Common Jewish Idiom?

jmdewey60,

re: "That's just hypothetical until you find an example of that."

I agree that the 6th day crucifixion adherent's insistence that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language to make 3 nights actually mean 2 nights is indeed hypothetical. That is why I started this topic - to see if they could provide an actual example of a statement delineating a specific number of daytimes and/or a specific number of night times when it absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific daytimes and at least a part of each one of the specific night times.

reply to post by rstrats

. . . insistence that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language to make 3 nights actually mean 2 nights is indeed hypothetical.

It's an assumption made to reconcile things that may be otherwise contradictory.

Another way to explain Jesus' quote of "three days and nights", that just occurred to me, is to look at the other enigmatic saying in that verse: "in the heart of the physical world".
If there is a "prince of this world", then maybe he was saying that he was a captive of this metaphorical person, as Jonah was the "captive" of the fish or whale.
John 14:30 & 31
I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
(2011 NIV)
There is a translation of the Bible called The International Standard Version, which is supposed to be a "literal-idiomatic" translation. en.wikipedia.org...
It has an interesting take on Jeremiah 51:41,
"How Sheshak will be captured, and the prince of all the earth seized! How Babylon will become an object of horror among the nations!
(ISV)
where it ends up saying something very similar to the phrase in the gospel of John.
It interestingly uses the exact same spelling in the Greek for "the world", as in the the John verse here quoted.

The point being, Jesus does not say he is dead for three days and nights.
Once he was arrested in the garden of olives trees, he was being held by the powers of the earth, until he was resurrected into the new kingdom that he was now the king of.

rstrats
jmdewey60,

re: "That's just hypothetical until you find an example of that."

I agree that the 6th day crucifixion adherent's insistence that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language to make 3 nights actually mean 2 nights is indeed hypothetical. That is why I started this topic - to see if they could provide an actual example of a statement delineating a specific number of daytimes and/or a specific number of night times when it absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific daytimes and at least a part of each one of the specific night times.

Thanks for starting this thread rstrats,

Again this may not answer the question however hopefully it will clear up what Yahoshua clearly stated in the scriptures .It doesn't matter what a Jewish idiom is if it is not The Truth.There's only one way the math works and that's to do it backwards.
The scriptures clearly state the resurrection was Sunday approximately 6 AM

Sat 6pm-Sun 6am=3rd night
Sat 6am-Sat 6pm=3rd day
Fri 6pm-Sat 6am=2nd night
Fri 6am-Fri 6pm=2nd day
Thur 6pm-Fri 6am=1st night
Thur 6am-Thu 6pm=1st day

The crucifixion started about Thur 9am and ended about Thur 3pm.To be what is called three days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth would be from 6am Thursday morning.What ever Yahoshua meant by 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth is exactly what happened and The Truth.

What is not Truth is making the facts fit a theory which is what most of Christianity teaches about the crucifixion and resurrection.Yahoshua definitely was not crucified on Friday at 9am.It had to be on Thurs at 9am there are no other options.

The customary idioms are just that ... doctrines of men that make void the living word of God.This is a sign of how much the doctrines of men are being propagated as Truth but aren't.

reply to post by Rex282

What ever Yahoshua* meant by 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth is exactly what happened and The Truth.

note*: not actually Jesus' name, but an archaic version of "Joshua" not used as a name in the time of Christ.

Obviously the writer of this particular gospel did not intend to portray Jesus as a liar.

The consensus of modern scholarship is that the New Testament accounts represent a crucifixion occurring on a Friday, but a Thursday or Wednesday crucifixion have also been proposed.
en.wikipedia.org...

And what do you mean by "The Truth" capitalized? Are you claiming to be the keeper of the truth, as if you are God's special prophet of truthfulness? Just wondering. I mean that we weren't there walking alongside of Jesus counting the days for him.

Rex282,

re: "Again this may not answer the question..."


I'm afraid that it doesn't. However, someone new looking in, and 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 idiomatic language, may know of some writing as requested in the OP.

Since it's been awhile, someone new looking in may know of some writing.

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.

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. However, there are some 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 was used. I am simply looking for some of those instances, scriptural or otherwise. So far no one has come forth with any.

originally posted by: rstrats
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.

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. However, there are some 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 was used. I am simply looking for some of those instances, scriptural or otherwise. So far no one has come forth with any.

That's because there aren't any plausible ones ,it is only religious rhetoric to support confirmation bias of their doctrines of men.There are legions of inaccuracies (lies) believed by Christianity they will NEVER concede to the truth.

So why do you suppose they say it is using common Jewish idiomatic language if they don't have any examples in order to make that statement?

originally posted by: rstrats
So why do you suppose they say it is using common Jewish idiomatic language if they don't have any examples in order to make that statement?

Christianity is full of false assumptions and doctrines.They believe 1 Peter 3:15 ....

But and if you suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are you: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; 15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

and it doesn't matter if it's true or not as long as it is a reason that justifies their religious belief.That's the perverted logic of the religious carnal mind.Just as Jim Dewey does not want to believe the man he believes is God (Jesus Christ) was ever called Yahoshua even though the evidence is abundant and very reasonable.

Christianity is based in the religious dogma of the doctrines of men just as Yahoshua said to the Pharisees.He then explained to the disciples that Christianity would be also:

"Do not be deceived for MANY will come in my name and "say" they are christ [Christians] and deceive many."

Truer words were never spoken.Yahoshua knew very well that the reilgion-religious would pervert what he said and did into another false religion and claim him as the leader.Even Paul the self proclaimed most corrupt person(the chief sinner) to ever live(because he was the most religious) know.."for this reason the creator God will send them a strong delusion that they would believe a lie."

Of course Christianity believes these words are directed at others and have used them to condemn them to hell.Yahoshua (and Paul to a lesser degree) are stating fact.The reilgion-religious are blind to the truth.They believe the lies of their religion.

Rex282,
re: "Christianity is full of false assumptions..."

So you're not a 6th day of the week crucifixion advocate. I am hoping to hear from someone who is.

As we're well into the new year, 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.: rstrats

Perhaps someone new looking in will know of examples.

Perhaps a different wording of the OP may make it more clear:

1. The Messiah said that He would be three days and three nights in the "heart of the earth".

2. There are some who think that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week.

3. And of those, there are some who think that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb or at the earliest to the moment when His spirit left His body).

4. However, a 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection allows for only 2 nights to be involved.

5. To account for the lack of a 3rd night, there may be some of those mentioned above who try to explain the lack of a 3rd night by saying that the Messiah was using common figure of speech/colloquial language.

6. I'm simply curious if anyone who may fall in the above group of believers might provide examples to support the belief of commonality; i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred.

Someone new visiting this topic may know of examples.

Someone new visiting this topic may know of examples.

Someone new visiting this topic may know of examples.

Someone new visiting this topic may know of examples.

Someone new visiting this topic may know of examples.

Someone new visiting this topic may know of examples.