The Fourth Commandment

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

..............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:
"The women would not ...."; "they would not ...." while Matthew wrote "they began their journey" in the affirmative and Mark wrote "when the Sabbath was past they did go to buy ointments...." in the affirmative. Now what IS so difficult to understand or accept about that?

The women experienced NO difficulty when they have "started out in the dark somewhere between 3am to 6am", but it would be impossible for them to "begin their journey to the tomb DURING the Sabbath day" "IN THE BROAD DAYLIGHT"?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

.............. 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:
Dr Walter: “They started out in the dark somewhere between 3am to 6am or "proii"” --- meaning, Mark says in 16:9; and they, Dr Walter says, “arrived …. as Matthew says at "dawn" or when "light was growing" brighter”.

Now Mark in 16:9 did not write “they” – the Plural; he did not write anything about “started out” howsoever or about “arrived at the tomb” howsoever!

And Matthew in 28:1 did not write “arrived at the tomb”, or, “at "dawn" (like "proii"), or, “when "light was growing" brighter” in any manner!

But Matthew like LUKE in 23:54, wrote about the time of day that Joseph had closed the grave on Friday literally “mid-afternoon” (from ‘epiphohskoh’).

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE:
"The women would not ...."; "they would not ...." while Matthew wrote "they began their journey" in the affirmative and Mark wrote "when the Sabbath was past they did go to buy ointments...." in the affirmative. Now what IS so difficult to understand or accept about that?

The women experienced NO difficulty when they have "started out in the dark somewhere between 3am to 6am", but it would be impossible for them to "begin their journey to the tomb DURING the Sabbath day" "IN THE BROAD DAYLIGHT"?

Nothing is hard to understand about that but Mark also says that the women did not come to the tomb until Sunday morning (Mk. 16:2).

The point is that Saturday evening would be getting darker while Sunday morning would be getting lighter.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Mark 16:9b occurs after the women have told the disciples and the disciples return with Mary.

The term translated "dawn" in Matthew 28:1 can legitimately be understood as sunrise.

Furthermore the Jewish counsel did not place the resurrection in broad daylight or in the afternoon but:

Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. - Mt. 28:13

This would make no sense if it occurred in "broad daylight" but it would make perfect sense if it occurred early Sunday morning in the dark during 3am to 6am before Sunrise.

GE:
Dr Walter: “They started out in the dark somewhere between 3am to 6am or "proii"” --- meaning, Mark says in 16:9; and they, Dr Walter says, “arrived …. as Matthew says at "dawn" or when "light was growing" brighter”.

Now Mark in 16:9 did not write “they” – the Plural; he did not write anything about “started out” howsoever or about “arrived at the tomb” howsoever!

And Matthew in 28:1 did not write “arrived at the tomb”, or, “at "dawn" (like "proii"), or, “when "light was growing" brighter” in any manner!

But Matthew like LUKE in 23:54, wrote about the time of day that Joseph had closed the grave on Friday literally “mid-afternoon” (from ‘epiphohskoh’).

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Nothing is hard to understand about that but Mark also says that the women did not come to the tomb until Sunday morning (Mk. 16:2).................QUOTE]

GE:

GE:
'Sunday morning' as you say, 'the fourth watch' --- 3-4 am? Yes, because "VERY early", dawn before, "sunrise". 'lian proh-i anateilantos tou hehliou'. NOT simply 'early' which can be after sunrise as well.

And Mark did NOT say "the women did not come to the tomb until Sunday morning". Mark says they DID come (in verse 2) “very early”; that doesn’t mean they did not come even earlier than “the fourth watch”. They could have come and they in fact DID come in the THIRD watch, as Luke described it, “DEEP(est) morning”- ‘orthrou batheohs’. Because the women had to wait for the Roman GUARD who watched “until the third day” Jesus “spoke about while He lived” (‘Saturday’) would be over but a Roman soldier regarded as over only by midnight.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Mark 16:9b occurs after the women have told the disciples and the disciples return with Mary.....................

GE:
I think you meant to write Matthew 28:9ff. Even then, what the women were going to tell the disciples they still had to tell the disciples; not “after the women have told the disciples.

And nowhere in any Gospel do “the disciples”— the men, “return with Mary”. Least of all in John 20:1-10 because after “Mary Magdalene had had stood after at the grave” Jesus appeared to her, ALONE. So no men or women could have ‘returned with Mary’.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Mark 16:9b occurs after the women have told the disciples and the disciples return with Mary.

The term translated "dawn" in Matthew 28:1 can legitimately be understood as sunrise.

Furthermore the Jewish counsel did not place the resurrection in broad daylight or in the afternoon but:

Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. - Mt. 28:13

This would make no sense if it occurred in "broad daylight" but it would make perfect sense if it occurred early Sunday morning in the dark during 3am to 6am before Sunrise.

GE:

‘If’, two things:
1) If the literal and simplest and clearest reading (as dissected above) could be discarded with; and
2) If actual application in all of Greek literature from the classical times until the third century AD could be provided of either ‘opse’ or ‘epiphohskousas / -oh’ or ‘epousas’ or even only ‘epi’ could be presented used with the meaning of ‘up’ in stead of ‘over, onto’ etc or with the meaning of ‘new, up’ like in ‘ana-teilontas tou hehliou’ or ‘dia’ like in ‘dia-phohskoh’ …. EPIPHOSKOH “in Matthew 28:1 can legitimately be understood as sunrise” …. NEVER “dawn”, because “dawn” DOES NOT EXIST “in Matthew 28:1”.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Mark 16:9b occurs after the women have told the disciples and the disciples return with Mary.

The term translated "dawn" in Matthew 28:1 can legitimately be understood as sunrise.

Furthermore the Jewish counsel did not place the resurrection in broad daylight or in the afternoon but:

Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. - Mt. 28:13

This would make no sense if it occurred in "broad daylight" but it would make perfect sense if it occurred early Sunday morning in the dark during 3am to 6am before Sunrise.

GE:
And what would have made a difference? It would NEVER make sense because the whole story was a concocted lie. Why build an argument for the truth on a lie?

The “Jewish counsel did not place the resurrection” at all! They denied it until the last, even on Sunday morning when facing the guards, they and the Roman guard KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE RESURRECTION. Because the guards NEVER SAW the resurrection or dead men do see. “LIKE DEAD” without having ‘seen’ anything! Both the high priests and the guard were ABLE ONLY to speculate on what THEY thought was the TRUTH: “His disciples came by night, and stole him away.” The priests and the guard struck a deal: Guards, you LIE and say “we slept”; and we, give you large sum of money.

What sense would it make if the guards said they slept? Ja well, we were on guard during day of course! You thought a Roman guard would sleep on duty? I’ll cut your head off, man! No one ever would even think of accusing a Roman guard he slept on duty! But no one would ever think to argue with a Roman guard if he slept AFTER duty, either! So we watched the tomb our total watch, for three hours after the first watch clocked off duty until midnight. It was then, “by night” we tell you Jews, that his disciples came --- by night after midnight! --- and stole the body. Any objections we go to sleep after our watch?

Meantime the TRUTH was that these guards – 100 of them – “Late in the Sabbath mid-afternoon towards the First Day of the week when suddenly there was a great earthquake … for the brilliance of his appearance fell down like dead men” before the “approach” of “the angel of the Lord”.

Time and the elapse of time do not exist for unconscious like dead men. Next thing the guard knew was that the tomb was opened and empty. They had no clue how. Nobody was near the grave of course because everybody knew the guard was on duty until midnight and day for them would have ended. But Mary Magdalene, the guard regardless, “When being early darkness still comes and sees: The Stone! Taken away from the sepulchre! And runs, and tells Peter and (John).”

Now notice what Mary said: “THEY” – she must have thought the GUARD – “have taken him away”! Mary very well realized a Roman guard NEVER LEAVES POST. (She didn’t even think sleep on guard a possibility!) No, she thought the guard’s ORDERS MUST HAVE BEEN CHANGED because she expected the guard to have been on duty still “when being early darkness on the First Day of the week”. And that must be why Mary did not go nearer or into the tomb but straight away at the sight of the MOVED AWAY STONE, ran back. “THEY” could still have posted some guards INSIDE the tomb!

Then how is it possible the women can have the audacity to “come with spices prepared and ready” to anoint Him, “deepest morning”, according to Luke 24? Because they KNEW the specific ‘third day’ the guard was stationed, for them, expired at midnight, and so their watch. And like the guards for sure, also the women thinking the Lord was still dead, “came with their prepared spices ready” to salve the body which --- although Mary had told them of the opened tomb --- they must have thought was in the grave still. The guard on their part must have thought the disciples stole the body while they allegedly “slept” but were unconscious “like dead men”-- that, they would never admit to anyone, hey, would they?.

Every aspect points at a “broad daylight Sabbath’s Resurrection”— every word spoken by every character in the drama, every act of God, and every memory recorded by the ‘Evangelists’-- even Matthew's story of the guard and John's story of Mary coming after sunset and finding no guard.

 

[Dr. Walter]

They were placed at the disposal of the high preist and Sandhedrin and therefore was not accountable to their own command for this guard. Their own command could care less about this tomb and who was in it.

The only lie was that they were asleep. They were witnesses of the earthquake, the angels, the rock being rolled away. They were as "dead" men because they were frightened to death.

The time they lied about sleeping was not the broad day light because that would not harmonize with their lie that the disciples came by "night" and took him. The tomb was guarded during the "night" and so any charge that the body was stolen during the "night" would equally incriminate them whether they were sleeping or not sleeping. However, they were sleeping at the time they purported the body was stolen -"NIGHT"

Your theory makes absolutely nonsense! You don't say you were asleep in the DAY TIME but charge that the body was stolen at "NIGHT." What correlation does that have in anyone's brain?????? Put yourself in their place. Does it sound very convincing as an excuse to say his body was stolen "by night" when you were sleeping by day???????????? What correlation would your excuse have with that action by night????????? Nonsense!!!!!!!

He arose between 3am to 6am during the darkness of "proii"

Matthew 28:1 and the Greek term translated "dawn" can mean at the rising of the Sun becuase the term literaly means "light growing" not light "decreasing." Hence, the women may have bought their spices after 6 pm on Saturday night but they did not come to the grave until "after" the Sabbath was past and in the "proii" Sunday morning "at sunrise."

GE:
And what would have made a difference? It would NEVER make sense because the whole story was a concocted lie. Why build an argument for the truth on a lie?

The “Jewish counsel did not place the resurrection” at all! They denied it until the last, even on Sunday morning when facing the guards, they and the Roman guard KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE RESURRECTION. Because the guards NEVER SAW the resurrection or dead men do see. “LIKE DEAD” without having ‘seen’ anything! Both the high priests and the guard were ABLE ONLY to speculate on what THEY thought was the TRUTH: “His disciples came by night, and stole him away.” The priests and the guard struck a deal: Guards, you LIE and say “we slept”; and we, give you large sum of money.

What sense would it make if the guards said they slept? Ja well, we were on guard during day of course! You thought a Roman guard would sleep on duty? I’ll cut your head off, man! No one ever would even think of accusing a Roman guard he slept on duty! But no one would ever think to argue with a Roman guard if he slept AFTER duty, either! So we watched the tomb our total watch, for three hours after the first watch clocked off duty until midnight. It was then, “by night” we tell you Jews, that his disciples came --- by night after midnight! --- and stole the body. Any objections we go to sleep after our watch?

Meantime the TRUTH was that these guards – 100 of them – “Late in the Sabbath mid-afternoon towards the First Day of the week when suddenly there was a great earthquake … for the brilliance of his appearance fell down like dead men” before the “approach” of “the angel of the Lord”.

Time and the elapse of time do not exist for unconscious like dead men. Next thing the guard knew was that the tomb was opened and empty. They had no clue how. Nobody was near the grave of course because everybody knew the guard was on duty until midnight and that day for them would have ended. But Mary Magdalene, the guard regardless, “When being early darkness still comes and sees: The Stone! Taken away from the sepulchre! And runs, and tells Peter and (John).”

Now notice what Mary said: “THEY” – she must have thought the GUARD – “have taken him away”! Mary very well realized a Roman guard NEVER LEAVES POST. (She didn’t even think sleep on guard a possibility!) No, she thought the guard’s ORDERS MUST HAVE BEEN CHANGED because she expected the guard to have been on duty still “when being early darkness on the First Day of the week”. And that must be why Mary did not go nearer or into the tomb but straight away at the sight of the MOVED AWAY STONE, ran back. “THEY” could still have posted some guards INSIDE the tomb!

Then how is it possible the women can have the audacity to “come with spices prepared and ready” to anoint Him, “deepest morning”, according to Luke 24? Because they KNEW the specific ‘third day’ the guard was stationed, for them, expired at midnight, and so their watch. And like the guards for sure, also the women thinking the Lord was still dead, “came with their prepared spices ready” to salve the body which --- although Mary had told them of the opened tomb --- they must have thought was in the grave still. The guard on their part must have thought the disciples stole the body while they allegedly “slept” but were unconscious “like dead men”-- that, they would never admit to anyone, hey, would they?.

Every aspect points at a “broad daylight Sabbath’s Resurrection”— every word spoken by every character in the drama, every act of God, and every memory recorded by the ‘Evangelists’.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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.

GE:

First, NO “common aorist tense” is anywhere Finitely or Indicatively directly ‘related’ to the Resurrection. The Resurrection as such or its occurrence in word of Verb, occurs nowhere in the Gospels. The Resurrection further, ONLY in Matthew, is per se, IMPLIED, in relation to its CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE through time-indications and actual events of the great earthquake and the approach of the angel who rolled away the door-stone.

“SABBATH’S” is the ‘common sense dictating’ event– and time-relating word of the Resurrection. “Late” and “broad daylight” – ‘opse’ and ‘ tehi epiphohskousehi’ are found in apposition or additional ‘relation’ to “Sabbath’s”; while “towards the First Day of the week” – ‘eis mian (hehmeran) sabbatohn’ is found in juxtaposition or opposite ‘relation’ to “Sabbath’s”.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Come on Gerhard you are supposed to know Greek. The terms translated "risen" and "appeared" in Mark 16:9 are both AORIST in tense. So don't tell us there is no Aorist in relationship to his resurrection found in Mark 16:9 or to his appearance to Mary in Mark 16:9

1. "risen" - second Aorist active participle (participle = VERBAL adjective)
2. "appeared" - second Aorist active indicative

The KJV translators, A.T. Robertson, The Greek scholars in the Expositors Greek New Testament don't demand your interpretation of Mark 16:9 and I think I will take their side of this issue.

Dr. William Hendricksen a well known Greek Scholar who has written a massive set of commentaries on the Greek New Testament disagrees with your Matthew 28:1 interpretation. I will side with him.

Your argument about the soldiers makes perfect nonsense, violates your own chronological interpretation and fits perfectly with my interpretation of all the above. I don't think I have any reason to move.

GE:

First, NO “common aorist tense” is anywhere Finitely or Indicatively directly ‘related’ to the Resurrection. The Resurrection as such or its occurrence in word of Verb, occurs nowhere in the Gospels. The Resurrection further, ONLY in Matthew, is per se, IMPLIED, in relation to its CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE through time-indications and actual events of the great earthquake and the approach of the angel who rolled away the door-stone.

“SABBATH’S” is the ‘common sense dictating’ event– and time-relating word of the Resurrection. “Late” and “broad daylight” – ‘opse’ and ‘ tehi epiphohskousehi’ are found in apposition or additional ‘relation’ to “Sabbath’s”; while “towards the First Day of the week” – ‘eis mian (hehmeran) sabbatohn’ is found in juxtaposition or opposite ‘relation’ to “Sabbath’s”.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Talmud

The Talmud has two divisions, the Mishnah is the first division believed to be put into writing about 200 A.D. and the second division is the Gemara written about 500 A.D.

J.B. Lightfoot a respected Greek scholar and Jewish authority of days past says this concerning the talmud's view of what Christians observed as their Sabbath:

The first day of the week, which is now changed into the sabbath or Lord’s day, the Talmudists call the Christians’, or the Christian day: On the Christians’ day it is always forbidden for a Jew to traffic with a Christian. Where the Gloss saith thus: A Nazarene or Christian is he who followeth the error of the man who commanded them "to make the first day of the week a festival day to him: and according to the words of Ismael, it is always unlawful to traffic with them three days before that day and three days after; that is, not at all the week through."

Hence, even the Jews living during this era recognized Christians called the first day of the week the "Lord's day"and "sabbath."

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Come on Gerhard you are supposed to know Greek. The terms translated "risen" and "appeared" in Mark 16:9 are both AORIST in tense. So don't tell us there is no Aorist in relationship to his resurrection found in Mark 16:9 or to his appearance to Mary in Mark 16:9

1. "risen" - second Aorist active participle (participle = VERBAL adjective)
2. "appeared" - second Aorist active indicative .................

GE:
I never said what you say I said. You do not pay attention to two specific words I used to make clear what the Gospels do not use, "Finite" and "Indicative" Verbs. I said NOTHING about the Aorist being used or not being used.

A Participle is NO VERB! A Participle is an Adjectival and Adverbial Functional word-Form that -- in this case, 'anastas' – describes :

1) through its Adverbial aspect, how the subject "APPEARED"- 'ephaneh' : "risen, He APPEARED”; and,
2) through its Adjectival aspect, how the SUBJECT, "appeared" : "AS THE RISEN, he appeared”.

That is why the flexion or conjugation of the Participle --- UNLIKE a Verb’s --- is BOTH to Gender and Tense.

 

[Dr. Walter]

A participle is a VERBAL adjective and can be used as a verb. However, only a regular verb has Indicative mood. However, the main verb in a sentence determines the time of action in participles used in the same sentence. If the main verb is Aorist and the participle is Aorist that means the action of the participle preceded the action of the main verb. Both events occurred on the first day of the week but the action of the participle "risen" occurred prior to the action of the main verb "appeared" on that same day.

I never paid any attention to the word "finite" and "indicative" because those are characteristics for conjugating verbs not partciples. However, you are wrong that a participle is not considered and cannot be used as a VERB as it is by definition a VERBAL ADJECTIVE. It has a wide variety of possible functions from a substantive noun to an adjective, adverbial and verbal.

GE:
I never said what you say I said. You do not pay attention to two specific words I used to make clear what the Gospels do not use, "Finite" and "Indicative" Verbs.

A Participle is NO VERB! A Participle is an Adjectival and Adverbial Functional word-Form that -- in this case, 'anastas' – describes :

1) through its Adverbial aspect, how the subject "APPEARED"- 'ephaneh' : "risen, He APPEARED”; and,
2) through its Adjectival aspect, how the SUBJECT, "appeared" : "AS THE RISEN, he appeared”.

That is why the flexion of the Participle --- UNLIKE a Verb’s --- is BOTH to Gender and Tense.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The Talmud has two divisions, the Mishnah is the first division believed to be put into writing about 200 A.D. and the second division is the Gemara written about 500 A.D.

J.B. Lightfoot a respected Greek scholar and Jewish authority of days past says this concerning the talmud's view of what Christians observed as their Sabbath:

The first day of the week, which is now changed into the sabbath or Lord’s day, the Talmudists call the Christians’, or the Christian day: On the Christians’ day it is always forbidden for a Jew to traffic with a Christian. Where the Gloss saith thus: A Nazarene or Christian is he who followeth the error of the man who commanded them "to make the first day of the week a festival day to him: and according to the words of Ismael, it is always unlawful to traffic with them three days before that day and three days after; that is, not at all the week through."

Hence, even the Jews living during this era recognized Christians called the first day of the week the "Lord's day"and "sabbath."

GE:
At least half a millennium in between John's use of 'kyriakeh hehmera'- 'Lord's Day' and them Jews. What has it got to do with the price of eggs?, as we say in Afrikaans.

And while you supplied us with this reference of Lightfoot to them, do I not notice satire somewhere?, them Jews ridiculing them Christians for having believed the Messiah would rise on the First Day of the week?, whereas instead, them Jews very well knew the Messiah would appear on the Sabbath Day?

Just asking.

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE:
At least half a millennium in between John's use of 'kyriakeh hehmera'- 'Lord's Day' and them Jews. What has it got to do with the price of eggs?, as we say in Afrikaans.

And while you supplied us with this reference of Lightfoot to them, do I not notice satire somewhere?, them Jews ridiculing them Christians for having believed the Messiah would rise on the First Day of the week?, whereas instead, them Jews very well knew the Messiah would appear on the Sabbath Day?

Just asking.

You talking about reading something that cannot be found or even hinted at in a quotation, well, you take the cake Gerhard! What they are rediculing is the Christians observing the first day of the Week as their Sabbath and forbidding their people to associate with Christians because they do not recognize the Jewish Sabbath as the Lord's Day.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

A participle is a VERBAL adjective and can be used as a verb. ..............QUOTE]

GE:
A participle is ALSO a verbal ADJECTIVE! and can ONLY be 'used' or 'interpreted' or 'translated' 'AS-a-Noun'-- as it can ONLY be 'used' or 'interpreted' or 'translated' 'AS-a-Verb'. It remains a Participle though and IS NO Verb or Noun EVER!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

A participle is a VERBAL adjective and can be used as a verb. However, only a regular verb has Indicative mood. However, the main verb in a sentence determines the time of action in participles used in the same sentence. If the main verb is Aorist and the participle is Aorist that means the action of the participle preceded the action of the main verb. Both events occurred on the first day of the week but the action of the participle "risen" occurred prior to the action of the main verb "appeared" on that same day. .....................

GE:
“….. the main verb in a sentence determines the time of action in participles used in the same sentence. If the main verb is Aorist and the participle is Aorist that means the action of the participle preceded the action of the main verb……” Well isn’t that what I maintain? Only difference is OUR different points of view of the action presupposed. I maintain it is the WRITER who uses the Aorist as a communication tool with his readers; he tells a story as it happened IN THE PAST. From the viewpoint of the writer both the Appearance and the Resurrection happened in the past. The ‘Constative Aorist’ “best rendered with an English Past Perfect” (according to Dana and Mantey).

But there is another difference between what you aver, and what I maintain, here. And that is, that you aver, “the main verb in a sentence determines the time of action in participles used in the same sentence”, which simply is not only nonsense, but untrue. The Participle is constituted of its OWN determination of its built-in time-element. What do you think the Participle in Mk16:9 is in the Aorist for? But the fact you maintain a simultaneous time for both the Participle and Verb, requires – in fact demands – a Present Participle in the Greek! So you are not only talking nonsense; you are actually contradicting yourself by maintaining the Verb of the sentence determines the time of action presupposed in a Participle used in the same sentence. It also demands Mary actually saw Jesus rise!

Yours is a totally unwarranted assertion, “Both events occurred on the first day of the week”. The very LOGIC of the sentence is “the action of the participle "risen" occurred prior to the action of the main verb "appeared" ” FULL STOP! To add “on that same day” is a long chance you take, dear Dr Walter! The Aorist of the sentence DOES NOT determine the time of action in the Participle “risen”- ‘anastas’. The time of action presupposed in it must and is determined ONLY by obtaining the FULL picture from ALL the Gospels, so that it becomes clear Matthew is the only Gospel that actually GIVES the “time-of-action” of the Resurrection : "Sabbath's ripeness of day mid-afternoon".

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You talking about reading something that cannot be found or even hinted at in a quotation, well, you take the cake Gerhard! What they are rediculing is the Christians observing the first day of the Week as their Sabbath and forbidding their people to associate with Christians because they do not recognize the Jewish Sabbath as the Lord's Day.

GE:
Alright! Alright! I back off on this one .... was just asking, remember?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Both occurred on the same day but both did not occur the same time on the same day. If both occurred the same time on the same day then that would call for the present tense participle as you say. However, it is Aorist participle because it is a prior action to the appearance but both on the same day.

GE:
[SIZE=3 But the fact you maintain a simultaneous time for both the Participle and Verb, requires – in fact demands – a Present Participle in the Greek! So you are not only talking nonsense; you are actually contradicting yourself by maintaining the Verb of the sentence determines the time of action presupposed in a Participle used in the same sentence. It also demands Mary actually saw Jesus rise![/SIZE]

Yours is a totally unwarranted assertion, “Both events occurred on the first day of the week”. The very LOGIC of the sentence is “the action of the participle "risen" occurred prior to the action of the main verb "appeared" ” FULL STOP! To add “on that same day” is a long chance you take, dear Dr Walter! The Aorist of the sentence DOES NOT determine the time of action in the Participle “risen”- ‘anastas’. The time of action presupposed in it must and is determined ONLY by obtaining the FULL picture from ALL the Gospels, so that it becomes clear Matthew is the only Gospel that actually GIVES the “time-of-action” of the Resurrection : "Sabbath's ripeness of day mid-afternoon".