Matthew 12:40

  • Thread starter Thread starter rstrats
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
steve b,

re: “There is your documentation”

I wonder if you might point out where your “documentation” shows an actual instance from the first century or before where a period of time is stated to consist of a specific number of days and a specific number of nights where the period absolutely doesn’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?
 
steve b,

re: “There is your documentation”

I wonder if you might point out where your “documentation” shows an actual instance from the first century or before where a period of time is stated to consist of a specific number of days and a specific number of nights where the period absolutely doesn’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?
That was a Jewish resource. A Jewish day begins and ends at sunset. They gave the precedence for that going back to Genesis. What is it specifically you’re trying to disprove?
 
steve b,

re: “That was a Jewish resource. A Jewish day begins and ends at sunset.”

Of course; almost everyone knows that. The problem is that it has nothing to do with my request in the OP.

re: " What is it specifically you’re trying to disprove?"

I’m not trying to disprove anything. I would just like to know if there was ever an instance during the first century or before where a period of time was stated to contain a specific number of days and a specific number of nights where the period absolutely didn’t/couldn’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?
 
I’m not trying to disprove anything. I would just like to know if there was ever an instance during the first century or before where a period of time was stated to contain a specific number of days and a specific number of nights where the period absolutely didn’t/couldn’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?
what is it you’re trying to prove?
 
steve b,

re: “what is it your’re trying to prove?”

For the purpose of this topic, I’m not trying to prove anything. I simply wonder if there is any documentation 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 as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey doesn’t/can’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?
 
steve b,

re: “what is it your’re trying to prove?”

For the purpose of this topic, I’m not trying to prove anything. I simply wonder if there is any documentation 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 as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey doesn’t/can’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?
As I’ve been saying, Jews saw a day beginning and ending at sunset. We see things from midnight. The difference between sunset v midnight, is this what you’re asking? How we look at a new day and night v how Jews looked at a new day and night?
 
steve b,

re: " The difference between sunset v midnight, is this what you’re asking?"

No. Let me repeat again: I am looking for any documentation 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 (light periods) as well as a specific number of nights (dark periods) where the total period of time absolutey doesn’t/can’t include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days (light periods) and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights (dark periods).
 
steve b,

re: " The difference between sunset v midnight, is this what you’re asking?"

No. Let me repeat again: I am looking for any documentation 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 (light periods) as well as a specific number of nights (dark periods) where the total period of time absolutey doesn’t/can’t include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days (light periods) and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights (dark periods).
Why?
 
steve b,

re: “Why?”

Now I know you’re just messin’ with me.

Maybe someone new looking in will know of some documentation.
 
steve b,

re: “Why?”

Now I know you’re just messin’ with me.

Maybe someone new looking in will know of some documentation.
Everybody so far has given you an answer. Seems you’re the one messing around

A day = 24 hrs…any part of it.

Re: Mt 12:40

The Roman way of identifying a day is midnight to midnight

Friday till midnight =1st day & night
Saturday till midnight = 2nd day & night
Sunday sunrise = 3rd day, partial night

3 days 3 nights. What’s the problem?
 
steve b,

re: “Everybody so far has given you an answer.”

Except they are not applicable to my request. If you still think that they are, how about quoting just one of them that documents an actual instance from the first century or before, regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days (light periods) as well as a specific number of nights (dark periods) where the total period of time absolutey doesn’t/can’t include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days (light periods) and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights (dark periods).
 
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 the phrase “x” days and “x”nights was ever used in the first century or before when it didn’t include at least parts of the “x” days and at least parts of the “x” nights?
Would Scripture help to answer your question? Would that count as documentation of the first century and way before that period?

According to Genesis 7:12, the rain of the Noahic Flood was upon the Earth “forty days and forty nights.” Verse 17 of that same chapter says it was on the Earth for just “forty days.” Who would argue that it had to rain precisely 960 hours (40 days x 24 hours) for both of these statements to be true?

In Genesis 42:17 Joseph incarcerated his brothers for three days. Then, according to verse 18, he spoke to them on the third day and released them (all but one, that is).

In 1 Samuel 30:12,13, the phrases “three days and three nights” and “three days” are used interchangeably.

When Queen Esther was about to risk her life by going before the king uninvited, she instructed her fellow Jews to follow her example by not eating “for three days, night or day” (Esther 4:16). The text goes on to tell us that Esther went in unto the king “on the third day” (5:1, emp. added).

Perhaps the most compelling Old Testament passage which clearly testifies that the ancients (at least occasionally) considered a portion of a twenty-four hour period “as the whole of it” is found in 2 Chronicles 10. When Israel asked King Rehoboam to lighten their burdens, he wanted time to contemplate their request, so he instructed Jeroboam and the people of Israel to return “after three days” (2 Chronicles 10:5, emp. added). Verse 12, however, indicates that Jeroboam and the people of Israel came to Rehoboam “on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘ Come back to me the third day’ ” (emp. added). Fascinating, is it not, that even though Rehoboam instructed his people to return “after three days,” they understood this to mean “on the third day.”

From Acts 10, we can glean further insight into the ancient practice of counting consecutive days (in part or in whole) as complete days. Luke recorded how an angel appeared to Cornelius at “about the ninth hour of the day” (approximately 3:00 p.m.; Acts 10:3). “The next day” (10:9) Peter received a vision from God and welcomed visitors sent by Cornelius. “On the next day” (10:23) Peter and the servants of Cornelius departed for Caesarea. “And the following day they entered Caesarea” where Peter taught Cornelius and his household the Gospel (10:24). At one point during Peter’s visit,Cornelius spoke about his encounter with the angel of God. Notice carefully how he began the rehearsal of the event. He stated: “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour…” (10:30, NASB, emp. added). Although the event actually had occurred only 72 hours (or three literal days) earlier, Cornelius spoke of it as taking place “four days ago to this hour.” Why four days instead of three?

Because according to the first-century method of reckoning time, a part of the first day and a part of the fourth day could be counted as whole days. Surely one can see how this information aligns itself perfectly with Jesus’ burial taking place on Friday and His resurrection occurring on Sunday. A part of Friday, all day Saturday, and a part of Sunday would be considered three days in ancient times, not one or two.
 
Would Scripture help to answer your question? Would that count as documentation of the first century and way before that period?

According to Genesis 7:12, the rain of the Noahic Flood was upon the Earth “forty days and forty nights.” Verse 17 of that same chapter says it was on the Earth for just “forty days.” Who would argue that it had to rain precisely 960 hours (40 days x 24 hours) for both of these statements to be true?

In Genesis 42:17 Joseph incarcerated his brothers for three days. Then, according to verse 18, he spoke to them on the third day and released them (all but one, that is).

In 1 Samuel 30:12,13, the phrases “three days and three nights” and “three days” are used interchangeably.

When Queen Esther was about to risk her life by going before the king uninvited, she instructed her fellow Jews to follow her example by not eating “for three days, night or day” (Esther 4:16). The text goes on to tell us that Esther went in unto the king “on the third day” (5:1, emp. added).

Perhaps the most compelling Old Testament passage which clearly testifies that the ancients (at least occasionally) considered a portion of a twenty-four hour period “as the whole of it” is found in 2 Chronicles 10. When Israel asked King Rehoboam to lighten their burdens, he wanted time to contemplate their request, so he instructed Jeroboam and the people of Israel to return “after three days” (2 Chronicles 10:5, emp. added). Verse 12, however, indicates that Jeroboam and the people of Israel came to Rehoboam “on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘ Come back to me the third day’ ” (emp. added). Fascinating, is it not, that even though Rehoboam instructed his people to return “after three days,” they understood this to mean “on the third day.”

From Acts 10, we can glean further insight into the ancient practice of counting consecutive days (in part or in whole) as complete days. Luke recorded how an angel appeared to Cornelius at “about the ninth hour of the day” (approximately 3:00 p.m.; Acts 10:3). “The next day” (10:9) Peter received a vision from God and welcomed visitors sent by Cornelius. “On the next day” (10:23) Peter and the servants of Cornelius departed for Caesarea. “And the following day they entered Caesarea” where Peter taught Cornelius and his household the Gospel (10:24). At one point during Peter’s visit,Cornelius spoke about his encounter with the angel of God. Notice carefully how he began the rehearsal of the event. He stated: “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour…” (10:30, NASB, emp. added). Although the event actually had occurred only 72 hours (or three literal days) earlier, Cornelius spoke of it as taking place “four days ago to this hour.” Why four days instead of three?

Because according to the first-century method of reckoning time, a part of the first day and a part of the fourth day could be counted as whole days. Surely one can see how this information aligns itself perfectly with Jesus’ burial taking place on Friday and His resurrection occurring on Sunday. A part of Friday, all day Saturday, and a part of Sunday would be considered three days in ancient times, not one or two.
Nice job 👍

Since this is an ongoing topic, I found this response that goes back to 04.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=215181&postcount=12
 
ChrisRedfield47,

re: “Would Scripture help to answer your question? Would that count as documentation of the first century and way before that period?”

Indeed it would. Unfortunately I’m not aware of any scripture that shows an example from the first century or before, which show an instance regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days (light periods) as well as a specific number of nights (dark periods) where the total period of time absolutely doesn’t/can’t include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days (light periods) and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights (dark periods).

As regards your references, none of the calendar days mentioned in them are precluded from the possibility of having at least part of the light portion of each calendar day and at least part of the dark portion of each calendar day included in the count.
 
Since it’s been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of some writing.
 
I probably should have addressed the OP to those who think that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week.
 
The text in the Jewish scriptures reads דג גדול or huge fish. The word "whale’ is not used. Ironically the story of Yonah (Jonah) speaks of redemption for all and that redemption is not limited to Jews or the geography of the Jews eternal Homeland (Yonah is sent to a foreign pagan city which in the end is redeemed). This concept is rejected by Christianity which believes that “salvation” is available only to those who share their beliefs in the Christian leader.
That is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

Below is the actual teaching of the Catholic Church from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 847-848.

***“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”*​

We can have a pleasant discussion, but we have to first start on the basis of what the Church actually teaches, not faulty beliefs that the Church teaches what it actually does not.

-Tim-
 
I guess I responded to an old post., I don’t generally do that but I’m going to leave it.

-Tim-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top