John Powell

POWELL:
Unless historical records clarify otherwise in a specific case, claims as to what weekday an ancient lunar-based system holiday occurred should often consist of two days such as "Tuesday / Wednesday."


POWELL:
Given the way the Jews fixed the beginning of the lunar cycle, by direct observation whenever possible of the earliest waxing crescent moon, astronomical calculations could be off by a day as to what weekday was the passover in any particular year.

The better calendars should point this out.

John Powell

Amaleq13

Even including a day error margin, the year 33 does not appear to allow for a Wednesday Passover based on the astronomical data.

Amaleq13

Just a reminder, folks, but ad hominem attacks have no place in a rational discussion so they will not be tolerated here.

If you are confused about what is and is not allowed, refer to the Rules you were supposed to have read when you registered.

John Powell

POWELL:
Please try again, David. Notice the logical structure "if . . . then . . ." Remember that a "day" in English can mean any of those three things.

What modern Jews think about this issue is helpful, but not conclusive. They have to guess almost just like the rest of us as to what ancient Jewish writers meant. They have the advantage of being more familiar with their own tradition.


POWELL:
Generally PARTS of 3 onahs, yes, but not in the important case of a time period from sunset to sunset. That would be exactly two complete onahs.


POWELL:
Thank you for those references. I've read some of them. However, I need to rely more on my own freethinking mind and what the ancient authors probably meant rather than relying too much on what Jewish apologists might claim. What they say is helpful, but not conclusive. I do the same with the Bible. I rely more on what the Bible says than what Jewish or Christian apologists claim the Bible means.

Do any of your Jewish friends count a month as an onah? If they do then what would be so offensive if people like Eleazar thought a weekday could be considered an onah or if someone back then thought that a week could be considered an onah or if someone thought that the unspecified time of conjugal responsibility of a man to his wife could be considered an onah?


POWELL:
Sure, David, and an informed inerrantist Christian would know that Jesus fulfilled His promise in all its details to resurrect "on the third day" and "after three days" and to be in the earth for "3 days and 3 nights." How can one contend with such informed apologetics?


POWELL:
Then why couldn't a weekday or a week have been counted as an onah? Because Jews don't use it in that way today and because, as far as they can tell, that's the way it's been since the beginning?


POWELL:
In the Jerusalem Talmud, Eleazar makes a vague statement about "a day and a night constitute a span/onah, and a part of a span/onah is equivalent to the whole of it." That could be taken to mean that in the case of the 3 day waiting period under discussion, that the onah of importance is a weekday, rather than a 12-hour daylight period. Now, the commentators to this issue and to Eleazar's words clearly imply that an onah CAN mean a 12-hour time period, either daylight or night, and that's how everyone else seems to be using the term after Eleazar. However, they don't clearly imply that a 24-hour day CANNOT be an onah. That apparently comes up in the debate between Jews and Christians.

As far as my "for 3 days and 3 nights" argument goes, it doesn't really matter which Eleazar meant. It doesn't matter whether an onah only means a 12-hour time period or if it could mean a weekday or a week or a month or a year.


POWELL:
You've done nothing of the sort, David. You've admitted that an onah can sometimes be only a few minutes of time. You probably meant to say something else.


POWELL:
I prefer "implied" because to too many persons "inferred" indicates that it's a deductive argument.


POWELL:
What you say below does not properly support your stated position above, David. You said above, "If part of an [sic] daytime Onah could be counted as BOTH a day and a night there is nothing about that in the Hebrew writings."

The time period of "BOTH a day and a night" is the same as that of a calendar day (beginning with night if it's a Jewish day). If you have part of a daytime onah, say Friday afternoon, then that counts as a calendar day, yes? That counts as "BOTH a day and a night," yes?

However, if someone claims that they did something for "a day and a night" that does NOT mean they only did it for part of a daylight period or only part of a night, but part of a daylight period AND part of a night. Perhaps that's what you meant to say.


POWELL:
Seems ok.


POWELL:
Nope. Thursday night (night onah 1), Thursday day (day onah 1), Friday night (night onah 2), Friday day (day onah 2), Saturday night (night onah 3), Saturday day (day onah 3), Sunday night (night onah 4). That's parts of seven 12-hour onahs and parts of four weekdays.


POWELL:
Huh? If you go from Friday afternoon before sunset to Saturday evening after sunset that's only parts of two onahs and parts of two weekdays. Don't you mean "lasted until SUNDAY just after sunset"?


POWELL:
What you just said seems to ruin your argument, David. Apparently, it's CONTROVERSIAL among Jews whether ancient Jews used an onah for a weekday. Fortunately, my "3 days and 3 nights" argument isn't based on which side of that particular controversy I'm on.


POWELL:
Are they only pro-Jewish sources that affirm this? Perhaps there's a Jewish apologetic reason for that position.


POWELL:
What's up with this Saturday night thing? To the ancient Jews, the night that followed Saturday day would be Sunday night, not Saturday night.


POWELL:
That's poorly worded. It suggests that onahs could be something close to being a calendar day which is not what you mean to suggest.


POWELL:
What's with this "calendar" night? Is that different than a regular night? A "day" can mean the 12-hour daylight period, a weekday, or any 24-hours, but there's not the same ambiguity about what "night" means.

To be more complete, you could have said that "a night could be reckoned as a whole day."


POWELL:
I concede that the promise to resurrect "on the third day" would not be in error if Jesus died on Friday afternoon and resurrected ANYTIME on Sunday including Sunday night (the night before Sunday day). However, the promises to resurrect "AFTER three days" and to be in the earth "for 3 days and 3 nights" are not satisfied by such a scenario.


POWELL:
Well, Eliezar said something like that.


POWELL:
No, David. It would be Friday afternoon (daytime onah 1), Saturday night (night onah 1), Saturday day (daytime onah 2), and then Sunday night (night onah 2).


POWELL:
You're welcome. I made the same mistake when I started dealing with the Talmud literature on this issue.


POWELL:
I understand that "if x then ~x" would be a violation of the logical law of non-contradiction. If I discuss things with enough Jews on Yahoo Chat and JewsforJudaism will they convert me to another opinion about that? (Rhetorical question)

Why don't you go back and read what you suggested in your hypothetical about Eliezar and see if it's coherent? What is ACTUALLY the case about the onah is IRRELEVANT under the hypothetical that the onah means something else.


POWELL:
Your "Christian spin" seems to be a strawman. Do you have an example of a recognized Christian apologist arguing as you suggest?

What if Eliezar merely meant that an onah is a weekday, the time period of one day plus one night? Then one would not need both part of a daylight period and part of a night to count as a complete onah = weekday, yes?


POWELL:
Well, I try to support my claims with good reasons.


POWELL:
I've shown you why that does not follow. A weekday is a day and a night, yes? A part of a weekday, such as just the afternoon, counts as the whole weekday, yes?


POWELL:
David, I proposed a hypothetical. If I said "If Allah showed Himself to the world then everyone would become a Muslim" then would you say "Not under rabbinical reckoning."?


POWELL:
Your comments are unrelated to the hypothetical I proposed.

As far as I can tell, the way the Jews counted things is not as different from the way we do as you seem to think.

What's the Biblical basis for the 30 day onah?


POWELL:
Ok. Here's something I found.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/niddah/niddah_9.html

POWELL:
So, David, is Rabbi Hisda wrong to call this onah 20 days because he apparently ignores the seven days as a menstruant and the three days as zabah as part of the onah?


POWELL:
Again, David, a few minutes of a daytime counts as part of a 24-hour day, yes? Notice that the word "onah" isn't there.


POWELL:
What Eliezar ACTUALLY meant is basically irrelevant when we consider a hypothetical of what he might have meant, David.


POWELL:
That does not follow, David. If an onah is a weekday (a day plus a night) and if a part of an onah counts as the whole then you don't need both a part of a day and a part of a night to count as an entire weekday onah.

You keep misunderstanding this argument, David, so let me try another tactic.

Let's suppose that a night onah is the dark evening until midnight plus the dark morning after midnight. In other words, a night onah is the time that isn't a daytime onah. Now, would you be required to have BOTH part of the dark evening AND part of the dark morning to count as a whole night onah? I would think, no.

Consider the other onah. Let's suppose that a daytime onah is the daylight morning until noon plus the afternoon until about sunset. Now, would you be required to have BOTH part of the morning AND part of the afternoon to count as a whole daylight onah? Again, no.


POWELL:
No we aren't, David. Right here we are supposed to be talking about a HYPOTHETICAL.


POWELL:
If you have a sliver of a weekday then can that count as the whole day, or must you have parts of both the daylight and the night to count as a whole day?


POWELL:
You're repeating again what seems to be a straw man argument.


POWELL:
Well then, David, consider a DIFFERENT apologetic than that (maybe) strawman. Assume that Eliezar meant that an onah is a weekday (a day plus a night). Then can you see that a part of a weekday doesn't require both a part of the daylight period and a part of the night?


POWELL:
Then, if the man is the dark evening and the woman is the dark morning, would one need both part of the dark evening and part of the dark morning to count as a night onah or would only part of the dark evening or part of the dark morning suffice?


POWELL:
Well, I've been studying the issue and the arguments have not yet persuaded me to agree that the onah did not mean other time periods than that in the ancient past.


POWELL:
Well then, David, what about Rabbi Hisda's opinion that I referenced above that the onah is 20 days?


POWELL:
Well, maybe it's clear to you, but it's not clear to me that the onah did not mean other time periods.


POWELL:
Do you deny that it's logically possible that Eliezar meant what I suggest as a possibility?


POWELL:
Maybe I will. I believe and hope that when you think more freely and accept less what others tell you on their mere say-so then you increase your chances of making new discoveries.


POWELL:
I think you should be persuaded more by the arguments, and less by the appeals to authority.


POWELL:
Well given what you say several sections below, you apparently agree with me that to ancient people the "day" generally referred to the daylight period. Is it the "without regard to the nights" that you dispute?


POWELL:
I meant "later than Eliezar," one of the earliest Rabbi commentators mentioned on this issue and the one whose comment seemed to be the catalyst to the comments that followed.


POWELL:
Perhaps you're right. However, even if that were the case it would not necessarily imply that's how it was before the Talmuds. The way the Talmuds refer to such things is PROBABLY how the Jews of Jesus' day did so too.


POWELL:
This above is where you seem to agree with me that people generally meant "day" as in "daylight period."


POWELL:
So, David, are you the atheist who, in a discussion with me at Farrell's forum, supported the view that Biblical skeptics should trust the Biblical geneology of Zadok as being correct? If you don't want to discuss these things with me, that's of course your right. Just don't reply and I'll take it to mean you don't want to discuss it with me.

John Powell

John Powell

POWELL:
That very well could be. My point was just to emphasize the approximate size of the error in back calculating such things.

John Powell

Amaleq13

Understood. Frankly, the whole argument gives me a headache.

John Powell

POWELL:
Not as I remember. I don't remember the "AFTER" in there. Let's see what the Bible says.


POWELL:
Apparently, Jesus said He would be in the "heart of the earth" (presumably in a tomb) for three days and three nights. That means He can't be in the tomb for more than "3 days and 3 nights."


POWELL:
Big deal. It's the way we do it too.


POWELL:
You seem to think that "3 days and 3 nights" means any continuous 72 hour time period regardless when it begins. I see no good reason to conclude that.

Rather, 72 hours is the maximimum that "3 days and 3 nights" can be if one begins right at sunset or sunrise. The minimum it could be is 48 hours and a little bit. For example, for a Thursday afternoon burial just before sunset and Him leaving the tomb just after sunset on Sunday night that would be a sliver of Thursday day (day 1), all of Friday night (night 1), all of Friday day (day 2), all of Saturday night (night 2), all of Saturday day (day 3), and a sliver of Sunday night (night 3).

Nevertheless, let's play along for the moment and assume that "3 days and 3 nights" means any continuous 72 hour time period.


POWELL:
How do you figure that?


POWELL:
Who says? Was it clearly Wednesday or might it have been Tuesday or Thursday?


POWELL:
You / Gene Scott seem to be claiming that Jesus resurrected early on Sunday night.

You're ignoring the sliver of time on Wednesday afternoon and maybe also on Sunday.

Doing it your way should be like this:

From burial Wednesday afternoon (say at 5 p.m.) to Thursday afternoon at the same time is 24-hour period 1. From Thursday 5 p.m. to Friday 5 p.m. is 24-hour period 2. From Friday 5 p.m. to Saturday 5 p.m. is 24-hour period 3. If Jesus delays leaving the tomb until after the time of the day of his burial (say 5 p.m.) on Saturday afternoon then he will have been in the tomb for MORE than 72 hours. In that case He would have been in the tomb for parts of four 24-hour time periods.

Scott's solution fails.

Another problem is how do you / Scott resolve the "on the third day" issue?

Perhaps the words "on the third day" to Scott means "on the third 24-hour time period" rather than "on the third weekday" as most other Christians believe. Scott's scenario fails to provide this since Scott has Jesus dying Wednesday afternoon and resurrecting later than the same time in the afternoon on Saturday. Scott has Jesus resurrecting AFTER the third 24-hour time period.

Scott's solution fails again.

John Powell

David Mooney

DAVID:
Not according to Jewish dictionaries, commentators, and Jews I have chatted with on the Usenet. An Onah could be a day (sunrise to sunset) or a night (sunset to sunrise) but according to the Jews themselves never a 24-hour period consisting of a daytime and a nigttime [sic] (which would be two Onah's according to Jewish reckoning).

DAVID:
I agree that the Jews are more familiar with their own language than non-Jews. And yes, a "day" in english can mean any on of those three things you mentioned. But could it in the Hebrew? And did it at the time the Tanach and the Talmuds were written? The writings (Tanach and Talmuds) themselves show evidence that a part of a day could be reckoned as a day in civil use and a part of an Onah could be reckoned as an Onah in rabbinical use. The evidence indicates that an Onah was either a night or a day with a couple other usages, whereas the common use of "day" in the Tanach shows a dual usage, as found in Genesis 1, where a day could be the portion of time between sunrise and sunset and also the civil 24-hour day.

I agree also that just because one is a Jew does not automatically make him right in his view of how words were used in the Tanach. There are many Jews ignorant of their own Scriptures, much less the Talmuds. The rabbis usually spend their entire lives in studying the Tanach and the Talmuds, and although this does not automatically make them right (they disagree among themselves often in the Talmuds) they usually have a broader knowledge of those writings than your average non-Jew.

In Christianity there are many scholars that spend their entire adult lives studying the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. The fact that they are not always right is evident in how they often disagree with one another. The crucifixion is a prime example. The majority of Christian scholars believe Jesus was crucified on a Friday while a growing minority believe in a Wednesday crucifixion and a even smaller minority believe in a Thursday crucifixion. Moreover, some cannot agree on whether baptism is a requirement for salvation and others on whether or not keeping the saturday sabbath is necessary for slavation. Some even believe one must speak in tongues as evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit while others deny the Scriptures teach this. Heck, some scholars even disagree with others that the Bible is inerrant.

So I do believe that being a Jewish rabbi does not automatically make one's beliefs correct. What I look for when evaluating the commentary is evidence. If a rabbi claims the Tanach teaches X, I will look to see if this is indeed the case. I have disagreed with Christian scholars on the issue of which day Jesus was crucified, and I have disagreed with Christian scholars on whether the Bible is inerrant. I may later be proven wrong, but I go with the best evidence I have at any given time and try to avoid speculation and guessing as much as possible.

The evidence in the Talmuds and modern day commentaries make it clear Onah in its most common use is either a day or a night and a portion of a Onah is reckoned as a whole. I believe this means that if three hours of an daytime Onah precedes a nighttime Onah, then the first Onah is reckoned as a whole. A portion of the nighttime Onah would be reckoned as a whole. However, a sunrise to sunrise reckoning would include two complete Onah's and a sunset to sunset reckoning would include two complete Onahs.

DAVID: (earlier)
Furthermore, a 24-hour period (say 3pm Wednesday to 3pm Thursday) would be, according to the Jews themselves three Onahs or part of three Onahs with one whole Onah inbetween.

DAVID
Actually, I made an error in the statement above. I should have written the following:
Furthermore, a 24-hour period (say 3pm Wednesday to 3pm Thursday) would be, according to the Jews themselves three Onahs or part of ~two~ Onahs with one whole Onah in between. Between sunset to sunset would be two Onahs and between sunrise to sunrise would be two Onahs.

Quote:
DAVID:
You need to study Jewish terminology and usage {edited} I have supplied multiple references and none of them count a 24-hour period as a Onah or a continuous 24-hour period as an Onah.

DAVID
You can be a freethinker and still accept much of what ancient Jewish authors believed. You can even be a freethinker and believe much of what Christian authors claim. Freethinkers do not, as a rule, reject everything that Christians or Jews claim, just because they are wrong about some things. Sometimes the freethinker will find points of agreement and when he does it doesn't make them less a freethinker. I would find it extremely difficult to believe the Christian and Jewish apologists were wrong in ~everything~ they taught. But you are right - weigh carefully the evidence, but try to avoid speculation unless you have no alternative. I try not to speculate or guess - but sometimes, like when I try to expalin the resurrection in naturalistic terms, I must rely on speculation because there are no anti-resurrection documents that have survived within a century or two of the crucifixion. The only surviving documents within two centuries of the crucifixion are all pro-resurrection.

It is almost certain there will be some truth in their writings. One problem we have in the freethought community is there are some who believe to carry the title "freethinker" they must be skeptical of almost everything the Hebrew and Greek scriptures claim happened. I will call no names but there are some familiar even among members of iierrancy that try to find issue with almost everything the Scriptures claim. Sometimes they seize on some petty supposed contradiction and run with it. This gives ammunition to Christian apologists who use these petty "contradictions" as examples to their readers of how desparate critics of the Bible are. They rarely discuss the difficult issues critics raise but dissect easily defeated putative contradictions that are raised by "freethinkers" who believe that being critical of anything in the Bible is a stamp of authenticity.

I too, rely on the Bible but if I am curious about what apologists say on a certaint topic I will read what they have to say. Sometimes they may actually be right and convince me that I am in error. Other times, after reading their "best" arguments, I am even more certain that I am right. It depends on where the evidence leads. The only way to make sure you have considered all the evidence is to read both sides of the issue. If you rely on one side to give you the other side's "arguements" you may be reading a strawman argument and not the real thing. My library is full of Christian and non-Christian writings. I have also spent some time at alt.messianic to read the debates between Christians and Jews. Those discussions are very informative.

Most of the Jews I have chatted with on Yahoo are unfamiliar with the concept of Onah. When they get back to me they only repeat what a rabbi has told them or what I have already known by reading on the Usenet - in other words, they rely on the same information that I have access to - the Talmuds and the modern commentaries on the Talmuds.

Quote:
DAVID:
{edited} An informed Jew and someone informed on the usage would know that an Onah was NOT a 24-hour day or a 24-hour continuous period.

DAVID
By the preponderance of evidence. How does one refute the "three days and three nights" prophecy uttered by Jesus in Matthew 12:40? By evidence from the Bible itself. So, if you wanted to refute the common Jewish understanding of Onah you would refute it by evidence - find contrary evidence within the Talmuds and present it to the Jew to see if he has a rational defense. If his defense convinces you, good. But if it doesn't, you have some ammunition to refute the common (mis)conceptions of Onah. I rely on my own studies of the Talmuds and almost everything written on the subject that is available through Google - and arrive at a decision. I have found nothing that supports the idea that an Onah could be a 24-hour continuous period spanning two calendar days. Until I have evidence, it is my duty as a freethinker to be true to what the evidence says. If you have contrary evidence, then I must weigh that carefully and make a decision based entirely on the evidence and nothing else. But I still recognize that to refuse to consider the Jewish authorities entirely just because we are in disagreement on some issues is folly. I will at least read what they have to say and if I can, I will check it out. I also look for dissenting views.

Quote:
DAVID:
{edited} An Onah is either a daytime period or a nighttime period and can be as long as 30 days in special circumstances.

DAVID
A weekday could (and is) counted as an Onah by Jewish scholars, as the links I provided show. There is no evidence, at least that I have discovered so far, that a week could be counted as an Onah. It could be; I just haven't discovered any evidence of that so far, either in ancient or in modern usage. Until I do, I can speculate, but my speculations will not convince any freethinker unless I can uncover some evidence that supports it. If you can find some evidence that supports the 7-day Onah, I would be grateful.

Quote:
DAVID:
But the Jews do not reckon a 24-hourt [sic] period as an Onah (if they do, just show me where the do) or a 24-hour continuous period as an Onah (if they do show me where they do).

DAVID
In the immediate context Eleazar claims a "day and a night" make an Onah (some translations say "are" instead of "make") and you are right, it is vague. Other rabbis discussing the topic divide the three days into four, five, and six Onahs. I can see why they can do this if they are referring to three calendar days. Three calendar days at the most would be six Onahs (if each Onah was a day or a night) as in sunset our Sunday to the end of our Wednesday at sunset. Five Onahs would span three Jewish "days" if it began at sunset our Sunday and carried over to and ended our Tuesday night. The fewest amount of Onahs one could squeeze out of three days is four Onahs (if each Onah was a day or a night) as in sunrise Monday to sometime between Tuesday sunset and Wednesday morning. Since Jews reckoned their calendar days from sunset to sunset our Monday morning to our Tuesday night would span three calendar days and yet have only four Onahs. I find this whole "Onah" mess a headache and one wonders why the Jews even bothered with it. The Jews already reckoned part of a daytime as a whole when computing time periods but I think the "Onah's" cloud the issue more than it helps, especially when there were such things as a 30-day Onah and a 20-day Onah.

DAVID
This is primarily a Christian-Jewish "thing". The Jews maintain that an Onah is either a day or a night or a much longer period of 30 or 20 days. Really, since Jesus said "three days and three nights" it seems clear to me he was using the common vernacular of his times. He wasn't using vague rabbinical terminology and the "Onah" belongs more to a rabbinical debate than it does to the common man. In the entire Tanach, the Apocrypha, and Josephus, Philo, and other writers the word "Onah" appears only once, and that is in Exodus 21:10 where it referred to a man's conjugial duties to his wife. Moreover, Jesus declared it was "as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights" that he would be in the grave "three days and three nights." The book of Jonah is alleged to have been written some nine centuries before the Talmud was even written. It seems unlikely to me that "three days and three nights" can mean anything different than "three days and three nights" even if you allow a portion of a day to count as a whole day.

DAVID
I thought so for years but if you are going to debate this with a true believer in Jesus, be prepared to see this defense used when the subject of the duration of Jesus' time in the tomb arises. It doesn't matter because Jesus defined his "Onah" (time period) as "three days and three nights". So it doesn't matter if an Onah was a daytime or nighttime period or a 24-hour period, Jesus still said "three days and three nights" so even if Onah was applicable the parameters of how long the "Onah" was to be is defined in Matthew 12:40. So even if a part of a whole 24-hour Onah could be counted as a whole, while you would have your three Onahs from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning you would not have your three days and three nights. Do you follow this? Take an Onah as a 24-hour period for a moment. Under rabbinical usage, Jesus spent his three Onahs in the tomb Friday afternoon to Sunday morning. But no matter how you spin it, he did not spend his three days and three nights. You can have both (3 Onahs and 3 days and 3 nights) if the conditions are right (sunset Friday to sunset Monday) but you cannot have both (3 Onahs and 3 days and 3 nights) from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning. You may have 3 Onahs from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning but you do not have 3 days and 3 nights.

In every language there are specialized languages, unique to certain fields and endeavors. Confusing rabbinical terminology and the common vernacular is what causes so much confusion. Yes, for a rabbi, if 1) an Onah was a 24-hour period. and if 2) a part was reckoned as a whole, then it would be proper for a rabbi to call Friday sunset to Sunday morning three Onahs. But he wouldn't call it three days and three nights because it WASN'T three days and three nights, it was two days and two nights (maybe not even that).

The fact that Jesus clearly defined his terms shows me at least that he wasn't using rabbinical terminology. Had he used rabbinical terminology we wouldn't be having this discussion. "Three Onahs in the heart of the earth" would have been broad enough to be as little as Friday afternoon to Sunday morning or as much as Friday sunset (beginning the new Jewish day) to Monday sunset (ending the third day). But he DIDN'T use Onahs, he used three days and three nights, so however long his "3 Onahs" were to be is spelled out in Matthew 12:40.

Quote:
DAVID:
I have shown the definitions and usages and they all agree that an Onah is at least a 12-hour period of daytime and at least a 12-hour period of nighttime. {edited}

DAVID
You're right. I should have said that a common Onah is at MOST 12 hours. According to the rabbis, 1/64 of a day could count as an Onah, since that was a portion of one. Why 1/64 I don't know. That is 22.5 minutes and I have no idea how they computed time that accurately in the second century to the fifth century when the Talmuds were completed.

Quote:
POWELL:
Apparently, the term was used by Jews for "time period" although the Tanakh (Old Testament) did not use it in that way.

DAVID:
Yes, the Rabbis used Onah as a time period denoting either a daytime or a nighttime portion and in rare cases a 30-day portion. The Tanach doesn't use it that way, it uses it in the sense [o]f a man's obligations to his wife.

Quote:
POWELL:
Thanks for the references.

DAVID
Welcome.

Quote:
DAVID MOONEY:
The use of the word "Onah" in Judaism is replete with sexual connotations. It was a time period, almost always a daytime Onah and a nightime Onah. Then there was an Onah of about 30 days, described in one of the links above about a woman anticipating her menses.

If part of an daytime Onah could be counted as BOTH a day and a night there is nothing about that in the Hebrew writings.

DAVID
Implied or inferred?

Quote:
POWELL:
in the discussion about women discharging semen on the third day. Since (in analogy with part of a daytime period counts as the whole daytime period) part of a day counts as a whole, "three days" can be as little as parts of four 12-hour onahs. You could have a sliver of the first day (onah 1), the complete second day (onahs 2 and 3), and a sliver of the third day (onah 4). That first onah would count as a complete 24 hour weekday. Likewise, the fourth onah.

DAVID
I have found no evidence for an Onah that could be a 24-hour period. Some claim that Eleazar's qoute supports that but I do not see that as evidence that an Onah could be a 24-hour period. I see it as Eleazar claiming that a day and a night are each an Onah. This can be disputed, but since all the other references that can be found in the Talmuds and modern Jewish dictionaries refer to a common Onah as being either a daytime or a nighttime I find that claim weak.

DAVID
No. The rabbinical term "Onah" simply meant time period. It was used commonly for a daytime or a nightime period. It was similar to the common vernacular "day" in the sense that any portion of a day can be reckoned as a whole day when computing days. We do the same in our culture, where a portion of a day is sometimes reckoned as a whole day when counting days. But even when we count a portion of a day we do NOT call it 12 hours or 24 hours if it consisted of only 30 minutes. We reckon it as a day but it is understood, even by people in our culture, that even though we call it a day we would not call it 12 hours or 24 hours unless it contained those amounts. If someone worked only three hours on Monday and eight hours the next four days we would say he worked five days but we would not call it 40 hours and it is doubtful anyone would pay him for 40 hours. Remember, a day is either 12 or 24 hours and although 3 hours is reckoned as a day in counting the total days he worked, we would still not call the 3 hours eight or 24 hours, even though we would call it a day.

The same way for day and night. Let's take an Onah to mean a 24-hour civil day. That would include a full day and a full night. Let's say that a portion of a day can be reckoned as a day. Let's say I arrived in Los Angeles on Sunday just after sunset (April 6) and I left Los Angeles on Saturday morning (April 12). We would say I spent seven days in Los Angeles even though I spent a portion of two days and five full days there. That is an idiomatic way we use "day(s)". But even allowing this, I would not (and anyone else I know either) take that to mean I spent seven days and seven nights in Los Angeles.

Did I spend seven days in LA? Yes. Were they complete days? No. But were the partial days still counted as days and not parts of days? Yes. Does that mean I spent seven nights in LA? No. You must realize that when a partial day is counted as a whole day for counting purposes, it is an idiom. In its idiomatic usage you would count it as a complete day but you would not add nights.

If I departed Atlanta on Monday morning by car and arrived in San Diego late Wednesday afternoon I could claim I traveled three days even though I actually traveled one full day and parts of two others. But in counting the three days as whole ones I still would not claim I traveled for three days and three nights. We all use this idiomatic "day" from time to time. There is nothing hard about it. It is an idiom and as such can be counted as a whole day without counting the night.

DAVID
I would opt for the latter. If I traveled a day and a night I personally would mean at least a part of the day and part of the night. I remember traveling once from about 11 am one morning and arrived at about 4 am the next day. I told my friends I had traveled a day and a night although if you wanted to hold me to a literal usage rather than a idiomatic usage, I couldn't say that.

Quote:
DAVID:
An Onah was a daytime period or a nighttime period. That means three Jewish calendar days could contain anywhere from four to six Onahs. If the event to be counted began Friday afternoon, that would be daytime Onah 1 and calendar day one. Sunday afternoon would be daytime Onah 3 and calendar day three. This three day period had five Onah's (three daytime Onah's and two nighttime Onahs) and . . .

Quote:
DAVID:
[and] if the three day period period to be counted began just after sunset on Thursday, then Thursday night would be nighttime Onah 1 and calendar day 1 and Saturday night would be nighttime Onah 3 and calendar day 3 and Sunday daytime would be daytime Onah 3 as well as the calendar day 3. In this case, we have six Onahs.

DAVID (earlier)
...if the three day period to be counted began just after sunset on Thursday, then Thursday night would be nighttime Onah 1 and calendar day 1 and Saturday night would be nighttime Onah 3 and calendar day 3 and Sunday daytime would be daytime Onah 3 as wll as calendar day 3. In this case, we have six Onahs.

DAVID
In America, Thursday night comes before Friday day. So Thursday night would be night, onah 1. Friday would be day onah 1. Friday night would be night, onah 2. Saturday would be day, onah 2. Saturday night would be night, onah 3 and Sunday day would be day, onah 3.

Quote:
DAVID:
On the other hand, if the event to be counted began on Friday just before sunset (daytime Onah 1 and calendar day 1) and lasted until Saturday just after sunset at the beginning of the third calendar day we would have only four Onahs (or Onoth). The partial Friday afternoon Onah and the Saturday night Onah along with the full two Onahs that occurred on the second calendar day (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset) make only four Onahs. {edited}

David (earlier)
On the other hand, if the event to be counted began on Friday just before sunset (daytime Onah 1 and calendar day 1) and lasted until Saturday just after sunset at the beginning of the third calendar day we would have only four Onahs. The partial Friday Onah and the Saturday night Onah along with the full two Onahs that occurred on the second calendar day (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset) make only four Onahs.

DAVID
Your days are mixed up. Friday afternoon comes before Friday night and Saturday daytime. Friday afternoon is day 1 and daytme onah 1. Friday night is nightime onah 1 and the beginning of the Jewish second calendar day. Saturday day is daytime onah 2 and Saturday night is nighttime onah 2 and the beginning of the Jewish third calendar day. Friday, Saturday is two daytimes, Friday and Saturday night is two nighttimes.

Quote:
DAVID:
The Jews did NOT use Onah for a day AND a night. The only Jews that claim this are apostate Jews who embrace Christianity and hold to a Friday crucifixion and a Sunday morning resurrection.

DAVID
Not really. There is no controversy that ancient rabbinical Jews used Onah for a weekday. What do you consider a weekday? The few Jews today that try to turn Eleazar's argument into a day and a night are so few that they are hard to find. There is only one Messianic Jewish website that I know of that claims that Eleazar meant for an Onah to be a day and a night. Calling THIS a controversy is overreaching a little. It is like calling whether Elvis is alive or not a controversy in America. Despite the claims of people that Elvis still lives, there is no controversy. WEBSTER'S defines controversy as "an often public dispute marked by the expression of opposing views." Yes, weekdays were called Onahs by rabbinical Jews. I never said otherwise, did I?

Quote:
DAVID:
You will find no non-christian Jewish sources that claim any part of an Onah is both a day AND a night. None.

DAVID
I don't know, but I have done extensive researching. All I can say is this: I have NEVER found a non-christian Jewish source that claims any part of an Onah is both a day AND a night. None. What conclusion you arrive based on that is up to you. There are some born-again Christian Wednesday crucifixion believers who have argued persuasively that an Onah is either a day or a night but not a day AND a night.

Quote:
DAVID:
The first Onah on Friday afternoon would be reckoned back only to sunrise and NOT sunset of the previous night. The fourth Onah during Saturday night would only be reckoned to Sunday morning. It would not be reckoned until Sunday at sunset. If it were, that would be five Onah's, not four.

DAVID
The night that followed Saturday day is Saturday night. I think you we are missing something here. You realize that Jews began their days at sunrise so you are calling the night that follows Saturday day Sunday night. That is not the way we do things in America. Even Jewish and Christian scholars and all the scholars I have ever known, when referring to Jewish days in discussions such as this, use the Roman terminology for days and nights. Friday day comes before Friday night, Saturday comes before Saturday night, and Sunday day comes before Sunday night. You are the first one that I have seen use this method.

Quote:
DAVID:
Onah's were rabbinical terms and were not exactly the same as calendar days; they could overlap calendar days.

DAVID
No, it is properly worded. Saturday night comes after Satuday day. Always. Even in discussions like this. A calendar day had two Onahs under its most common meaning.

Fri. Day Fri. Night Sat.Day Sat.Night Sun.Day Sun. night
Onah 1 Onah 2 Onah 3 Onah 4 Onah 5 Onah 6
day 1 night 1 day 2 night 2 day 3 night 3

Quote:
DAVID:
A part of a calendar day could be reckoned as a whole day and a part of a calendar night could be reckoned as a whole night. A calendar day and night could be reckoned as a whole calendar day and night if at least a portion of each was included.

DAVID
I am using a calendar night to refer to a specific night of the month (such as the 23rd). A calendar day refers to the sunset to sunset reckoning used by Jews, a day on the calendar, such as Friday, the 23rd which would go from Friday sunset the 23rd to Saturday sunset the 24th. A calendar day would follow the calendar night in Jewish usage. The two together make a 24-hour calendar Jewish "day" like Nisan 23 or Tishri 16, etc.

DAVID
No, that would be incorrect. I would never say that. Some people might, but I wouldn't. However, in a string of days, I would because our language allows for that. If I arrived in Houston on a Friday night at 9pm on July 3 and stayed there until Wednesday, July 8 at 2 pm I can say I was in Houston "six days" although I really spent four full days and parts of two others. This idiomatic usage is not uncommon. But even though I spent "six days" in Houston, I still couldn't say I spent "six days and six nights". There was no sixth night, just five.

Quote:
DAVID:
But Onah's (which was a term the rabbinics used) could overlap civil days. That is why Jesus was in the tomb three calendar days but only two daytime Onahs (barely) and two nighttime Onahs (barely).

DAVID
Remember that Sunday night follows Sunday day, even when discussing the three days and three nights. This subject has been much discussed on the Usenet, and you will find that Sunday night follows Sunday day. However, what you call Sunday night, which would be Saturday night (the proper term) would indeed be the third day since Friday day was Nisan 14 and Saturday night was Nisan 16. The term "after three days" is probably idiomatic and probably meant the same as "on the third day." Mark uses "after 3 days" and Matthew and Luke change it to "the third day". In John 4:40 and John 4:43 and Matthew 27:63,64 seem to indicate an idiomatic, interchangeable usage but I am not sure about this.

Quote:
DAVID MOONEY:
The rabbis are careful to divide the 24-hour period into two separate Onah's. Since each daytime and each nightime each made an Onah, it appears that some Christian commentators have confused that to mean one day AND one night make only one Onah.

DAVID
I can say a day and a night make a day without any problem. But I cannot say a part of an Onah is a day and a night.

DAVID
Yes, something like that. But did he mean a day and a night each made an Onah or a day and a night together made an Onah?

Quote:
DAVID:
Since an Onah was either a day or a night and part of an Onah was reckoned as the whole, a partial daytime Onah would be counted as a whole daytime Onah. From Friday 3pm to sunset Friday would be daytime Onah 1. It would be reckoned only as far back as sunrise on the same calendar day. The nighttime that followed would be nighttime Onah 1. If a woman began to menstruate on Sunday morning an hour before the sun rose that would be nightime Onah 1 also. It would be reckoned as if it had begun at the previous sunset.

DAVID
No, if a woman began to menstruate on Sunday morning an hour before the sun rose the nighttime Onah would be reckoned as a whole Onah, which started at sunset Saturday. That is one Onah, a nighttime Onah at that. The reference I made to Friday had no bearing on the reference I made to the woman who began menstruating on Sunday morning just before sunrise. The two were separate references and time tables.

Quote:
JOHN POWELL
What you say below to support your claim that "this is not the case" is correct, but it does not imply that "this is not the case."

DAVID MOONEY:
This is not the case. The 24-hour period consisted of two Onah's and as such any part of a day could be counted as a day and any part of a night could be counted as a night. Therefore, a day and a night need not be 72 hours, but need only consist of portions of each time period. Thus, three days and three nights need not be exactly 72 hours but should include at least two full 24-hour days and portions of a day and portions of a night, depeding [sic] on when (night or day) the event being counted began.

DAVID MOONEY:
Also, even if Azariah meant that a day and a night together made one Onah, and a portion of the Onah was counted as a whole, then the inerrantists still have a problem.

DAVID:
I realized after I sent the message I had made a mistake. Nevertheless, thanks for pointing it out as others may not have caught the mistake.

Quote:
DAVID MOONEY:
If one day and one night made an Onah, then if one of these two time periods were missing it wouldn't be an Onah in the first place. A portion of a day would not be an Onah unless it consisted of part of the night. Then, as long as part of a day and part of a night was represented, you would have an Onah and a portion of it would count as a whole.

DAVID:
No, you lack understanding is all. You haven't researched it enough as I have done. I spent long hours researching this and many more discussing this with Jews on Yahoo Chat and even corresponding with Jews at JewsforJudaism.org. {edited}

DAVID
Depends on the Jew, his knowledge, and his experience with debating with Christians. The best place for this is alt.messianic. That is an excellent newsgroup. Let's say Onah is a day AND a night. However, if it lacks one of these elements, it ceases being an Onah. Under the christian spin on Eleazar's statement, an Onah IS a day AND a night. But the Jews who have any knowledge of Onahs will tell you that Eleazar meant that a day and a night EACH were an Onah. But let's forget that for now and claim that a day AND a night are an Onah, just like the Christians claim. If a day AND a night are an Onah then a day alone is not an Onah. Neither is a night alone an Onah. An Onah must contain both to be an Onah. That means a morning is not part of an Onah. Neither is the afternoon. But a part of a day and a part of a night, well that's a whole new ball game. If I began a trip on Sunday afternoon and completed it on Monday night around midnight, I would have two Onah's (under this new version). A part of Sunday day and all Sunday night make one Onah and all day Monday and part of Monday night would make the second Onah. That is the way it was explained to me.

DAVID
There are more than one hypotheticals with Eleazar's statement. Under the Christian view, the Onah is a day and a night make an Onah but it need not contain a night to be called a Onah. It need not contain a day to be called an Onah. Under the Jewish view, Eleazar's statement meant that a day and a night EACH meant an Onah, but in deference to the Christian obstinancy in pursuing their view, the Jews have pointed out, rather kindly, that even if Eleazar meant an Onah meant a night and a day together, then it would not be an Onah unless it contained BOTH elements. This argument is mute, because the Jews take Eleazar to mean a day and a night each are an Onah. But because the Christians persist in their unique interpretation, the Jews simply counter attack by pointing out even if Eleazar meant a day and a night together were an Onah the Christians still come up short. Under this view, a portion of a day COULD NOT be reckoned as an Onah because it would require a night or at least a portion of the night to be counted as an Onah. Simply, under this view Monday 9am to Monday 11 pm would be an Onah because it included parts of a day and a night. But Monday 9am to Monday 2pm would not be an Onah because no night was not included. But this is a charitable view, since the Jews feel it isn't necessary.

Quote:
DAVID:
They explained it to me like this. A piece of ham and two slices of bread make a ham sandwich. If you didn't have the ham but had the two slices of bread, you would not have a ham sandwich. If you had the slice of ham but didn't have the bread you wouldn't have a ham sandwich. Likewise, if the Christian spin of Eliezar is correct, then if you had the day but didn't have the night, you didn't have the Onah.

In order for it to be considered as an Onah in the way it is grammatically worded and spun by the Christians, it has to have day and night or parts of day and night to be an Onah. Lacking any one of those elements it would cease to be an Onah. So an event that lasted only three hours on Friday afternoon could not be an Onah under the Christian spin of Eliezar's rule because the time period did not include both elements. It was just a part of a day, but did not, and would not, qualify as part of an Onah unless it included at least parts of both.

DAVID
The Christans spin Eleazar's statement to mean that a day and a night together make an Onah. They ignore all the rabbis that state a day or a night equal an Onah. Then, to make matters worse, they spin it to mean that even a morning period, which had no night in it, would be called an Onah. This isn't true, however. And it is no strawman. To see Eleazar's argument spun to mean a day and a night together were an Onah visit the

http://www. Christian.Thinktank.com
http://www.ApologeticsPress.com
http://www2.andrews.edu/~samuele/boo...ifixion/1.html

and read Josh McDowell's "The Resurrection Factor", Norman Geisler's "When Critic's Ask" and John Haley's "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible".

DAVID
An Onah was more commonly either a day or a night (all weekdays or weekends) according to the Talmuds. Jews do not see Eleazar's statement making an Onah as a day AND a night. By reading all the other definitions I can see why. An Onah was either a day or a night. But you can take the Christian view if you wish and claim that an Onah meant a time period of one day plus one night if you wish. You still need both parts to make it an Onah. A daylight period was not an Onah if the Christian view is correct. They just don't realize it. They think that if a day and a night make an Onah then it doesn't matter if a part of the day does not contain both elements. The problem is it shouldn't even be an issue in the first place. But it is and it will probably always be an issue.

Quote:
DAVID:
{edited} I think I will stick with the Jewish interpretation in this case John. You can assert, and claim things are not so, but you are always short on evidence. {edited}

DAVID
As do I. Your reason for claiming that a day and a night TOGETHER made an Onah is based on Eleazar's statement, am I right? If not, what is your reason (or evidence) that a day and a night TOGETHER made an Onah?

Quote:
POWELL
The problem that inerrantists would still have if Eliezar meant that a 24-hour day is an onah is that it would not change "3 days and 3 nights" to mean "3 days and 2 nights."

DAVID:
Well, of course. The Missing Night is the hole that sinks the Titanic. Since Jewish scholars who have studied the Talmmud [sic] all their lives are sure that Eliezar's quote meant that a day and a night ~each~ made an Onah and back it up with numerous other opinions from Talmudic scholars that state plainly that a day and a night each are an Onah the Christian spin on Eliezar's quote is a moot point. But we have to deal with it and so do the Jews. The Jews have made it plain that even if Eliezar had meant a day AND a night combined made an Onah then any portion of a day without a portion of a night would not constitute an Onah.

DAVID
A weekday is a day and a night and a portion of it is counted as a whole day. But when you deal with rabbinical terms like Onah you are dealing with specialized language with specialized definitions. An Onah commonly meant either a day or a night, not both. However, it is only because of the Christian insistence that a day and a night TOGETHER made an Onah and any porton of that made a whole Onah is the Jew forced to point out that the definition of an Onah, unlike the common word for weekday, is dependent on having both elements in it to be an Onah. A weekday need not have both elements in it to be reckoned as a day but it does require a day and a night to call it a day and a night. I gave examples earlier but right now I will rehash what I wrote earlier.

If I left Atlanta on Monday morning at 11 am and arrived in Los Angeles Wednesday at 5 pm, I can say I traveled three weekdays, even though we both know I did not literally travel three 24-hour days. That is an acceptable, idiomatic usage. However, it would still be wrong to say I traveled three days and three nights even if three weekdays contained three days and three nights. This is not hard to undersatand, but once you grasp it you will see how easy it is. If our own language is used in this manner, why is it so hard to accept that the same usage could have been used in ancient Jewish texts?

Quote:
DAVID:
However, it would constitute a whole civil day for counting purposes. That is why it can be said Jesus rose from the dead on the third day. That is why it can be said he would be in the tomb "three days" when in fact only a whole day and small portions of two others existed.

Quote:
DAVID MOONEY:
Consider the 30 day Onah. As long as part of 30 days (28 full days and parts of two others were represented) you would have the Onah of her period. Now if I wanted to be silly I could claim on the morning of day one since a portion of an Onah is considered as the whole I could tell my wife to forego the last 29 days and just claim day one as a whole 30 day Onah. Obviously, it was not intended to be reckoned that way. It was meant to have at least a portion of 30 days in it.

DAVID
The Onah that was referred to as a "part counts as a whole" was the Onah that constituted the day and the night Onah. Again, you are dealing with a specialized language. If the Law required a 30-day waiting period, then one couldn't get off by waiting a day then say, "Aha! A part counts as a whole so I need not wait the final 29 days." Such abuse of the meaning of the language is obviously wrong it need not be addressed. A day contained 12 hours. If someone contracted with you to work a 12-hour day and he quit after 30 minutes and demanded to be paid for the full day and you refused, would you pay him for 12 hours if he said, "Well, since part of the day can be counted as the whole I have worked 12 hours so pay me for 12 hours." Such an abuse would be silly. If I told you I would work for you a 24-hour shift (a whole day) but quit after 2 hours and demanded you pay me for the whole 24 hours since the part was as the whole, would you think such reasoning was sound? The 30-day Onah had to have at least portions of two days and a whole 28 days. The Rabbis weren't that naive.

If someone told you they would house-sit for you three days and three nights and they showed up on Friday afternoon as you departed for a trip, and you returned on Monday morning to find your house a shambles, wouldn't that be a shock? Suppse the house-sitter admitted he quit on Sunday morning since a part of the day was as the whole so even though he house-sit only parts of two days and one whole day he could claim to have house -sit three days and three nights. Obviously this is not what "part of a day is as the whole" means. What it means s this: for computational purposes (or counting purposes) you count each partial day as a whole day. You don't say (in the case of the three day Onah) one full day and parts of two others." Such usage is awkward and I don't know anyone who uses it. But it is proper to say "three days" as if the first and last day in the count was a full day. But that still wouldn't mean the person spent three days and three nights in your home.

DAVID:
Not under rabbinical reckoning.

DAVID
No, I would think your hypothetical had an incorrect conclusion. Why would everyone become a Muslim just because Allah showed himself to the world? Would that prove he was the true God? If Jehovah showed himself to me I wouldn't convert and become a Jew because I know that Jehovah isn't my kind of God. If you don't know why that is, hang around for awhile and you will get the reason why. Why does my "under rabbinical reckoning" disturb you so much? Is it because I don't follow John Powell's reckoning? We are discussing a rabbinical subject. Therefore, I refer to the rabbinical reckoning. If we were discussing a Jehovah Witness subject, I would refer to Jehovah Witness reckoning.

Quote:
DAVID:
The rabbis were very stern on this 30 day usage. Again, you try to act as if you know more than the Jews do about their own religion. Tell me, when is the great and grandiose John Powell going to set the Jews straight on their usage? I have hashed this out for years John. Over the last 15 years I have discussed this topic numerous times. The Rabbis would probably laugh at your statment above. Out of sheer politeness they would probably do it inside, but I am sure they would find it funny. No, the 30 day cycle is strictly adhered to, unlike your example. The only two days that aren't full days in the 30 day cycle are the beginning and ending dates. As in the ham sandwich example above, this Onah consisted of 30 days so it had to have at least 30 days in it, even if the first and last days were partial ones. The rabbis don't buy the logic that a person can count only one day of the 30 and get off under the excuse "a part of an Onah counts as a whole". They accept parts of 30 days but anything 29 days or less does not count. Again, I am telling you what the rabbis say and not what John Powell says. {edited} If he had read some of those links he would have seen the 30-day count sometimes overlaps calendar months and is not considered over at the end of the first calendar month. The 30 day cycle must be completed but the first and last days need not be complete days.

DAVID
I failed to see what relevance your hypothetical had to do with the Onah issue. Could you clarify for me what your hypothetical has to do with the Onah issue and the way it was computed? What does Allah and his supposed appearance have to do with whether the rabbis were correct or not in their method of computing days?

DAVID
No, it isn't that different at all. Again, my trip to LA lasted three days. That is not literally true, as it was a full day and parts of two others but for counting purposes, we count a partial day as a whole day. But we do not say "three days and three nights" unless it contained three nights.

DAVID
As far as I know, it is based not on the Bible, but observation. I really don't know.

Quote:
POWELL:
As you point out, David, this "onah" is defined as 30 days. The question I have is whether this means 30 daylight periods ignoring the nights or 30 weekdays. It makes a little bit of a difference since if it means 30 weekdays then one can finish on a night, but not if it means 30 daylight periods.

DAVID
READ THE LINKS I GAVE. Some discuss the 30-day cycle and should resolve the issue {edited}.

DAVID
According to the writer, there is no contradiciton. He gives his reasons why. Based on what appears to be a reasonable reason I would say no. What do you think? Is Resh Lakish wrong in his reason at harmonization? It seems like a reasonable conclusion to me. As a freethinker I am free to go against the grain and not try to find contradicitons everywhere I look and when confronted with what I feel is a reasonable harmonization I will accept it. Some people who call themselves freethinkers think they must disagree with almost everything in the Bible or any holy book. I prefer to do my own thinking than copying the writings of some freethinkers who find contradicitons in every nook and cranny.

Quote:
POWELL:
Sort of. However, a few minutes of a daytime counts as part of a 24-hour day, yes?

DAVID
No, not with the Onah. With the daytime Onah, it goes back to sunrise. With the nightime Onah, it goes back to sunset. As for civil days, a part of a civil day is also sometimes reckoned as a whole day and a night is sometimes reckoned as a whole night.

DAVID
Again John, a part of a day counts a whole, even in our culture, yet a part of a day does NOT count as a day and a night unless it contains a night, am I correct? I am not sure you are in America, so forgive me if I make that assumption, you may live in Australia, I just cannot remember. But in our country, you can be said to travel three days even if your trip lasted a little more than 50 hours but you could not say you traveled three days and three nights unless you actually had a third night. Is it this way in Australia?

Quote:
DAVID:
{edited} According to Jewish authoritis ( which I believe have more knowledge than John Powell) the Eliezar statement means a day and a night each make an Onah.

DAVID
So if I actually meant I traveled three days from Atlanta to Los Angeles it is irrelevant when you consider a hypothetical of what I MIGHT have meant? How does that work John? Doesn't my actual meaning have relevance no matter what hypothetical you might conjure up?

Quote:
DAVID:
But, even if the grammar necessitated that a day and a night combined made an Onah, then the Onah would have to have at least a portion of both elements to be considered an Onah.

DAVID
Why doesn't it follow? If I told you that a slice of ham and two slices of bread made a ham sandwich wouldn't that at least follow that the sandwich contained at least a slice of ham and bread? And if Jews tell me that grammaticaly the Onah would at least have to contain a part of both elements, wouldn't that be good evidence that it does? At least until I find contrary evidence? You may as well say that if a slice of ham and slices of bread counts as a ham sandwich then you don't need either the ham or the bread for it to count as a ham sandwich. Whose word should I take on this issue? I am open to contrary evidence, but I haven't seen you present any yet. You speculate, but I need more than that John. I need something to contradict what the Jews have told me in the last few years.

Let's look at our own usage in America. If a weekday is a day and a night, and I traveled three hours of day from Atlanta to Birmingham (a city in Alabama) that would be a day of travel. I would say, "My trip to Birmingham lasted only a day" yet in reality it lasted three hours. Part of the whole counts as the whole, right? But by no manipulation of our language would it be proper to say "My trip to Birmingham lasted a day and a night." I shouldn't have to go over this over and over but I do so because I realize you may not live in America and things may be different in Australia. I am not trying to be cute, it's just a fact. I really don't know for sure where you live. I am typing this on my home computer and will deliver tomorrow on my friends computer. My home computer is not hooked up on the Internet.

DAVID
No, I have understood most of your argumentation. Some of it puzzles me, to be honest. But I don't think you have even grasped mine. I hope this post clears up what you haven't grasped.

DAVID
No, not if you are correctly doing it as you are here. A part of a night Onah is as a full night Onah, just as a night in America is counted as a whole night for computational purposes.

DAVID
Again, a part of a daytime Onah is as a full Onah just as a part of a day in America is counted as a whole for computational purposes. But...a weekday (day and night) can be counted as a "day", even if a small portion of it was actually involved. But...it would be improper to call it a day and a night unless the night was involved. But continue...

Quote:
POWELL
You're not being consistent with your hypothetical. If an onah in this case means a 24-hour day and "part counts as a whole" then a few minutes of daytime WOULD count as a complete onah.

DAVID
{edited} We are talking of JEWISH usage, not Powell usage. Specifically, we are taliking [sic] of Jewish rabbinical usage.

DAVID
YOU are discussing a hypothetical. I have dealt with this already. I am discussing reality, not a hypothetical. I tire of so many hypotheticals.

Quote:
DAVID:
{edited} I see that if it took a combination of day and night to make an Onah, then how could a day be an Onah? Just like a piece of ham and bread make a ham sandwich take away one of those items and you no longer have a ham sandwich.

DAVID
A sliver of a day can count as a whole day for counting purposes. But you cannot have a day and a night, even in this country, unless a night is included. For example, if I spent six hours in a synagogue, I could say I spent a day in a Jewish synagogue. Our language is that flexible. Part of the day counts as a whole. But I could NOT say I spent a day and a night in the synagogue unless part of that time was spent in the night hours. The Jews agree with this usage. So what am I to do? Cave in to your hypotheticals or use my language the way it is used in this country? And what is the Jew to do?

Quote:
DAVID:
The rabbis know that a day and a night each make an Onah but for the sake of dealing with Christian apologists who use Eliezar's comments to make an "end run" they state that even if a day and a night combined make an Onah, then a day could not be an Onah because an Onah must have a day AND a night to be an Onah.

DAVID
No, a strawman is a FALSE argument set up to be knocked down easily. What I am doing is presenting to you what Jews have told me in times past. The connective AND means the two must be considered. A day AND a night make an American weekday. Part of the American weekday is as a whole day, but it is not counted as a day and a night unless part of a night is included. Likewise the Jewish understanding of Onah in the above usage. I worked today mowing the lawn. Actually, I spent a few hours doing so, with some breaks in between. Per our usage, I mowed the lawn for a day. But I did not mow the lawn for a day and a night even though the day contains a day and a night.

Quote:
DAVID:
So if Eliezar somehow took a different view than all the other rabbis in the Talmuds then the Christian apologists would still come up short. A portion of an Onah would have to consist of at least a portion of a day and a portion of a night because if it lacked the night portion or the day portion it would no longer be an Onah, under the terms of Eliezar. Keep in mind the Jews don't believe that Eliezar meant that; they believe he meant that a day and a night each made an Onah but if one wants to pursue the matter they cannot still win becuase an onah must contain at least a part of the two.

DAVID
No, and it is obvious you cannot see that the usage I am using is common, at least in America and with the Jews. It is common in Germany too (I speak German and know something about their customs). I thought Australia had such usage but maybe I am mistaken.

Quote:
DAVID:
A man and a woman make a couple but if there is only a man or only a woman there is no couple. The Jews see this passage the same way when a stubborn Christian apologist claims that Eliezar did NOT mean that a day and a night each make an Onah, despite all the claims of the other rabbis in the Talmud notwithstanding.

DAVID
How can a man be a dark evening? Your hypothetical is not coherent. How can a man be the dark evening and the woman be the dark morning? I think a better way to put this is: there are dark evenings and there are dark mornings. Do you need part of dark evening AND part of dark evening to count as a night onah? Or, do you need only part of the dark evening or part of the dark morning to suffice? That, I think, is more coherent. Any part of a night would count as a whole night. Simply asked, simply answered.

Quote:
DAVID MOONEY:
When you read all the rabbis together with Azariah's statement concerning an Onah it becomes clear that he meant a day and a night each made an Onah. And a portion of a (Onah) day or a (Onah) night made an Onah.

DAVID
By now, I am not surprised. I hope this post clarifies things. Look at it this way. A part of an American day is counted as a whole day for computational purposes and part of a night is counted as a whole night for computational purposes.

DAVID:
{edited} If you take the time to study the usage of Onah in regards to day or night, you will see, very clearly, 1)that an Onah was either a day or a night, 2) the husband's sexual duties to his wife, or 3) the 30-day menses cycle. The rabbis have no problem with this. {edited} I have studied the usage much and know the rabbis are right in this case.

DAVID
Well, I hope you will study this some more. I have studied, or debated this, for many years now. It isn't a difficult subject and it isn't that hard to grasp. I go on evidence, not hypotheticals. Hypotheticals can be fun sometimes, but evidence speaks to my heart with greater magnitude than mere hypotheticals. I could be wrong you know. But I haven't seen any evidence to sway me from the dictionary definitions in Jewish dictionaries and Jewish commentaries that I can read online from the Talmuds.

Quote:
DAVID:
Everywhere else in the Talmud and even modern day writings, the Onah refers to an 12-hour interval or the 30 day onath benoit. {edited}

DAVID
That was good. The reason gave for his 20-day Onah was acceptable. He just didn't count the other ten days and it was KNOWN by others that he did not count the other ten days because the Jews knew it was supposed to be 30-days. There was no conflict. Being a freethinker frees me from having to find errors in every verse of the Bible, the Koran, or other holy writings such as the Talmuds. I use my own mind and when I have enough evidence to override the evidence I currently have I will change my mind. But hypotheticals just don't do it.

Quote:
DAVID:
Maybe John can sharew [sic] with us why this is not so clear? Maybe he has some expertise on the subject? Maybe he can show us passages where Onah was used unequivocally to a 24-hour period?

DAVID
I base my beliefs on evidence. If I lack evidence that the Onah could be a 24-hour period or a six day period or a ten day period or whatever time period that is not a good reason for me to believe it could be.

Quote:
POWELL:
What Azariah's son, Rabbi Eliezar, may have meant is that the onah of relevance with the issue of women discharging semen on the third day is the weekday rather than the 12-hour daylight period.

DAVID:
{edited} Where is your evidence that Eliezar MAY have meant this?

DAVID
Logically Possible? No. It's logically possible I am a woman, pretending to be a man. Just because something is logically possible is a long way from establishing its truth. Likely, based on evidence? Yes, I would be compelled to deny that statement based on all the available evidence.

Quote:
DAVID:
The Jewish rabbis know nothing of this. Perhaps you can enlighten them on where they have gone astray. If they have been wrong all these years you could be a hero by letting them know of their error.

DAVID
Seems to me the one who has difficulty thinking freely is you.. You seem to think that in order to be a freethinker you have to question EVERYTHING. John, that is not freethought. A child questions everything. It takes more than just questioning, throwing down endless hypotehticals and criticizing others positions. A freethinker is not bound by authority of religion, politics, and even parental tradition. A freethinker doesn't feel he has to "fit" with other freethinkers by endlessly questioning the Bible and other freethinkers as if this somehow "stamps" him as authentic in the freethinking world. This is actually the opposite of freethinking. When one feels he must constantly question, question, question, and feels anyone who agrees with the Bible on certain points (as I have done) is not thinking freely is actually enslaved by his own notion of freethinking. I agree with the Bible on some issues and I remember you didn't like that. A person who calls himself a freethinker and feels that anyone who questions him and does not join him in his conclusions is not a freethinker is himself not a freethinker. A true freethinker can disagree with other freethinkers without implying they are not really freethinkers. I don't know whether you are one or not, but I do know you don't like to be disagreed with. That is fine, but don't make insinuations about me when you write things like "I believe and hope that when you think more freely and accept less what others tell (me) on their mere say-so (should I accept your mere say-so or hypotheticals?) then (I) increase (my) chances of making new discoveries?"

One...I do think freely. I believe I think more freely than you. And as for accepting evidence from sources like Jewish dictionaries and Jewish scholars, isn't that better than the evidence you provided for your position in this discussion? It doesn't automatically make them better than you, but at least I have evaluated their evidence and found documentation for the evidence they cite. Until you provide weightier evidence than theirs, I must, as a true freethinker, accept the best evidence. Where do you get your information? How do you receive information? Is it not on what others have told you, either in person or in print? Don't you go where the evidence leads and not on what it MIGHT be or what it COULD be?

Two...what is your evidence I accept what the Jews have told me on their mere say-so? I have examined their claims, in chat rooms, newsgroups, Internet, one-on-one encounters, and no telling what else. My position is the result of evidence that has backed up their claims. The evidence may be a red-herring but until you can provide something better than your mere say-so and hypotheticals I will go wherever the evidence leads. That is the essence of a freethinker. A freethinker does not pick arguments just for the sake of doing so, but whenever a freethinker asks a question, he is asking for information. A freethinker wants information, evidence, facts, not hypotheticals, not WHAT might have been, or what COULD have been. I have already thought about many might have beens and could have beens but without evidence I can do little with it. It may stimulate me to research in a certain direction but nothing you asked me stimulated me into further research. I don't mean this unkindly, but I have encountered you before (figuratively speaking) and I hashed this out many times. One day you will be where I am at John. You will learn, and you will grow, and you will one day blosssom. Most freethinkers go through stages in their lives, I see you going through yours.

Quote:
DAVID:
Now I am not claiming the mere fact they are Jews automatically makes them correct on all things Jewish but {edited} I will take the Jewish side until shown I am wrong.

DAVID
What is a good argument? Does it not involve authority of some kind? If you want to discuss the meaning of a german word would you not appeal to a german authority? Not all appeals to authority is bad. Some is. When you are able to tell the difference, you will be happier. Whenever one needs to know about a certain subject, he consults the "authorities" on that subject. He takes the evidence they offer, tries the opposing view for counter-evidence, then makes a decision based on what he feels has the best evidence. Authorities all have arguments. It is a neat trick if you can be persuaded by arguments without consulting the authorities. You provided no argument worth considering. You had no counter-evidence and you had hypothetical after hypothetical and that is not sufficent evidence. Hypothetically, if I were Jewish and had been trained in the Tanach and the Talmuds my entire life, would you lend any weight to my arguments? If not, why should I lend any weight to yours? The judicious use of authorities is a wise path to follow, But don't follow them blindly. These type discussions are the kind you hope you will gather some new information and that info may even tip the scales. You never know. But this discussion hasn't shed any new light on the issue at all. And that is sad.

Quote:
JOHN POWELL
If it had meant the 12-hour daylight period then "the third day" could be focusing on daylight times only, ignoring the nights.

DAVID:
Evidence? Or do you feel that the Jews have the burden to prove you wrong? You obviously haven't read on this issue because your question is already answered in the Talmuds. So much the worse for you. I will not do your homework for you. You have Google. Do your own research. Stop trying to bait people in doing your research for you. {edited}

DAVID
Yes, "day" generally meant the same thing it means today. In the usual application of the term it means the daylight period, in the calendar sense (as in Nisan 14 - Nisan 21) it means the 24-hour sense.

Quote:
JOHN POWELL
In that case, if she had sex on Friday day and discharge on Sunday day she would be clean, but for Friday day sex and Sunday night (prior to Sunday day) discharge she would be unclean. If she had sex on the previous Friday night then she would still need to discharge no earlier than Sunday day to be clean.

The comments by later Rabbis implies they understood the "day" of "on the third day" to mean a 24-hour time period, but they disagreed about things like whether it meant parts of 3 weekdays which might be as little as 24 hours and a bit or if it meant more than 48 hours.

DAVID MOONEY:
Comments by "later rabbis"? Did you pull this out of a hat? The Talmud is clear on this issue John, as are modern day interpreters of the Talmud and Jewish practive in general. Do these "later" rabbis exist only in your mind?

DAVID
Can you provide the evidence that the rabbis later than Eliezar "implied" they understood the "day" of the third day to mean a 24-hour period? I have no doubt that in the computation of counting days they understood it to mean the weekday sense, but as I have said, even when you count a day as a whole day you do not consider it a day and a night unless a night was involved, and that was with the understanding the 24-hour day had a night. If I traveled to LA in 3 days (but not 3 full days) it would be improper to say three days and three nights unless three nights were included.

Quote:
DAVID:
The Onah was a 12-hour period. A "day" could be a 12-hour or a 24-hour period but an Onah was a 12-hour period. It has been that way since the Talmuds.

DAVID
The New Testament reveals that parts of a day was sometimes counted as a day. For example, Jesus was crucified on a Friday according to Mark, Luke, and John. He "rose" from the dead on Sunday, the "third day" even though the first day and the third day were partial days.

Quote:
JOHN POWELL
You need to remember that most common people in ancient times used "days" in the meaning of daylight periods, ignoring the nights. Gradually people came to deal more with counting the nights as part of a longer 24-hour day which officially began at about sunset for the Jews.

DAVID
Yes, the word for "day" in its civil sense was, in Jesus day, most often used in its daylight sense. That is why "3 days and 3 nights" presents such a problem for the inerrantists. They try to switch your focus on "day" to "Onah" and claim an Onah referred to a 24-hour period (which is known to be false by the Jews). But Jesus said he would be in the tomb "three days and three nights", so days and nights used in their civil calendar sense would be a little different from Onah.

Quote:
POWELL:
It's still not clear to me what Eliezar meant, but I think the comments by the Rabbis make it clear that they would understand "3 days and 3 nights" to mean at least parts of 3 daylight periods and parts of 3 nights or parts of six 12-hour onahs.

DAVID
I agree.

Quote:
POWELL:
I tend to agree that "a day and a night" or a 24-hour day could reasonably be called an onah, but I thought you disagreed with that.

DAVID:
Well, according to the Jews I have contacted over the years, an Onah was either a day or a night. According to the websites, it remains the same. I am just saying if the Christian apologist tries to claim a day and a night is an Onah by appealing to Eliezar, then he is wrong, as the Jews have pointed out.

{edited}Adios.

DAVID
Who said I was an atheist? Do you assume that if anyone is a freethinker and doesn't believe in the Chrisitan or Jewish God he automatically is an atheist? Where have I said I was an atheist? Tell me John, what evidence did you offer that the genealogy of Zadok was fabricated? Do you disbelieve everything in the Bible just for the sake of argument? What is your evidence that Zadok's genealogy was fabricated? In lack of evidence that the genealogy was fabricated what choice did I have? To accuse someone of fabricating the genealogy requires some evidence. You never provided any, even when I asked. You simply said I had no proof it was genuine. Say what? You accuse someone of fabricating a genealogy then tell me it is up to me to prove it was genuine?

John, are you the same person who, in a internet discussion with me at Farrell's forum accused me of dishonsty for clarifying the rules of debate to a fellow freethinker? I remember giving some sage advice to another freethinker on how debates have rules (as outlined in debate classses 101 in colleges in the United States and from logic books) and you came on and accused me of dishonesty simply for clarifying the burden of proof in a debate situation..

In any case, I hope this post helps awake within you the desire to learn and if you need any help I will do what I can to help you.

Amaleq13

How much of this is the result of the apparent discrepancy in the timing of the event in the Synoptics versus the Fourth Gospel?

quartodeciman

How about the theory of the Passover Sabbath?

Leviticus 23:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

(these verses describe the regular weekly Sabbath)
Leviticus 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.
Leviticus 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

(these verses describe the special Sabbath days of Passover)
Leviticus 23:4 These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.
Leviticus 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover.
Leviticus 23:6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.
Leviticus 23:7 In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.
Leviticus 23:8 But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.

If Wednesday daytime had been 14 Nisan that year and the judgement, crucifixion, death and burial of Christ, then Thursday daytime would have been special Sabbath #1 for Passover, Friday daytime could have been the second day of Passover, Saturday daytime would have been the weekly Sabbath and third day of Passover, Sunday daytime would have been the start of the next week and fourth day of Passover.

Of course, this flies in the face of the idea that the Last Supper was the Passover Seder.

Matthew 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
Mark 14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?
Luke 22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.

Would they still be seeking a place on the actual first day of Passover if that were a special Sabbath day?

John 13:1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

"before the Passover- that's more like it!

(later on in John's Gospel, this bit occurs)
John 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

That sounds like the Passover has yet to be eaten on Christ's Passion day.

So, this theory sticks by John's account and just leaves Matthew, Mark and Luke to some different interpretation: maybe "first day" meant "first day of the week". But, all of the synoptists emphasize that the Passover was being prepared. Of course, that has another interpretation too. the Passover is prepared by buying lambs and taking them to the Temple for sacrifice, then picking up the meat and bones later.

It is kind of strange that Christ lets his disciples think He will actually be there on Passover night, knowing full well He would be buried by then. Oh well, somebody else comment, please!