In Heb. 4, the Sabbath points to rest,

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

No it does not mean that here. they came at the first appearing of light not the first disappearing of light on the first day of the week and opse means the very same thing here as in Mark 13:35 which is LATE AFTER the previous day as 6 pm to 9pm cannot be construed in any way shape or form to be inclusive of the Jewish day that began at 6 pm the following evening and terminated at 6 pm that evening.

<<No it (opse) does not mean that [“in the end(ing) of the Sabbath”] here. they came at the first appearing of light>>

~they came~--Who are ~they…here~? In Matthew 28:1, “they” are “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary”. None other nor Mary Magdalene on her own. Therefore, Here, in Matthew 28:1,2, the two Marys “set out TO go have a look at the grave WHEN SUDDENLY [kai idou] occurred a great earthquake” and nothing came of their plan “TO go have a look at the grave”. And therefore, the Biblicist alleging, <<they came at the first appearing of light>> in Matthew 28, is the Biblicist acting the Holy Spirit and Matthew while it is he, the Biblicist merely.

Therefore again is it the Biblicist, acting the Holy Spirit and Matthew rambling on, <<…they came at the first appearing of light not the first disappearing of light on the first day of the week…>>. Like no one but the Biblicist claims <<they came at the first appearing of light>>, just so, no one—certainly not GE— but the Biblicist himself, claimed ‘opse’ means or is <<the first disappearing of light>> or anything about <<on the first day of the week>>!

If ‘opse’ would have been <<on the first day of the week>>, Matthew would have written ‘opse Mias sabbatohn’ and not “opse Sabbatohn eis Mian sabbatohn”. Now because Matthew wrote “eis Mian sabbatohn” which means “time towards / before / against / approaching the First Day of the week”, such time of day “towards / before / against approaching the First Day of the week” in fact was, the time “OF the Sabbath Day…ON the Sabbath Day”.

“OF the Sabbath Day”—[‘Sabbatohn’—Genitive of Belonging] and “time of late on the Sabbat Day”—[opse de Sabbatohn]—“indeed Sabbath’s-time in fullness being in the very mid-declining daylight OF THE SABBATH”—[opse de Sabbatohn tehi epiphohskousehi]—“TOWARDS the First Day of the week” [eis Mian sabbatohn].

And therefore once again, the following,

No it does not mean that here. they came at the first appearing of light not the first disappearing of light on the first day of the week and opse means the very same thing here as in Mark 13:35 which is LATE AFTER the previous day as 6 pm to 9pm cannot be construed in any way shape or form to be inclusive of the Jewish day that began at 6 pm the following evening and terminated at 6 pm that evening

...is glaringly the self-contradictory nonsensical nonsense of plain and indisputable UNTRUTH.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

There is absolutely no scholarship to support this vain imagination. The text is clear that Jesus is speaking of FOUR different periods called watches in the night and and to interpret as you have done is inexcusable perversion of God's Word and you know it.

THE TEXT, THERE IT STANDS WRITTEN: "either on the one hand [eh] LATE (in day) [opse] or [eh] UNTIL middle-of-night [mesonukti-ON Accusative], or on the other hand [eh] cock crow (of night) [alektorophohni-AS Genitive] or [eh] early (of daylight) [prohї]."

There is absolutely no scholarship needed to support this Greek which is able to stand by itself. The text is clear that Jesus is speaking of four quarters of the WHOLE 24 hours day-cycle which are not ~called watches in the night~ and which are not limited to the night as you are doing.

I will make no excuses for the Greek Text or make a perversion of God's Word in the inexcusable way Sunday honouring scholars do.

 

[The Biblicist]

THE TEXT, THERE IT STANDS WRITTEN: "either on the one hand [eh] LATE (in day) [opse] or [eh] UNTIL middle-of-night [mesonukti-ON Accusative], or on the other hand [eh] cock crow (of night) [alektorophohni-AS Genitive] or [eh] early (of daylight) [prohї]."

There is absolutely no scholarship needed to support this Greek which is able to stand by itself. The text is clear that Jesus is speaking of four quarters of the WHOLE 24 hours day-cycle which are not ~called watches in the night~ and which are not limited to the night as you are doing.

I will make no excuses for the Greek Text or make a perversion of God's Word in the inexcusable way Sunday honouring scholars do.

Why is it that every commentator I read disagrees with you and says this refers to the night watches instead of four quarters of the day. WHO can you cite that verifies that Jews or Romans divided the day into four quarters under these headings???? NNE, that is who. You are stuck and too proud to admit your wrong.

 

[Yeshua1]

THE TEXT, THERE IT STANDS WRITTEN: "either on the one hand [eh] LATE (in day) [opse] or [eh] UNTIL middle-of-night [mesonukti-ON Accusative], or on the other hand [eh] cock crow (of night) [alektorophohni-AS Genitive] or [eh] early (of daylight) [prohї]."

There is absolutely no scholarship needed to support this Greek which is able to stand by itself. The text is clear that Jesus is speaking of four quarters of the WHOLE 24 hours day-cycle which are not ~called watches in the night~ and which are not limited to the night as you are doing.

I will make no excuses for the Greek Text or make a perversion of God's Word in the inexcusable way Sunday honouring scholars do.

You mean honoring Sunday as the new Sabbath day, as the Apostles and early Church did then?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Why is it that every commentator I read disagrees with you and says this refers to the night watches instead of four quarters of the day. WHO can you cite that verifies that Jews or Romans divided the day into four quarters under these headings???? Jews or Romans???? NONE, that is who. You are stuck and too proud to admit your wrong.

I have ~said~ many things that no ~commentator agrees on~ or has ever thought of even---many and absolutely crucial, ground-breaking and epoch-making, solid findings IN THE FACE OF ALL Christian scholarship, genuine as well as quasi!


What do I care for loathing-sweet peace-loving bias or gall bitter spite? It has been daily dose and rod whole my life.


I have seen enough of 'scholarship' to know it 99.99% is accumulating and arranging (and now and then perhaps analysing) what piers have had to say and have copied and pasted or plagiarised the one from the other for centuries on end ---in no 'field of science' more so than in the 'humanities', 'religion' specifically.


So, ~WHO can I cite who verifies that Jews or Romans divided the day into four quarters under these headings?~


You say it, ~NONE, that is who!~ Because I'm not seeking any and am not quoting from or referring to ~Jews or Romans~ or to ~scholars~ or ~commentators~ ; I've got nothing to do with either.


I am quoting, ~citing~ from and am referring to the True Witness of the New Testament, to Jesus The Word of God and the Holy Spirit who inspired Mark and Matthew to write WHAT THEY WROTE— WHO ONLY ~verifies~ that JESUS did not ~divide~ the day, but explained the whole day as the time the Master could ANY time-of-day, day or night, COME BACK, and catch the servants sleeping instead of working in the day-time as “to each He gave his work to do and the doorkeeper he commanded that he should watch” (Marshall) all day long.

In the case of Mark 13:35, therefore, I could find ~scholars~ or ~commentators~ in support if I looked for them, don’t you worry, but not that it would make any difference for it won’t!

How can I support what I oppose depending on co-labourers, except I became a favour begging bigot?