Explain how Jesus was in the tomb 3 days & 3 nights.

[ViaCrucis]

There is a reference to this in Matthew 12:40. It appears Jesus was not in the tomb three nights. Most of Christians traditionally believe that Jesus was crucified on Friday afternoon, “placed in the tomb before sundown Friday night, rested in the tomb on the Sabbath (Saturday) and was resurrected on Sunday morning before dawn.

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Matthew 12:40

So how does it make 3 days & 3 nights?

Analogy to Jonah's time in the whale, and a figure of speech. No, it was not three sunsets and three sunrises, it was three days, inclusive: Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Godistruth1]

Analogy to Jonah's time in the whale, and a figure of speech. No, it was not three sunsets and three sunrises, it was three days, inclusive: Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

-CryptoLutheran

So how is the 3 nights prophecy fulfilled?

 

[ViaCrucis]

So how is the 3 nights prophecy fulfilled?

There is no "3 nights prophecy". Jesus said the only sign to be given was the sign of the prophet Jonah, speaking toward His death and resurrection. The amount of time Jesus spent in the grave is irrelevant; the point is that the only sign to be given to the "faithless generation" was His death and resurrection. The central claim of Jesus' messianic status, in Christianity, is that He stopped being dead.


-CryptoLutheran

 

[Godistruth1]

There is no "3 nights prophecy". Jesus said the only sign to be given was the sign of the prophet Jonah, speaking toward His death and resurrection. The amount of time Jesus spent in the grave is irrelevant; the point is that the only sign to be given to the "faithless generation" was His death and resurrection. The central claim of Jesus' messianic status, in Christianity, is that He stopped being dead.


-CryptoLutheran

Its specifically speaking about the time spent and its the only relevant thing!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Its specifically speaking about the time spent and its the only relevant thing!

The context is faithless people demanding a sign from Jesus that He is who He claims to be. To which Jesus tells them what the sign is: His death and resurrection. That's the relevant thing.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[gadar perets]

There is a reference to this in Matthew 12:40. It appears Jesus was not in the tomb three nights. Most of Christians traditionally believe that Jesus was crucified on Friday afternoon, “placed in the tomb before sundown Friday night, rested in the tomb on the Sabbath (Saturday) and was resurrected on Sunday morning before dawn.

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Matthew 12:40

So how does it make 3 days & 3 nights?

It doesn't make 3 nights because those words were not meant to be taken literally IMHO. "Three days and three nights" is a figure of speech or an Hebrew idiom. For example, an American idiom is, "It is raining cats and dogs" yet, not one cat or dog is falling from the sky. It simply means, "It is raining hard". "Three days and three nights" simply means "three days".

 

[rstrats]

[QUOTE="gadar perets [/QUOTE]


re: "'Three days and three nights' is a figure of speech or an Hebrew idiom... 'Three days and three nights' simply means 'three days'."

Was it a common figure of speech? Are there 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 a daytime or no part of a night time could occur?

 

[RDKirk]

[QUOTE="gadar perets

re: "'Three days and three nights' is a figure of speech or an Hebrew idiom... 'Three days and three nights' simply means 'three days'."

Was it a common figure of speech? Are there 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 a daytime or no part of a night time could occur?[/QUOTE]

Not so much a particular figure of speech as it is a common concept of expression in the Middle East--and still is today.

Despite the literalist, when Jesus said, "seventy times seven," He did not literally mean 490. He did not necessarily spend exactly 40 days and 40 nights fasting in the wilderness. The ark was not necessarily afloat for 40 days.

What the phrase is intended to convey is that he was in the tomb long enough to be really dead.

 

[rstrats]

RDKirk,
re: "Not so much a particular figure of speech as it is a common concept of expression in the Middle East--and still is today."


I wonder if you might provides examples which show that it was/is common in the Middle East to 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?

 

[RDKirk]

RDKirk,
re: "Not so much a particular figure of speech as it is a common concept of expression in the Middle East--and still is today."


I wonder if you might provides examples which show that it was/is common in the Middle East to 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?

What?

 

[rstrats]

RDKirk,
re: "What?"

You wrote that it is a common concept of expression in the Middle East. I'm simply asking if you could provides examples which support your comment that "it" was a common expression, i.e., 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 have occurred.

 

[Barney2.0]

RDKirk,
re: "What?"

You wrote that it is a common concept of expression in the Middle East. I'm simply asking if you could provides examples which support your comment that "it" was a common expression, i.e., 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 have occurred.

This phenomena is exemplified in scripture in the book of Esther. "Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way," (Esther 4:16 ). Then, in Esther 5:1 it says, "Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace in front of the king’s rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace." We can see that even though the three days and nights had not been completed, Esther went in to see the King on the third day even though she said to fast for three days and nights. We see that "on the third day" is equivalent to "after three days."

How long was Jesus dead in the tomb? | CARM.org

 

[RDKirk]

RDKirk,
re: "What?"

You wrote that it is a common concept of expression in the Middle East. I'm simply asking if you could provides examples which support your comment that "it" was a common expression, i.e., 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 have occurred.

That part in bold makes no sense to me.

What is "an event in which no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred?"

I don't understand what you mean by that. What is such a thing?

What I mean is that "three days and three nights" means "more than a two days, not as long as a week" without an intent to be absolutely precise.

 

[rstrats]

RDKirk,
re: "What is 'an event in which no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred?'"

Well, if a 6th day of the week death/1st day of the week resurrection scenario is true, then there was no way that a 3rd night could have been involved.

 

[RDKirk]

RDKirk,
re: "What is 'an event in which no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred?'"

Well, if a 6th day of the week death/1st day of the week resurrection scenario is true, then there was no way that a 3rd night could have been involved.

What I mean is that "three days and three nights" means "more than a two days, not as long as a week" without an intent to be absolutely precise.

 

[rstrats]

RDKirk,
re: "What I mean is that 'three days and three nights' means 'more than a two days, not as long as a week' without an intent to be absolutely precise."


How do you know that the Messiah didn't mean that He would be in the "heart of the earth" for at least a portion of a third night time?

 

[RDKirk]

RDKirk,
re: "What I mean is that 'three days and three nights' means 'more than a two days, not as long as a week' without an intent to be absolutely precise."


How do you know that the Messiah didn't mean that He would be in the "heart of the earth" for at least a portion of a third night time?

We don't know very much at all about the metaphysics of Christ's death and resurrection.

 

[Steve Petersen]

There is a reference to this in Matthew 12:40. It appears Jesus was not in the tomb three nights. Most of Christians traditionally believe that Jesus was crucified on Friday afternoon, “placed in the tomb before sundown Friday night, rested in the tomb on the Sabbath (Saturday) and was resurrected on Sunday morning before dawn.

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Matthew 12:40

So how does it make 3 days & 3 nights?

Maybe one of the authors just got it wrong, or may be Jesus never said it.

 

[RDKirk]

Maybe one of the authors just got it wrong, or may be Jesus never said it.

Or Jesus did say it, not intending it to be Swiss-watch precise but only a reference to a scriptural incident.

As someone has already said, what is the actual debate about this? Is it not a miracle if he was only dead for two and a half days instead of three full days before coming back to life?

 

[cvanwey]

So how is the 3 nights prophecy fulfilled?

I myself, whom doubts that a resurrection occurred in the first place for various reasons, also finds this specific argument futile. I too feel it really boils down to whether or not He actually did resurrect or not. Squabbling over such minutiae might be a waste of time, for all intensive purposes.

It might instead seem beneficial to focus on the provided claimed evidence in support for such a specific resurrection claim