3 days and 3 nights christian phrase

[imran123]

AASALAMULAYKUM

i am very much confused christians claim that the Phrase "3 days and 3 nights" is an jewsih idiom which means part of day or full day.
i just wanted to know whether it is idiom or are there any other refrerences to this.

plz help.

 

[Al-manar]

Did Jesus fulfill his prediction that he would be buried for three days and three nights and then be resurrected?

Answer: The author of Matthew quotes Jesus as saying to the scribes and Pharisees: "For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40; cf. Jonah 2:1 [1:17 in some versions]. This reference to Jonah supposedly foreshadows the burial and the resurrection of Jesus. Yet there is an essential difference between what occurred to Jonah and Matthew's resurrection account. This difference destroys Matthew's attempt at an analogy. According to all four Gospels, the crucifixion took place on a Friday and the resurrection on the following Sunday. From this it would seem that Jesus was buried for three days (Friday, Saturday, Sunday). Thus, Luke writes that according to prophecy, Jesus was to rise on the third day: "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and he said to them: 'Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise from the dead the third day'" (Luke 24:45, 46; see also Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31, 10:34; Luke 9:22, 18:33). While it is true that according to Jewish law part of the day is equivalent to a full day, Matthew's Jesus promised to be buried specifically for three days and three nights. By the use of the phrase "three days and three nights," Matthew's Jesus indicated that he expected to be buried for three consecutive periods between dawn and dark (day) and dark and dawn (night), or approximately seventy-two hours. The Scriptures employ the phrase "three days" in a more general sense than that expressed by "three days and three nights." For example, "three days" does not necessarily include the period of day or night at either the beginning or end of the total time to be indicated. Therefore, when the phrase "three days" is meant to specifically include three days and three nights, and this is not evident from the text, it must be stated as such: ". . . neither eat nor drink three days, night or day . . ." (Esther 4:16). However, when the phrase "three days and three nights" is stated, it includes either all three days and all three nights or can be deficient in only parts of a day or night at the beginning or end of the entire period, but never of a full segment of day or night out of twenty-four hours (1 Samuel 30:11-13). Although Jesus did not have to be buried exactly seventy-two hours, he did have to be buried at least on parts of three days and three nights. Jesus died on a Friday at the ninth hour, which corresponds to about 3 P.M. The claim is made that Jesus rose three days later, on a Sunday. This would mean that he was buried during the daylight hours of three different days. If this was true, he was buried for only two nights.

The Gospel of John indicates that Jesus' promise to rise after being buried three days and three nights was never fulfilled. According to Matthew, the women came to the tomb "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" (Matthew 28:1), Mark says "they came to the tomb when the sun had risen" (Mark 16:2), and Luke says it was "at early dawn that they came to the tomb" (Luke 24:1). But in John it clearly states that it was not yet dawn when the body of Jesus disappeared from the tomb: "On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb" (John 20:1). Thus, John says that Jesus, having risen before the dawn of Sunday morning, was buried for only two days and two nights, i.e., one full day (Saturday), part of another (Friday), and two nights (Friday and Saturday nights). This contradicts the assertion that in fulfillment of prophecy, Jesus was buried three days and three nights. The New Testament evidence simply does not add up to three days, i.e., daylight hours, and three nights, as specifically promised by Jesus. Therefore, Jesus did not fulfill his very own prediction.Quote jews4judaism.org

 

[Hiroshi]

AASALAMULAYKUM

i am very much confused christians claim that the Phrase "3 days and 3 nights" is an jewsih idiom which means part of day or full day.
i just wanted to know whether it is idiom or are there any other refrerences to this.

plz help.

Peace Imran123.

Apart from Matthew 12:40 where Jesus quotes Jonah, the only useful reference that I could find up to now is Esther 4:16 where it says: "Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day ... When this is done, I will go to the king". But then Esther 5:1 states that "On the third day Esther" went to see the king.

Although Esther 4:16 appears to indicate a full 72 hour period was due before Esther acted, the expression in Esther 5:1 shows that in fact the period was shorter than that: ending during the course of the third day.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Imran123, just to confuse you a little more (not my real intent, but admittedly the information can be confusing), the question you raise is one that has caused some Christians to argue that Jesus was actually executed on Thursday (and some even on Wednesday). Some of their reasoning includes the idea that there were actually two different sabbaths, the regulary weekly sabbath and then an earlier passover sabbath. Thus, they would argue, Jesus was actually in the ground for 72 hours.

I, personally, am still inclined to accept the Friday to Sunday understanding. What Al-manar wrote is essentially my understanding of the Jewish method of counting days. Thus, because Jesus was buried before sundown on Friday, that small portion of time would constitute the first day. Then the period from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday would constitute the 2nd day. The portion of time from sundown Saturday till the resurrection (just before, right at, or slightly after dawn being irrelevant) would constitute the third day. So, the problem is not with trying to make "the third day" equal 72 hours. There simply is no need to do that. The problem is to understand what would have meant by saying: "for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). Is Jesus making a syllogism saying that he will be in the ground for 6 distinct periods of time (3 days + 3 nights)? Or, is he saying that just as Jonah was presumed dead (in the belly of the whale), so shall the Son of Man be presumed dead (in the heart of the earth)?

Some would suppose that both parts of the statement must be taken as equally and literally true. But I note that Jesus' response is in reaction to a question, people looking for a sign. This causes me to look not at the time stamp as much as the activity involved. Secondly, I note another disconnect between the two events, for Jesus reports that Jonah was in the belly of a whale and in the book of Jonah itself he is swallowed by a fish. Now, for some that difference (fish and whales are not even the same class of animal) would be sufficient to discount them as being related stories. But obviously Jesus (or at least Matthew) did see a connection, but the details with regard to fish and a mammal were not considered important. Likewise, I have a sense that the details regarding the exact length of time are no quite as important as some would like to make them out to be. Those people are likely to respond that three days needs to be three days and three nights needs to be three nights or we can't accept the Bible as true. Well, that may be so for many people, but I don't have a problem with it. Jesus says that this is the sign to look for, and afterward knowing what the actually events and timeline had been, both Jesus' followers and those pharisees that were opposed to him saw in the events themselves that this is what Jesus and the scriptures he referenced had pointed to. So, if they could accept it, I guess I can too.

 

[YusufNoor]

Peace Imran123.

Apart from Matthew 12:40 where Jesus quotes Jonah, the only useful reference that I could find up to now is Esther 4:16 where it says: "Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day ... When this is done, I will go to the king". But then Esther 5:1 states that "On the third day Esther" went to see the king.

Although Esther 4:16 appears to indicate a full 72 hour period was due before Esther acted, the expression in Esther 5:1 shows that in fact the period was shorter than that: ending during the course of the third day.

Okay boys and girls, we have a new challenge here. According to our pal, Hiroshi, Jesus in Matthew is using the same idiom as Esther in Esther. First off, let's see if they are same. In Matthew 12, Jesus says: "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

And while we here, we should point out that if the author of Matthew wants to point out a Jewish idiom he could have written 40 "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days the heart of the earth." But it looks like the author of Matthew does not to do that. And so, unless we have some other proof, we should believe that when the author of Matthew says that Jesus said, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," that he actually meant that when Jesus actually said that he would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, that actually meant three days and three nights. For if we actually check what the book of Johah says:

14 Wherefore they cried unto the LORD, and said: 'We beseech Thee, O LORD, we beseech Thee, let us not perish for this man's life, and lay not upon us innocent blood; for Thou, O LORD, hast done as it pleased Thee.'

15 So they took up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea; and the sea ceased from its raging.

16 Then the men feared the LORD exceedingly; and they offered a sacrifice unto the LORD, and made vows.

1 And the LORD prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1702.htm

Now the author of the book of Jonah could have said that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days, but the author of the book of Jonah specifically says Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. So unless we have evidence to the contrary, we must assume that when he author of Jonah wrote that Jonah was in the belly of the fish but three days and three nights that the author meant that Jonah was in fact in the belly of the fish three days and three nights!

And remember it is Jonah that Jesus specifically refers to.

And so let's check what new and exciting evidence our friend, Hirosh, has decided to entertain us with. We see that Hiroshi is using the book of Esther, so now let us indeed turn to this book. We see that our friend Hiroshi, has written:

Although Esther 4:16 appears to indicate a full 72 hour period was due before Esther acted, the expression in Esther 5:1 shows that in fact the period was shorter than that: ending during the course of the third day.

4:16 'Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day; I also and my maidens will fast in like manner; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish.'

5:1 Now it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king's house, over against the king's house; and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the entrance of the house.

But first let's check and see if the author of Esther use the phrase three days and three nights. As we can see, he did not. Just to reiterate, it says, "fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day." The total length of time according to the author is three days, and yet the author added night or day. Is there a reason that the author chose to add night and day if it was unnecessary? Let's check another Scripture. And 2 Samuel, we read:

11 Then David and all the men with him took hold of their clothes and tore them. 12 They mourned and wept and fasted till evening for Saul and his son Jonathan, and for the army of the LORD and the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.

So we see here than in normal fast and Jewish worship ends when the evening begins. This is similar to Islamic worship, when fasting ends at sunset. Now the author of Esther includes the words night or day to indicate that the fasting will not end at sunset. The author is not telling us how long the fasting is to last, we clearly says three days; but the author does add that this fast will include the nights. Note also that our friend Hiroshi is of the opinion that this fast ended early. Could there be a reason why they fasted for three days but did not include the third night? Now remember, that third night would technically be a new day!

So to solve this mystery, let's turn to the Megillah The Book Of Esther A New Translation With A Commentary Anthologized From Talmudic, Midrashic And Rabbinic Sources, ArtScroll Tanakh Series, published by Mesorah Publications lmt. Translated and compiled by Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz, 25th anniversary edition, fourth impression March 2004.

According to Rabbi Zlotowitz notes this was an unprecedented effort of prayer, never before or after equaled. Furthermore, added from the Midrash Mordecai protested to Esther,"but these three days of fasting include the first day of Passover?" So on the third day, the Jews would have to break their fast that evening! I hope this clears the matter up that while fasting three days, night or day would still be complete because the author did not say fasting for three days and three nights.

Concluding our thoughts this evening, Jesus could have said, "Just like Esther fasted for three days, so shall the son of man be in the heart of the earth for three days;" BUT he didn't!

Now we want to use a three day idiom that is so dear to our friend Hiroshi, we could do this prophecy pertaining to someone else! For you see, and the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, made hijra from Mecca to Yathrib, the route taken is not direct!. In fact, we read in the Seerah:

The notables of Makkah convened an emergency session to determine the future course of action and explore all areas that could help arrest the two men. They decided to block all avenues leading out of Makkah and imposed heavy armed surveillance over all potential exits. A price of 100 camels was set upon the head of each one.[Bukhari 1/554] Horsemen, infantry and tracers of tracks scoured the country. Once they even reached the mouth of the cave where the Prophet [pbuh] and Abu Bakr were hiding. When he saw the enemy at a very close distance, Abu Bakr whispered to the Prophet [pbuh]: "What, if they were to look through the crevice and detect us?" The Prophet [pbuh] in his God-inspired calm replied:

"Silence Abu Bakr! What do you think of those two with whom the Third is Allâh."[Bukhari 1/516; Mukhtasar Seerat Ar-Rasool p.168]

It was really a Divine miracle, the chasers were only a few steps from the cave.

For three days Muhammad [pbuh] and Abu Bakr lived in the cave and Quraish continued their frantic efforts to get hold of them.

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch3s7.html

Not if there are some willing to admit that Jesus was only presumed to be dead but was in fact just as alive as Jonah was, we would welcome that as a step in the right direction!

:wa:

 

[Hiroshi]

Okay boys and girls, we have a new challenge here. According to our pal, Hiroshi, Jesus in Matthew is using the same idiom as Esther in Esther. First off, let's see if they are same. In Matthew 12, Jesus says: "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon says:

hēmera ​

1) the day, used of the natural day, or the interval between sunrise and sunset, as distinguished from and contrasted with the night ​

1a) in the daytime

1b) metaphorically, "the day" is regarded as the time for abstaining from indulgence, vice, crime, because acts of the sort are perpetrated at night and in darkness ​

2) of the civil day, or the space of twenty four hours (thus including the night) ​

2a) Eastern usage of this term differs from our western usage. Any part of a day is counted as a whole day, hence the expression "three days and three nights" does not mean literally three whole days, but at least one whole day plus part of two other days. ​

3) of the last day of this present age, the day Christ will return from heaven, raise the dead, hold the final judgment, and perfect his kingdom

4) used of time in general, i.e. the days of his life.​

Quoted from:​

http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/g2250/page/7​

 

[YusufNoor]

Thayer's Greek Lexicon says:

hēmera ​

1) the day, used of the natural day, or the interval between sunrise and sunset, as distinguished from and contrasted with the night ​

1a) in the daytime

1b) metaphorically, "the day" is regarded as the time for abstaining from indulgence, vice, crime, because acts of the sort are perpetrated at night and in darkness ​

2) of the civil day, or the space of twenty four hours (thus including the night) ​

2a) Eastern usage of this term differs from our western usage. Any part of a day is counted as a whole day, hence the expression "three days and three nights" does not mean literally three whole days, but at least one whole day plus part of two other days. ​

3) of the last day of this present age, the day Christ will return from heaven, raise the dead, hold the final judgment, and perfect his kingdom

4) used of time in general, i.e. the days of his life.​

Quoted from:​

http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/g2250/page/7​

i get a kick out of Christians! repeatedly making fun of Muslims for insisting that the Qur'an is ONLY in Arabic, whilst their book is God's word IN ANY LANGUAGE, and thus a true miracle!

that is, until truth and logic prove them false! NOW you want us to believe that your Jewish idiom CAN ONLY be understood if you use Greek! ;D

and NOT ONLY Greek, but Greek as suggested by a Bible believing, Jesus worshiping Christian! no hidden agenda there, eh mate? :hiding:

so, if i have this correct, we must turn to an Evangelical 19th Century Christian to perform lexicographic prestidigitation of an ancient Hebrew Aramaic phrase [into Greek no less] in order create a miracle!
:clever:

Jesus was quoting a Hebrew/ Aramaic book in the tongue of his people, Hebrew/Aramaic. THUS the likelihood that he used the term hēmera is just about nil.

"Matthew" is simply full or erroneous and misleading attempts to "miraculously" prove Jesus' stature as a new "Moses," running around fulfilling prophecies!

is this the best that you have?

:wa:

 

[Hiroshi]

is this the best that you have?
:wa:

1 Samuel 30:12-13 reads: "And they gave him a piece of a cake of figs, and two clusters of raisins: and when he had eaten, his spirit came again to him: for he had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights. And David said unto him, To whom belongest thou? and whence art thou? And he said, I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days agone I fell sick."

And Matthew 27:63-64 says: "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day".

The more references that you see, the more it becomes clear that "three days and three nights", "after three days" and "until the third day" can all mean the same thing according to Jewish custom. "Wesleys Notes" says this as commentary: "Three days and three nights - it was customary with the eastern nations to reckon any part of a natural day of twenty-four hours, for the whole day. Accordingly, they used to say that a thing was done after three or seven days, if it was done on the third or seventh day, from that which was last mentioned. Instances of this may be seen, 1 Kings 20:29, and in many other places. And as the Hebrews had no word to express a natural day, they used night and day, or day and night for it. So to say that a thing happened after three days and three nights, was with them the very same, as to say, it happened after three days, or on the third day. See Esther 4:16; 5:1; Gen 7:4, 12; Exod 24:18; 34:28; Jonah 2:1." And Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary says: "The period during which He was to lie in the grave is here expressed in round numbers, according to the Jewish way of speaking, which was to regard any part of a day, however small, included within a period of days, as a full day. (See 1 Sa 30:12, 13; Es 4:16: 5:1; Mt 27:63, 64, &c.)."

 

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus was quoting a Hebrew/ Aramaic book in the tongue of his people, Hebrew/Aramaic. THUS the likelihood that he used the term hēmera is just about nil.

Yep. And so trying to "prove" that Jesus didn't do what Jesus said when what you have is not what Jesus said is sort of a circular argument that never actually even completes the circle. So, what's your point? I presume this...

"Matthew" is simply full or erroneous and misleading attempts to "miraculously" prove Jesus' stature as a new "Moses," running around fulfilling prophecies!

I dispute that Matthew is attempting to prove anything. But I do grant that Matthew more than the other Biblical writers tries to present Jesus as fitting his picture of what it meant to be the Jewish Messiah. The degree to which he took liberties with history to do that one can only speculate. But Muslims shouldn't be put off by that, after all they have the Qur'an to give witness to the fact that Jesus was the Messiah completely independent of Matthew. If it is a big deal to show that Jesus was supposed to be in the ground exactly 3 full days AND 3 full nights and yet was only in it parts of 3 different 24 hour periods before he was resurrected, you know what you get? You "prove" that Jesus doesn't fit the "sign of Jonah", but was still dead, buried and resurrected. Of the two points, I think the latter is the more important.

And Hiroshi's multiple illustrations of how the various terms all can be used as virtual synonyms still is the best answer showing that the "problem" you're intent on seeing within the text is, after further review, in reality a non-problem.

 

[Hiroshi]

"Matthew" is simply full or erroneous and misleading attempts to "miraculously" prove Jesus' stature as a new "Moses," running around fulfilling prophecies!

What errors?

 

[Al-manar]

Peace Imran123.
Apart from Matthew 12:40 where Jesus quotes Jonah, the only useful reference that I could find up to now is Esther 4:16 where it says: "Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day ... When this is done, I will go to the king". But then Esther 5:1 states that "On the third day Esther" went to see the king.

Although Esther 4:16 appears to indicate a full 72 hour period was due before Esther acted, the expression in Esther 5:1 shows that in fact the period was shorter than that: ending during the course of the third day.

Though I think my previous post should have setteled the matter, but let's make it clearer...

as we know,according to Jewish law part of the day is equivalent to a full day..... in the case of Esther,unlike the case of Matthew, she had fulfilled such law

The fast began at sunset so when Esther approached the king on the third day she would have already fasted 3 nights and a part of the third day ....

if the jews considered part of the day a full day and part of a night as a full night,then we can say Esther fasted 3 days and 3 nights even if she broke her fast on the third day,as she has already fasted 3 nights , 2 full days,part of the third day......

the case of Jesus (according to the gospels ) is different, there is no way to get him into the third night.....

the passage of Samael, again won't save the phrase of Matthew .....


to be continued

 

[YusufNoor]

1 Samuel 30:12-13 reads: "And they gave him a piece of a cake of figs, and two clusters of raisins: and when he had eaten, his spirit came again to him: for he had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights. And David said unto him, To whom belongest thou? and whence art thou? And he said, I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days agone I fell sick."

well, i've see what you written in another foreign phrase comes to mind, perhaps you heard it: NON SEQUITOR! we learn 2 things about our little Egyptian friend: A) he hasn't eaten in 3 days and 3 nights and B) his master left him 3 days ago because he was sick. to which I would reply, and? they are different subjects! maybe, just maybe you are trying to imply the stopping of the food and the master leaving our simultaneous events. Now I'm sorry, but I don't see that addressed in the story. you might try to convince me of that but A) i'm not convinced and B) the onus would be on you to convince me.

And Matthew 27:63-64 says: "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day".

this section is even more problematic. If, as resurrection is going to happen until after three days, why would you only keep it secure up until the third day? additionally, we are talking about the Pharisees let me go to another example, let's look at Genesis 2:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

you see here, Eve misquotes Adam. in the Jewish Midrash some say that the serpent thereby pushed even into the tree. When Eve saw that she did not die simply by touching the tree, she also assumed that you could freely eat of the tree. So what we see here that misquoting people is a dangerous thing.

The more references that you see, the more it becomes clear that "three days and three nights", "after three days" and "until the third day" can all mean the same thing according to Jewish custom. "Wesleys Notes" says this as commentary: "Three days and three nights - it was customary with the eastern nations to reckon any part of a natural day of twenty-four hours, for the whole day. Accordingly, they used to say that a thing was done after three or seven days, if it was done on the third or seventh day, from that which was last mentioned. Instances of this may be seen, 1 Kings 20:29, and in many other places. And as the Hebrews had no word to express a natural day, they used night and day, or day and night for it. So to say that a thing happened after three days and three nights, was with them the very same, as to say, it happened after three days, or on the third day. See Esther 4:16; 5:1; Gen 7:4, 12; Exod 24:18; 34:28; Jonah 2:1." And Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary says: "The period during which He was to lie in the grave is here expressed in round numbers, according to the Jewish way of speaking, which was to regard any part of a day, however small, included within a period of days, as a full day. (See 1 Sa 30:12, 13; Es 4:16: 5:1; Mt 27:63, 64, &c.)."

what's up Hiroshi? [How and by the way I'm using Dragon software to do most of my typing, so if you some ghastly phonetic mistakes that's my fault.]

now I realize everything your typing makes perfect sense to a Christian, but I'm not a Christian. I worship Allah Azza Wa Jal and Isa ibn Marriam. You Christians are the ones who tell me that you Bible is God's word in any language. I don't say that, you did! So if your book says in plain English that Jesus said "to the scribes and Pharisees: "For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," and I have to go by what the English actually says. If somebody wants to convey a Jewish idiom, then they should have translated it as such. but they didn't, did they?

Let's see, regarding Gene's post-let me be brief:

Just because something in the Qur'an is mentioned in Christianity, does not mean that we accept the Christian view of said event. the Qur'an clearly states:

[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure


my Jewish exegesis reads as the first part of this commentary from one of Hiroshi's sources [not the latter part]:

The Jews reckon up several wonders or miracles in this case of Jonah's; as that a fish was prepared to swallow him up, and he not drowned in the sea; and that this was prepared for him from the creation of the world; that he should be three days and three nights in the fish's belly, and be alive;

And so trying to "prove" that Jesus didn't do what Jesus said when what you have is not what Jesus said is sort of a circular argument that never actually even completes the circle. So, what's your point? I presume this..

As for that lot, you seem to be the master of the circular arguments. But as for myself I was speaking to our friend Hiroshi. and I choose to make my own points, thank you very much.

:wa:

 

[Al-manar]

"Wesleys Notes" says this as commentary: "Three days and three nights - it was customary with the eastern nations to reckon any part of a natural day of twenty-four hours, for the whole day.

Wesley and those alike , deceived themselves before deceiving the readers !......

let's read the following:

1- Nowhere in Hebrew literature is any part of a day (as opposed to night) reckoned as a day _and_ a night.

2- "three days and three nights" as an idiom. Just saying it doesn't make it so.This has never been shown
to be the case although there is no shortage of scholars past and present who *assert* this is so.
An idiom is an expression whose meaning cannot be derived from its constituent elements. The above expression shows no evidence of an idiomatic expression.

3-there is no evidence that "three days and three nights" can equal the "third day"unless the event being counted begins at nighttime. Then, logically, the third day would have the third night come before it and in
that sense "three days and three nights" does equal "the third day".

4-The Jews began their days at sunset. The third day (daylight variety)
would have already included the third night which preceeded it.

5- Whether they were using Roman time in reckoning days (for which there is no evidence) makes little difference. We still have a missing night to account for (if Friday is valid). There is no evidence of a Roman midnight "after three days" can be interchangeable with "the third day" or "the fourth day". It all depends on context. So even though "the third day" can be used for "after three days" (when context calls for it) it does not logically follow that "the third day"can be used interchangeably with the "fourth day". "After three days" can be used for either one but the former two, though interchangeable in some contexts with "after three days" cannot be used for one another. They are different. I also admit that three days and three nights can refer to the third day when the event to be counted begins at nightfall. Three nights and three days later would still be the third day. But if the event begins at daytime, then as soon as it overlaps another day, you entered the second day. But all of this is irrelevant if Jesus died on a Friday because you still cannot get three nights before Sunday morning.
If by "after three days" the writer means after three days are past, then it is equivalent to the "fourth day". If he means however that after three days in the grave (though not necessarily three full days) then it can be used for the "third day". For example, if you read "after a hard day of work John was paid $50.00" it does not necessarily mean he was paid the next day. He could have been paid the same afternoon. Or, suppose further you were to read "After three days of prayer in the temple the rabbi departed into his own house." This does not necessarily mean he went home after sunset at the beginning of the fourth day. He could have departed to his home late in the afternoon of the third day and yet it would be correct to say he had spent three days in prayer.


6-In Esther 4:16 when Esther approached the king on the third day she would have already fasted three nights and part of the third day. That would have fulfilled the requirement. The third day is in reference to the fast. For example, if the fast began Friday evening, three nights and three days later would be Monday (daytime). If Esther approached the king on Monday afternoon she would have already
fasted three nights and three days. Keep in mind it need not be a full day to fulfill the requirement. , The third day already included the third night before it. If the fast began Friday night then the third day (Monday daytime) would include three days and three nights. That is because the night was counted first.
Three nights and three days" can be interchangeable with the "third day" because the nights come first.
That means the "third day" already has the "third night" before it. That doesn't mean three days and three nights is interchangeable with the "third day". If the fast had begun in the day and spanned three days and three nights then Esther would have approached the king on the _fourth day_, not the third.
However, in the NT we see Jesus died three hours before sunset Nisan 14. This means the first day would precede the first night. This is what causes the conflict. Had Jesus died after sunset then we would begin counting with the night first and three days and three nights later would still be the third day (as in Esther). But the problem remains that Jesus died in the afternoon of the first day. The first night followed, then a whole day (Sat) and a night. That makes only 2 days and 2 nights.



7-In 1 Samuel 30:12-13 If this happened on a Sunday afternoon (this is for convenience only) then three days ago (KJV) would be Thursday afternoon. That was when (according to the KJV) that his master abandoned him. Yet we see he had not eaten in three days and three nights. Counting back three days and three nights from Sunday afternoon we come to the beginning of Thursday night. So we conclude that although his master abandoned him on Thursday afternoon (KJV) the slave still had
something to eat after his master abandoned him because the text says his fast did not begin until about Thursday sunset (assuming for convenience the slave was discovered on Sunday afternoon
{you can pick your own day and count backwards} ). The important thing to remember is this: There are two separate events being counted here: 1) the time of abandonment and 2) the beginning of the fast. There is no evidence they began at the same time. One could logically come before the other.

Would we listen to some christian voice ,as well?

The Part-of-a-Day Theory Wrong:
Men, in order to get the Bible out of an embarrassing situation, allege that the Jews counted a part of a day as the whole day. Such passages as Genesis 42:17, 18; 1 Samuel 30:12, 13; Esther 4:15-17; 1 Kings 20:29; and 1 Chronicles 10:5 are cited to prove this theory. However, none of these passages prove "three days and three nights" means two nights and one day. Only one of them even contains the expression "three days and three nights" 1 Samuel 30:12. But there is absolutely no reason to give "three days and three nights" in 1 Samuel 30:12 any meaning except their literal meaning.

Granting that some of the Jews did count a part of the day for a whole day, can it be proven that this is what Jesus meant? Can it be proven that the Jews counted a part of a day as a whole day and a whole night? Where is the proof in the inspired Word?.

 

[Predator]

Its not possible to get 3 days and 3 nights from Friday evening to Sunday morning .

A night is a period from Sunset to sunrise and day is the period from sunrise to sunset .END OF THE STORY

 

[Hiroshi]

Its not possible to get 3 days and 3 nights from Friday evening to Sunday morning .

A night is a period from Sunset to sunrise and day is the period from sunrise to sunset .END OF THE STORY

I apologize for not replying sooner to the objections that have persisted on this thread. I was busy on other discussions.
This link:
http://www.philologos.org/__eb-jl/matt12.htm
has these quotes and comments:

"R. Ismael saith, Sometimes it contains four Onoth sometimes five, sometimes six. But how much is the space of an Onah? R. Jochanan saith either a day or a night." And so also the Jerusalem Talmud; "R. Akiba fixed a day for an Onah, and a night for an Onah: but the tradition is, that R. Eliezar Ben Azariah said, A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as the whole." And a little after, R. Ismael computeth a part of the Onah for the whole.”

Compare the latter sense with the words of our Saviour, which are now before us: "A day and a night (saith the tradition) make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as the whole." Therefore Christ may truly be said to have been in his grave three Onoth, or three natural days (when yet the greatest part of the first day was wanting, and the night altogether, and the greatest part by far of the third day also), the consent of the schools and dialect of the nation agreeing thereunto. For, "the least part of the Onah concluded the whole." So that according to this idiom, that diminutive part of the third day upon which Christ arose may be computed for the whole day, and the night following it.



Now judging from the replies that I have been receiving, I fully expect someone to say: “Not good enough, mate. There seems to be a dispute there over whether or not an “Onah” can actually mean both a day and a night together!”

Well, I would also add that Matthew’s gospel repeatedly uses the phrase: “on the third day” quoting Jesus and as well as others. As Al-manar correctly observed in post #2: “According to all four Gospels, the crucifixion took place on a Friday and the resurrection on the following Sunday.” Matthew must have been aware of this since he wrote it.

So if the phrase in Matthew 12:40 was really intended to mean to include three separate periods of night, we would then have to conclude that Matthew, who was a tax collector, had difficulty counting up to three. Likely? I wouldn’t bet on it.

I am amazed at all the arguments and the trouble that people have gone to over this piece of trivia, not just here but in discussions all over the internet, with the aim of discrediting Matthews gospel and making the charge stick that he made a childish blunder in the narrative.

 

[Al-manar]

"R. Ismael saith, Sometimes it contains four Onoth sometimes five, sometimes six. But how much is the space of an Onah? R. Jochanan saith either a day or a night." And so also the Jerusalem Talmud; "R. Akiba fixed a day for an Onah, and a night for an Onah: but the tradition is, that R. Eliezar Ben Azariah said, A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as the whole." And a little after, R. Ismael computeth a part of the Onah for the whole.”[/FONT][/COLOR]

Compare the latter sense with the words of our Saviour, which are now before us: "A day and a night (saith the tradition) make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as the whole.

well,

Yes, Jesus would be in the grave "three Onahs" (Fri-Sat-Sun) according to the Eliezar rabbinical understanding of Onah. I have no problem with this at all. Onah functioned in the same way as the generic "day" functions with us today and the Jews in the first century. However, Jesus used the specific term "three days and three nights" so his "three Onahs" would consist at least of those elements. Had Jesus said he would be "three Onahs" in the earth in the Matthew passage there would be no problem because Onah was not as precise as "three days and three nights" (according to the interpretation given it by Christian apologists)..

“According to all four Gospels, the crucifixion took place on a Friday and the resurrection on the following Sunday.” Matthew must have been aware of this since he wrote it.

Yes Matthew was aware of what he wrote ,yet his zealous attitude to force some Old Testament passages as fullfillment or typology on the narratives he received regarding Jesus ,got him commiting mistake after mistake ....


he was aware that Isaiah 7 is not a messianic prophecy ,yet he forced it on Jesus...

he was aware that Jesus said to been come eagerly to die ,yet he got him crying a cry of despair on the cross...
he was aware that Jeremiah 31:15 has nothing to do even remotly with Herod´s killing of the infants ; Matthew 2:16-18

the same case with misusing Zechariah 11:12 etc etc etc .........

once he read
Jonah 1:17 But the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.

and as usual ,he would practice his hobby and forces the passage on Jesus...

So if the phrase in Matthew 12:40 was really intended to mean to include three separate periods of night, we would then have to conclude that Matthew, who was a tax collector, had difficulty counting up to three. Likely?.

the difficulty with Matthew is not his disabilty to count three,It is just his heart preceded his head , his desire preceded his discretion, his wish preceded his wisdom !