Just as a reminder...

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Just as a reminder that I am not dead yet,

...let's for today, recall ...



GE:
No; Every Gospel uses
1) different words for
2) really different TIMES; of
3) different events of VISITS— of or by
4) different PERSONS under
5) different CIRCUMSTANCES at
6) different PLACES—
EVERYTHING is different but for the similarity every Gospel records A, VISIT, AT, the tomb.

Dr Walter:
This is pure imagination gone wild. Every text identifies it as the SAME DAY - the first day of the week. Every text identifies it as the same time on the same day "proii" "early" "early in the morning" "at the rising of the sun" "dawn".
Every text includes all the women with Mary Magdalene - "they" doing the SAME THING come to prepare the body.

John gives no mention of any women but Mary Magdalene but resistrict it to the same day, same time in the day and it perfectly harmonizes with the same events recorded by the other gospel writers on the same day at the same time of that day. The Gospel of John excludes all the women but Mary Magdelene but includes everything that the other gospels declare that Mary Magdelene did with all the other women. Going to tell the disciples and their responses. It pinpoints it at the very same time on the very same day with all the rest of the women. In each of the gospel accounts the emphasis is upon Mary Magdelene and no wonder John simply zeros in on her at the exclusion of all the rest even though they were present with her.

GE:
But “This …” – what, according to Dr Walter – every Gospel “uses” for “Every single account the SAME day of arrival to the tomb”,
“This…” – “Now when Jesus was risen early [Gr. proii] … - Mk. 16:9…
“This…” – “Mark uses the technical term for the fourth watch of the night which occurred at 3am to 6am (Gr. proee") and places it on the first day of the week in Mark 16:9…
“This…” – “9 Now when Jesus was risen early [proii]”, “Mark 16:1...
“This…” – “2 very early in the morning [Gr. proii] [proii]…[Gr. anatello "rising UP" … at the rising of the sun ]…
“This…” – “Lu 24:1 … very early [Gr. proii] in the morning, [Gr orthos day break] …
“This…” – “Joh 20:1 … early, when it was yet dark…
“This…” – “Mt 28:1 In the end of [Gr. opse - after] the sabbath, as it began to dawn [Gr. epiphosko - get brighter] toward the first day of the week…
“This…” – “All the texts use expressions that are either identical or synonymous for the same time of arrival by all the women on the same day.
“This…” – “1. Mark 16:2 uses "proii" "early in the morning" with "at rising of the sun" on the first day of the week.
“This…” – “2. Mark 16:9 uses "proii" "early in the morning" on the first day of the week.
“This…” – “3. Luke 24:1 uses "proii" or "very early in the morning" on the first day of the week
“This…” – “4. John 20:1 uses "proii" or "early" when it was yet "dark" on the first day of the week.
“This…” – “5. Matthew 28:1 uses the term "dawn" which represents a Greek word that means to "GET BRIGHTER" not darker, therefore the exact time as in the other three gospels (morning, rising of the sun). This was "opse" or "AFTER" the Sabbath and "toward" (eis) or INTO the first day of the week.
“This…” – “Numbers 1-4 above are IDENTICAL as to the day and as to the time of the day with the identical women "they" and they are named in Mark 16:1 and Mary Magdalene is named in all four accounts because she is specifically the one that Jesus appeared to that same morning. So there can be no debate that 1-4 happen on the same day - the first day of the week at the same time in that day - proii - early morning - rising of the sun - dawn (getting brighter) or "early"”—

“This…” – is not “pure imagination gone wild”?!
“This is … pure … text”?!
“This is …” what “(e)very text identifies”?!
“This is …” in “(e)very text … the SAME …”?!
“This is …” what “(e)very … text … identifies … as the same time on the same day "proii" "early" "early in the morning" "at the rising of the sun" "dawn"”?!

What an insult and scandal to Christian honesty and integrity!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Luke emphatically states that the two on the road to Emmaus said, "TODAY IS the third day" and yet Jesus had already arisen from the tomb and was walking with them when they said "TODAY IS the third day." Hence, "TODAY" early that morning Jesus had already arisen. Hence, the "third day" which is "TODAY" did not include 24 hours.

YESTERDAY would have been the SECOND day since he was crucified.

The DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY would have been the FIRST day since he was crucified.

Hence, THURSDAY would be the day He was crucified AND buried.


They did not say "It has been three days SINCE he was crucified" thus making TODAY the FOURTH day!!!! They said "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY"

The reader can easily see that Saturdayism is false and that Christ did not arise on Saturday because if he did arise on Saturday then according to the counting of these two disciples he could not have been the grave for even TWO full days as YESTERDAY would be the SECOND day since he was crucified.

The difference between Gerard and myself is two little words "TODAY IS" the third day rather than "It has been THREE days SINCE." Gerard attempts to make it read the latter when the text says the former thus making Gerards interpretation IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!

Just as a reminder that I am not dead yet,

...let's for today, recall ...



GE:
No; Every Gospel uses
1) different words for
2) really different TIMES; of
3) different events of VISITS— of or by
4) different PERSONS under
5) different CIRCUMSTANCES at
6) different PLACES—
EVERYTHING is different but for the similarity every Gospel records A, VISIT, AT, the tomb.

Dr Walter:
This is pure imagination gone wild. Every text identifies it as the SAME DAY - the first day of the week. Every text identifies it as the same time on the same day "proii" "early" "early in the morning" "at the rising of the sun" "dawn".
Every text includes all the women with Mary Magdalene - "they" doing the SAME THING come to prepare the body.

John gives no mention of any women but Mary Magdalene but resistrict it to the same day, same time in the day and it perfectly harmonizes with the same events recorded by the other gospel writers on the same day at the same time of that day. The Gospel of John excludes all the women but Mary Magdelene but includes everything that the other gospels declare that Mary Magdelene did with all the other women. Going to tell the disciples and their responses. It pinpoints it at the very same time on the very same day with all the rest of the women. In each of the gospel accounts the emphasis is upon Mary Magdelene and no wonder John simply zeros in on her at the exclusion of all the rest even though they were present with her.

GE:
But “This …” – what, according to Dr Walter – every Gospel “uses” for “Every single account the SAME day of arrival to the tomb”,
“This…” – “Now when Jesus was risen early [Gr. proii] … - Mk. 16:9…
“This…” – “Mark uses the technical term for the fourth watch of the night which occurred at 3am to 6am (Gr. proee") and places it on the first day of the week in Mark 16:9…
“This…” – “9 Now when Jesus was risen early [proii]”, “Mark 16:1...
“This…” – “2 very early in the morning [Gr. proii] [proii]…[Gr. anatello "rising UP" … at the rising of the sun ]…
“This…” – “Lu 24:1 … very early [Gr. proii] in the morning, [Gr orthos day break] …
“This…” – “Joh 20:1 … early, when it was yet dark…
“This…” – “Mt 28:1 In the end of [Gr. opse - after] the sabbath, as it began to dawn [Gr. epiphosko - get brighter] toward the first day of the week…
“This…” – “All the texts use expressions that are either identical or synonymous for the same time of arrival by all the women on the same day.
“This…” – “1. Mark 16:2 uses "proii" "early in the morning" with "at rising of the sun" on the first day of the week.
“This…” – “2. Mark 16:9 uses "proii" "early in the morning" on the first day of the week.
“This…” – “3. Luke 24:1 uses "proii" or "very early in the morning" on the first day of the week
“This…” – “4. John 20:1 uses "proii" or "early" when it was yet "dark" on the first day of the week.
“This…” – “5. Matthew 28:1 uses the term "dawn" which represents a Greek word that means to "GET BRIGHTER" not darker, therefore the exact time as in the other three gospels (morning, rising of the sun). This was "opse" or "AFTER" the Sabbath and "toward" (eis) or INTO the first day of the week.
“This…” – “Numbers 1-4 above are IDENTICAL as to the day and as to the time of the day with the identical women "they" and they are named in Mark 16:1 and Mary Magdalene is named in all four accounts because she is specifically the one that Jesus appeared to that same morning. So there can be no debate that 1-4 happen on the same day - the first day of the week at the same time in that day - proii - early morning - rising of the sun - dawn (getting brighter) or "early"”—

“This…” – is not “pure imagination gone wild”?!
“This is … pure … text”?!
“This is …” what “(e)very text identifies”?!
“This is …” in “(e)very text … the SAME …”?!
“This is …” what “(e)very … text … identifies … as the same time on the same day "proii" "early" "early in the morning" "at the rising of the sun" "dawn"”?!

What an insult and scandal to Christian honesty and integrity!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DW:
John 20:1 is the first time to the tomb with the rest of the women, thus concurrent with Mt. 28:1; Mk 16:1-2; Lk. 24:1.
John 20:11 is Mary's return trip with the disciples.

GE:
This summed it all up… all I have been struggling for hundreds of pages to explain, you succeeded with in two short sentences!
Marvellous!

Dr Walter has a few things to tell John which John himself did not know. Short and sweet!

John you are a bad observer! John you cannot be excused for it! Didn’t you know you should have stayed “concurrent with Mt. 28:1; Mk 16:1-2; Lk. 24:1”?!

John, why did you not write, ““proii” “early” or the fourth watch between 3am to 6am”, then everybody would have known “late Sabbath’s mid-afternoon daylight inclining as it began to dawn towards the First Day of the week” is “concurrent with Mt. 28:1”?!

Why did you not write, ““proii” “early” or the fourth watch between 3am to 6am”, then everybody would have known “just after midnight’s deepest morning on the First Day of the week” is “concurrent with Lk. 24:1”?!

Why did you not write, ““proii” “early” or the fourth watch between 3am to 6am”, then everybody would have known “after the Sabbath had passed” is “concurrent with Mk 16:1-2”, and, “very early before sunrise-morning the First Day of the week” is ““proii” “early” or the fourth watch between 3am to 6am”?!

Why did you not write, ““proii” “early” or the fourth watch between 3am to 6am” in 20:1, then nobody would have confused “while early darkness yet on (the evening) of the First Day of the week”, for ““proii” “early” or the fourth watch between 3am to 6am”?!

It was very negligent and irresponsible of you, Johnny-boy!

Couldn’t you THINK, “Mary Magdalene” came “the first time to the tomb with the rest of the women”?! So why didn’t you tell us?!

And Matthew, why did YOU, not write for us that the “great earthquake”, occurred ““proii” “early” or the fourth watch between 3am to 6am”, and nobody would have deduced from the Gospels that because ““proii” “early” or the fourth watch between 3am to 6am” “pin points the Lord's resurrection”, He rose not “concurrent with”, but BEFORE ““proii” “early” or the fourth watch between 3am to 6am” when it was “the first time to the tomb with the rest of the women” or when it was “Mary's return trip with the disciples”, ““proii” “early” or the fourth watch between 3am to 6am”?!

Just see the confusion you caused John! And yes, you too, Matthew; and you, Luke, and Mark— all of you! But most, you, Matthew! You call your interpretation of ““proii” “early” or the fourth watch between 3am to 6am”, “pin-pointing the Lord’s resurrection”?!

My goodness!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Luke emphatically states that the two on the road to Emmaus said, "TODAY IS the third day" and yet Jesus had already arisen from the tomb and was walking with them when they said "TODAY IS the third day." Hence, "TODAY" early that morning Jesus had already arisen. Hence, the "third day" which is "TODAY" did not include 24 hours.

YESTERDAY would have been the SECOND day since he was crucified.

The DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY would have been the FIRST day since he was crucified.

Hence, THURSDAY would be the day He was crucified AND buried.


They did not say "It has been three days SINCE he was crucified" thus making TODAY the FOURTH day!!!! They said "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY"

The reader can easily see that Saturdayism is false and that Christ did not arise on Saturday because if he did arise on Saturday then according to the counting of these two disciples he could not have been the grave for even TWO full days as YESTERDAY would be the SECOND day since he was crucified.

The difference between Gerard and myself is two little words "TODAY IS" the third day rather than "It has been THREE days SINCE." Gerard attempts to make it read the latter when the text says the former thus making Gerards interpretation IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!

GE:

What a bunch of [snip] ‘supported’ by one single blatant unexisting FALSE arrogation: “[Gr. proii]”! [personal attack deleted]
It is most significant that the individual events and time-indications in the four Gospels historically, logically and chronologically, PERFECTLY SYNCHRONISE— NOT BY COINCIDENCE but IN SEQUENCE! So there is no such ‘problem’ as
Quote:
“But these women started when it was already dark and then the terms "morning" "rising of the sun" "dawn" "early" are used to describe their arrival time at the seplechure. This only makes sense if they began in the dark sometime between 3am to 6am at the fourth watch (proii) and arrived when the sunlight was just beginning to dawn or in the twilight of morning"

lie number one :

"Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him."

"2 And" lie number two :

"very early in the morning [Gr. proii]" - it's 'LIAN proh-i', near "3 pm" three hours away from "6 pm";

"the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising [Gr. anatello "rising UP"] of the sun.

Lie number three :

"Lu 24:1 ¶ Now upon the first day of the week, very early" - it's "deepest morning" always for just after midnight
and
"[Gr. proii]" which is NON-EXISTING in Luke 24:1 or 22!

NOT :

"in the morning, [Gr orthos day break]", but Gr. 'orthros batheohs' explained above.

"they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

Joh 20:1 ¶ The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene"

LIE NUMBER FOUR :

"early, when it was yet dark" non existing, it "being", in fact, "early darkness yet / still" 'proh-i skotias (Genitive NOUN, no Verb!) eti ousehs',

"unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Now when Jesus was risen early [Gr. proii] the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. - Mk. 16:9

FOR ONCE, CORRECT = John 20:11f!

Mt 28:1 ¶ In the end of"

LIE NUMBER FIVE :

"[Gr. opse - after]". Was it "AFTER That Day The Preparation" in Luke 23:54? Then it is not "after the sabbath" in Matthew 28:1.

LIE NUMBER SIX :

because it is "Sabbath-'S-time" Possessive Genitive, NOT Accusative required by the concept of "after the Sabbath",

"as it began to dawn"

LIE NUMBER SEVEN :

"[Gr. epiphosko - get brighter]" INSTEAD OF THE LITERAL AND UNEXCEPTIONAL meaning of "in the" 'tehi' "VERY EPI-CENTRE" 'epi' "daylight-shining" 'phohs' "BEING" Present Participle Suffix,

"toward the first day of the week"

CORRECT! :

"TOWARDS / BEFORE" 'eis' First Day of the week, ACCUSATIVE because "PENDING / FUTURE",

NOT LIE NUMBER EIGHT :

AS IF A DATIVE "on the First Day of the week" as found since the beginning of 20th century.

"came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Luke emphatically states that the two on the road to Emmaus said, "TODAY IS the third day" and yet Jesus had already arisen from the tomb and was walking with them when they said "TODAY IS the third day." Hence, "TODAY" early that morning Jesus had already arisen. Hence, the "third day" which is "TODAY" did not include 24 hours.

YESTERDAY would have been the SECOND day since he was crucified.

The DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY would have been the FIRST day since he was crucified.

Hence, THURSDAY would be the day He was crucified AND buried.


They did not say "It has been three days SINCE he was crucified" thus making TODAY the FOURTH day!!!! They said "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY"

The reader can easily see that Saturdayism is false and that Christ did not arise on Saturday because if he did arise on Saturday then according to the counting of these two disciples he could not have been the grave for even TWO full days as YESTERDAY would be the SECOND day since he was crucified.

The difference between Gerard and myself is two little words "TODAY IS" the third day rather than "It has been THREE days SINCE." Gerard attempts to make it read the latter when the text says the former thus making Gerards interpretation IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!

Reader,

Take note that Gerard could not respond to the evidence I presented above! What did he do instead? He went back and tried to establish his own chronological order of events based on questionable interpretations of certain words. He called me all kinds of names, got personal. However, he could not overturn the evidence I placed before in Luke 24 and the words "TODAY IS the third day." - Case closed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

________________________________________
Originally Posted by Dr. Walter (Post 1562974)

Mark 16:1-2 describe the same coming to the tomb. Verse one simply notes the Jewish Sabbath was over. Verse 2 simply notes what day after the Jewish Sabbath they commenced to the tomb. Mark 16:8 is qualified by Matthew 28:9-10 but same return trip to disciples.

Matthew 28:1 is the very same account of Luke 24:1 and John 20:1 as well as Mark 16:1-2.

Matthew 28:1 places the Sabbath "behind" them and they went to the tomb "INTO" (Gr. eis) first day of the week when the light was getting brighter NOT DIMMER.

Mark 16:9 occurs on the first day of the week, Sunday morning AFTER Jesus rose that morning between 3am to 6am BEFORE sunrise and BEFORE the women came with Mary Magdalene the first time. Verse 9 marks the return trip of Mary with disciples that same day.
________________________________________
GE:



Yes, “Mark 16:9 occurs on the first day of the week, Sunday morning AFTER Jesus rose” or better, after Jesus had had risen about 12 hours before. So no, Mark 16:9 does not occur on the First Day of the week, Sunday morning : “after Jesus rose…”, “…that morning between 3am to 6am”! That’s a lie, Dr Walter --- YOUR, lie!

And another lie of yours, Dr Walter, is, that “Verse 9 marks the return trip of Mary with disciples that same day.” Verse 9 marks Jesus’ first APPEARANCE to anyone, “to Mary Magdalene”, only and alone, “first of all”, with NO other “disciples that same day” and “…that morning between 3am to 6am”, NEAR.

Yet another combination of lies of yours, Dr Walter, is contained in this what you have said, here, “Matthew 28:1 places the Sabbath "behind" them and they went to the tomb "INTO" (Gr. eis) first day of the week.”

I have before shown that ‘eis’ in context of prospect of time, invariably and exclusively means “with the view to / towards / before”. You rape the grammatical Greek construct. You with your at least five years of university Greek should know the concept of “into” from ‘eis’ would have required a Dative, which nowhere occurs in the New Testament. With “the Sabbath "behind" them” the text should have had an Accusative as you should also have known; but it has a Genitive which you well know is a Possesive and Qualitative Genitive: “OF Sabbath’S-time”. NEVER ever could ‘sabbatohn’ mean “the Sabbath "behind" them”. HOW do you THINK everybody is just going to SWALLOW your rotten bait for the Gospel?! Your light isn’t getting any brighter; it’s getting DIMMER by the line.

Throwing into one category of time, both Mark 16:1 and 2, is also an unbelievable gulp expected from your ever so gullible readers. Well, this fish has had enough experience.

Mark 16:1-2’s TWO ‘notes’ do NOT “describe the same coming to the tomb”. “Verse one simply notes the Jewish Sabbath was over”, true, BUT, it MENTIONS A ‘BUYING’ AT THE TRADERS, NO “coming to the tomb”!

Make a note, one more lie!

“Verse 2 simply notes what day after the Jewish Sabbath they commenced to” do whatever they did. That is true, as well. BUT, Dr Walter’s word “simply” can in such a context mean only one thing, and that is, that “Verse 2 simply” gives more information about the just mentioned “day after the Jewish Sabbath”, so that “Verse 2 simply notes what day after the Jewish Sabbath …” Jesus actually rose on according to Dr Walter! Despite that Dr Walter only wrote, “they commenced to the tomb”. Every bobbe-aap knows he meant the Resurrection.

Therefore make a note for one more lie! Because verse 2 no how states that Jesus rose from the grave on the “day after the Jewish Sabbath”.


Dr Walter goes on, unperturbed,
“Mark 16:8 is qualified by Matthew 28:9-10 but same return trip to disciples.”
“… same return trip …?! No! It’s unbelievable… yet, that’s what Dr Walter’s saying for the truth ….

Another note there for another LIE here!

Therefore ‘How [profanity deleted] can we believe you…' that “John is clarifying that the Roman Sunday is EQUAL to the first day of the week in regard to the resurrection and counting SUNDAY as the first day in his eight day count which ends up on the next SUNDAY.”? Hy lyk vir my so baiaaa, na ou Koek se hoenderhaaan….

I wonder whose wedding it was ….

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Reader,

Take note that Gerard could not respond to the evidence I presented above! What did he do instead? He went back and tried to establish his own chronological order of events based on questionable interpretations of certain words. He called me all kinds of names, got personal. However, he could not overturn the evidence I placed before in Luke 24 and the words "TODAY IS the third day." - Case closed

GE:

Reader,

Take note that I, GE, and others like Rstrats, did in fact, and several times, respond to Dr Walter's here referred to 'evidence', but he pretends to be the only 'reader' who did not read our responses.

[please respond without offensive]

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE:

Reader,

Take note that I, GE, and others like Rstrats, did in fact, and several times, respond to Dr Walter's here referred to 'evidence', but he pretends to be the only 'reader' who did not read our responses.

[edited]

No, Gerard and others were not able to respond to the evidence I placed before them. Their whole response and argument depends on making Sunday the FOURTH day "since these things" occurred but the text says that Sunday or "TODAY IS THE THRID DAY" not the fourth day since these things occurred.

So I repeat my previous response which none have yet been able to answer:



Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
Luke emphatically states that the two on the road to Emmaus said, "TODAY IS the third day" and yet Jesus had already arisen from the tomb and was walking with them when they said "TODAY IS the third day." Hence, "TODAY" early that morning Jesus had already arisen. Hence, the "third day" which is "TODAY" did not include 24 hours.

YESTERDAY would have been the SECOND day since he was crucified.

The DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY would have been the FIRST day since he was crucified.

Hence, THURSDAY would be the day He was crucified AND buried.


They did not say "It has been three days SINCE he was crucified" thus making TODAY the FOURTH day!!!! They said "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY"

The reader can easily see that Saturdayism is false and that Christ did not arise on Saturday because if he did arise on Saturday then according to the counting of these two disciples he could not have been the grave for even TWO full days as YESTERDAY would be the SECOND day since he was crucified.

The difference between Gerard and myself is two little words "TODAY IS" the third day rather than "It has been THREE days SINCE." Gerard attempts to make it read the latter when the text says the former thus making Gerards interpretation IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dr Walter:

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
However, I agree with many great Greek scholars in the past and present who translate the term “opse” to mean “after” the Sabbath was completed and “into the twilight of sunrise” they came to the tomb on Sunday morning.
There are several contextual reasons why this is the proper interpretation.
In Matthew 28:7-8 as they quickly departed from this visit and went toward the disciples Jesus met them. (vv. 9-10) to calm their fears as they were not going to tell anyone (Mk. 16:8). Hence, Matthew 28:9 occurs immediately after Mark 16:8. This special appearance to the women as they ran away gave them the boldness to go ahead and tell the disciples proving that Matthew 28:1-9 is parallel with Mark 16:1-8 and not two separate visits.
Hence, the supposed objection that the women ran away and didn’t tell anyone is countered by Matthew 28:9 as Jesus relieved their fears and they did go tell the disciples.

GE:

Dr Walter’s “reasons why”, ““opse” … mean(s) “after” the Sabbath was completed and “into the twilight of sunrise””, is / are, the “objection that the women ran away and didn’t tell anyone”, is a “supposed objection”; no more or better than an “objection”, that moreover is “countered by Matthew 28:9”.

Dr Walter, you say “the supposed objection”. But it comes from the Gospel of Mark, chapter 16 verse 8 as a statement of FACT?! Both the anecdote and pericope stop exactly with Mark’s own, “supposed objection”— “Hence, Matthew 28:9” definitely does NOT “occur… immediately after Mark 16:8.” Matthew had nothing to do with Mark’s story. Matthew does not ‘object’ to or ‘counter’ Mark – that is, Matthew does not CONTRADICT Mark! Nor does Mark ‘object’ to or “counter” – that is, CONTRADICT – Matthew.

You see, Dr Walter, it’s another UNTRUTH of yours, “many great Greek scholars in the past and present who translate the term “opse” to mean “after” the Sabbath was completed and “into the twilight of sunrise” or not!

As I said before, the women departed from the grave with joy and the intent to go tell the disciples. Your story that Jesus changed their mind having confronted them after they had left on purpose and mission, cannot be a misjudgement; it is a forced, untruth directly against the Scriptures. You simply won’t accept the reality of different visits and different situations and times instead of one for all and everything, altogether just BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT THE INVENTOR of the ‘theory of more than one visit and appearance’. But because you thought you were the discoverer of it, YOUR ‘solution’ is the only, the only possible and the only true one.

Then, by the way, it's impossible to answer every of your mass of misinformation with one 'post'.

I am reviewing our past conversations, and shall answer as and when I can. like someone has said, I have a life off Baptist Board too.

I also appreciate the opportunity granted me once again, to apologize for my bad and sincerely regretted behaviour. O that I could be rid of this body and mind of sin of mine, o God!

GE

 

[Thinkingstuff]

THE SEVENTH DAY IS SATURDAY!!!!!! WHY MOST CHRISTIANS HAVE A 8TH DAY MENATALITY WHEN IT COMES TO WORSHIP IS BEYOND OUR SOUTH AFRICAN FRIEND!!!!!

SHABBAT SHALOM! MR. Gerhard Ebersoehn!!!!!

You are complimented on your Tennacity!

Sorry, I just needed to get that off my chest. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your whole interpretative position rests upon pure speculative interpretations.

1. Your interpretation of the precise day that Nisan 14 fell upon is entirely dependent upon determining the precise year of his death.

2. The precise year of his death is wholly dependent upon determing the precise year of his birth.

3. The precise starting point and ending point is wholly dependent upon speculative interpretations of what is the "high sabbath" and what do certain terms such as "proii" and "dawn" etc. mean.

However, my position does not rest upon any speculative interpretations at all but rests upon the clear and explicit chronological statements provided by Luke in Luke 24

1. The first day of the week in Luke 24 "IS" the third day not the FOURTH day since he was crucified.

2. That necessarily means the seventh day of the week "IS" the Second day not the third day since he was crucified - case closed.

Dr Walter:

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
However, I agree with many great Greek scholars in the past and present who translate the term “opse” to mean “after” the Sabbath was completed and “into the twilight of sunrise” they came to the tomb on Sunday morning.
There are several contextual reasons why this is the proper interpretation.
In Matthew 28:7-8 as they quickly departed from this visit and went toward the disciples Jesus met them. (vv. 9-10) to calm their fears as they were not going to tell anyone (Mk. 16:8). Hence, Matthew 28:9 occurs immediately after Mark 16:8. This special appearance to the women as they ran away gave them the boldness to go ahead and tell the disciples proving that Matthew 28:1-9 is parallel with Mark 16:1-8 and not two separate visits.
Hence, the supposed objection that the women ran away and didn’t tell anyone is countered by Matthew 28:9 as Jesus relieved their fears and they did go tell the disciples.

GE:

Dr Walter’s “reasons why”, ““opse” … mean(s) “after” the Sabbath was completed and “into the twilight of sunrise””, is / are, the “objection that the women ran away and didn’t tell anyone”, is a “supposed objection”; no more or better than an “objection”, that moreover is “countered by Matthew 28:9”.

Dr Walter, you say “the supposed objection”. But it comes from the Gospel of Mark, chapter 16 verse 8 as a statement of FACT?! Both the anecdote and pericope stop exactly with Mark’s own, “supposed objection”— “Hence, Matthew 28:9” definitely does NOT “occur… immediately after Mark 16:8.” Matthew had nothing to do with Mark’s story. Matthew does not ‘object’ to or ‘counter’ Mark – that is, Matthew does not CONTRADICT Mark! Nor does Mark ‘object’ to or “counter” – that is, CONTRADICT – Matthew.

You see, Dr Walter, it’s another UNTRUTH of yours, “many great Greek scholars in the past and present who translate the term “opse” to mean “after” the Sabbath was completed and “into the twilight of sunrise” or not!

As I said before, the women departed from the grave with joy and the intent to go tell the disciples. Your story that Jesus changed their mind having confronted them after they had left on purpose and mission, cannot be a misjudgement; it is a forced, untruth directly against the Scriptures. You simply won’t accept the reality of different visits and different situations and times instead of one for all and everything, altogether just BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT THE INVENTOR of the ‘theory of more than one visit and appearance’. But because you thought you were the discoverer of it, YOUR ‘solution’ is the only, the only possible and the only true one.

Then, by the way, it's impossible to answer every of your mass of misinformation with one 'post'.

I am reviewing our past conversations, and shall answer as and when I can. like someone has said, I have a life off Baptist Board too.

I also appreciate the opportunity granted me once again, to apologize for my bad and sincerely regretted behaviour. O that I could be rid of this body and mind of sin of mine, o God!

GE

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Btw it doesn't have to be precisely 3 24(72) hour periods for him to rise on the third day. All it really needs to be is a minimum of 31 hours to have him rise on third day. Just a thought.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Btw it doesn't have to be precisely 3 24(72) hour periods for him to rise on the third day. All it really needs to be is a minimum of 31 hours to have him rise on third day. Just a thought.

1. Jewish reckoning begins the first day of the week at 6pm Satuday evening

2. Roman reckoning begins the first day of the week at 12 am Sunday morning

3. Luke says that "TODAY" is the "third day since" he was crucified not the FOURTH day.

4. Luke says that "TODAY" is the "SAME DAY" the women went to the grave early in the morning and Jesus walked with these two toward Emmaeus which is positively identifed as "the first day of the week".

Therefore, the resurrection of Christ had to occur AFTER 6 pm Saturday evening and BEFORE 6 am Sunday morning and therefore necessarily on the first day of the week regardless if you count it by Jewish or Roman time.

At the very minium Jesus was buried on Thursday eveing prior to 6 pm thus begining on the "morning" or "day" part of the jewish day Since the first day of the week "IS" the third day since his crucifixion. That would necessarily include 48 hours for Frday and Saturday not counting the hours accumulated on Thursday and Sunday.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Since the first day of the week "IS" the third day since the crucixfixion then some part of the first day occured before the resurrection.

Since the seventh day of the week "IS" the second day since the crucifixion it would be inclusive of all 24 hours

Since the sixth day of the week "IS" the first day since the crucifixion it would be inclusive of all 24 hours

Since the fifth day of the week "IS" the day of crucificxion it would include some portion of it in the grave as he was buried on that day before 6 pm.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

No, Gerard and others were not able to respond to the evidence I placed before them. Their whole response and argument depends on making Sunday the FOURTH day "since these things" occurred but the text says that Sunday or "TODAY IS THE THRID DAY" not the fourth day since these things occurred.

So I repeat my previous response which none have yet been able to answer:



Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
Luke emphatically states that the two on the road to Emmaus said, "TODAY IS the third day" and yet Jesus had already arisen from the tomb and was walking with them when they said "TODAY IS the third day." Hence, "TODAY" early that morning Jesus had already arisen. Hence, the "third day" which is "TODAY" did not include 24 hours.

YESTERDAY would have been the SECOND day since he was crucified.

The DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY would have been the FIRST day since he was crucified.

Hence, THURSDAY would be the day He was crucified AND buried.


They did not say "It has been three days SINCE he was crucified" thus making TODAY the FOURTH day!!!! They said "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY"

The reader can easily see that Saturdayism is false and that Christ did not arise on Saturday because if he did arise on Saturday then according to the counting of these two disciples he could not have been the grave for even TWO full days as YESTERDAY would be the SECOND day since he was crucified.

The difference between Gerard and myself is two little words "TODAY IS" the third day rather than "It has been THREE days SINCE." Gerard attempts to make it read the latter when the text says the former thus making Gerards interpretation IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

Re: Dr Walter, “No, Gerard and others were not able to respond to the evidence I placed before them.”

GE:

Well, it’s easy to “respond”; to refute is another matter. Anyhow…. Let’s see what Gerard and others were able or not able to achieve either way.

Re: Dr Walter, “Their whole response and argument depends on making Sunday the FOURTH day "since these things" occurred but the text says that Sunday or "TODAY IS THE THRID DAY" not the fourth day since these things occurred.”

See Dr Walter’s old trick, he tells us (or me) what we (or I) are saying. Now that is fake ‘arguing’. I am of the mind even, it is dishonest tactics.
However …
I (we, Strats and me, GE) do NOT make “Sunday the FOURTH day "since these things" occurred”".

The key aspect regarding this ‘issue’, is, WHICH OR WHAT ‘day’ – which or what SORT of ‘day – does LUKE – not DW or GE or whoever – speak / write?

Dr Walter avers Luke writes in 24:21b concerning ‘THE’ ‘third’, ‘day’ of “the prophesy”.

GE “and others” like Strats, maintain, Luke writes in 24:21b about a day “SINCE”, Jesus was “delivered to be crucified” –
NOTHING to do with “THE” “third”, “day” of “the prophesy” of
the passover’s ‘third day’ or of
the plague’s ‘third day’, or,
“the third day according to the Scriptures”
“the sixteenth day of the First Month” and
day on which the First Sheaf Wave Offering was brought before the LORD,
the third day-combination implied in the “three days and three nights” of Jesus' reference to the prophet Jonas …
…NOTHING to do with any!

THERE’S the difference or the ‘issue’ between any incorrect and the only correct understanding of the words, “today is the third day since these things” referring to verse 20, when the “rulers delivered Him to be crucified.”

Now everyone agrees “today” was “the First Day of the week” mentioned way back in 24:1 already.

The question is TOTALLY UNNECESSARILY AND UNPROVOKED, asked— or, rather, the assertion is totally ungrounded nevertheless totally biased, made, that the words, “today is the third day since these things” referring to verse 20, when the “rulers delivered Him to be crucified”, mean, “the day of the prophesy” (Dr Walter) and not an ordinary day ORDINARILY counted “since”, the day _ON_ which the “rulers delivered Him to be crucified”.

There’s your whole ‘issue’!

So what’s the problem to count in reverse JUST LIKE DR WALTER did, and to arrive on, QUOTE, “THURSDAY … the day He was crucified…” JUST LIKE DR WALTER did?

ONLY, that Dr Walter ADDS to the words of LUKE, “… AND buried”!!

Ag ja….

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE “and others” like Strats, maintain, Luke writes in 24:21b about a day “SINCE”, Jesus was “delivered to be crucified” –

21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.

Luke does not say that he "writes...about a day SINCE...." but "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY since..."

Gerards intepretation does not even make sense! Gerhard is trying to make Luke say that he WRITES in 21:24b "about a day SINCE the third day Jesus was crucified." Luke does not say he "writes" about anything! Luke writes "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY since" the crucifixion and no amount of perverting the text by Gerard will change that.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.

Luke does not say that he "writes...about a day SINCE...." but "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY since..."

Gerards intepretation does not even make sense! Gerhard is trying to make Luke say that he WRITES in 21:24b "about a day SINCE the third day Jesus was crucified." Luke does not say he "writes" about anything! Luke writes "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY since" the crucifixion and no amount of perverting the text by Gerard will change that.

GE:

My dear man, you have said EXACTLY what I have said, quote, "Luke writes "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY since" the crucifixion". Now is what you here wrote, what Luke wrote, or is what you here wrote, a "perversion" of what Luke wrote?

Hey? Will you answer me while we are both 'on line'? Just 'Yes' for what Luke wrote, or 'No' for a perversion.

I am waiting ....

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE:

My dear man, you have said EXACTLY what I have said, quote, "Luke writes "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY since" the crucifixion". Now is what you here wrote, what Luke wrote, or is what you here wrote, a "perversion" of what Luke wrote?

Hey? Will you answer me while we are both 'on line'? Just 'Yes' for what Luke wrote, or 'No' for a perversion.

I am waiting ....

No, that is not what you said and here is your exact words:

GE “and others” like Strats, maintain, Luke writes in 24:21b about a day “SINCE”, Jesus was “delivered to be crucified” – - GE

He did not write in Luke 24:21b "about a day SINCE Jesus was crucified." Anyway you take that statement it is absurd. He is speaking about "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY" and that cannot be written by Luke only "about a day since Jesus was...crucified." That is nonsense.

Neither does the phrase "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY" be Luke writing "aboout a day SINCE Jesus was crucified" which is equally nonsensical.

Luke is very clear with his chronology:

1 ¶ Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
12 Then arose Peter,

13 ¶ And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.

21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

No, that is not what you said and here is your exact words:

GE “and others” like Strats, maintain, Luke writes in 24:21b about a day “SINCE”, Jesus was “delivered to be crucified” – - GE

He did not write in Luke 24:21b "about a day SINCE Jesus was crucified." Anyway you take that statement it is absurd. He is speaking about "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY" and that cannot be written by Luke only "about a day since Jesus was...crucified." That is nonsense.

Neither does the phrase "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY" be Luke writing "aboout a day SINCE Jesus was crucified" which is equally nonsensical.

Luke is very clear with his chronology:

1 ¶ Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
12 Then arose Peter,

13 ¶ And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.

21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;

GE:

Dr Walter writes, "He did not write in Luke 24:21b "about a day SINCE Jesus was crucified." Anyway you take that statement it is absurd. He is speaking about "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY" and that cannot be written by Luke only "about a day since Jesus was...crucified." That is nonsense."

Dr Walter wrote: "... He is speaking about "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY" ...".

GE answers Dr Walter: It is not WHAT, Luke, wrote. Your alleging Luke wrote, quoting Dr Walter, "... He is speaking about "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY", is ANOTHER PERVERSION OF YOURS of the Word of God,

Just like you ADDED the words "...AND buried" to verse 20b, you OMIT the word "since" in 21b. Which is just as serious an OFFENSE as was your addition to God's Word in 20b.

You are a FEARLESS .... God, help me hold my tongue!

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE:

Dr Walter writes, "He did not write in Luke 24:21b "about a day SINCE Jesus was crucified." Anyway you take that statement it is absurd. He is speaking about "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY" and that cannot be written by Luke only "about a day since Jesus was...crucified." That is nonsense."

Dr Walter wrote: "... He is speaking about "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY" ...".

GE answers Dr Walter: It is not WHAT, Luke, wrote. Your alleging Luke wrote, quoting Dr Walter, "... He is speaking about "TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY", is ANOTHER PERVERSION OF YOURS of the Word of God,

Just like you ADDED the words "...AND buried" to verse 20b, you OMIT the word "since" in 21b. Which is just as serious an OFFENSE as was your addition to God's Word in 20b.

You are a FEARLESS .... God, help me hold my tongue!

Your babbling (and that is what it is) does not change the fact that contextually Luke has identifed "the first day of the week" as "TODAY" and has identified "TODAY" as "the third days since" he was crucified and thus the third day since he was buried because he was buried on the same day he was crucified.

Your babbling (and that is what it is) does not change the irrefutable chronological evidence given by Luke in Luke 24 that the "first day of the week" is the "then" when Peter went to the grave and the "SAME DAY" Jesus walked with the two on the road to Emmaeus which is "TODAY" and that today "IS the third day" and thus Sunday is the "third day since" the burial of Christ which occurred on the day of his crucifixion.

Your babbling (and that is what it is) does not change the irrefutable chronological evidence given by Luke in Luke 23 that SUNDAY or "the first day of the week" or "today" IS the third day and therefore SATURDAY or "the seventh day of the week" IS the second day "since" the crucifixion and burial and FRIDAY or the sixth day of the week IS the first day since the crucifixion and burial or that THURSDAY or the fifth day of the week IS the day these things were done.