Three Days and Three Nights in Matthew 12:40

I don’t see what I asked for being addressed there... my question is whether you’re asking all these things in good faith, or if there’s an ax to grind

 

anglican74,

re: "I don’t see what I asked for being addressed there..."

You asked if I am pursuing any actual question. I said I am and referenced point #6 in post #29 which sets forth my question, i.e., "I wonder if anyone who falls in that group of believers could provide examples to support that belief of commonality; i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of a daytime and/or no part of a night time could have occurred?"


re: "...my question is whether you’re asking all these things in good faith..."

You didn't initially ask that. Your question (actually 2 depending on my answer to the first one) was: "...are you pursuing any actual question, or do you just have some ax to grind?"

My answer was that I am, thus making "...do you have some ax to grind?" moot. But with regard to your new question about good faith, my answer is yes.

 

From an Anglican perspective I should think that the Book of Common Prayer would answer this question rather definitively with the Good Friday, Easter Even and Easter Sunday Collects, Epistles and Gospels. If our Lord were not crucified on Good Friday there would be no point in defining the Propers for that day as follows:

These propers being read on Good Friday should answer any question concerning the day of the week of the passion of our Lord definitively on the basis of lex ordandi, lex credendi.

 

Liturgyworks,
re: "These propers being read on Good Friday should answer any question concerning the day of the week of the passion of our Lord definitively on the basis of lex ordandi, lex credendi."


That's an issue for a different topic. Perhaps you could start one?

 

I don’t understand why you think my post is off topic, I have to confess. Anglicanism rests on scripture, tradition and reason; the liturgical tradition pf the Church has us reading the Gospel of St. John describing the Crucifixion on Good Friday and not Maundy Thursday, and reason would suggest this establishes that the proper Anglican interpretation of Scripture is that our Lord was crucified on Good Friday.

 

Liturgyworks,
re: "I don’t understand why you think my post is off topic..."

As I wrote previously:

1. The Messiah said that He would be three days and three nights in the "heart of the earth"

2. There are those who think that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week.

3. Of those, there are some who think that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb or at the earliest to the moment when His spirit left His body.

4. A 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection allows for only 2 nights to be involved.

5. To account for the lack of a 3rd night, there may be some of those mentioned above who say that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language.

6. I wonder if anyone who falls in that group of believers could provide examples to support the belief of commonality; i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred?


Point #6 is the only thing with which this topic in concerned.

 

Well, there is the question of relevance. Forgive me, I am must not grasping how this is relevant to the love of the Incarnate Word of God and his salvation for us, because that happened regardless, and also from an Anglican perspective question 6 seems to me to be a question that would not be relevant because of the timeline given by the Book of Common Prayer; in other words, most Anglicans I would expect either fall into the group you reference in point 2, and would be untroubled by points 3 to 5.

But several members have provided what struck me as deeply compelling answers regardless.

 

Liturgyworks,
re: "... several members have provided what struck me as deeply compelling answers regardless."


I'm not aware of any answers which provide examples where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could occur. What do you have in mind?

 

Those posts addressing semantics. I am not a fan of dynamic equivalence, but a semantically literal mode of translation or better yet, a semantic gloss delivered through expositional homiletics upon the word for word translation, something analogous to the Aramaid Targumim “explanation” or “exposition” dating from before the birh of our Lord in the divine service of the synagogues of Israel after the religious reforms of the priest St. Ezra under the prophecy of St. Nehemiah, something which our Lord himself is implied, or rather I think I can say, explicitly stated, to have engaged in, in the Gospels, for example, Capernaum (IIRC), has also historically been used in the Church to explain to the congregation the meaning of the kind of loose Semitic language that could otherwise be confusing to speakers of a Germanic or other western Indo-European language, particularly Latin, but even Koine Greek to a very large extent, with great effect, and diverse members in this thread have put forward the apostolic Christian doctrine on this point.

 

Liturgyworks,
re: "...diverse members in this thread have put forward the apostolic Christian doctrine on this point."

Which is an issue for a different topic.

 

I beg to differ. The position of the Anglican churches and other churches in apostolic succession such as the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox communion, the Eastern Orthodox, the Russian Old Rite churches, and the Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians, has been plainly set out.

Anglicanism is based on scripture, tradition, and reason; there is no reason to doubt the traditional interpretation of scripture owing to the ancient understanding of what constituted a day, and thus this is the settled position of our church.

If you disagree, perhaps consider writing Lambeth Palace, Attn: The Right Reverend Dr. Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the presiding bishop of the respective Anglican province in your country, if that be other than England, the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and certain other British territories.

 

Someone new visiting this topic may know of examples.

 

And that "someone new" needs to be someone who believes the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with a 1st day of the week resurrection, and who thinks that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb, and who tries to explain the lack of a 3rd night by saying that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language of the period.

 

Or perhaps someone with a Theological OCD fixation compelling them to get involved.
.

 

Since it's been awhile perhaps someone new looking in may know of examples.

 

Still dangling that worm I see.
.

 

Tiffy,
re: "Still dangling that worm I see."

I don't understand. Perhaps you could elaborate.

 

And again that "someone new" needs to be someone who believes the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with a 1st day of the week resurrection, and who thinks that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb, and who tries to explain the lack of a 3rd night by saying that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language of the period.

 

Since it appears that there aren't any 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection adherents visiting this topic who try to explain the missing night time by saying that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech of the period I shall move on and not take up anymore bandwidth.