Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Matthew 12:40 Using Common Idiomatic Language?
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 61 of 168 (821161)
10-03-2017 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by New Cat's Eye
10-03-2017 10:24 AM


Re: Why?
NewCatsEye writes:
So then, Saturday is the second day from Good Friday and Good Friday is the first day from Good Friday?
Friday is the first day from Friday? No, that don't make sense.
Read Lk 13:32 to see how they counted. Idioms don't always make sense to us, especially when they are from a distant culture and time.

"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 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-03-2017 10:24 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-03-2017 2:56 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 67 of 168 (821184)
10-03-2017 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by NoNukes
10-03-2017 12:38 PM


Re: Why?
NoNukes writes:
When are you going to get around to citing some evidence? It's pretty clear that your opinion is not based on any such thing or you would have a rebuttal instead of a question.
Seriously. That would at least move the ball a bit. Wanting to see some evidence was the impetus for getting this thread restarted.
I HAVE cited evidence: when are you going get around to addressing it?
For example, from my post #60:
Point 1: Lk 13:32 shows how the first century Hebrews counted: what we would call "two days away" they called "the third day".
Point 2: The New Testament alternately says that Jesus was raised "on the third day" or was in the tomb "three days" or (in one passage) "three days and three nights".
Conclusion: It seems that all of these phrases were used synonymously for the same thing, which is spelled out in Lk 13:32.
Note that I have presented two points of evidence above, with a conclusion. If you disagree with the conclusion, please address the evidence.
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 63 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2017 12:38 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2017 2:15 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 68 of 168 (821185)
10-03-2017 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by rstrats
10-03-2017 1:52 PM


Re: Why?
rstrats writes:
You said that you gave an example in post #3. That is the specific example that I would like for you to address because I see nothing in the example which precludes at least a portion of each one of three daytimes and at least a portion of each one of three night times. Please explain how you think that it does.
Please go back and re-read my post #3. As I said there, the evidence SUGGESTS that this is an idiom. It does not PROVE that this is an idiom; proofs are rare if ever possible in linguistics.

"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 66 by rstrats, posted 10-03-2017 1:52 PM rstrats has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by rstrats, posted 10-03-2017 5:50 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 70 of 168 (821188)
10-03-2017 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by PaulK
10-03-2017 12:50 PM


Re: Why?
PaulK writes:
All he has is the assumption that they us some special idiom, but not a shred of evidence for that claim.
Faith has just given you some good extra-biblical evidence (a quote from a first century rabbi). Why don't you address this evidence?

"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 64 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2017 12:50 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Phat, posted 10-03-2017 2:50 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 72 of 168 (821191)
10-03-2017 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by PaulK
10-03-2017 2:15 PM


Re: Why?
PaulK writes:
KBertsche writes:
Point 1: Lk 13:32 shows how the first century Hebrews counted: what we would call "two days away" they called "the third day".
An obvious falsehood. Today is a day, tomorrow is a another day and the day after tomorrow is a third day. There is no need to presume that there is anything more there. Well, unless you find counting to three too difficult.
Why do you deny the obvious?
1) The text of Lk 13:32 refers to "THE third day", not "A third day". The definite article is present.
2) This phrase is grammatically identical to the references to Jesus' resurrection on "the third day".
3) now look at Lk 13:32. When is "the third day"? It is two days hence.
4) conclusion: Jesus' resurrection on the third day (Easter Sunday) was two days after His crucifixion on Good Friday.
Please address the points above and explain exactly which one(s) you disagree with, and why.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
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 69 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2017 2:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2017 2:43 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 82 of 168 (821214)
10-03-2017 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by rstrats
10-03-2017 5:50 PM


Re: Why?
rstrats writes:
I am simply asking for some of those examples, i.e., actual instances where a daytime 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 occurred.
I haven't been able to find any example which EXACTLY, DEFINITIVELY shows what you ask. Perhaps examples exist in Rabinnic or Greek literature, and perhaps not. I am not enough of a Greek or Hebrew scholar to say for sure.
What I DID find and present to you is evidence:
1) that first century Jews thought and spoke about time differently than we do, and
2) that "three days and three nights" is synonymous for "the third day" (i.e. two days from now). Matthew himself uses both phrases interchangeably without noting a contradiction (the former in Mt. 12:40; the latter in 16:21; 17:23; and 20:19.) From Mt 27:57—28:1 it seems that this refers to a period of less than 48 hours.

"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 80 by rstrats, posted 10-03-2017 5:50 PM rstrats has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by rstrats, posted 10-04-2017 8:11 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 101 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2017 12:38 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 106 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2017 4:42 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 102 of 168 (821246)
10-04-2017 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by PaulK
10-04-2017 12:38 PM


Re: Why?
PaulK writes:
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.
It's not clear what you are suggesting here. But if you are suggesting that He was buried on Thursday after sunset and raised on Sunday after sunrise, your suggestion seems to go against the timetable that Matthew himself lays out in 27:57-28:1. This timetable seems to suggest burial late on Friday (the first day) and resurrection early on Sunday (the third day).
PaulK writes:
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.
No, my argument comes down to the author (Matthew) writing a consistent account. He uses various phrases to refer to the same thing. By this, he implies that he sees these phrases as synonymous.

"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 101 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2017 12:38 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2017 1:23 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 104 of 168 (821251)
10-04-2017 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by PaulK
10-04-2017 1:23 PM


Re: Why?
PaulK writes:
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.
But the timetable IS the issue!
We know from Lk. 13:32 that, according to first century usage, "the third day" is what we would call "two days from now". According to Matthew's use of this phrase and his own timetable, this would put the crucifixion on Friday and the resurrection on Sunday.
If this is what you are saying, then we are all in agreement. If you are saying something else, then you seem to be in disagreement with Lk 13:32 and with Mt 27:57-28:1.

"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 103 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2017 1:23 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2017 1:45 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 107 of 168 (821267)
10-04-2017 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by PaulK
10-04-2017 1:45 PM


Re: Why?
PaulK writes:
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.
The point here is extremely simple. The gospel writers say that Jesus was raised "on the third day". Lk 13:32 shows us that "the third day" was actually two days in the future. Very clear and simple.
PaulK writes:
KBertsche writes:
We know from Lk. 13:32 that, according to first century usage, "the third day" is what we would call "two days from now".
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 ?
Perhaps we are in full agreement then, that for first century Jews "the third day" was about 48 hours in the future? It has seemed to me that you disagree with this, which is why I feel that I need to keep stressing the point.
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.
But there is no "problem" here. According to Matthew 27-28, this is exactly what happened. Jesus was buried on Good Friday and raised "on the third day", Easter Sunday. Yes, He was buried for two nights, not three.

"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 105 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2017 1:45 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ringo, posted 10-04-2017 4:47 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2017 4:49 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 111 by rstrats, posted 10-04-2017 5:25 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 112 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-04-2017 5:30 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 110 of 168 (821274)
10-04-2017 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by PaulK
10-04-2017 4:49 PM


Re: Why?
PaulK writes:
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 ?
???

"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 109 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2017 4:49 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2017 12:21 AM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 120 of 168 (821319)
10-05-2017 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by rstrats
10-04-2017 5:25 PM


Re: Why?
rstrats writes:
So why do you suppose He specifically said that 3 nights would be involved, and why do you suppose He specifically said that He would rise "after" 3 days, and why do you suppose the men on the road to Emmaus on the 1st day of the week said that it was the 3rd day "since" the crucifixion?
Good question. What do you think is the main point of Mt. 12:39-40? What is the main thing that Jesus/Matthew is trying to communicate to his 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 111 by rstrats, posted 10-04-2017 5:25 PM rstrats has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2017 12:25 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 126 by rstrats, posted 10-05-2017 2:45 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 122 of 168 (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 replied

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

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(2)
Message 123 of 168 (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 replied

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

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(2)
Message 129 of 168 (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 replied

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024