The Fourth Commandment

[Dr. Walter]

There is no possible way that the resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred in full daylight on the Jewish Sabbath. Mark 16:9 thoroughly repudiates that unbiblical suggestion. There is no way you can twist the Greek language in Mark 16:9 to say that - it is impossible.

He rose from the grave between 3am to 6 am. Sunday morning or "proii" on the first day of the week - Mk. 16:9

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.


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.


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.

 

[percho]

Dr Walter

Would this be a correct translation of Mark 16:9?

And he having risen in the morning of the first of the sabbaths did appear first to Mary the Magdalene out of whom he had cast seven demons Young's

Here is A. T. Robertson's comment on first part of Mark 16:9.

It is probable that this note of time goes with "risen" (anastav), though it makes good sense with "appeared"

I guess it could be twisted. Oh I left out the punctuation, I'll insert.

And he having risen, in the morning of the first of the sabbaths did appear, first to Mary the Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven demons;

 

[Dr. Walter]

What is unique about 16:9 is its wording compared to 16:2. In 16:2 it is "mia" with the plural sabbatwn however, in 16:9 it is "protos" with the singular sabbatou. The difference between "mia" versus "protos" is that "protos" signifies the "first" in a series whereas "mia" is simply the ordinal one. The 16:2 is the normal wording for "first of sabbaths" or the first day of the week but the 16:9 is unusual and it is my contention that Mark is first identifying the first day of the week in Mark 16:2 and then signfiying it as the first in a new series of Sabbaths in 16:9 that commemorate the resurrection of Christ. So with that in mind "proii" modifies the first day pinpointing the precise time the resurrection occurred on Sunday Morning as "proii" is also the technical expression for the fourth watch of the night and used that way by Christ in Mark 13:35. Hence, the resurrection occurred between 3am to 6am Sunday morning on the first of a new series of Sabbaths.

Dr Walter

Would this be a correct translation of Mark 16:9?

And he having risen in the morning of the first of the sabbaths did appear first to Mary the Magdalene out of whom he had cast seven demons Young's

Here is A. T. Robertson's comment on first part of Mark 16:9.

It is probable that this note of time goes with "risen" (anastav), though it makes good sense with "appeared"

I guess it could be twisted. Oh I left out the punctuation, I'll insert.

And he having risen, in the morning of the first of the sabbaths did appear, first to Mary the Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven demons;

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

...........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.

GE:
Praise the Lord!, this was EricB's conclusion: "Of course it's the same story; just different parts of it being told by each gospel writer." Only, every "part" is a story on its own of a VISIT at the tomb on its own!

And praise the Lord I admit this to what Eric be confesses being a BELIEVER of the Scriptures, and no "Bible skeptic"!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

..................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:
EricB, WHO deals fraudulantly with God's Word? They who at first translated it at the cost of their lives; or they who corrupt it at their convenience at the hand of present popular preference?

Take Col2:16. Paul says in 2:2 his purpose with writing is to COMFORT the believers in the Faith; Verse 16 supports Paul's intention and syas, "Don't you let anybody condemn / judge / damn you" because of your Sabbaths' Feast. The NEW translations say things like my Afrikaans 1983 version: Do not allow anyone PRESCRIBE TO YOU THAT YOU SHOULD KEEP THE SABBATH." I say it is blasphemy; taunting God in the face; ridiculing the authority of His Word.

Let me here repeat what I on every copy of my books declare on its back-page with Tyndale, "I pray God who alone knows the heart, beseeching Him that my part in the blood of Christ BE TAKEN FROM ME, if I wrote of all that I have written throughout all my books, aught of an evil purpose, aught of against my conscience, or to stir up a false doctrine or opinion in the Church of Christ. ..... As concerning all that I have translated ... I beseech all men to read it for that purpose I wrote it even to bring them to the knowledge of the Scripture. And as far as the Scripture approve it, so far to allow it; and if in any place the Word of God disallow it, then to refute it, as I do before our Saviour Christ and his Congregation."

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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")............................

GE:
I am arguing for multiple visits - not like you; but CONSISTENTLY.

aND YOU ARE RIGHT, mY whole concern is this "Sabbath/Sunday thing", and that is keeping my perspective straight.

I am arguing the "Sabbath's"-Resurrection, which requires and implies a THURSDAY-crucifixion which ANSWERS THE GOD-GIVEN AND THEREFORE ESCHATOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE WHOLENESS AND FULLNESS OF THE "three days" of "three days and three nights" "on the third day according to the Scriptures" of which, "Christ rose from the dead".

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dr Walter

Would this be a correct translation of Mark 16:9?

And he having risen in the morning of the first of the sabbaths did appear first to Mary the Magdalene out of whom he had cast seven demons Young's

Here is A. T. Robertson's comment on first part of Mark 16:9.

It is probable that this note of time goes with "risen" (anastav), though it makes good sense with "appeared"

I guess it could be twisted. Oh I left out the punctuation, I'll insert.

And he having risen, in the morning of the first of the sabbaths did appear, first to Mary the Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven demons;

GE
Percho, how right you are! For the second time this day, I say, praise the Lord!

This has been the question I now how many times put to Dr Walter and which he has so far answered by saying the Participle in principle is a Finite Verb, and the Verb, a Participle— DIRECTLY TWISTING ABOUT THE WRITTEN WORDS AND THEIR MEANINGS. You may even read Dr Walter doing this repeatedly over again on the last two pages.

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE
Percho, how right you are! For the second time this day, I say, praise the Lord!

This has been the question I now how many times put to Dr Walter and which he has so far answered by saying the Participle in principle is a Finite Verb, and the Verb, a Participle— DIRECTLY TWISTING ABOUT THE WRITTEN WORDS AND THEIR MEANINGS. You may even read Dr Walter doing this repeatedly over again on the last two pages.

As noted by A.T. Robertson the adverb "proii" CAN modify the participle "risen." Note both the aorist participle "risen" and the verb "appeared" are both in the aorist tense but with different subjects connected by the same time frame. Christ rose "proii" on the same Sunday Morning when he made his FIRST appearance to Mary.

According to your theory Christ rose mid afternoon Saturday and appeared to no one until Sunday. My position fits far better.

 

[percho]

As noted by A.T. Robertson the adverb "proii" CAN modify the participle "risen." Note both the aorist participle "risen" and the verb "appeared" are both in the aorist tense but with different subjects connected by the same time frame. Christ rose "proii" on the same Sunday Morning when he made his FIRST appearance to Mary.

According to your theory Christ rose mid afternoon Saturday and appeared to no one until Sunday. My position fits far better.

I know no Greek, and do not know what aorist tense means, however I agree that by the time of the appearance spoken of that Jesus the Christ had been raised from the grave. How long I do not know but I think twelve to fifteen hours.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I know no Greek, and do not know what aorist tense means, however I agree that by the time of the appearance spoken of that Jesus the Christ had been raised from the grave. How long I do not know but I think twelve to fifteen hours.

The common aorist tense relates the general time of both events - the first day of the week and common sense dictates that Jesus had to arise before appearing to Mary on the first day of the week.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I know no Greek, and do not know what aorist tense means, however I agree that by the time of the appearance spoken of that Jesus the Christ had been raised from the grave. How long I do not know but I think twelve to fifteen hours.

GE:

Percho, God give you strength in your conviction of the truth ON the truth!

Here is the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD:

Resurrection: "Late in the Sabbath, Sabbath's MID-AFTERNOON as it BEGAN, to dawn ("broad daylight MID-AFTERNOON") towards the First Day of the week .... WHEN SUDDENLY there was a great earthquake ...."

NEVER “LET MAN BEGUILE YOU OF YOUR REWARD!” (Col2:18).

First Appearance: "Early on the First Day of the week He, The Risen One, APPEARED to Mary Magdalene, first of all."

"This I say, lest any man BEGUILE you with ENTICING WORDS." Col2:4

"THEREFORE LET NO MAN INTIMIDATE AND INCRIMINATE YOU because of you eating and drinking (spiritually) of Christ's Feast of month's or of Sabbaths' (once or perpetually) which is but the shadow of things-a-coming, (viz.) The Body of Christ's Own .... holding to the Head .... NOURISHMENT BEING MINISTERED GROWING WITH THE GROWTH OF GOD."

"DO NOT BE BEGUILED OF YOUR REWARD!"

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

As noted by A.T. Robertson the adverb "proii" CAN modify the participle "risen." Note both the aorist participle "risen" and the verb "appeared" are both in the aorist tense but with different subjects connected by the same time frame. Christ rose "proii" on the same Sunday Morning when he made his FIRST appearance to Mary.

According to your theory Christ rose mid afternoon Saturday and appeared to no one until Sunday. My position fits far better.

GE:
A.T. Robertson is not infallible or super human; he had his prejudices and preferences (just like I have mine), and those could overrule even his good sense for Greek Grammar, like in this one of very rare instances. Again I must stress, that is said, on what you have ‘quoted’ from him. Kindly supply us with a full quote and source reference, so that we may all speak from the same information.

But this, this ‘backbush-rhetoric’ plumber ‘from South Africa’ can tell you and shall tell you and everyone in this world on strength of Mark 16:9 ITSELF and pure Greek Grammar found in any unbiased, disinterested linguistic authority, that “the adverb "proii"” _DOES NOT_ “modify the participle "risen"”, in this instance. But that the PARTICIPLE precisely for being an Aorist Participle, FUNCTIONS BOTH ADVERBIALLY AND ADJECTIVELY, virtually making of itself the SUBJECT, of the sentence and Predicate “appeared”— the Subject in this instance being, “He, The Risen One”. “He The Risen (Jesus Christ) early on the First Day of the week appeared”. This is the nearest Robertson could ever get to get the Participle to be 'modified' by the Adverb --- if he considered the Participle as the Subject - Jesus - who "early appeared The RISEN". Exactly what I say.

I can say this much without hesitation, because I know A.T. Robertson well enough to know that he would not make of an Aorist ---Ingressive and Constative ‘punctual’ Aspect INEVITABLY from its very nature _ALWAYS PAST_ ‘Tense’ (‘Perfect Past ‘Tense’!)--- a PRESENT Participle as though Jesus ‘was-rising-as-He-appeared-first-on-the-First-Day of the week to Mary’ --- which would have been untrue, plainly.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

There is no possible way that the resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred in full daylight on the Jewish Sabbath. Mark 16:9 thoroughly repudiates that unbiblical suggestion. There is no way you can twist the Greek language in Mark 16:9 to say that - it is impossible.

He rose from the grave between 3am to 6 am. Sunday morning or "proii" on the first day of the week - Mk. 16:9

GE:
I never said “Mark 16:9 to say …… that the resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred in full daylight on the … Sabbath”; I said Matthew 28:1 says that.

But I have now many times shown YOU, “it is impossible” the way you twist the Greek language in Mark 16:9 to say “He rose from the grave between 3am to 6 am. Sunday morning or "proii" on the first day of the week”.

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE:
I never said “Mark 16:9 to say …… that the resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred in full daylight on the … Sabbath”; I said Matthew 28:1 says that.

But I have now many times shown YOU, “it is impossible” the way you twist the Greek language in Mark 16:9 to say “He rose from the grave between 3am to 6 am. Sunday morning or "proii" on the first day of the week”.

Matthew 28:1 says no such thing. Your interpretation says that.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Who posted this? "Here is A. T. Robertson's comment on first part of Mark 16:9.

It is probable that this note of time goes with "risen" (anastav), though it makes good sense with "appeared""? I think it was Dr Walter.

Fine, whoever it was.... Dr Robertson did NOT say: 'It is probable that this note of time goes with "ROSE" (anastas), though it makes good sense with "appeared""'.

It makes good sense with both "appeared" and "RISEN" as Mark has it - as I explained in my previous post.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Matthew 28:1 says no such thing. Your interpretation says that.

GE:
'opse' - "late", "slow hours", "fullness";

'sabbatohn' - "Sabbath's", "of the Sabbath", "in the Sabbath", "Sabbath's-time";

'tehi epiphohskousehi' - "in the center - light - being"

'epi' - "very middle", "centre-inclining towards", 'emphatically over', 'on', 'upon';

'phohs' - "light", "day", "shine / shining";

'ousas' - "being", "while is", "actually is";

'ousehi' - "in the being", "while verily".

'sabbatohn tehi epiphohskousehi' "SABBTH'S in the being mid-afternoon";

'eis' - "towards", "beginning in the direction of", "before";

'mian (hehmeran)' "First Day" in itself being an Accusative: "towards the First Day";

'sabbatohn' - "of the week".


My 'interpretation'? Literal, dictionary, sterile 'Greek usage' rather, I would say please!

 

[Dr. Walter]

When he had risen early on the first day of the week (anastav prw prwth sabbatou). It is probable that this note of time goes with "risen" (anastav), though it makes good sense with "appeared" (efanh). Jesus is not mentioned by name here, though he is clearly the one meant. Mark uses mia in verse #Mr 16:2, but prwth in #Mr 14:12 and the plural sabbatwn in verse #Mr 16:2, though the singular here.

First (prwton). Definite statement that Jesus appeared (efanh) to Mary Magdalene first of all. The verb efanh (second aorist passive of fainw) is here alone of the Risen Christ (cf. eleiav efanh, #Lu 9:8), the usual verb being wfyh. {#Lu 24:34 1Co 15:5}

From whom (par hv). Only instance of para with the casting out of demons, ek being usual. {#Mr 1:25,26 5:8 7:26,29 9:25} ekbeblhkei is past perfect indicative without augment. This description of Mary Magdalene is like that in #Lu 8:2 and seems strange in Mark at this point, described as a new character here, though mentioned by Mark three times just before. {#Mr 15:40,47 16:1} The appearance to Mary Magdalene is given in full by #Joh 20:11-18. - A.T. Robertson on Mark 16:9

There is the full quote from A.T. Robertson as you asked.

The Expositors Greek New Testament says basically the same thing as A.T. Robertson. If it is so clear then why do the best Greek scholars say it is not so clear??????? Do you claim superior grammatical skills than Robertson or the Greek scholars that write the Expositors Greek New Testament????

Both the resurrection and the appearance occurred on Sunday Morning but the appearance to Mary was not "proii" as that is a technical term already used in Mark by Christ for the fourth watch (Mk. 13:35) and his appearance to Mary was not during the fourth watch. This means that "proii" modifies his resurrection and thus "But having risen early on the first day of the week..." is the correct translation in spite of what you allege to the contrary.

Moreover, this is the proper translation and understanding when all other Biblical data and post-Biblical data by those who knew the apostles is considered.

Dr. William Hendricksen a well know Greek scholar and commentator translates Matthew 28:1 as follows:

"Now after the sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week...."

The women would not begin their journey to the tomb DURING the Sabbath day but would wait until the Sabbath was past or "after the Sabbath" and they would not go to the tomb after 6 p.m. on Saturday night as it would be getting dark. They started out in the dark somewhere between 3am to 6am or "proii" and arrived at the tomb at the rising of the sun or as Matthew says at "dawn" or when "light was growing" brighter.

GE:
A.T. Robertson is not infallible or super human; he had his prejudices and preferences (just like I have mine), and those could overrule even his good sense for Greek Grammar, like in this one of very rare instances. Again I must stress, that is said, on what you have ‘quoted’ from him. Kindly supply us with a full quote and source reference, so that we may all speak from the same information.

But this, this ‘backbush-rhetoric’ plumber ‘from South Africa’ can tell you and shall tell you and everyone in this world on strength of Mark 16:9 ITSELF and pure Greek Grammar found in any unbiased, disinterested linguistic authority, that “the adverb "proii"” _DOES NOT_ “modify the participle "risen"”, in this instance. But that the PARTICIPLE precisely for being an Aorist Participle, FUNCTIONS BOTH ADVERBIALLY AND ADJECTIVELY, virtually making of itself the SUBJECT, of the sentence and Predicate “appeared”— the Subject in this instance being, “He, The Risen One”. “He The Risen (Jesus Christ) early on the First Day of the week appeared”. This is the nearest Robertson could ever get to get the Participle to be 'modified' by the Adverb --- if he considered the Participle as the Subject - Jesus - who "early appeared". Exactly what I say.

I can say this much without hesitation, because I know A.T. Robertson well enough to know that he would not make of an Aorist ---Ingressive and Constative ‘punctual’ Aspect INEVITABLY from its very nature _ALWAYS PAST_ ‘Tense’ (‘Perfect Past ‘Tense’!)--- a PRESENT Participle as though Jesus ‘was-rising-as-He-appeared-first-on-the-First-Day of the week to Mary’ --- which would have been untrue, plainly.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

.............According to your theory Christ rose mid afternoon Saturday and appeared to no one until Sunday. My position fits far better.

GE:
I am very happy with the fruits on my labour seen so far here, that Dr Walter understands just what I believe. I thought nobody ever would.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

When he had risen early on the first day of the week (anastav prw prwth sabbatou). It is probable that this note of time goes with "risen" (anastav), though it makes good sense with "appeared" (efanh). Jesus is not mentioned by name here, though he is clearly the one meant. Mark uses mia in verse #Mr 16:2, but prwth in #Mr 14:12 and the plural sabbatwn in verse #Mr 16:2, though the singular here.

First (prwton). Definite statement that Jesus appeared (efanh) to Mary Magdalene first of all. The verb efanh (second aorist passive of fainw) is here alone of the Risen Christ (cf. eleiav efanh, #Lu 9:8), the usual verb being wfyh. {#Lu 24:34 1Co 15:5}

From whom (par hv). Only instance of para with the casting out of demons, ek being usual. {#Mr 1:25,26 5:8 7:26,29 9:25} ekbeblhkei is past perfect indicative without augment. This description of Mary Magdalene is like that in #Lu 8:2 and seems strange in Mark at this point, described as a new character here, though mentioned by Mark three times just before. {#Mr 15:40,47 16:1} The appearance to Mary Magdalene is given in full by #Joh 20:11-18. - A.T. Robertson on Mark 16:9

There is the full quote from A.T. Robertson as you asked.............

GE:
Thank you very much. It helps a lot. Because here you can see for yourself the legitimacy of my induction Robertson’s ONLY possibility to have the Adverb “early” ‘modify’ (as Dr Walter puts it) the Participle “risen”, is to make the Participle the Subject. Robertson actually says – as we all now can see here – “Jesus is not mentioned by name here, though he is clearly the one meant.” “… the one meant”— “The Risen One meant”— the Subject meant! Did I contrive or invent or surmised? No! I simply kept to common-sense linguistics ANY unprejudiced human being MUST see and understand. It is for the love and worship of Sunday that people WON’T see or understand Jesus “APPEARED early as the risen one” and WON’T see or understand He ‘ROSE’ not “early”!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

...............Dr. William Hendricksen a well know Greek scholar and commentator translates Matthew 28:1 as follows:

"Now after the sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week....".................

GE:

By the way, Dr. William Hendricksen and all the host of well know Greek scholars and commentators translate Matthew 28:1 like that, simply PARROTING Justin Martyr. They don’t know it themselves even. The newies so INVENTED from pure prejudice against God’s since creation and for eternity chosen Sabbath Day.