Common Figure of Speech/Colloquial Language?

A Freeman said:
People have been wrongly trained for centuries by the Romans and Roman Catholicism, to see things in this world upside down and backwards. And that includes when the day actually begins and ends.
Click to expand...
Welcome aboard!

And just to nitpick, it's a tad unfair on Roman Catholicism as the Friday - Sunday tradition was a practice across the entire Church, before the Roman Catholic Church existed as a distinct entity. In fact the majority contribution to the discussions was from the Greek East, and thus the Orthodox Patriarchates likewise observe the three days.

And again, Catholic exegetes have evidenced the materials you offer above for quite some time...
 
Thomas said:
So across the four we have a general consensus that Mary came very early, around dawn, while still dark, more likely twilight.
Click to expand...
I watched the sunrises for a week at the times given on the weather channel and I wasn't able to say that any of them could be characterized as being in darkness. Of course, that was just me; your milage may be different. But, at any rate, this discussion has been totally off topic, and needs to be returned to the OP's issue, i.e., the commonality of saying 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 be.

So, somebody new looking in may know of examples.
 
Last edited:
A Freeman said:
So again, the only way the two Marys could have purchased and prepared the spices/ointments, is for there to have been a day in between the high Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath that week. This confirms the Wednesday crucifixion prophesied in Daniel 9:27, placing the high Sabbath on Thursday.
Click to expand...
Likewise, that would be an issue for a different topic. Maybe you and Thomas can get together and come up with a new one.
 
rstrats said:
So, somebody new looking in may know of examples.
Click to expand...
Well as none have been forthcoming, and considering the paucity of materials surviving from that era, I'd say you're 'flogging a dead horse' with that argument, as there's not enough evidence to argue for or against...
 
rstrats said:
I wonder if anyone knows of any writing from the first century or before that shows a phrase stating a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights when it absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?
Click to expand...
"Thrice was I beaten with rods, once I was stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I was in the depth of the sea" (2 Corinthians 11:25) – what does Paul mean here?

A day usually infers 24 hours, does he mean he was swimming for a full night and a full day? or that he went into the water during the night, and came out during the day? Should we suppose the shipwreck was at nautical dusk and the rescue at nautical dawn?

Or could it be that he went into the water in darkness, was rescued in daylight, but was not actually 24 hours in the water? That seems most logical to me ...
 
Thomas said:
"Thrice was I beaten with rods, once I was stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I was in the depth of the sea" (2 Corinthians 11:25) – what does Paul mean here?

A day usually infers 24 hours, does he mean he was swimming for a full night and a full day? or that he went into the water during the night, and came out during the day? Should we suppose the shipwreck was at nautical dusk and the rescue at nautical dawn?

Or could it be that he went into the water in darkness, was rescued in daylight, but was not actually 24 hours in the water? That seems most logical to me ...
Click to expand...
But was there no part of a night time involved? Or was there no part of a daytime involved?
 
Thomas said:
Well as none have been forthcoming, and considering the paucity of materials surviving from that era, I'd say you're 'flogging a dead horse' with that argument, as there's not enough evidence to argue for or against...
Click to expand...
To what argument are you referring? The only possible argument that I see would be whether or not any examples provided are actually examples.
 
Thomas said:
To which the answer is 'no' – so where does that leave you?
Click to expand...
You wrote that I am 'flogging a dead horse' with that argument. I didn't know what argument you were talking about. I asked if you might explain. To that you say "no". It leaves me with asking if there a particular reason why you won't explain.
 
rstrats said:
You wrote that I am 'flogging a dead horse' with that argument. I didn't know what argument you were talking about. I asked if you might explain. To that you say "no". It leaves me with asking if there a particular reason why you won't explain.
Click to expand...
you asked whether any examples provided were examples, and he said no, so that's probably what he meant.
 
rstrats said:
Where did I ask anyone that?
Click to expand...
Post #310
rstrats said:
To what argument are you referring? The only possible argument that I see would be whether or not any examples provided are actually examples.
Click to expand...
(to repeat, for clarity)
rstrats said:
whether or not any examples provided are actually examples.
Click to expand...
Thomas said:
To which the answer is 'no' – so where does that leave you?
Click to expand...

TheLightWithin said:
you asked whether any examples provided were examples, and he said no, so that's probably what he meant.
Click to expand...

rstrats said:
Where did I ask anyone that?
Click to expand...

I don't know what I misread, if anything.
It looks like you really did ask whether any examples provided are actually examples.
Your own words.
On Post #310 of this thread, above.
 
TheLightWithin said:
I don't know what I misread, if anything.
It looks like you really did ask whether any examples provided are actually examples.
Your own words.
On Post #310 of this thread, above.
Click to expand...
OK, I think I see what the problem is here. I'm talking the OP's issue (as clarified in subsequent posts) and Thomas is referring to off- topic issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top