – it would be correct to express the account by saying, “three days and three nights.”

To understand this passage, we have to think about the concept of time in the Jewish sense, not in our 21st century Western sense.


https://www.tvcresources.net/resource-library/articles/was-it-really-three-days-and-three-nights

Please if you, yourself can explain your own idea of the the missing night. It is an area I am not well studied up on (nor are many as we find) and I enjoy learning.

Thanks.

No. 112     Reply: Re: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 78   on  Nov 2, 2017 at 6:36 AM     
CAsandie,
re: "I wish I truly understood the question..."

1. The Messiah said that three nights would be involved with His time in the "heart of the earth".

2. There are some who believe in a 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection.

3. Of those, there are some who believe that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb.

4. However, those two beliefs allow for only 2 nights to be involved.

5. To account for the discrepancy, some of the folks mentioned above have said that the Messiah was using common figure of speech/colloquial language of the time, i.e., that it is was common to forecast or say that a day or a night would be involved with an event when no part of the day or no part of the night could occur.

6. In order for someone to legitimately say that it was common, they would have to know of more that 1 example to make that assertion.

6. For the purpose of this topic, I am merely asking for some of the examples being used to support an assertion of commonality.



re: "I can say though after more thought that there is no prohibition of 'part' of a day or 'part' of night still fulfilling what is known (this is applicable in the case of Jonah too). "

I agree. But that's not an issue with regard to this topic.




re: "Please if you, yourself can explain your own idea of the the missing night."

I don't believe the crucifixion account requires anything less than at least a part of a third night.
No. 113     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 78   on  Dec 22, 2017 at 5:52 AM     
Perhaps someone new looking in may know of examples.
No. 114     Reply: Re: Matthew 12:40   
By:  rstrats   Gender: M   Age: 78   on  Jan 15, 2018 at 6:34 AM     
CAsandie,
re: "In Jewish thought, a day referred to the whole 24-hour period or a part of the day...And since Christ remained dead for a portion of three 24-hour days – Friday, Saturday and Sunday – it would be correct to express the account by saying, 'three days and three nights.'”

"In Jewish thought" seems to imply that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would was involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred. I am simply asking for some examples to show that it was common.