Matthew 12:40

[ding]

Not that I wish to get between you and Hobe...Rolling my eyes and laughing but I would like to point out that when Jesus visited TYRE described in Mathew 15 that he was WORSHIPPED in verse 25 by a women like one would do for either a king , royalty or a pagan god since Tyre is a pagan city...This means that he is more closely tied to the king of Tyre mentioned in Ezekiel 28 because he fits those verses to a tee...I did find the part where the women came to him and said her child was being vexed by “ devils” also interesting as he supposedly“ cured” the child showing he had “ control” over “ devils” as only the fallen one who fell to the pit and had the keys to hell would...Course Hobe may come up with some other explanation of for this but it still does not excuse the KING of TYRE fulfillment or match that is attributed to The Jesus persona...

It's kind of funny how you argue all sides.

On one hand you argue that Jesus is an amalgamation of individuals and now you are arguing that he is not.

Hmmm... Ding Nabbitt I see you are chasing the Wrascally Wrabbitt all over the board... You and Elmer Fudd have a lot in common are you just doing this for posting points or do you really think in all honesty that you are bringing something important to the mix... I made my points and any with an open mind and is honest will consider them... That is all oh Dingy one...

Christianity is effectively a sect of Judaism.

The fact that some Jews and some Protestants attack Catholicism is proof enough to me that I follow the one true faith.

 

[rstrats]

ding,
re: "So to answer the OP's question we believe this primarily because of tradition that was passed down orally."


If by "this" you mean a 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection, how do you explain the lack of a 3rd night?

 

[ding]

ding,
re: "So to answer the OP's question we believe this primarily because of tradition that was passed down orally."


If by "this" you mean a 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection, how do you explain the lack of a 3rd night?

3 days does not mean 72 hours.

3 days signifies a time period long enough for it to be known that he was dead.

What they are really saying is that they know he was dead.

 

[ding]

But the time frame did cover parts of three days.

 

[HaShev]

But the christ figure who died on Friday passover was Yeshu (100bc figure )son of the harlot Mary.
That's a far cry from Pilates era or King Herods era Galilean figure.
You are historically illiterate.
If you'd spend as much time studying the historical facts of the Biblical era instead of trolling forums, you'd might notice the discrepancies.

 

[rstrats]

ding,
re: "3 days does not [have to] mean 72 hours."

Agree, but what examples do you have that show that a night time didn't have to mean at least a portion of a night time?

 

[ding]

ding,
re: "3 days does not [have to] mean 72 hours."

Agree, but what examples do you have that show that a night time didn't have to mean at least a portion of a night time?

Why would I need that?

The whole point is to signify that he was dead.

Do you question that he wasn't dead?

 

[rstrats]

ding,
re: "Why would I need that?"

In order to be responsive to the OP as clarified in posts 7, 8, 34, and 60.



re: "The whole point is to signify that he was dead."

Actually, it's not. The whole point of this topic is to see examples which show that it was common to forecast or say 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.




re: "Do you question that he wasn't dead?"

I see no scriptural reason to question that He wasn't.

 

[ding]

ding,
re: "Why would I need that?"

In order to be responsive to the OP as clarified in posts 7, 8, 34, and 60.



re: "The whole point is to signify that he was dead."

Actually, it's not. The whole point of this topic is to see examples which show that it was common to forecast or say 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.




re: "Do you question that he wasn't dead?"

I see no scriptural reason to question that He wasn't.

I have been responsive.

The belief was based upon tradition which was passed down orally, it was based on the fact that he was dead for parts of three days but most importantly the three days was known back then to be a period of time that was long enough for it to be known that the person was really dead and not just thought to be dead.

I don't need anything else.

 

[RWNJ]

hadit,
re: "There was more than one Sabbath during Passover. There is no reason to think Yeshua was crucified on
Friday. In fact, He was crucified on Thursday and resurrected on Sunday."


That would be an issue for a different topic. Perhaps you could start one.

That cannot be correct. Jesus was raised on the third day. So, if He died on Thursday, he would have rose on Saturday. Not Sunday.

 

[rstrats]

RWNJ,

Is there any particular reason for including my comment in your post #130?

 

[RWNJ]

RWNJ,

Is there any particular reason for including my comment in your post #130?

I think it should be obvious. Read them again.

 

[rstrats]

RWNJ,
re: "I think it should be obvious. Read them again."

OK, you quoted my comment to hadit where I told him that his comments were with regard to a different issue from this topic.

You replied to my post to hadit by saying: "That cannot be correct." Were you saying that my comment to hadit cannot be correct - i.e., that his comments were with regard to a different issue?

 

[RWNJ]

RWNJ,
re: "I think it should be obvious. Read them again."

OK, you quoted my comment to hadit where I told him that his comments were with regard to a different issue from this topic.

You replied to my post to hadit by saying: "That cannot be correct." Were you saying that my comment to hadit cannot be correct - i.e., that his comments were with regard to a different issue?

I replied to your comment about when Jesus died and rose again. I believe you got it wrong.

 

[rstrats]

RWNJ,
re: "I replied to your comment about when Jesus died and rose again."

Where did I say anything about that in your post #130?

 

[RWNJ]

RWNJ,
re: "I replied to your comment about when Jesus died and rose again."

Where did I say anything about that in your post #130?

You said "There is no reason to think Yeshua was crucified on
Friday. In fact, He was crucified on Thursday and resurrected on Sunday." That is what I was replying to.

 

[rstrats]

RWNJ,
re: "You said 'There is no reason to think Yeshua was crucified on Friday. In fact, He was crucified on Thursday and resurrected on Sunday.'"

Hadit said that, not me.

 

[rstrats]

Maybe someone new looking in may know of examples.

 

[rstrats]

Perhaps someone new visiting this topic who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week, and who tries to explain the lack of the 3rd night prophesied in Matthew 12:40 by saying that it is using common Jewish figure of speech, may know of examples to show that it was common.

 

[Penelope]

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 absolutely didn’t include at least parts of the “x” days and at least parts of the “x” nights?

Jesus Wept