Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Matthew 12:40 an idiom?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Okay, well this might be a little underwhelming, but I guarantee you it answers your question, Is there anyone "who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that the "heart of the earth" means the tomb and who thinks that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language - will know of some writing which shows a phrase stating a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights being used in the first century or before when it 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."
It's a little underwhelming because the writings in question have actually already been given in this thread. The primary two are 1 Samuel 30:12 and Esther 4:16; 5:1.
Now hold on, I know you're thinking "But I already rejected these!" Yes, I realize that. Perhaps the reason why you rejected them was legit, perhaps not. BUT those ARE the primary passages that have always been in mind when apologists have referred to the "common idiom". Here's the proof. The apologists are getting this information from a number of renown NT scholars. So for instance, check out what imminent NT scholar N.T. France said here,
In case you were wonder, SB 1 stands for Strack and Billerbeck Volume 1, or more specifically H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vol. 1. Here's that volume for you online at the exact page. It's in German of course.
Okay, R.T. France isn't an apologist, he was a scholar and a cleric, but his view is the same as apologists, and is likely where most apologists got the idea (and if not him specifically, then someone as esteemed). So to back France I'll cite the fine NT scholar and apologist Mike Licona. This comes from his apologetics book, "Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian-Muslim Debate on the Resurrection". Basically a book that, as the title implies, imagines a hypothetical debate between Paul and Muhammed. The foreward is by Lee Strobel, so you know that this is definitely an apologetic work.
Licona goes on to mention Matthew 27:63-64 where the Pharisees approach Pilate,
So, yeah, there you have it. Now I know you probably think you have a reply lined up for each of these passages for why they don't fit your litmus test perfectly. I'm sad to say that that is all there is. These are pretty much the only passages that have ever been in mind from the beginning by scholars and apologists. There are no other books or writings, canonical or otherwise, that were ever in mind. So your search is...over. It probably wasn't the answer you wanted, but it is the ONLY answer available.
To be perfectly honest, I personally think they're great answers, but I suppose that is neither here nor there. Alright, well, mods, you can go ahead and close the thread now.Last edited by Adrift; 07-21-2016, 09:37 PM.
Comment
-
Adrift,
re: "I know you probably think you have a reply lined up for each of these passages for why they don't fit your litmus test perfectly."
And it's the same one I've given in the past: "none of your comments provide examples that show that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred".
Comment
-
Originally posted by rstrats View PostAdrift,
re: "I know you probably think you have a reply lined up for each of these passages for why they don't fit your litmus test perfectly."
And it's the same one I've given in the past: "none of your comments provide examples that show that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred".Last edited by Adrift; 09-11-2016, 11:32 AM.
Comment
-
Adrift,
re: "I think there's room for disagreement there."
I see no room at all. You still haven't provided any examples which show that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred".
re: "At any rate, it simply does not matter as I've already thoroughly laid out. I've given you all there is. You can stop your quest now. Per our agreement I will go ahead and ask the mods to close this thread."
You haven't lived up to your part of the agreement. The closing of the "thread" was contingent on you providing examples which show that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred". So far you haven't done that.
re: "Also, next time you reply to me, please use the quote button as we also agreed upon."
I never agreed to do that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rstrats View PostAdrift,
I see no room at all.
You still haven't provided any examples which show that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred".
You haven't lived up to your part of the agreement. The closing of the "thread" was contingent on you providing examples which show that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred". So far you haven't done that.
I never agreed to do that.
Comment
-
Since this topic is still open, perhaps someone new looking in 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 and who thinks that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language will know of examples to support that contention; i.e., examples which show that it was common to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rstrats View PostSince this topic is still open, perhaps someone new looking in 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 and who thinks that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language will know of examples to support that contention; i.e., examples which show that it was common to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred.
Comment
-
The question is to anybody who tries to explain the missing night time of a 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection by saying that the verse is using common idiomatic/figure of speech/ colloquial/etc. language.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rstrats View PostThe question is to anybody who tries to explain the missing night time of a 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection by saying that the verse is using common idiomatic/figure of speech/ colloquial/etc. language.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rstrats View PostYour argument is with them then, not with me.
Comment
-
There are only 3 possible answers:
1. "I am right about saying that it was common to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could occur but I don't have any examples to support my assertion."
2. "I am right about saying that it was common to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could occur, and here are the examples to support my assertion"
3. "I was wrong about saying that it was common to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could occur."Last edited by rstrats; 09-23-2016, 08:57 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rstrats View PostThere are only 3 possible answers:
1. "I am right about saying that it was common to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could occur but I don't have any examples to support my assertion."
2. "I am right about saying that it was common to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could occur, and here are the examples to support my assertion"
3. "I was wrong about saying that it was common to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could occur."
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,089 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 04:09 AM | ||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
254 responses
1,231 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-22-2024, 12:21 PM | ||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
49 responses
374 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
05-15-2024, 02:53 PM
|
Comment