|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 49 (9217 total) |
| |
chasebuchanan | |
Total: 920,718 Year: 1,040/6,935 Month: 321/719 Week: 109/204 Day: 1/28 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Matthew 12:40 Using Common Idiomatic Language? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18057 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: You assume too much. That's not an idiom, that's just normal usage in English as well. A whole day - 24 hours - includes a day and a night. It's just rounding up. If you're talking about whole days you round up to a whole day. If you're talking about days and nights you wouldn't - and the Rabbi doesn't say that he would either.
quote: Three days and three nights would seem to be counting the nights separately. That IS the issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18057 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Even your commentary says that you need portions of three nights to get three days and three nights.
It is not clear or even likely that he meant that the "three days and three nights" can be reasonably read as "one whole day and small parts of two more and two nights"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18057 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: We're discussing the phrase "three days and three nights" so that is obviously not relevant.
quote: And nobody is saying otherwise.
quote: I did explicitly accept it, so this is just standard "Christian" misrepresentation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18057 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
I'm disagreeing with the idea that the phrase "three days and three nights" can mean a time period that only includes two nights and not even a part of a third. That should have been absolutely clear. But that is not a point you addressed at all in your previous reply to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18057 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Let us note that the Rabbi does not say that you can round up to a whole day and then call the period "a day and a night" (you wouldn't in English even though everything in the quote also applies to English). And even if he did the plural usage would be "three days and nights", not "three days and three nights". And, as I have pointed out twice already, the commentary explicitly states that you would need at least portions of three nights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18057 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
But you haven't offered any valid reason for disagreeing. You just insisted that I was disagreeing with rounding up to a whole day while not addressing my actual points.
To restate 1) The Rabbi says that you may round up any part of a "whole day" - he does not say that you may then call that "a day and a night" 2) The commentary explicitly states:
the phrase three days and three nights did not necessarily mean a full 72-hour period, but a period including at least the portions of three days and three nights
So your own source agrees with me 3) as I stated in my last post if the substitution of "a day and a night" for "a whole day" was valid - a claim which is certainly not explicit in the Rabbi's words, nor clearly implied - the plural would be "three days and nights" since "a day and a night" is the unit you would be using (and even that is ambiguous). However the phrase "three days and three nights" separates the days and nights, so it would still not be valid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18057 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
The obvious reason why it has to be Friday is that the next day is the Sabbath.
The Gospels disagree on the relation to the Passover. On the other issue
quote: This is clearly false, since no such reasoning is provided, and the commentary clearly disagrees with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18057 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Because the Sabbath is Saturday, the previous day must be a Friday.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18057 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Because that is what the Gospels say: Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:31
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18057 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Let's have a look at these. 12:40 is part of a speech from Jesus and says:
For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.
16:21 says:
From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised
17:23 repeats the "on the third day" formula, as does 20:19 Let us note that there is a difference between having compatible meanings and identical meanings. Even assuming that there is no contradiction - which is not a safe assumption - we can only conclude that the meanings are compatible. And they are. Remembering that - for the Jews - the night starts a 24-hour day, if Jesus was buried during the night of the first day, and rose in the daytime of the third then He would "rise on the third day" having spent at least portions of three days and three nights in the grave or tomb. That "on the third day" is also compatible with a shorter period only makes 16:21, 17:23 and 20:19 pretty much irrelevant. Which means that your argument comes down to assuming that there is no conflict between the "Sign of Jonah" and the story of Jesus' burial and resurrection, which simply begs the question. If there was genuinely a common idiom at the time which resolved the conflict surely there should be better evidence than that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18057 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: I am not discussing the timetable. I am simply pointing out that the phrases "three days and three nights" and "on the third day" have overlapping meanings - using the obvious interpretations. Thus there is no contradiction between them.
quote: No, he does not imply that. Even if you assume a strong intent to maintain consistency (which I think is mistaken) you can't conclude that the meanings are synonymous rather than merely compatible and the only clear contradiction is between the "three days and three nights" and the account of the burial and resurrection. "On the third day" is compatible with both.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18057 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Establishing that your "on the third day" references don't really help your position is certainly a relevant point. Which leaves the difference between the timetable and the "three days and the three nights" your only evidence that there is a solution to that difference.
quote: Actually we know by counting that if you include today the day after tomorrow will be the third day. I really can't believe I have to keep pointing this out. Maybe you think that the Jews couldn't count past two ?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18057 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Which in no way answers my point that there is an overlap in meaning between "three days and three nights" and "on the third day"
quote: In a context where "today" is included, of course it is. But that can go up to 72 hours since the precision is very coarse.
quote: So, you don't consider the fact that Jesus was not buried for three days and three nights a problem. But in that case, why have you been engaging in rather desperate attempts to try to explain away the problem ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18057 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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. You did not even address that when you said that there was no problem.
You have been trying to argue that it is an idiom which fits the actual time 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. And need we mention your resort to arrogant and insulting bluster to try cover over the fact that you had no evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18057 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Really ? I look forward to your answers to all my refutations of his "evidence" in this thread. Yes, that is a joke, and so is your assertion.
quote: The time Matthew uses the term "three days and three nights" it is in a story about Jesus, and in the story Jesus apparently describes the time he will be buried as "three days and three nights". It is not Matthew describing the events of Jesus' burial and resurrection at all.
quote: This is an obvious falsehood. All that can be said is that their meanings should be compatible - but given the context of 12:40, even that is not necessarily the case.But their meanings are compatible, without resorting to the claim that there is anything odd in the language. quote: He's not made the case that it can refer to a period of time that includes only two nights without even a portion of a third - which is the problem all along.
quote: Aside from the objections I have already used, Rabbi Azariah does not - in the material quoted - even claim to be dealing with idiom, nor does he say anything that would clearly address the real issue. Indeed, as I keep pointing out the commentary you quote explicitly says that at least portions of three nights are needed. so, just the usual pack of falsehoods, ignoring all the discussion that has gone on.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025