Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2017 6:00 AM
330 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK (2 members, 328 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,537 Year: 29,143/21,208 Month: 1,209/1,847 Week: 132/452 Day: 6/126 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Author Topic:   Matthew 12:40 Using Common Idiomatic Language?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13391
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 121 of 131 (821320)
10-05-2017 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by kbertsche
10-05-2017 12:19 PM


Re: Why?
I think it is entirely likely that that part of the story is a fiction, generated by early Christians looking for Old Testament parallels to their ideas about Jesus' death and resurrection. They chose that part of the story of Jonah, and the words were eventually attributed to Jesus.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by kbertsche, posted 10-05-2017 12:19 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by kbertsche, posted 10-05-2017 1:18 PM PaulK has responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1426
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 122 of 131 (821322)
10-05-2017 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by PaulK
10-05-2017 12:21 AM


Re: Why?
1)

PaulK writes:

The whole discussion has been about the phrase "three days and three nights" and the fact that it does not agree with the time Jesus was buried according to the Gospels.


Yes, except that the OP specifically requested a focused discussion on whether or not this phrase was an idiom. From the OP:
rstrats writes:

I wonder if anyone (who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb) knows of any writing which shows a phrase from the first century or before which states a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights when the actual period of time absolutely couldn't have included at least parts of each one of the specific number of days and at least parts of each one of the specific number of nights?

And remember, the purpose of this topic is not to discuss how long the Messiah was in the heart of the earth. There are other topics that do that.

2)

PaulK writes:

You did not even address that when you said that there was no problem.


Correct, because Mt 12:40 is not what you claimed to be a "problem". You said that:
PaulK writes:

And the problem has always been that by putting the burial late on the Friday, Jesus only stays buried for two nights, not three. THAT is what I am saying.


You claimed that the timetable of the gospel accounts is a "problem"; I claim that there is no problem with this timetable.

3)

PaulK writes:

You have been trying to argue that it is an idiom which fits the actual time


I've been simply trying to address the OP, which specifically asked for evidence that Mt 12:40 uses an idiom.
PaulK writes:

but all your "evidence" turned out not to be evidence (and obviously so) - except for the fact that the phrase read literally does not agree with the time Jesus was buried according to the Gospels. You even tried to repeat the refuted arguments when this thread came back to life.


I have presented evidence, though you may refuse to accept it. You may have rejected my arguments, but that does not mean that they have been refuted.

PaulK writes:

And need we mention your resort to arrogant and insulting bluster to try cover over the fact that you had no evidence?


I have felt the need to repeat my arguments very carefully and pedantically when people here don't seem to have understood them. Perhaps you find this "arrogant and insulting", and perhaps you see this repetition as "bluster", but that is not my intent.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2017 12:21 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2017 1:28 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1426
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


(2)
Message 123 of 131 (821323)
10-05-2017 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by PaulK
10-05-2017 12:25 PM


Re: Why?
PaulK writes:


I think it is entirely likely that that part of the story is a fiction, generated by early Christians looking for Old Testament parallels to their ideas about Jesus' death and resurrection. They chose that part of the story of Jonah, and the words were eventually attributed to Jesus.


This is a "Bible Study" forum (subtitle, "what does the Bible really mean?), not a "Science" forum. As I understand it, the discussions here should be about what the text MEANS, not about the veracity of the text. So I will avoid a "fact or fiction" discussion.

But I agree with you that the main point of Mt. 12:40 is to form an analogy between Jesus and Jonah. Jonah was a "type" of Christ. Just as Jonah was "dead" for three days and then "raised", so Jesus would be dead for three days and then raised.

We also need to read verse 39 with verse 40 to get a bit of the context. Skeptics had asked Jesus for a "sign" that He was indeed the coming Messiah. But He refused to "do tricks" according to their bidding, and said that only one "sign" would be given. This one "sign" was the analogy with Jonah, which would soon be seen in His crucifixion and resurrection.

(P.S. Don't these skeptics remind you of modern atheists who demand special "signs" of God that He really exists?)

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2017 12:25 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2017 1:47 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13391
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 124 of 131 (821325)
10-05-2017 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by kbertsche
10-05-2017 12:55 PM


Re: Why?
quote:

Yes, except that the OP specifically requested a focused discussion on whether or not this phrase was an idiom.

More accurately on whether it was an idiom with a meaning compatible with the time Jesus supposedly spent in the tomb, according to the Gospels. As your quote makes clear.

quote:

Correct, because Mt 12:40 is not what you claimed to be a "problem".

And that is sophistry. The disagreement between the obvious interpretation of Matthew 12:40 and the time Jesus supposedly spent in the tomb is the issue.

And let us note that you aside:


But the timetable IS the issue!

When I was discussing the relationship between the phrases "three days and three nights" and "on the third day" thus trying to drag the time Jesus supposedly spent in in the tomb into a discussion where it was not relevant.

quote:

I've been simply trying to address the OP, which specifically asked for evidence that Mt 12:40 uses an idiom.

And you have been trying to argue that the meaning is compatible with the time Jesus supposedly spent in the tomb, despite finding no evidence worth mentioning.

quote:

I have presented evidence, though you may refuse to accept it. You may have rejected my arguments, but that does not mean that they have been refuted.

I have rejected your arguments because I have refuted them

quote:

I have felt the need to repeat my arguments very carefully and pedantically when people here don't seem to have understood them. Perhaps you find this "arrogant and insulting", and perhaps you see this repetition as "bluster", but that is not my intent.

Which is not what I am referring to, at all. Remember Message 52. Just arrogant (and careless) bluster which contributed nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by kbertsche, posted 10-05-2017 12:55 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by rstrats, posted 10-05-2017 4:07 PM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13391
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 125 of 131 (821327)
10-05-2017 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by kbertsche
10-05-2017 1:18 PM


Re: Why?
quote:

This is a "Bible Study" forum (subtitle, "what does the Bible really mean?), not a "Science" forum. As I understand it, the discussions here should be about what the text MEANS, not about the veracity of the text. So I will avoid a "fact or fiction" discussion.

But my point is relevant to understanding the passage. We cannot safely assume that the passage is either accurately describing the actual timescale (to,the extent there is one!) or even intended to agree with other passages about the same event. Even passages in Matthew.

The whole thing might be a spurious parallel invented by an early Christian and popular enough to get copied into Matthew.

quote:

We also need to read verse 39 with verse 40 to get a bit of the context. Skeptics had asked Jesus for a "sign" that He was indeed the coming Messiah. But He refused to "do tricks" according to their bidding, and said that only one "sign" would be given. This one "sign" was the analogy with Jonah, which would soon be seen in His crucifixion and resurrection.

Which is rather funny when you think about the miracles Jesus is supposed to have done, especially in Matthew with the signs accompanying Jesus' death.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by kbertsche, posted 10-05-2017 1:18 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
rstrats
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 126 of 131 (821330)
10-05-2017 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by kbertsche
10-05-2017 12:19 PM


Re: Why?
kbertsche,
re: "What do you think is the main point of Mt. 12:39-40?"

I believe you've answered that question in your post #123.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by kbertsche, posted 10-05-2017 12:19 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by kbertsche, posted 10-05-2017 5:06 PM rstrats has responded

  
rstrats
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 127 of 131 (821332)
10-05-2017 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by PaulK
10-05-2017 1:28 PM


Re: Why?
kbertsche,
re: "Yes, except that the OP specifically requested a focused discussion on whether or not this phrase was an idiom."

There is no doubt that it was an idiom, if idiom in this particular instance is referring to the practice of counting any part of a calendar day as a calelndar day. However, that is not a concern of this topic. The intent of it is clarified in post #4: "This topic is not about calendar days. It's about daytimes and night times and whether or not it was "common" to say that a daytime and/or a night time was to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2017 1:28 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2017 4:21 PM rstrats has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13391
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 128 of 131 (821334)
10-05-2017 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by rstrats
10-05-2017 4:07 PM


Re: Why?
I think there is a legitimate question whether it was purely idiomatic or just normal rounding up. I think the latter is quite adequate to account for every use we've seen.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by rstrats, posted 10-05-2017 4:07 PM rstrats has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by rstrats, posted 10-31-2017 8:59 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1426
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


(2)
Message 129 of 131 (821336)
10-05-2017 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by rstrats
10-05-2017 2:45 PM


Re: Why?
rstrats writes:


kbertsche,
re: "What do you think is the main point of Mt. 12:39-40?"

I believe you've answered that question in your post #123.


Do you agree with the main point as I described it in post #123?

If so, you agree that the main point of Mt. 12:40 is to draw an analogy between Jesus and Jonah, presenting Jonah as a "type" or "pattern" of Jesus. The main point, then, is the "death" and "resurrection" of both. The main point is NOT the timing; this is secondary.

Is the timing of both identical, or just similar? Did Jonah actually spend three nights inside the fish, or only two nights, like Jesus in the tomb? Is "three days and three nights" a Hebrew idiom that applied to Jonah as well as to Jesus, meaning only two nights? Is it properly an "idiom" at all? I'm not sure, and I can't prove any of this one way or another to a skeptic.

From my understanding of biblical Greek and Hebrew, I wonder if the addition of "three nights" to "three days" is just a Semitic way to add stress to "three days". I.e. it may just be a way to say "really three days" or "three days for sure". I'm not convinced that "three days and three nights" was intended to be interpreted literally by the original speakers/authors, or if it would have been understood literally by the original listeners/readers.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by rstrats, posted 10-05-2017 2:45 PM rstrats has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by rstrats, posted 10-31-2017 8:53 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
rstrats
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 130 of 131 (822664)
10-31-2017 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by kbertsche
10-05-2017 5:06 PM


Re: Why?
kbertsche,
re: "Do you agree with the main point as I described it in post #123?"

Yes, but it's an issue for a different topic. Perhaps you could start one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by kbertsche, posted 10-05-2017 5:06 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
rstrats
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 131 of 131 (822667)
10-31-2017 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by PaulK
10-05-2017 4:21 PM


Re: Why?
PaulK,
re: "I think there is a legitimate question whether it was purely idiomatic or just normal rounding up."

And I'm looking for examples where no daytime or no night time was "rounded up" to one daytime or one night time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2017 4:21 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017