• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Fourth Commandment

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr. Walter

New Member
Barnabas defines the resurrection day by several terms and then he directly says:

"Looking forward TO THIS, the prophet declared....."

The antecedent for "this" is the resurrection day just previously described in a number of ways. Then Barnabas goes right on to quote the prophet:

"'To the end, for the EIGHTH DAY,'"

And then Barnabas picks back up and says, "ON WHICH our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death WAS obtained IN CHRIST, ..."

The antecent for "ON WHICH" is "THE EIGHTH DAY" and it is therefore ON THE EIGHTH DAY that "our life" did TWO things; (1) "sprang up again" and (2) "the victory over death WAS obtained in Christ." The words "our life" refer to Jesus Christ as "our life." The connecting verb "was" demonstrates this is a past action and this past action was "obtained in Christ." In other words, Jesus Christ is "our life" because on the EIGHTH day he sprang up again and obtained victory over death. Barnabas is not talking about himself, he is not talking about Christians, he is talking about what happened on that new Sabbath morn when Christ arose again victorious over death on the EIGHTH day or the day AFTER the Jewish Seventh day Sabbath.



GE:
Dr Walter, please; just look at yourself writing here; you are doing it— exactly what I'm saying— automatically— you're not even AWARE you are doing it! And I, understand it; I have sympathy with it; because I have been through it, myself. You are saying: “Barnabas does in fact make a direct association between the "EIGHTH" day and the day Christ rose again with the resurrection of the "eighth" day. Indeed, that is his whole point!

WHERE IS BARNABAS TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK though? NOWHERE! BARNABAS SPEAKS WITH REFERENCE TO THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH!

The Sabbatharians (people like the SDAs and COG mob with spokesmen like the famous Dr Samuele Bacchiocchi— the whole bunch of Arminians) make capital of the identical same blunder the Sundaydarians make capital of for no one of them knowing at what advantage.
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
Re: DW, “The perfect participles may refer to actions that began prior to the stated day but they cannot be used to modify the stated day.

Yes. ‘Ehthroismenous’ in Luke— who mentions no ‘stated day’, refers to actions that began prior to when the disciples were “found” “being thrust in together still”. But we know Luke has the same evening “afterward / later”— that Mk16:14a and Jn20:19 refer to, in mind. If we put the various bits of information together, it follows ‘ehthroismenous’ indirectly ‘is used to modify the stated day’, viz., “IT BEING evening on that day with reference to the First Day of the week”.

The story of the Emmaus disciples serves as a good example of how we should understand the whole Gospel story. No Gospel paints the whole picture. They are like transparent pages each with its own detail, which when placed precisely on top of each other will give the full likeness. Or like a symphony or oratorio is composed with every instrument and voice, on separate bars.

I like to listen to the Gospels sung in melodious antiphonary refrained in wondrous harmonious counterpoint.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
Barnabas defines the resurrection day by several terms and then he directly says:

"Looking forward TO THIS, the prophet declared....."

The antecedent for "this" is the resurrection day just previously described in a number of ways. Then Barnabas goes right on to quote the prophet:

"'To the end, for the EIGHTH DAY,'"

And then Barnabas picks back up and says, "ON WHICH our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death WAS obtained IN CHRIST, ..."

The antecent for "ON WHICH" is "THE EIGHTH DAY" and it is therefore ON THE EIGHTH DAY that "our life" did TWO things; (1) "sprang up again" and (2) "the victory over death WAS obtained in Christ." The words "our life" refer to Jesus Christ as "our life." The connecting verb "was" demonstrates this is a past action and this past action was "obtained in Christ." In other words, Jesus Christ is "our life" because on the EIGHTH day he sprang up again and obtained victory over death. Barnabas is not talking about himself, he is not talking about Christians, he is talking about what happened on that new Sabbath morn when Christ arose again victorious over death on the EIGHTH day or the day AFTER the Jewish Seventh day Sabbath.


GE:
Dr Walter, you said everything so beautifully and, I am sure, just as Barnabas intended…. UNTIL you improvised your OWN ideas, and said, “
…….. on the EIGHTH day or the day AFTER the Jewish Seventh day Sabbath.


I believe Barnabas meant ….. on the EIGHTH day of the eschatological fulfillment of the Seventh Day Sabbath of the Old Testament.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dr. Walter

New Member
GE:
Dr Walter, you said everything so beautifully and, I am sure, just as Barnabas intended…. UNTIL you improvised your OWN ideas, and said, “

I believe Barnabas meant ….. on the EIGHTH day of the eschatological fulfillment of the Seventh Day Sabbath of the Old Testament.

I don't see how you can possibly argue that the EIGHTH DAY resurrection of Jesus Christ is being applied by Barnabas to the seventh day of the week when it cannot possibly be applied by Barnabas to the seventh thousand year day of his escatalogoical week but rather to the EIGHT thousand year day or the day following the seventh thousand year day of the eschatalogical week?????

Likewise, neither does he apply the EIGHTH day resurrection to the Seventh day of the week as that is oxymoronic. For your position to be correct he would have to be consistent and apply the EIGHTH escatalogical day to the seventh day of the eschatological week but he cleary does not as the EIGHTH eschatalogocial day COMES AFTER the seventh escatalogical day. The EIGHTH day resurrection of Christ occurs after the seventh day of the week JUST AS the EIGHTH eschactalogical day occurs after the seventh thousand day of the eschatalogical week.
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
I don't see how you can possibly argue that the EIGHTH DAY resurrection of Jesus Christ is being applied by Barnabas to the seventh day of the week when it cannot possibly be applied by Barnabas to the seventh thousand year day of his escatalogoical week but rather to the EIGHT thousand year day or the day following the seventh thousand year day of the eschatalogical week?????

Likewise, neither does he apply the EIGHTH day resurrection to the Seventh day of the week as that is oxymoronic. For your position to be correct he would have to be consistent and apply the EIGHTH escatalogical day to the seventh day of the eschatological week but he cleary does not as the EIGHTH eschatalogocial day COMES AFTER the seventh escatalogical day. The EIGHTH day resurrection of Christ occurs after the seventh day of the week JUST AS the EIGHTH eschactalogical day occurs after the seventh thousand day of the eschatalogical week.


GE:
Barnabas XIV
1…Let us see whether THE COVENANT WHICH God swore TO THE FATHERS (Abraham et al, XIII) to give to The People of God— whether God has given it. God HAS GIVEN IT. 2-3……. 4…Moses received it (from God) but they were not worthy.
NOW LEARN HOW WE, RECEIVED THE COVENANT:— Moses received the covenant when he, was (the) servant; but the LORD HIMSELF, gave it to US AS The People of the Inheritance, by having suffered for our sakes.
5…Thus it was shown that their tale of their sins should be completed in THEIR sins, and WE, through Jesus the Lord who inherited the Covenant, and deserved it; for He was prepared for this purpose that when HE appeared, He might redeem our hearts from darkness …. And by word of his own, might close covenant with us. For it is written that the Father enjoins on HIM, that HE, should redeem us from darkness and prepare a People for Himself.
7…The prophet therefore says, I the LORD thy God did call Thee in righteousness, and I will hold thy hands, and I will give Thee strength, and I will give THEE FOR A COVENENT OF THE People, for a Light to the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, and to bring forth from their fetters those that are bound and those that sit in darkness of the prison house.

We know then whence WE, have been redeemed!

8…Again the prophet says, Lo. I have made Thee a Light for the GENTILES, for Thee to be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. Thus saith the LORD the God who did redeem thee.
9…And again the prophet saith, The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, because He anointed Me to preach the Gospel of Grace (the New Covenant) to the humble. He sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim delivery to the captives, and sight to the blind; to announce (The) Acceptable Year to the LORD and (The) Day of Recompense to conform all who mourn.

Barnabas referring to Luke 4:14-31 and the whole chapter and the whole Gospel…. Continues:
XV
1…FURTHERMORE CONCERNING THE SABBATH it was written in the Ten Words …. And in another place, If my sons …. God speaks of the Sabbath at the beginning of the creation …. NOTICE WHAT IS THE MEANING” --- says Barnabas of this speaking of God “CONCERNING THE SABBATH”. “NOTICE WHAT IS THE MEANING OF, He made and END IN SIX DAYS? God means this: That the LORD made an end of everything in SIX” --- not, to quote Dr Walter, “the EIGHT thousand year day or the day following the seventh thousand year day of the eschatalogical week”.

Which is not the worst. What is worse, is Dr Walter relying so much on Barnabas in stead of the SCRIPTURES ONLY.


Barnabas XV.....
4....So then, in SIX days, that is, in SIX thousand years, EVERYTHING will be completed. 5...And God rested the Seventh Day" (Barnabas quoting Hb4:4) THIS (God's rest of the SEVENTH Day) MEANS: When God’s Son comes He will destroy the rule (or time) of the wicked one … and THEN He will TRULY rest the SEVENTH Day.”


6…If then anyone by being pure in heart has AT PRESENT, the power to keep holy THE DAY WHICH GOD MADE HOLY, we are altogether deceived. 7…Understand, that we shall ONLY keep it (the Seventh Day Sabbath) holy WHEN …. there is no more sin, and all things have been made new by the Lord : THEN we shall be able to keep it (THE DAY WHICH GOD MADE HOLY) holy.”

How much do I share the same sentiment!

So far Barnabas speaks of the ‘current’ and only Sabbath ever sanctified by God, the Seventh Day of the week. In these lines, Barnabas contemplates NO ‘eschatological’ or mystical ‘meaning’ of the Sabbath. He plainly speaks of the real thing according to the Scriptures, the Sabbath currently NOT being truly kept but on the new earth being recovered and properly kept ‘HOLY’.

Kirsopp Lake translates verse 7 wrongly, where he INSERTS the words, “We shall indeed keep it holy AT THAT TIME when we enjoy true rest”. Barnabas only wrote, “We shall indeed keep it holy WHEN we enjoy true rest …. WHEN all things have been made new” after Jesus has returned on the New Earth.

Barnabas --- just like Hebrews --- distinguishes the 'rest' and the 'sabbath' and does not identify or equalize them, even while he - unlike Hebrews - mystifies both.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
Only from verse 8 on, does Barnabas resume with mysticisms.

"God says to them (the Old Testament People of God) , I cannot stand your new moons and sabbaths! Do you understand what God SAYS? (Not “means”, K. Lake) As God says (Not “means”, K. Lake), the PRESENT (Seventh Day) Sabbaths (so profaned and desecrated by ‘you’ as in the foregoing verses God cannot stand them) ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ME! But that (Sabbath) which I, have made (Barnabas quoting from Mk2:27-28 i.a.) in which I will give rest to all things (Barnabas presupposing Ex20:10) and MAKE BEGINNING OF DAY EIGHT….” Barnabas for no moment presupposing another day than the SABBATH, being “made the beginning of an eighth day”— “of an eighth (mystical day) THAT IS the beginning of another WORLD (not of another day).”
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
No Comment ……

Barnabas XV.....
4....So then, in SIX days, that is, in SIX thousand years, EVERYTHING will be completed. 5...And God rested the Seventh Day" (Barnabas quoting Hb4:4) THIS (God's rest of the SEVENTH Day) MEANS: When God’s Son comes He will destroy the rule (or time) of the wicked one … and THEN He will TRULY rest the SEVENTH Day.”


“The last enemy destroyed is death …… Death is swallowed up in Victory" “Christ in it TRIUMPHED” : in and through and by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead : “Sabbath’s”!




 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
Re:
EB, “0 Women besides 2 Mary's and Salome prepare spices before the Sabbath”
GE:
No! Luke states “That Day was The Preparation and the Sabbath (Saturday) drew on. And the women WHO CAME WITH HIM FROM GALILEE also followed after (in the procession to the grave) and, looking into the sepulchre, watched while his body was laid (inside by Joseph and Nicodemus). And THEY, went home and prepared spices and ointments (before) they started to rest the Sabbath according to the (Fourth) Commandment.”
So,
1) they weren’t “women besides 2 Mary's”; they WERE, the “2 Mary's”! And
2) they weren’t “2 Mary's and Salome”; they were the “2 Mary's” ONLY.
Matthew 27:61 and Mark 15:47 NAMED THESE TWO, women AT THE BURIAL: “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses / the other Mary …. sitting over against the sepulchre …. saw where He was laid.”
They weren't the only women who followed Him from Galilee, and the Marys weren't the only women at the Burial.
If you try to make them all the same people every time "women" are mentioned, then you run into contradictions.
Re:
EB, “1 2 Mary's and Salome buy spices”
GE:
Yes! But when? You don’t say! But Mark 16:1 says it was, “When the Sabbath had gone through”— which is in the beginning of the First Day on ‘Saturday evening’.
The list I have there is in order, so 1 says who and what they did, and then 2 picks up with when it was ("at end of Sabbath/beginning of first day")

GE:
No! You have it completely wrong. Matthew 28:1 says “Late in the end of the Sabbath as daylight began to incline towards the First Day of the week (on ‘Saturday’) mid-afternoon Mary Magdalene and the other Mary set out to come TO LOOK at to the tomb when suddenly there was a great earthquake.” You cannot just ignore the intention of theses women “to come TO LOOK at to the tomb”, because it is important they did not finish what they “set out to” do. The “great earthquake” PREVENTED their visit TO, the tomb, “TO see”.
Part of my realization of this sequence was precisely this fact that they did not finish what they set out to do. Hence, multiple visits. My outline does not deny that. I'm using the King James Clarified version, and it says "SET OUT to come...". What I posted here was just the outline, if you go to the link, you can see the sequence with more details, and explanations.

Re:
EB, “3 Mary Magdalene gets there first, when it is yet dark”
GE:
Your fabricated illusion.
Re:
EB, “4 Earthquake, and angle rolls away stone”
GE:
Out of place, far behind schedule….
Re:
EB, “9 Mary returns from having gotten Peter, and weeps. By now, a second angel has joined the first, and then the risen Jesus makes his first appearance.”
GE:
Surmising, surmising….
You attack, but don't even show why.

Re:
EB, “5 Mary Magdalene sees stone rolled away and tells Peter, who comes with John and sees empty grave cloths, and both leave.”
GE:
When? You don’t say, but John says it was – literally – “while early darkness still”. Discussed above a lot! It was ‘Saturday evening’, dusk after sunset. Not “while DARK still” or Sunday ‘morning-dawn’ as tradition corrupted the truth.
Remember, it's all in sequence, so just look at the last and next time given you, and that gives you the time frame.
Sat evening when it just became dark would still be "First day of the week when it was YET dark". That's what the texts I'm using say. How you rendered it is probably correct, and would be another support for my premise. But I'm not using whatever translation or study tools you're using.
If you think I'm trying to argue for Sunday against the sabbath based on the resurrection; you're going after the wrong person. I believe the resurrection was on Saturday Nght according Roman and modern recokining, and the First Day according to Hebrew reckoning.

Re:
EB, “6 Other Mary and Salome arrive after the sun has risen, and find stone rolled away and single angel, still there.
7 he tells them Jesus has risen”
GE:
Contrary all facts of Scripture in John 20:1-2 or for that matter, in John 20 from verse 1 to the end!
Mary alone discovers the stone was rolled away from the tomb;
NO ‘Salome’,
NO ‘single angel’ nearby!
No ‘tells them’ anything!
Not “after the sun has risen”, but,
“while yet early darkness / dusk /evening”.
See above discussed thoroughly and strictly to what is written and to the chronology of events and the dictates of logic.
You're referring to John, but Salome is mentioned in Mark, and the single angel is in Matthew. In Mark, even though v.1 mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as byuing the spices with Salome, v.2 says only "they" came to the sepulchre.
The entire point here is that the different Gospels are reporting the account from totally different perspectives, and looking at different people. If you just look at just one gospel by itself to explain everything; you're missing the whole point.
If you insist that Mary Magdalene was present at every visit to the tomb, then you run into the contradiction of one angel or two. One angel appeared first, but Mary Magdalene had not seen inside the tomb yet. Other women were going to the tomb, in the meantime. By the time of Mary Magdalene's first visit to the tomb, a second angel has joined the first one.
Re:
EB, “8 But they run away afraid, and don't tell anyone.”
GE:
That was “very early dawn before sunrise” according to Mark 16:2-8; not John 20. And Mark gives NO names of women.
What are you talking about? Look at 16:1. You even cite it next.

Re:
EB, “10 She goes and tells the other women, who don't believe; except, apparently, for...
11 the other Mary and Salome, who NOW "depart with fear and joy and ran to bring His disciples word".”
GE:
You mix up no Scripture, “She goes and tells the other women”, Mk16:1 perhaps which mentions, “the other Mary and Salome” but not in these terms, and Mt28:8-10. The only thing seemingly correct is your supposition the other women (whoever they were) “depart(ed) with fear and joy and ran to bring His disciples word” WITHOUT Mary Magdalene.

It's not about 'mixing up' scripture; it's about harmonizing the four gospel accounts which means, in a way in which there are no contradictions.

Re:
EB, “12 They (the other Mary and Salome) tell them (His disciples), but they do not believe
13 Now, we pick up with Luke's account of the rest of the women, who did not believe Mary Magdalene. They now go to the tomb themselves, after all the others, but still "very early"; bringing the spices they had prepared before the Sabbath.”
GE:
It is the other way round!
Imagine the women after that they had discovered everything, that the tomb was opened, that the tomb was empty, even after that Jesus had appeared to them— according to you, EricB, “came with their spices prepared and ready… and entered the tomb … but his body they found not … and Him they saw not…” Lk24:1-3,22-24
You should BEGIN with Luke's account of ALL the women, who yet did not believe He rose, INCLUDING Mary Magdalene, because, so said Luke in verse 10! But all this confusion just because it is PRESUMED Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday morning!
And you should have ENDED with Matthew’s record of the angel’s witness about Jesus’ resurrection from 28:5 on, and Jesus’ subsequent second appearance, that, to the women OTHER THAN Mary Magdalene.

OK, again, you have to read the full text on the link. The "women who came with their spices" does NOT specify anyone! It is just "they", meaning a group of women. So it is “other“ women, who had prepared the spices, and didn‘t believe the Marys‘ report—#10. else, again, you run into the problem of how many angels were there.

Re:
EB, “14 They find the empty tomb.
15 They now see the two angels, who give them the message, which they run to tell the eleven.
16 Guards and Pharisees fabricate their “Passover plot” myth.
17 The OTHER of "the eleven disciples" goes up to Galilee
18 and assemble, with the doors closed, and Jesus appears to them”
GE:
Luke’s account does not say “they run to tell”; it describes how the women meditating over what Jesus had told his disciples, “returned from the sepulchre, and told them ALL THESE THINGS” which the two angels advised them to “remember”.
And then (next verse, 9) it says they went and told the eleven.

“Guards and Pharisees fabricate their “Passover plot” myth” not after Mary had seen the moved away stone – the first in the series of events of Saturday night – but after Jesus had appeared to the women without Mary Magdalene— after sunrise early Sunday, about the same time when the women were entering the city to go tell his disciples— the last in the series of events of that Saturday night and Sunday morning before and after sunrise.
They devise the scheme beforehand (Matt. 27:62-64), but then afterwards, they carry it out (28:11-15). That's what I was referring to.
 

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Eric B

If Jesus said that around the time of Passover in Jerusalem there are twelve hours of day then that must leave twelve hours of night and if Jesus said that the Son of man (meaning himself I think) would be in the heart of the earth (meaning the tomb I think) three days and three nights and he was put into that tomb moments before a new day began, Jewish time, would he not have to come forth from that tomb three days and three nights later moments before a new day began?
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
EricB:
Quote:
They weren't the only women who followed Him from Galilee, and the Marys weren't the only women at the Burial.
If you try to make them all the same people every time "women" are mentioned, then you run into contradictions.

GE:
EricB, you are the one who makes the women “all the same people every time "women" are mentioned”. I don’t; I say it’s the same women every time it’s the SAME EVENT, PLACE AND TIME which in this instance, was the Burial’s closing scene and directly after, the women WHO WERE THERE ’s preparation of spices mentioned by Luke.

Check this up: http://www.biblestudents.co.za/books/Book%201,%202%20Burial%20B.pdf TYPE IN IN THE 'FIND' BLOCK, 5.2.2.2.2.

I also quoted Matthew and Mark at the same or ‘parallel’ places. The women in that scene and at that occasion were those, the Scriptures MENTION; no more; none of women we wished were there. “It is written” or it is not!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
If Jesus said that around the time of Passover in Jerusalem there are twelve hours of day then that must leave twelve hours of night and if Jesus said that the Son of man (meaning himself I think) would be in the heart of the earth (meaning the tomb I think) three days and three nights and he was put into that tomb moments before a new day began, Jewish time, would he not have to come forth from that tomb three days and three nights later moments before a new day began?

GE:

Jesus said he would be in the HEART of the earth --- that is, that He would spiritually, consciously, LIVE and alive, taste and pass through hell's anguish of death. That He did in the first half of the first of the three days and for the whole of that "first day" which was the first of three of the three nights of the three days and three nights according to the prophet Jona. "In the heart of the earth" is not "in the earth" like in the grave simply. "In the heart of the earth" is what Christians confess in the Confession, "descended to hell" BEFORE Jesus died or was buried in the earth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
Quote:

EricB:

Part of my realization of this sequence was precisely this fact that they did not finish what they set out to do. Hence, multiple visits. My outline does not deny that. I'm using the King James Clarified version, and it says "SET OUT to come...". What I posted here was just the outline, if you go to the link, you can see the sequence with more details, and explanations.

GE:
It would be wonderful if we in fact agreed on this one point of “multiple visits”. Absolutely delightful! Because it is the KEY to prevent and exclude each and every of the infamous contradictions in the Gospels at this point.
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
Re:
EB, “5 Mary Magdalene sees stone rolled away and tells Peter, who comes with John and sees empty grave cloths, and both leave.”
GE:
When? You don’t say, but John says it was – literally – “while early darkness still”. Discussed above a lot! It was ‘Saturday evening’, dusk after sunset. Not “while DARK still” or Sunday ‘morning-dawn’ as tradition corrupted the truth.

Remember, it's all in sequence, so just look at the last and next time given you, and that gives you the time frame.
Sat evening when it just became dark would still be "First day of the week when it was YET dark". That's what the texts I'm using say. How you rendered it is probably correct, and would be another support for my premise. But I'm not using whatever translation or study tools you're using.
If you think I'm trying to argue for Sunday against the sabbath based on the resurrection; you're going after the wrong person. I believe the resurrection was on Saturday Nght according Roman and modern recokining, and the First Day according to Hebrew reckoning.

GE:
The textual sequence is not the same as the chronological sequence. Every Gospel writer or compiler chose which story or stories he was going to record. It is not simply a matter of ‘multiple visits’. Understanding without the contradictions requires one should SEE WHY one visit comes before or after another visit, logically, and, chronologically. Therefore one MUST look at the PRECISE time given in the Greek, at the nature of each visit and how it fits in the WHOLE picture without irreconcilabilities, and THAT, gives you the time frame.
Tradition says “First day of the week when it was YET dark” that is, morning— the opposite of your, correct but incomplete, "Sat evening when it just became dark”, and would NOT “still be "First day of the week when it was YET dark". That’s a clear opposite. The complete Greek is “When still EARLY darkness”— which can ONLY be "Sat evening when it just became dark”.
I don’t think you will find ONE ‘modern’ translation that will give you the FULL picture because they don’t desire it because they desire the Sunday to be the day of Jesus’ Resurrection.
“Saturday night” after sunset “Sat evening” is First Day of the week according to the Gospels; no two ways about it. But the Resurrection occurred LITERALLY AND PRECISELY “in the broad daylight being of Sabbath’s fullness towards the First Day of the week”. I say, LITERALLY AND PRECISELY according to Matthew 28:1 and— “according to the Scriptures” the rest of the Bible. On the Sabbath Day it was and COULD NOT BE on any other day or time. That is the Bible; not what I say. Because “On the Seventh Day God rested from ALL his works.” Hb4:4. “On the third day I FINISH”. God on the Seventh Day FINISHED, ON NO OTHER DAY. God finished “through the Son”, “in these last days”, once for ever establishing “The Lord’s Day”-Sabbath, “Sabbath of the LORD your God”. (Don't call it 'Saturday' because it's not Saturn's but God the LORD'S Day.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
Quote:
Re:
EB, “6 Other Mary and Salome arrive after the sun has risen, and find stone rolled away and single angel, still there.
7 he tells them Jesus has risen”
GE:
Contrary all facts of Scripture in John 20:1-2 or for that matter, in John 20 from verse 1 to the end!
Mary alone discovers the stone was rolled away from the tomb;
NO ‘Salome’,
NO ‘single angel’ nearby!
No ‘tells them’ anything!
Not “after the sun has risen”, but,
“while yet early darkness / dusk /evening”.
See above discussed thoroughly and strictly to what is written and to the chronology of events and the dictates of logic.

You're referring to John, but Salome is mentioned in Mark, and the single angel is in Matthew. In Mark, even though v.1 mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as byuing the spices with Salome, v.2 says only "they" came to the sepulchre.
The entire point here is that the different Gospels are reporting the account from totally different perspectives, and looking at different people. If you just look at just one gospel by itself to explain everything; you're missing the whole point.
If you insist that Mary Magdalene was present at every visit to the tomb, then you run into the contradiction of one angel or two. One angel appeared first, but Mary Magdalene had not seen inside the tomb yet. Other women were going to the tomb, in the meantime. By the time of Mary Magdalene's first visit to the tomb, a second angel has joined the first one.

GE:
Re: “You're referring to John, but Salome is mentioned in Mark, and the single angel is in Matthew.” So? I’m referring to JOHN; not mark or Matthew…. And I DON’T “just look at just one gospel by itself to explain everything”; goodness; haven’t you read my posts? You're missing the whole point.


“The entire point here”, IS NOT, “that the different Gospels are reporting the [SAME] account from totally different perspectives”; The entire point here is that the different Gospels are reporting DIFFERENT accounts of VISITS from exactly the same perspective of AFTER the Resurrection.

It’s because you are missing ‘my’ whole point here that you out of the blue make a statement like that I “insist that Mary Magdalene was present at every visit to the tomb”! Ridiculous! Go read what I wrote! At no less than two occasions I am the person who pointed out here, that it was Mary by herself.

And I NEVER “run into the contradiction of one angel or two” because I abide to the only possible successful ‘perspective’ of individual visits for every specific time-indication and every specific event and circumstance.

If you want to state your view then state it by itself. Don’t use mine as a fictitious convoluted negative of yours.

And if this, “One angel appeared first, but Mary Magdalene had not seen inside the tomb yet. Other women were going to the tomb, in the meantime. By the time of Mary Magdalene's first visit to the tomb, a second angel has joined the first one.” ...... is your analysis of events of the Saturday night and Sunday morning at the tomb, then supply the support-Scriptures….. which you never in your life will be able to supply, because every facet of your analysis and your thinking is contrary the Word and all logic and chronology— and very easily can be SEEN.

In plain language, you don’t know what you are talking, EricB, except that you have BEGUN to see the ‘perspective’ from various and separate visits at the tomb. Persist along that way and you will find that if you do it honestly, that you will end up explaining your WHOLE end-result with and in the words of the Scriptures purely.

Now PLEASE TEST my view given several times in this discussion to the exact same criteria which I have proposed for testing your analysis and see if we cannot find further common ground. But the way you carried on above I can tell you now it will never be found.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
Quote:
Re:
EB, “8 But they run away afraid, and don't tell anyone.”
GE:
That was “very early dawn before sunrise” according to Mark 16:2-8; not John 20. And Mark gives NO names of women.


What are you talking about? Look at 16:1. You even cite it next.

GE:
What are YOU talking about, EricB? Mark 16:1 is a ‘story’ on its own and totally by itself. It belongs with the ending in verse 47 of chapter 15 of Mark. Mark 15:47 tells what happened before the Sabbath on Friday afternoon --- see Lk23:54-56 --- and 16:1 tells what happened “after the Sabbath had gone through” ‘diagenomenou tou s.’ 16:1 is totally irrelevant to 16:2-8. It contains its OWN actors in the persons of the three mentioned women; its own time-adverbial clause; its own Predicate; its own sub-clause of explanation of INTENTION. And 2-8 is just as clearly a pericope all by itself which mentions a VISIT REALISED that both logically and chronologically can only fit in BETWEEN Luke 24:1-10 and BEFORE John 20:11-17.
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
EricB:
"OK, again, you have to read the full text on the link. The "women who came with their spices" does NOT specify anyone! It is just "they", meaning a group of women. So it is “other“ women, who had prepared the spices, and didn‘t believe the Marys‘ report—#10. else, again, you run into the problem of how many angels were there."


GE:
Re: “The "women who came with their spices" .... does NOT specify anyone!” I have told you, the women who it was in 24:1 are in fact mentioned ONE BY ONE in verse 10! And Mary is mentioned first in the row. Also see their report to the disciples referred to in verses 22-24.

But yes, you are correct that “it is “other“ women, who had prepared the spices”, because these women referred to by Luke in 23:55 are those mentioned by name by Mark and Matthew and they were ONLY THE TWO MARYS, Mk15:47 and Mt27:61. Don’t confuse them with the women who are mentioned in Mk15:40 and Mt27:56! And let me tell you the reason these two groups of women are always confused for the same group of women, because the Burial is always placed on the day of the Crucifixion incorrectly, while Crucifixion and Resurrection happened on subsequent days, and not on the same day! Mk15:42 Mt27:57 Lk23:50 Jn19:31,38.

Re: “and didn‘t believe the Marys‘ report” The spices were prepared after the Burial before the women “Started to rest the Sabbath” Lk23:54-56. No one at that stage have heard or disbelieved a report of Mary’s because no one even believed He would rise again (the next day). Also at this stage no one has seen any angel or angels yet. Therefore this is a senseless observation of yours.
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
Quote:
Re:
EB, “14 They find the empty tomb.
15 They now see the two angels, who give them the message, which they run to tell the eleven.
16 Guards and Pharisees fabricate their “Passover plot” myth.
17 The OTHER of "the eleven disciples" goes up to Galilee
18 and assemble, with the doors closed, and Jesus appears to them”
GE:
Luke’s account does not say “they run to tell”; it describes how the women meditating over what Jesus had told his disciples, “returned from the sepulchre, and told them ALL THESE THINGS” which the two angels advised them to “remember”.


EricB:
“And then (next verse, 9) it says they went and told the eleven.”
GE:
I deal with Luke; you throw in Matthew. It’s not the same story!
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
The Christian Sabbath is the first day of the week, Sunday, the Lord's Day, the resurrection day, the eighth day and there is overwhelming Old and New Testament as well as Post-Biblical but Pre-Constantine evidence to support this.

The Seventh day "of the week" Sabbatarians glory in a sabbath that commemorates a sin sick creation and fallen man and give God the LAST of the week whereas the First day of the week Sabbatarians give the FIRST of the week to God as the firstfruit of the week that commemorates the greater works of God - His redemptive work; the redeemed man, the new creation to come.

1. The fourth command never says "of the week"

2. The Creation sabbath never says "of the week"

3. The application of the Sabbath law EXCEEDS "the week" and that is precisely why it is never restricted to the words "of the week."

4. The fourt commandment is not restricted to commemorating the old creation but celebrates redemption of Christ in figure of redemption out of Egypt.

5. The feasts of Leviticus 23 and 25 are Messanic in character where the first, eight, fifthteenth and twenty-second days of the month take precedece over the sevent, fourteenth, twenty-first and twenty-eighth days of the month pointing to a new Sabbath day observance. It is the Jubilee or the EIGHTH year following the final Seven years of the 50 years that is the Jubilee or type of the eternal Sabbath (Rev. 21:1).

6. Psalms 118:20-24 is Messanic and is a contrast between what the Jews did to Christ - killing him versus what God did -raising him on the first day of the week and "this is the day" God has made to be observed as the new Sabbath for Christians.

7. The first day of the week (Mk. 16:2) is the first in a new series of sabbaths for Christians (Mk. 16:9).

8. The First day of the week is the first Sabbath day of worship when Jesus gathered together with the Church and preached to them (Jn. 20:1,19) and returned to preach to them again (Jn. 20:26).

9. The first day of the week is the day of worship on which the Holy Spirit came (Acts 2:1).

10. The First day of the week is when the churches assembled for worship (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:1-2).

11. The first day of the week is the new Sabbath day observance for the churches of God that celebrates a better creation, a better work of God than the old creation and typical redemption of Egypt (Heb. 4:1-11).

12. The first day of the week is the "Lord's Day" - Rev. 1:10.

13. The eighth day Sabbath is a type of the eighth thousand eternal day of the New creation yet to come AFTER the Seventh thousand year Millennium is finished - Rev. 21:1.

There is not one record of the churches worshipping on the Jewish Sabbath or Seventh day of the week - not one record.

Those who dispute this attempt to abuse the scriptures concerning Paul who went to the Jewish SYNOGUOGE to witnesss to LOST JEWS as this was his missionary practice. This was not the worship day of the church but the WITNESS DAY to the Jews as they gathered in the Synoguoge and allowed visiting rabbi's to speak and thus Paul a distinguished Jews Rabbi was permitted to speak NOT TO THE CHURCH but to the LOST JEWS not IN THE CHURCH but in the SYNOGUOGE.
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
You have not presented ONE ARGUMENT that cannot EASILY be interpreted in keeping with two visits to the tomb ON SUNDAY MORNING first by the women with Magdalen and then by the disciples with Magdalene.

Just give me ONE solid argument that cannot possibly be interpreted to harmonize with SUNDAY MORNING two visits!!


Re:
EB, “5 Mary Magdalene sees stone rolled away and tells Peter, who comes with John and sees empty grave cloths, and both leave.”
GE:
When? You don’t say, but John says it was – literally – “while early darkness still”. Discussed above a lot! It was ‘Saturday evening’, dusk after sunset. Not “while DARK still” or Sunday ‘morning-dawn’ as tradition corrupted the truth.

Remember, it's all in sequence, so just look at the last and next time given you, and that gives you the time frame.
Sat evening when it just became dark would still be "First day of the week when it was YET dark". That's what the texts I'm using say. How you rendered it is probably correct, and would be another support for my premise. But I'm not using whatever translation or study tools you're using.
If you think I'm trying to argue for Sunday against the sabbath based on the resurrection; you're going after the wrong person. I believe the resurrection was on Saturday Nght according Roman and modern recokining, and the First Day according to Hebrew reckoning.

GE:
The textual sequence is not the same as the chronological sequence. Every Gospel writer or compiler chose which story or stories he was going to record. It is not simply a matter of ‘multiple visits’. Understanding without the contradictions requires one should SEE WHY one visit comes before or after another visit, logically, and, chronologically. Therefore one MUST look at the PRECISE time given in the Greek, at the nature of each visit and how it fits in the WHOLE picture without irreconcilabilities, and THAT, gives you the time frame.
Tradition says “First day of the week when it was YET dark” that is, morning— the opposite of your, correct but incomplete, "Sat evening when it just became dark”, and would NOT “still be "First day of the week when it was YET dark". That’s a clear opposite. The complete Greek is “When still EARLY darkness”— which can ONLY be "Sat evening when it just became dark”.
I don’t think you will find ONE ‘modern’ translation that will give you the FULL picture because they don’t desire it because they desire the Sunday to be the day of Jesus’ Resurrection.
“Saturday night” after sunset “Sat evening” is First Day of the week according to the Gospels; no two ways about it. But the Resurrection occurred LITERALLY AND PRECISELY “in the broad daylight being of Sabbath’s fullness towards the First Day of the week”. I say, LITERALLY AND PRECISELY according to Matthew 28:1 and— “according to the Scriptures” the rest of the Bible. On the Sabbath Day it was and COULD NOT BE on any other day or time. That is the Bible; not what I say. Because “On the Seventh Day God rested from ALL his works.” Hb4:4. “On the third day I FINISH”. God on the Seventh Day FINISHED, ON NO OTHER DAY. God finished “through the Son”, “in these last days”, once for ever establishing “The Lord’s Day”-Sabbath, “Sabbath of the LORD your God”. (Don't call it 'Saturday' because it's not Saturn's but God the LORD'S Day.)
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
GE:
What are YOU talking about, EricB? Mark 16:1 is a ‘story’ on its own and totally by itself. It belongs with the ending in verse 47 of chapter 15 of Mark. Mark 15:47 tells what happened before the Sabbath on Friday afternoon --- see Lk23:54-56 --- and 16:1 tells what happened “after the Sabbath had gone through” ‘diagenomenou tou s.’ 16:1 is totally irrelevant to 16:2-8. It contains its OWN actors in the persons of the three mentioned women; its own time-adverbial clause; its own Predicate; its own sub-clause of explanation of INTENTION. And 2-8 is just as clearly a pericope all by itself which mentions a VISIT REALISED that both logically and chronologically can only fit in BETWEEN Luke 24:1-10 and BEFORE John 20:11-17.
GE:
EricB, you are the one who makes the women “all the same people every time "women" are mentioned”. I don’t; I say it’s the same women every time it’s the SAME EVENT, PLACE AND TIME which in this instance, was the Burial’s closing scene and directly after, the women WHO WERE THERE ’s preparation of spices mentioned by Luke.
Check this up: http://www.biblestudents.co.za/books/Book%201,%202%20Burial%20B.pdf TYPE IN IN THE 'FIND' BLOCK, 5.2.2.2.2.
I also quoted Matthew and Mark at the same or ‘parallel’ places. The women in that scene and at that occasion were those, the Scriptures MENTION; no more; none of women we wished were there. “It is written” or it is not!
GE:
It would be wonderful if we in fact agreed on this one point of “multiple visits”. Absolutely delightful! Because it is the KEY to prevent and exclude each and every of the infamous contradictions in the Gospels at this point.
“Saturday night” after sunset “Sat evening” is First Day of the week according to the Gospels; no two ways about it. But the Resurrection occurred LITERALLY AND PRECISELY “in the broad daylight being of Sabbath’s fullness towards the First Day of the week”.
GE:
Re: “You're referring to John, but Salome is mentioned in Mark, and the single angel is in Matthew.” So? I’m referring to JOHN; not mark or Matthew…. And I DON’T “just look at just one gospel by itself to explain everything”; goodness; haven’t you read my posts? You're missing the whole point.
“The entire point here”, IS NOT, “that the different Gospels are reporting the [SAME] account from totally different perspectives”; The entire point here is that the different Gospels are reporting DIFFERENT accounts of VISITS from exactly the same perspective of AFTER the Resurrection.
It’s because you are missing ‘my’ whole point here that you out of the blue make a statement like that I “insist that Mary Magdalene was present at every visit to the tomb”! Ridiculous! Go read what I wrote! At no less than two occasions I am the person who pointed out here, that it was Mary by herself.
And I NEVER “run into the contradiction of one angel or two” because I abide to the only possible successful ‘perspective’ of individual visits for every specific time-indication and every specific event and circumstance.
If you want to state your view then state it by itself. Don’t use mine as a fictitious convoluted negative of yours.
And if this, “One angel appeared first, but Mary Magdalene had not seen inside the tomb yet. Other women were going to the tomb, in the meantime. By the time of Mary Magdalene's first visit to the tomb, a second angel has joined the first one.” ...... is your analysis of events of the Saturday night and Sunday morning at the tomb, then supply the support-Scriptures….. which you never in your life will be able to supply, because every facet of your analysis and your thinking is contrary the Word and all logic and chronology— and very easily can be SEEN.
In plain language, you don’t know what you are talking, EricB, except that you have BEGUN to see the ‘perspective’ from various and separate visits at the tomb. Persist along that way and you will find that if you do it honestly, that you will end up explaining your WHOLE end-result with and in the words of the Scriptures purely.
Now PLEASE TEST my view given several times in this discussion to the exact same criteria which I have proposed for testing your analysis and see if we cannot find further common ground. But the way you carried on above I can tell you now it will never be found.
So you say you're arguing for multiple visits like me. So I don't understand your argument, then. Your whole agenda seems to be this whole Sabbath/Sunday thing, and that is skewing your perspective. I see you have the resurrection in "broad daylight" in the afternoon, now!

So you just go on the attack, and hence, in disputing what I said, it looked to me like you were trying to say Mary Magdalene was in every account, or that all the women were the same. Like you're disputing just to be disputing someone, and who knows what you're really even arguing for!
I forgot where you stood on this, and even now am not sure. Are you arguing the Wednesday crucifixion? Thursday? Traditional Friday, but with a Sabbath resurrection? (which really would be stretching it to be called "three days").

You may have some kind of point with the Greek, but then I have seen you (and others) use that method to completely change the meaning of various scriptures until they are unrecognizable (e.g. Col.2:6), and it gets to the point that you cannot know what anything in scripture means, even if you are a scholar, since anyone can twist even the Greek any way they want.

GE:
Re: “The "women who came with their spices" .... does NOT specify anyone!” I have told you, the women who it was in 24:1 are in fact mentioned ONE BY ONE in verse 10! And Mary is mentioned first in the row. Also see their report to the disciples referred to in verses 22-24.
v10 doesn't say that the two Mary's and Joanna were the ones mentioned in v. 1, it says they were the ones who went and told the eleven, along with the other women. The other women were the ones in v1. they at first didn't believe the Marys, but now they all did and went and told the eleven.

GE:
I deal with Luke; you throw in Matthew. It’s not the same story!
That's exactly what the Bible skeptics would like to believe. Of course it's the same story; just different parts of it being told by each gospel writer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top