Matthew 12:40
Moderator: Moderators
-
rstrats
- Scholar
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:37 pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 12 times
Matthew 12:40
Post #1Whenever 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 that the phrase “x� days and “x�nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely didn’t include at least parts of the “x� days and at least parts of the “x� nights?
-
rstrats
- Scholar
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:37 pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 12 times
Post #11
Perhaps a 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 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 that a phrase stating a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely didn’t include 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?
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 that a phrase stating a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely didn’t include 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?
Post #12
Is the suggestion that Christian Apologists have created a heretofore unknown system in the name of the Jews to explain away the discrepancies in the Bible?rstrats wrote: Perhaps a 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 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 that a phrase stating a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely didn’t include 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?
It's not the first this has been done, but I'm not aware of it in this specific case.
I look forward to seeing what people say.
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #16
As far as I know, the majority of professing Christians believe that Jesus died on the sixth day of the week, aka Good Friday. And that Jesus was risen by dawn on the first day of the week, aka Easter Sunday. This makes the prophesy in Matthew 12 somewhat problematic, particularly if you count days as the Jews traditionally do from sundown to sundown.
Friday before sundown - only a part of a day, but we'll count that as one day.
Friday after sundown to Saturday dawn - one full night.
Saturday dawn to Saturday sundown - the second day - this time a full day.
Saturday sundown to Sunday dawn - not a full night since Jesus was already risen by sun-up, but we'll count this as the second night.
So, even being generous and counting a partial day and a partial night, we can only get two days and two nights. Yet the prophesy in Matthew explicitly states three days and three nights. Not three days but three days and three nights.
So, what is going on here? The difficulty that I have with those who might say that this is a failed prophesy, is that there is no record that the early Christian apologists had been challenged on this point. There are no early answers to this alleged criticism, no recorded attack on this front. It would seem odd that such an obvious flaw in Christian prophesy would have been pointed out by its early critics.
The consensus of modern scholarship and Christian tradition is that the New Testament accounts represent a crucifixion occurring on a Friday. However, some scholars [Richard L. Niswonger, Andreas J. Köstenberger and L. Scott Kellum] noting that the seventh day was not the only day of rest or sabbath for the Jews, use the possibility of a double sabbath caused by an extra Passover sabbath falling ahead of the normal weekly Sabbath to justify a Thursday crucifixion. This reasoning seems logical and scriptural, but makes little sense historically. It would seem that if this were the true explanation, then some early Jewish Christian writer would have explained it to the gentile readers and the Good Friday error would not have been established so early. On the other hand, early Christian antisemitism may have played into this misunderstanding.
It is all rather confusing. Is the God who is not the author of confusion, the author of the New Testament?
Friday before sundown - only a part of a day, but we'll count that as one day.
Friday after sundown to Saturday dawn - one full night.
Saturday dawn to Saturday sundown - the second day - this time a full day.
Saturday sundown to Sunday dawn - not a full night since Jesus was already risen by sun-up, but we'll count this as the second night.
So, even being generous and counting a partial day and a partial night, we can only get two days and two nights. Yet the prophesy in Matthew explicitly states three days and three nights. Not three days but three days and three nights.
So, what is going on here? The difficulty that I have with those who might say that this is a failed prophesy, is that there is no record that the early Christian apologists had been challenged on this point. There are no early answers to this alleged criticism, no recorded attack on this front. It would seem odd that such an obvious flaw in Christian prophesy would have been pointed out by its early critics.
The consensus of modern scholarship and Christian tradition is that the New Testament accounts represent a crucifixion occurring on a Friday. However, some scholars [Richard L. Niswonger, Andreas J. Köstenberger and L. Scott Kellum] noting that the seventh day was not the only day of rest or sabbath for the Jews, use the possibility of a double sabbath caused by an extra Passover sabbath falling ahead of the normal weekly Sabbath to justify a Thursday crucifixion. This reasoning seems logical and scriptural, but makes little sense historically. It would seem that if this were the true explanation, then some early Jewish Christian writer would have explained it to the gentile readers and the Good Friday error would not have been established so early. On the other hand, early Christian antisemitism may have played into this misunderstanding.
It is all rather confusing. Is the God who is not the author of confusion, the author of the New Testament?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
-
Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9469
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 227 times
- Been thanked: 115 times
Post #17
[Replying to post 15 by McCulloch]
It just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Friday Saturday Sunday.
Simple explanation here: http://creation.com/easter-and-good-fri ... nd-answers
(There is a nice table on the page as well where it appears there are other prophesies of the three days.)
It just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Friday Saturday Sunday.
Simple explanation here: http://creation.com/easter-and-good-fri ... nd-answers
(There is a nice table on the page as well where it appears there are other prophesies of the three days.)
-
rstrats
- Scholar
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:37 pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 12 times
Post #18
Wootah,
re: "It just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Friday Saturday Sunday."
That only allows for 2 nights. The Messiah said that 3 nights would be involved.
re: "Simple explanation here: http://creation.com/easter-and-good-fri ... nd-answers "
I don't see where the link shows an example of a phrase stating a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights from the first century or before when it 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.
re: "It just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Friday Saturday Sunday."
That only allows for 2 nights. The Messiah said that 3 nights would be involved.
re: "Simple explanation here: http://creation.com/easter-and-good-fri ... nd-answers "
I don't see where the link shows an example of a phrase stating a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights from the first century or before when it 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.
-
rstrats
- Scholar
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:37 pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 12 times
Post #20
Wootah,
re: "What the link indicates is that other quotes from the bible just say 3 days."
I know. However, I'm looking for a quote which states a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights from the first century or before when it 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.
re: "What the link indicates is that other quotes from the bible just say 3 days."
I know. However, I'm looking for a quote which states a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights from the first century or before when it 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.
