Three Days and Three Nights

[Pappillion001]

look at it this way, he went in on the Friday (day 1) remained in all day and night on the saturday (day 2) came out on the sunday (day 3)

He said he would rise on the 3rd day and that is the day he came out...the 3rd day.

I can't see the issue here.

Fri day 1 day
Fri Night 1 Night
Sat Day 2 Day
Sat Night 2 Night
Sun Morn 3 day

We seem to be short a night and that is giving him the benefit of the uncertainty of when the tomb was found to be empty.

Keep in mind the Jewish day is sunset to sunset broken into 12 hour periods.

The Gospels are not clear if the women were at the tomb as the sun rose or got there as it rose. It is a little odd that with something as significant they would not be specific, but it is easy to be a critic at this point.

Although I think a part of the day is a day, Jesus did not say 3 days. He said 3 days and 3 nights. If you take him at his word, which is important since the raising of Jesus is supposed to be the proof (so much for faith) that he was who he says and can deliver what he promised, then he needs to be in the ground 3 nights and rise on the 3 day. Other than trying to cover the inconsistency between the Gospels I don't see any reason or evidence to suggest it should be anything other than what is stated.

 

[Pappillion001]

Pappillion001,

re: "I would agree though a day is any part of a day."


And a night is any part of a night. I'm looking for some writing that shows a specific instance where it is absolutey impossible for that to be the case.

How about this

Gill's Exposition of the Entire BibleAnd she shall continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days,....


nor come into the sanctuary; the court of the tabernacle of the congregation, or the court of the temple, as the same writer observes; and so with the Greeks, a pregnant woman might not come into a temple before the fortieth day (o), that is, of her delivery:



until the days of her purifying be fulfilled; until the setting of the sun of the fortieth day; on the morrow of that she was to bring the atonement of her purification, as Jarchi observes; See Gill on Leviticus 12:6.

So it would seem that for the purpose of purification it is the whole day not any part.

 

[rstrats]

Pappillion001,

re: "How about this"


I don't see where a specific number of day-times as well as a specific number of night-times are mentioned.

 

[rstrats]

Maybe someone new looking in will know of some writing.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I've reviewed the thread. There was recently a similar discussion in which I posted a response that I think is relevant to your question. It is http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3309925-post17.html

My suggestion is that the nature of the 'Three Days' is such that it must be more than two but less than three twenty four hour days. For that reason there's nothing wrong with referring to it as 'Three Days' or 'About three days', though it is understood to be more than two and less than three 24 hour periods. Its a symbolic use of time.

 

[allright]

The gospels writers knew Jesus said three day and gave accounts of his resurrection which they knew fulfilled the three days
Otherwise you have to believe they wrote he made the prophecy and than gave an account which made the prophecy false. not very likley

 

[rstrats]

Brickjectivity,

I'm afraid I don't see where your link shows an actual example from the first century or before that shows a phrase stating a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where it absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specified number of days and at least a part of each one of the specified number of nights.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Brickjectivity,

I'm afraid I don't see where your link shows an actual example from the first century or before that shows a phrase stating a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where it absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specified number of days and at least a part of each one of the specified number of nights.

No, just the opposite. I've shown that 'Three days' cannot be exactly three days, because it would desecrate the sacrifice if Jesus body were permitted to be dead for one second past three days but not if it were resurrected 23 hours early. The example you are looking for won't exist.

Whomever you referred to in your opening post, they don't understand why Jesus was to be dead for three days. The lesson is "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." It is a major part of Jesus message. No, if Jesus were dead even a second past three days the symbolism would be spoiled, but anytime between two and three days would be fine. Therefore you don't need to look for those concrete examples you mentioned. In fact you will find an opposite example in the vision in Daniel 12:7 "Time, Time and a half Time." Here the 'Holy People' are oppressed until they are broken, but then they are reinstated. At the time this was written Israel was considered a sacrifice for the world. Sacrifices must be burned or eaten before the three days is up. Following suit Jesus death had to have been for about 2.5 days plus change. One second over three days and it would have been the sign of God's disapproval upon his sacrifice.

 

[rstrats]

Brickjectivity,

re: "No, just the opposite."

But I'm looking for the opposite of your opposite.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You raise an interesting question but...

It shouldn't exist. The Hebrews accounted that time was kept by the Sun, moon and stars. (Gen 1:14) Humanity had to adjust itself to these timekeepers, not the other way around. It did not matter how many hours a day lasted. What mattered what the position of the sun, moon and stars. If, for instance, on the third day the sun stopped moving across the sky it would still be the third day right now according to Hebrew time, no matter how many seconds minutes and hours past by. This is what happened for Joshua (whom Jesus is named after). (see Joshua 10:13) The sun, and thus timekeeping, was stopped to give Joshua extra time to complete his work. Jesus, who is purposely named after Joshua, would get no less of a deal.

Are you sure that you aren't arguing against this? It kind of seems like you are trying to, but no such argument exists. There's just no way in this green Earth that the situation you are talking about would occur. I'm trying to understand what your position is. Are you arguing someone else's perspective or your own? Why should they expect 3 days to last a specific amount of human time? If Jesus resurrection were taking too long the sun would probably have stopped to make sure his sacrifice wasn't spoiled.

Peacefully,
Bricked in the head.

 

[rstrats]

　
Brickjectivity,　
　
re: "It shouldn't exist"

I'm afraid that I don't see how your first paragraph has anything to do with my question in the OP.
　

re: "Are you sure that you aren't arguing against this?"

Pretty sure I'm not.
　


re: ". I'm trying to understand what your position is."

For the purpose of the OP, I don't have a position. I simply am looking for what I asked for in the OP.


re: " Are you arguing someone else's perspective or your own?"

I am not aware of arguing anyone's perspective.
　


re: "Why should they expect 3 days to last a specific amount of human time?"

The issue is with regard to day times and night times - not how long each lasts.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thanks for that graceful reply. Yes, looks like I misunderstood. I hope I haven't been too annoying.

 

[Poisonshady313]

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?

Nope.

In fact, and I've mentioned this on at least a couple of threads on this topic, we learn from the sin of the golden calf that "forty days and forty nights" MEANS "forty days and forty nights"... and when they counted the day Moses started ascending the mountain, their count was off by a day. They should have started counting when the sun set after he started to ascend the mountain.

What you'll hear is a lot of references to "on the third day"... and obviously anything that happens "on the third day" can happen at any point on the third day... but this is a completely different concept than something happening after "three days and three nights", which is basically a way of saying "fourth night" (because nights come before days.)

 

[rstrats]

Someone new looking in may know of some writing.

 

[Shiranui117]

Nope.

In fact, and I've mentioned this on at least a couple of threads on this topic, we learn from the sin of the golden calf that "forty days and forty nights" MEANS "forty days and forty nights"... and when they counted the day Moses started ascending the mountain, their count was off by a day. They should have started counting when the sun set after he started to ascend the mountain.

This is wrong. Moses never said when he would be back down. He never said he'd be up there for forty days and forty nights. He walked up on the mountain, and when he didn't come down for weeks, the people of Israel gave him up for dead. It had absolutely nothing to do with time reckoning, and you will not find this notion that you talk about in the Scriptures. It wasn't a matter of the Hebrews being off in their counting by a day. It was a matter of them giving up Moses for dead after neither seeing nor hearing hide or hair of him for weeks.

What you'll hear is a lot of references to "on the third day"... and obviously anything that happens "on the third day" can happen at any point on the third day... but this is a completely different concept than something happening after "three days and three nights", which is basically a way of saying "fourth night" (because nights come before days.)

All the Apostles give witness to Christ rising from the dead on the third day.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Jesus was born 9-22-4 BC and died 4-25-31 AD and will return,
most likely on 9-18-2031 AD.

... Now those are some ballsy statements to be certain of...

 

[cataway]

he has all ready returned .........it just did not happen the way many people had expected it would.

when will he take action against the nations ?? ha ,.....any one that does say they know is guessing

 

[allright]

The writers of the Gospels certainly knew what the three days meant and that their account of the resurrection fulfilled it
Otherwise you have to claim they put the prophecy in there and than put a narrative of the resurrection in their Gospel which didnt fulfill the prophecy and made Jesus a liar
What nonsense

 

[Shiranui117]

... Now those are some ballsy statements to be certain of...

I no rite?

he has all ready returned .........it just did not happen the way many people had expected it would.

when will he take action against the nations ?? ha ,.....any one that does say they know is guessing

Obviously, according to you, He didn't come back in the way He said He would--coming on the clouds of Heaven, with all the angelic hosts, returning in the same manner that He ascended.

When do you think He came back?

 

[cataway]

I'm going to ask you to read Matthew 24 and I'll ask of you when he made his presents known.

as for clouds ,clouds have a symbolic meaning, clouds conceal,restrict your eye's from being able to see what you may know is there.