Crucifixion Happened ON Wednesday

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Thesis
The Lamb of God was slain on Thursday, 14 Nisan. ... 'Thursday' (14 Nisan), from sunrise to sundown represents the first of “three days”; 'Friday' (15 Nisan, the "high day", Feast day Sabbath from sundown to sunrise is the first of three nights, and so on, through Sunday from sundown to sunrise completing the "three nights", which order happens to be exactly deliberately reversed from the normal Jewish way of reckoning time.”

Antithesis
Quoting, “ ... the "three nights", which order happens to be exactly deliberately reversed from the normal Jewish way of reckoning time.”

‘Deliberately reversed’? After the above Scriptures I have presented? After all the Passover-Season ‘days’, had been reckoned ‘the normal Jewish way of reckoning time’, i.e., the mandatory ‘way’ of the Bible, of reckoning days from sunset to sunset? After the only other ‘way’ of reckoning of days found in the Scriptures – in Exodus – which would have forced you to date the Day of First Fruits on Nisan 15 and not on Nisan 17? After not one exception in all of the New Testament especially, exists that allows another reckoning of days, than from sunset to sunset? You come, and arbitrarily decide, “which order ... to be exactly deliberately reversed”? How serious are you in your Bible study? How predisposed and prejudiced can you be?

Your statement is the unequivocal acknowledgement of and concession to the ‘normal (Jewish) way’ of the Bible of reckoning the day-cycle and ‘days’ per se, but despite, you assume the right to ‘deliberately reverse’ the order? Thank you for displaying your audacity so conspicuously!

'The Fifth Day' – ‘Thursday’ (14 Nisan), from sunset and night, to until sundown again, ‘represents’ the first of ‘the three days’; not, ‘'Thursday' (14 Nisan), from sunrise to sundown’!

Exactly so, 'The Sixth Day' – ‘Friday’ (15 Nisan), from sunset and night,to until sundown again, ‘represents’ the second of ‘the three days’, not, 'Friday' (15 Nisan), ‘from sunrise to sundown’! A ‘Nisan 15’ –or any other day or date for that matter– ‘from sunrise to sundown’ never existed in the Bible.

Exactly so, 'The Sabbath Day' – ‘Saturday’ (16 Nisan), from sunset and night,to until sundown again, was in fact “the third day” of ‘the three days’, “according to the Scriptures”; not, 'Saturday' (16 Nisan) ‘from sunrise to sundown’! A ‘Nisan 16’ and even less a ‘Nisan 17’ –or any other day or date for that matter– ‘from sunrise to sundown’ never existed in the Bible.

From sunset to sundown ‘Saturday’ – Nisan 16 – completed “the third day” of ‘the three days’, “according to the Scriptures” SO THAT the night-part of the Fifth Day (Thursday) the first of the “three days”, completed the "three nights" of Mt12:40, which order happens to be exactly the normal Jewish way of reckoning time, but seen retrospectively – that is – from the perspective of the Risen Christ that “so shall have been in the heart of the earth, three days and three nights”.

Every essential of the principle of interpretation and understanding the Scriptures’ ‘way to reckon days’, is respected and obeyed, and the Law of God (not men’s) magnified through “the Glory of God in the face of Jesus”. We need never to belittle in whichever way God’s Law; which is immutable because in Christ and through Christ it has been made fast and true. Only men in a spot challenge God’s Law, because “the Law is for the transgressors”. The fault must be blamed on the Law of God because I, am my law unto myself. My hate to be under law from its nature must be projected upon something; and that something cannot be me; so we pile it upon the Law of God – or rather, upon His Sabbath Day, because we have fooled ourselves concerning our status with regard to all the other Law of God ... Men can see the outside only; and I am one of those men who can see the outside only, and am, oh, so content with myself-my-law, blinding all spiritual sight my face shines like a saint’s.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Thesis
“... there is specific significance (actually about three of them) to Matt. 28:1, where the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to pen the words,
Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον. (Matt. 28:1 - Tsch. Gk NT, my underlining)
- After the Sabbaths, towards the dawn of the day following the Sabbaths, Mary, the Magdalene, and the other Mary, came to examine the tomb. (Matt. 28:1 - HBME)

(1) ... the use of the plural form "σαββάτων", two times, in the verse. Translators such as Green, Fenton, Marshall, and Young get the import, here, and get it right as "the end (conclusion) of the Sabbaths", (a 'literal' sense, here, in the first instance) as there were more than one involved. The second use, later in the verse, is also a normal rendering of "σαββάτων" as "week". Both of these uses are attested to by J. H. Thayer and Alan Wigram, in their lexicons.”

Antithesis
Even if accepted, what ‘HBME’ (whatever it is), and ‘J.H. Thayer and Alan Wigram’ concluded, changes nothing to the fact the time of the event on the day concerned, was still, “"the end (conclusion) of the Sabbaths", (a 'literal' sense, here, in the first instance) as there were more than one involved”. (Emphasis CGE) The meaning still, is not, ‘after the sabbaths’ as Sunday-resurrection protagonists allege. There were two consecutive ‘sabbath’ – the Passover’s and the week’s, and whether the ‘end-part’ meant was that of both or of only one of these ‘sabbaths’, “it-was-the-inclining-light-OF-THE-SABBATHS”, that “shon / lighted”, “towards the First of the Sabbaths” (Sunday the impending and still future day). It helps a Sunday-resurrection idea nothing. In fact, these references confirm a ‘Sabbath’s-event’ “towards the dawn of the day following the Sabbaths”!
So ‘HBME’ as clearly as daylight contradicts itself with saying “...After the Sabbaths, towards the first week’s (day, Sunday) ...”. I have seen scholars who do not even notice what nonsense they argue, who maintain the ‘second’ ‘sabbahtohn’, while it came ‘after the Sabbaths’, was “the first of the Sabbaths”!

But the learned men you refer to are simply wrong; ‘Sabbaths’ in the first phrase means exactly what the ‘Sabbaths’ in the second phrase means, and that (in their words), is, “a normal rendering of "σαββάτων" as "week".” See repeatedly treated on in ‘LD’.

A far more accurate rendering therefore certainly will be, “In the end of the Sabbath, towards the dawn of the first day of the week as Mary the Magdalene and the other Mary, left to go see the tomb …”.

“Towards the dawn” should not be misunderstood for ‘before sunrise’, but for ‘the last end-part’, “towards” (‘eis’), when the approaching day, The First Day of the week, ‘began to become apparent’ (Oxford Collins) “by the declining turn of the light / sun” – literal of ‘epiphohskousehi’. As the gentlemen referred to above, aptly state, “towards the dawn of the day following the Sabbaths”! It couldn’t have been said better!

 

[EdSutton]

With all respect, Gerhard Ebersoehn, it takes a tremendous amount of gyrations and gymnastics, to arrive at a "Saturday" or "Sabbath" resurrection, in any way. I simply don't have the time to get into this in detail now, but will add that I've already covered this in my previous posts, on this thread, as has basically Eliyahu.

Our positions are a lot less 'painful' to arrive at, frankly. Mostly, because we are not attempting to read anywhere near as much "into" the texts, IMO.

FTR, "J. H. Thayer and Alan Wigram" are the authors of the two Greek lexicons that I possess, and have had since Bible College. The '"Thayer's" lexicon, was the standard one in use, virtually everywhere, before the later rise in popularity in the far more expensive 'BAGD' lexicon, of Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker. Wigram's is an analytical lexicon, and has often popularly been referred to as a 'cheater' lexicon, because one does not have to anaylze each and every ending, of every word, in order to arrive at the gender, case, number, person and tense, of that Greek word. That said, it is still a lexicon, in its own right, as is the lexicon found in Strong's Concordance.

I agree that the 'BAGD' (at 150 clams in 'hard cop, and which I ain't a-spendin') is probably at "the top o' the heap", as to Greek Lexicons, with Thayer's, Wigram's, and Strong's following, in roughly that order, although some might reverse the order of the last two.

I do not either know, or still remember, what is the other acronym of "HBME" to which you referred, and I apparently cited.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

GE
Quoting, “...Day of First Fruits are always the First day of the Week. ( Lev 23:11-12), it was the next day after the Sabbath” (Emphasis GE)

Lv23:11, 15-16, “Ye shall bring a sheaf ... the priest shall wave the sheaf ... on the day after the sabbath. ... Ye shall count from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf. ... Even unto the day after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days.”

Even one word more will be superfluous.

So why don't you accept this one, as opposed to atempting to explain how it was on the (regular weekly) sabbath, yet after the (high-day) Sabbath, therefore being on the Sabbath but "not on the sabbath," simultaneously?? There is no additional qualifier between "after" and "the Sabbath", that I can see in the text. So am I missing what is actually "found in the text", or merely what you are attempting to "read into the text"?

Once again, I refer to the fact (as opposed to the theory) that neither "first fruits" nor "Pentecost" are listed with specific days of a month, unlike every other 'feast day" in the texts.

Why not?? Answer, because Biblically, they can and do 'move' 'forward', by one (and only one) day, an (overall) average of one year out of every seven, depending on what day of the week 15 Nisan/Abib falls. This only happens when 15 Nisan falls on the sixth day of the week, which would be expected to be an average of one year out of seven. The insertions of the 'calender correcting month' of 2nd Adar, can and does change this interval, causing it to occur sooner, in some cases, and further apart in others. Still, overall, it occurs one time every seven years.

Ed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Thesis
The phrase "on the Sabbath" in the NKJV. Not one time does this phrase occur tied in, in any way, to the words or idea of "resurrection", that I can find.

Antithesis
You found correctly as “to the words”; but how could you find that the “The phrase "on the Sabbath"”, does not “in any way (tie in) to the ... idea of "resurrection"”? The whole context of Mt28:1 concerns the Resurrection of Christ!

Were you able to find that the phrase "towards the First Day of the week”, ‘ties in’ to either the word or idea of ‘resurrection’? No, you could not because the word, ‘resurrection’ is not used in Mt28:1. So what gave you the idea the phrase "towards the First Day of the week” does tie in to the word of ‘resurrection’? Just prejudice; but prejudice coupled with disregard for every factor of grammar and syntax applied in the context. For, for the phrase "towards the First Day of the week” to ‘tie in to the idea of the Resurrection’ and for the phrase “On the Sabbath” not to ‘tie in to the idea of the Resurrection’, every grammatical and syntactical aspect of ‘words’, ‘phrases’, and ‘idea’, MUST be corrupted.

And that was exactly what Justin Martyr did, and why he found it inevitable to change these factors about and to present a totally garbled version of the Greek, in order to sustain his ‘idea of the resurrection’, “after the Sabbath” and “on the Day of the Sun” – things the learned referred to by you, have thought better not to reveal in the smallest of detail.

 

[EdSutton]

Thesis
The phrase "on the Sabbath" in the NKJV. Not one time does this phrase occur tied in, in any way, to the words or idea of "resurrection", that I can find.

Antithesis
You found correctly as “to the words”; but how could you find that the “The phrase "on the Sabbath"”, does not “in any way (tie in) to the ... idea of "resurrection"”? The whole context of Mt28:1 concerns the Resurrection of Christ!

Were you able to find that the phrase "towards the First Day of the week”, ‘ties in’ to either the word or idea of ‘resurrection’? No, you could not because the word, ‘resurrection’ is not used in Mt28:1. So what gave you the idea the phrase "towards the First Day of the week” does tie in to the word of ‘resurrection’? Just prejudice; but prejudice coupled with disregard for every factor of grammar and syntax applied in the context. For, for the phrase "towards the First Day of the week” to ‘tie in to the idea of the Resurrection’ and for the phrase “On the Sabbath” not to ‘tie in to the idea of the Resurrection’, every grammatical and syntactical aspect of ‘words’, ‘phrases’, and ‘idea’, MUST be corrupted.

And that was exactly what Justin Martyr did, and why he found it inevitable to change these factors about and to present a totally garbled version of the Greek, in order to sustain his ‘idea of the resurrection’, “after the Sabbath” and “on the Day of the Sun” – things the learned referred to by you, have thought better not to reveal in the smallest of detail.

FTR, I just found what "HBME" stands for. It is the abbreviation for the "Holy Bible in Modern English", version of Scripture. I did cite this vesion earlier, but did not remember the acronym.

Ed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

So why don't you accept this one, as opposed to atempting to explain how it was on the (regular weekly) sabbath, yet after the (high-day) Sabbath, therefore being on the Sabbath but "not on the sabbath," simultaneously?? There is no additional qualifier between "after" and "the Sabbath", that I can see in the text. So am I missing what is actually "found in the text", or merely what you are attempting to "read into the text"?

Once again, I refer to the fact (as opposed to the theory) that neither "first fruits" nor "Pentecost" are listed with specific days of a month, unlike every other 'feast day" in the texts.

Why not?? Answer, because Biblically, they can and do 'move' 'forward', by one (and only one) day, an (overall) average of one year out of every seven, depending on what day of the week 15 Nisan/Abib falls. This only happens when 15 Nisan falls on the sixth day of the week, which would be expected to be an average of one year out of seven. The insertions of the 'calender correcting month' of 2nd Adar, can and does change this interval, causing it to occur sooner, in some cases, and further apart in others. Still, overall, it occurs one time every seven years.

Ed

GE
I don't know why I have to battle so to get my posts through quickly enough not to be disconnected. So I'll come back to you on this after I have prepared 'at home'.

See ya

 

[EdSutton]

Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:

And that was exactly what Justin Martyr did, and why he found it inevitable to change these factors about and to present a totally garbled version of the Greek, in order to sustain his ‘idea of the resurrection’, “after the Sabbath” and “on the Day of the Sun” – things the learned referred to by you, have thought better not to reveal in the smallest of detail.

Is this subtle "shot" really necessary?

First, Justin Martyr is no longer around and able to defend himself, these days.
Second, I have not cited Justin, in any way or at any time, here.
Third, is it possible these things I have referred to (Actually, the only things I remember that I have referred to, outside of the posts on this thread, are various versions of Scripture, the definition of a couple of Greek words from the two lexicons I have, and one reference to the 'Scofield' notes.) are not referred to by others, because there is no real evidence for them? (I do not believe I have quoted any other writer, but I would have to reread each post to confirm this.)

Frankly, I had no idea (nor was I particularly concerned) of anything Justin may (or may not) have said about this, until this allegation.

The exegesis of and from Scripture is always legitimate, IMO.
But the eisegesis into Scripture, by anyone, is always just as illegitimate, IMO.

My nephew just called me and needs my help, for a bit. Gotta' run for now.

Ed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed Sutton
With all respect, it takes a tremendous amount of gyrations and gymnastics, to arrive at a "Saturday" or "Sabbath" resurrection, in any way. I simply don't have the time to get into this in detail now, but will add that I've already covered this in my previous posts, on this thread, as has basically Eliyahu.Our positions are a lot less 'painful' to arrive at, frankly. Mostly, because we are not attempting to read anywhere near as much "into" the texts, IMO.

FTR, "J. H. Thayer and Alan Wigram" are the authors of the two Greek lexicons that I possess, and have had since Bible College. The '"Thayer's" lexicon, was the standard one in use, virtually everywhere, before the later rise in popularity in the far more expensive 'BAGD' lexicon, of Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker. Wigram's is an analytical lexicon, and has often popularly been referred to as a 'cheater' lexicon, because one does not have to analyze each and every ending, of every word, in order to arrive at the gender, case, number, person and tense, of that Greek word. That said, it is still a lexicon, in its own right, as is the lexicon found in Strong's Concordance.

I agree that the 'BAGD' (at 150 clams in 'hard cop, and which I ain't a-spendin') is probably at "the top o' the heap", as to Greek Lexicons, with Thayer's, Wigram's, and Strong's following, in roughly that order, although some might reverse the order of the last two.

I do not either know, or still remember, what is the other acronym of "HBME" to which you referred, and I apparently cited.

So why don't you accept this one, ...

GE
Because you have said nothing as to argument; nothing! I am no one to grade books to quality, especially not books like you have mentioned, because they equally are the fruit not only of the authors themselves, but of the denominational traditions and worldviews of their times. Not even in these ‘analytical’ works is it possible to find total objectivity and pure scientific method. Walter Bauer, e.g., speaks of “our literature” re Mt28:1 as if in contrast with ‘secular’ literature. What can you expect? Just normal human and conditioned subjectivity! But as you can see from the sources you have quoted, these men honestly believe they are right so much, that they are blinded to the implications of their honesty. These writers of thesauruses etc. did not busy themselves with exegetical issues – what theological! They worked with grammatical and linguistic issues which they unawares but inevitably influenced by their own worldviews, have tried to explain. There is no better example of their dilemma than the issue of the Christian Sabbath. You do face the same dilemma, believe me; I had to! (Karl Barth said, it is a lazy person who uses as excuse that he is not a theologian. Everybody is a theologian – every serious Christian, and need not retreat before the most famous of theologians. I have seen many although loaded with degrees and medals not worth the smell of theologian.

Ed Sutton
So why don't you accept this one, ... as opposed to attempting to explain how it was on the (regular weekly) sabbath, yet after the (high-day) Sabbath, therefore being on the Sabbath but "not on the sabbath," simultaneously ...

GE
If I understand you correctly now, this is what I have more than once told you I agree on with you. I accept (and do not oppose or attempt to explain away), how ‘it simultaneously was’ on the (regular weekly) Sabbath, yet after the ‘High-Day-sabbath’, therefore being “on the (regular weekly) Sabbath” and, not on ‘High-Day-sabbath’, as the Scriptures say, “ON THE DAY AFTER THE SABBATH (OF PASSOVER)”. But now you maintain it was on the second days after the Passover-Sabbath. And the real issue here is not, whether “it was on the (regular weekly) sabbath, yet after the (high-day) Sabbath, therefore being on the Sabbath but "not on the sabbath," simultaneously”, or not. Don’t evade the true point of CONFLICT, which is, that Jesus rose “On the Sabbath” the ‘sabbath’ after the Friday (– which Friday you yourself say was the Passover-sabbath of Nisan 15 –) or not.



Ed Sutton
There is no additional qualifier between "after" and "the Sabbath", that I can see in the text. So am I missing what is actually "found in the text", or merely what you are attempting to "read into the text"?

GE
Thank you for a civilised question, although I don’t understand what you mean with, “There is no additional qualifier between "after" and "the Sabbath"”. But I’ll say there is in fact absolutely no qualifier, ‘additional’ or original, that requires or allows "AFTER the Sabbath” in either the first or second ‘phrase’. In the first phrase, “In the Sabbath”, there is the qualifier to the effect of ‘IN’, in the Genitive of time and sort of the Noun, “Sabbath’S-time”-‘sabbahtOHn’. This ‘qualifier at the same time is an absolute DISqualifier for the concept, ‘AFTER the Sabbath’ by whatever ‘tremendous amount of gyrations and gymnastics’. I could go on and on – rather read the many arguments in ‘LD’. As far as the second ‘phrase’ is concerned, the Accusative (to again name but one example of many factors) demands “BEFORE the First Day” – it can NOT EVER, be, ‘on’, or, ‘in’, or, ‘of’!

Ed Sutton
Once again, I refer to the fact (as opposed to the theory) that neither "first fruits" nor "Pentecost" are listed with specific days of a month, unlike every other 'feast day" in the texts.

GE
Absolute nonsense!

Ed Sutton
Neither "first fruits" nor "Pentecost" are listed with specific days of a month, Why not?? Answer, because Biblically, they can and do 'move' 'forward', by one (and only one) day, an (overall) average of one year out of every seven, depending on what day of the week 15 Nisan/Abib falls. This only happens when 15 Nisan falls on the sixth day of the week, which would be expected to be an average of one year out of seven. The insertions of the 'calendar correcting month' of 2nd Adar, can and does change this interval, causing it to occur sooner, in some cases, and further apart in others. Still, overall, it occurs one time every seven years.

GE
For which surmising, you, Ed Sutton, have, ZERO, Scripture! Speculations like yours, there are several other, ‘THEORIES’ of.

Fact is, Equinox was accurately determined astrometrically, thereafter the first New Moon was accurately determined astrometrically – no ‘sightings’-stuff – and the day of that New Moon, that day was, Abib 1. It did not matter ever WHERE the previous year ENDED. If a period was ‘vacant’ in between the last 12 months 30 days per month year, then a part-month of any number of days was ‘added’ in between the end of the old year and the first day on the month Abib as determined accurately astrometrically. In the meantime the week-cycle just went on uninterruptedly – and that, is what caused (and still causes) the definitely FIXED dates of the MONTH, to float through the days of the WEEK. It is impossible to say every which year the same co-incidence of Date of Month would recur on the same day of week.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed Sutton
"Frankly, I had no idea (nor was I particularly concerned) of anything Justin may (or may not) have said about this, until this allegation."

GE
I have not intended my reference to Justin as an allegation you did. In any case, I ask you pardon seeing I must have made a confused impression.

I refer to Justin Martyr because the first textual witness of the idea of 'after the Sabbath' and 'on Sunday' is found in his writings - the literally opposites of Mt28:1. And it is the renderings of Justin Martyr that this very day is blindly and slavishly followed, and claimed, 'translated from the original'. This is just the plain truth, without any ulterior motives aimed at you, dear Ed Sutton.

 

[Eliyahu]

FTR, I just found what "HBME" stands for. It is the abbreviation for the "Holy Bible in Modern English", version of Scripture. I did cite this vesion earlier, but did not remember the acronym.

Ed

Can we find HBME anywhere on line?

I thought I was the first one who translates Mt 28 as plural.

However, sometimes NT describes the singular sabbath in plural form ( Lk 6:1). This is why I am interested in HBME.

 

[EdSutton]

Thesis
The phrase "on the Sabbath" in the NKJV. Not one time does this phrase occur tied in, in any way, to the words or idea of "resurrection", that I can find.

Antithesis
You found correctly as “to the words”; but how could you find that the “The phrase "on the Sabbath"”, does not “in any way (tie in) to the ... idea of "resurrection"”? The whole context of Mt28:1 concerns the Resurrection of Christ!

Yes, Matt. 28:1 is about the resurrection. No, the phrase "on the Sabbath" does not occur in Matt. 28:1, in the NKJV.

Were you able to find that the phrase "towards the First Day of the week”, ‘ties in’ to either the word or idea of ‘resurrection’? No, you could not because the word, ‘resurrection’ is not used in Mt28:1. So what gave you the idea the phrase "towards the First Day of the week” does

tie in to the word of ‘resurrection’?

No, the phrase "towards the first day of the week" does not occur anywhere in the NKJV, so I could hardly find it there.

Just prejudice; but prejudice coupled with disregard for every factor of grammar and syntax applied in the context.

If I am so prejudiced, why would I not just "go with the flow"; accept a Friday crucifixion; and "take the easy way out"? The second "easy alternative" would be to go for the Wednesday version, and read into this words that are not in the text, as I believe some do, and have done on this thread, already. The problem is that either of these contradict far too many clear Scriptures, for me to accept, starting with Lk. 24:21, in the proposing of a Wednesday crucifixion, and Jesus' own words, in both Matt. 12:40 and Mk. 8:31, for a Friday crucifixion. The late Dr. A. T. Robertson I ain't, but I do still manage to understand the meaning of the Greek phrase "και μετα τρεις ημερας αναστηναι", to properly be 'rendered' as "and after three days, rise", here, as per the HCSB and DARBY versions. [BTW, it is a faulty translation, to here render "αναστηναι" as "rise 'again'", even though most versions do, for two reasons; the word "palin" (or any other Greek word rendered as 'again') is not in the text, and our Lord was resurrected one time, and one time only!] There is no "again", to it!

For, for the phrase "towards the First Day of the week” to ‘tie in to the idea of the Resurrection’ and for the phrase “On the Sabbath” not to ‘tie in to the idea of the Resurrection’, every grammatical and syntactical aspect of ‘words’, ‘phrases’, and ‘idea’, MUST be corrupted.

Once again, I believe you are trying to make me say something I did not say, since I didn't say "towards the first day of the week", that I've been able to find, on this thread, at least, and don't actually recall saying it on the "competing" thread, either. If I did say this, would you mind posting the Post #, please. And since I apparently did not say this stuff, how could I have corrupted any grammar or syntax?

And that was exactly what Justin Martyr did, and why he found it inevitable to change these factors about and to present a totally garbled version of the Greek, in order to sustain his ‘idea of the resurrection’, “after the Sabbath” and “on the Day of the Sun” – things the learned referred to by you, have thought better not to reveal in the smallest of detail.

I already touched on some of this in a previous post; I shall comment a bit later on your response, back.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

GE
I don't know why I have to battle so to get my posts through quickly enough not to be disconnected. So I'll come back to you on this after I have prepared 'at home'.

See ya

Maybe the Lord is not wanting you to post some of your stuff?? Just a whimsical thought!

(Thought this one was worth three big grins!)

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Ed Sutton
"Frankly, I had no idea (nor was I particularly concerned) of anything Justin may (or may not) have said about this, until this allegation."

GE
I have not intended my reference to Justin as an allegation you did. In any case, I ask you pardon seeing I must have made a confused impression.

I refer to Justin Martyr because the first textual witness of the idea of 'after the Sabbath' and 'on Sunday' is found in his writings - the literally opposites of Mt28:1. And it is the renderings of Justin Martyr that this very day is blindly and slavishly followed, and claimed, 'translated from the original'. This is just the plain truth, without any ulterior motives aimed at you, dear Ed Sutton.

(Some of) this may or may not have arisen with Justin, as to this "allegation" (not a pejorative term, BTW). However, I was referring to this overall quote here, and I will embolden the words that got my attention

And that was exactly what Justin Martyr did, and why he found it inevitable to change these factors about and to present a totally garbled version of the Greek, in order to sustain his ‘idea of the resurrection’, “after the Sabbath” and “on the Day of the Sun” – things the learned referred to by you, have thought better not to reveal in the smallest of detail.

If these are not 'allegations', what are they?? Your answer is lacking, a bit, IMO. Here's why: First, Justin (100-165 A. D.) lived his adult life in the middle of the Second Century, and was, along with Polycarp, Clement, Papias, and a handful of others, one of the earliest of the 'orthodox' (orthodox being a 'relative' term) church fathers. There are not a lot of prolific writers who precede him, hence, I do not find it all that strange that he would be referenced as the first to mention anything. But the implication of "ulterior motives" to some later, whom you referred to as "the learned"by saying "things (they) have thought better not to reveal in the smallest of detail", certainly implies subterfuge, in my book.

Once again, I will ask- How about a little evidence to support this implication?

BTW, I did not take what you spoke of as "personal", for I did not see any thing like "ulterior motives" as directed at me, at all.

I gotta' knock off; I have a Doctor's appointment in the AM.

G'nite, all!

Ed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed Sutton
"No, the phrase "towards the first day of the week" does not occur anywhere in the NKJV, so I could hardly find it there."

GE
It is in the KJV --- the old one. The New KJV is a fraud. It lies. Ask yourself, Why? I'll tell you why. Because they do not want the Sabbath to receive its due honour of being the day of the resurrection of Jesus. They steal it for their idol Sunday.

IT IS IN THE GREEK.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Maybe the Lord is not wanting you to post some of your stuff?? Just a whimsical thought!

(Thought this one was worth three big grins!)

Ed

GE
I haven't got a sense of humour. So I can't be offended. I am offended by the serious people; the liars, cowards, frauds, translators, professor doctors - that lot.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed Sutton
"Yes, Matt. 28:1 is about the resurrection. No, the phrase "on the Sabbath" does not occur in Matt. 28:1, in the NKJV."

GE
The NKJV is a corruption of the Authorised King James Version. Put it back on your shelf and take it off only whan you want to investigate a fraud. Read the real KJV - it at least honestly tried to correctly render the Greek - like in MT28:1. It comes from Tyndale's translation - Tyndale who said may his part in Christ be taken away if he in one place translated against his conscience. I respect an honest man; I admire Tyndale greatly. He paid for his faith with his life. There is a man!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed Sutton
"If these are not 'allegations', what are they?? Your answer is lacking, a bit, IMO. Here's why: First, Justin (100-165 A. D.) lived his adult life in the middle of the Second Century, and was, along with Polycarp, Clement, Papias, and a handful of others, one of the earliest of the 'orthodox' (orthodox being a 'relative' term) church fathers. There are not a lot of prolific writers who precede him, hence, I do not find it all that strange that he would be referenced as the first to mention anything. But the implication of "ulterior motives" to some later, whom you referred to as "the learned"by saying "things (they) have thought better not to reveal in the smallest of detail", certainly implies subterfuge, in my book.

Once again, I will ask- How about a little evidence to support this implication?"

GE
The evidence you'll get right in Justin - whether you read him translated or in the Greek. He uses 'meta sabbaton' where Mt has 'sabbahtohn'; Justin has 'tehi miai hehmerai tou heliou; Mt has 'eis mian sabbahtohn' - the day 'hemeran' by ellipses, 'eis mian hehmeran sabbahtohn'. The NKJV is not even creative or original in its fraudulent 'translation' - it borrows from Justin Martyr --- while ignoring and rejecting Mt.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed Sutton
"Justin (100-165 A. D.) lived his adult life in the middle of the Second Century, and was, along with Polycarp, Clement, Papias, and a handful of others, one of the earliest of the 'orthodox' (orthodox being a 'relative' term) church fathers."

GE
That is very, 'relative'! Justin is suspected by many historians and theologians for various reasons of not being 'orthodox' at all. He also has very little in common with Polycarp and Papias. Yes, he is much like Clement. He wrote his Apologies to the Emperor in about 160 - soft-soaping compromising. Read them yourself and see it's true. He was a martyr, nevertheless, and I - for what it is worth or not worth anything - respect him for his sincerity and braveness in the sight of death. God is the Judge of all.

That gives me not the right to propagate his errors like the NKJV does.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed Sutton
"But the implication of "ulterior motives" to some later, whom you referred to as "the learned" by saying "things (they) have thought better not to reveal in the smallest of detail", certainly implies subterfuge, in my book."

GE
Justin had 'motives' which in my opinion was driven by the desire of compromise with the world - the rulers and authorities and powers of this world. Another word may be 'ulterior motives', sure. He also was opportunisitic and thought nothing of belittling the Jews and judge them unjustly to win favour with the powers that ruled the day. In my opinion that smacks of cowardice.