The Fourth Commandment

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dr Walter
I believe you are wrong in what you say above on several counts. John 20:19 and Acts 20:7 are not the only references to the church meeting on the Lord's Day - Sunday. In addition to those quotations are John 20:29; Acts 2:1 and 1 Cor. 16:1-2.

GE:
“....quotations….”? “…. references to the church meeting on the Lord's Day - Sunday ….”? “John 20:19”?

“John 20:19”— “Being evening on that day the First Day of the week referring, where the disciples were Jesus came and stood between them, He SAID to them ….”

Where is the disciples’ action – their action of “meeting”? There is absolutely NO action of the disciples’, except their passively having ‘been there’. In other words, John records Jesus’ action – not the disciples’; and he uses the clause “where the disciples were” as Adverbial Clause of Place and Time to tell where and when it was that “Jesus came and stood between them ….”— Jesus is the Subject of the main Verb of the Sentence. The ‘action’, was Jesus’— not the disciples’. To ‘interpret’, ‘the CHURCH met on the Lord's Day – Sunday’, is deceitful untruth.

The disciples on ‘Sunday’, from Jerusalem to Emmaus AND back to Jerusalem, all day long AND after, “because they believed not, walked into the country” Mk16:11-12. From “the darkest morning” Lk24:22, when they had received confirmation that the body was gone – Lk24:24 – until where “they found the eleven STILL crammed in” Lk24:33 the following night “STILL”, ‘the Church’, for “their hardness of heart and unbelief” Mk16:14, just “walked” in disbelief and rebellion. They “walked” when Jesus caught up with them; and they kept on ‘walking’ in unbelief. Not before “He was received up into heaven” and another ten days of waiting, did ‘the Church’, “go forth and preached everywhere and at every opportunity” (‘pantaxou’), “the Lord WITH them WORKING”, Mk16:19-20.

Now Paul is saying in Colossians 2, “That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding …. This I say lest any man should beguile you with enticing words …. of your Reward …. DO NOT YOU LET YOURSELVES BE JUDGED AND CONDEMNED BY ANYONE WITH REGARD TO YOUR EATING AND DRINKING OF SABBATHS’-FEAST” on Christ and in Christ, “…. and holding to the HEAD from which all the Body (‘the Church’) by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.”

Dr Walter, please supply us with only ONE such example of the Apostolic Church celebrating ‘Sunday’?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

..... What if verse 26 had said; "And after one day, His disciples were again inside..."? To what day would that be referring?

GE:
Yes!
"....being seen of them FORTY DAYS speaking in fact of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" means EVERY ONE OF the forty days the first, First Day of the week included. Jesus skipped NO day to appear to the disciples and teach them between his Resurrection and Ascension. Only a few instances of these were - at random - recorded, however.

 

[Dr. Walter]

What STRANGE translation are you quoting from? Whatever translation it is, it is completely biased rather than objective in how it handles the Greek text.

The Apostles were saved people from the baptism of John (Acts 1:21-22) and confessors of Christ (Matthew 15, 16:17) in keeping with progressive gospel of the Old Testament (Acts 10:43). The proclamation of the cross and death and resurrection of Christ is the final completion of what was progressive in revelation previous to the cross. It is this completion that Jesus emphasized and taught the two on the road to Emmaeus as well as the apostles on the first Lord's Day service.

If you will take a look at Luke 24:36-48 you will see the first Lord's day worship service of the church began when the head of the Church entered in among them and broke the word of God to them. He established church service that time and from that point out (John 20:26; Acts 1:4; 15-27; 2:1) it was the habitual day of worship.

Dr Walter
I believe you are wrong in what you say above on several counts. John 20:19 and Acts 20:7 are not the only references to the church meeting on the Lord's Day - Sunday. In addition to those quotations are John 20:29; Acts 2:1 and 1 Cor. 16:1-2.

GE:
“....quotations….”? “…. references to the church meeting on the Lord's Day - Sunday ….”? “John 20:19”?

“John 20:19”— “Being evening on that day the First Day of the week referring, where the disciples were Jesus came and stood between them, He SAID to them ….”

Where is the disciples’ action – their action of “meeting”? There is absolutely NO action of the disciples’, except their passively having ‘been there’. In other words, John records Jesus’ action – not the disciples’; and he uses the clause “where the disciples were” as Adverbial Clause of Place and Time to tell where and when it was that “Jesus came and stood between them ….”— Jesus is the Subject of the main Verb of the Sentence. The ‘action’, was Jesus’— not the disciples’. To ‘interpret’, ‘the CHURCH met on the Lord's Day – Sunday’, is deceitful untruth.

The disciples on ‘Sunday’, from Jerusalem to Emmaus AND back to Jerusalem, all day long AND after, “because they believed not, walked into the country” Mk16:11-12. From “the darkest morning” Lk24:22, when they had received confirmation that the body was gone – Lk24:24 – until where “they found the eleven STILL crammed in” Lk24:33 the following night “STILL”, ‘the Church’, for “their hardness of heart and unbelief” Mk16:14, just “walked” in disbelief and rebellion. They “walked” when Jesus caught up with them; and they kept on ‘walking’ in unbelief. Not before “He was received up into heaven” and another ten days of waiting, did ‘the Church’, “go forth and preached everywhere and at every opportunity” (‘pantaxou’), “the Lord WITH them WORKING”, Mk16:19-20.

Now Paul is saying in Colossians 2, “That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding …. This I say lest any man should beguile you with enticing words …. of your Reward …. DO NOT YOU LET YOURSELVES BE JUDGED AND CONDEMNED BY ANYONE WITH REGARD TO YOUR EATING AND DRINKING OF SABBATHS’-FEAST” on Christ and in Christ, “…. and holding to the HEAD from which all the Body (‘the Church’) by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.”

Dr Walter, please supply us with only ONE such example of the Apostolic Church celebrating ‘Sunday’?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dr Walter:
“You may explain the doors being locked is due to fear but you cannot say the day they chose to gather together was due to fear as that makes no sense, especially when Thomas chooses to assemble with them on the eighth day and their doors are still locked. A.T. Robertson says of the language in John 20:29:

After eight days (mey hmerav oktw). That is the next Sunday evening, on the eighth day in reality just like "after three days" and "on the third day."”

GE:
I must ask your pardon, Dr Walter that I distrusted you before about what “A.T. Robertson says of the language in John 20:29”. But that doesn’t mean what Dr Robertson says of the language in John 20:26— not “John 20:29”—, is correct. Because it is completely ANOTHER MATTER in the case of the PASSOVER-CONCEPT of “three days”, “according to the Scriptures”, “after the third day of which” that Christ would rise from the dead on. Of THIS “third day” we have SEVERAL phrasings of the SAME PROPHETIC concept expressed in other ways (like the one Robertson referred to, “on the third day”). And again, it must be pointed out, John does NOT speak of it ‘having been the First Day of the week’ in verse 19 as the point in time departed from, but of it “having been EVENING ON_THAT DAY_ relative to the First Day of the week”— so, from the point of departure of the second day of the week. In this sense and sentence therefore, the use of ‘meth’ hehmeras ….’ has simply NO ‘idiomatic’ force but is intended purely ‘literal’.

In this regard it should also be remembered that after He resurrected, “Until the day that He was taken up He was seen of” the disciples “forty days” EVERY DAY— Acts 1:2. John in 19:26 refers to this particular instance for no reason other than that Thomas then was in the company of the other disciples whereas in the event of Jesus’ first appearance to the disciples recorded in verse 19, he was absent.

 

[Dr. Walter]

What crazy translation are you reading that translates a preset tense participle into past tense English???

‘having been the First Day of the week’ in verse 19

The KJV correctly translates it as "BEING" not HAVING BEEN! This proves that "even" merely means late afternoon as he says explicitly it was the "SAME" day, not another day!

Dr Walter:
“You may explain the doors being locked is due to fear but you cannot say the day they chose to gather together was due to fear as that makes no sense, especially when Thomas chooses to assemble with them on the eighth day and their doors are still locked. A.T. Robertson says of the language in John 20:29:

After eight days (mey hmerav oktw). That is the next Sunday evening, on the eighth day in reality just like "after three days" and "on the third day."”

GE:
I must ask your pardon, Dr Walter that I distrusted you before about what “A.T. Robertson says of the language in John 20:29”. But that doesn’t mean what Dr Robertson says of the language in John 20:26— not “John 20:29”—, is correct. Because it is completely ANOTHER MATTER in the case of the PASSOVER-CONCEPT of “three days”, “according to the Scriptures”, “after the third day of which” that Christ would rise from the dead on. Of THIS “third day” we have SEVERAL phrasings of the SAME PROPHETIC concept expressed in other ways (like the one Robertson referred to, “on the third day”). And again, it must be pointed out, John does NOT speak of it ‘having been the First Day of the week’ in verse 19 as the point in time departed from, but of it “having been EVENING ON_THAT DAY_ relative to the First Day of the week”— so, from the point of departure of the second day of the week. In this sense and sentence therefore, the use of ‘meth’ hehmeras ….’ has simply NO ‘idiomatic’ force but is intended purely ‘literal’.

In this regard it should also be remembered that after He resurrected, “Until the day that He was taken up He was seen of” the disciples “forty days” EVERY DAY— Acts 1:2. John in 19:26 refers to this particular instance for no reason other than that Thomas then was in the company of the other disciples whereas in the event of Jesus’ first appearance to the disciples recorded in verse 19, he was absent.

 

[BobRyan]

"for fear of the Jews" can modify "the doors being shut" rather than "assembling." The worst thing a group can do is assemble together in one place if they fear being dragged off to jail.

That this is then the first introduction of a mythical sunday-sabbath cycle we would need MORE of an introduction than 'doors shut for fear of the jews' as the week-day-one transitional statement to being the weekly Creation Sabbath.

The fact that we have no mention at all of such a thing - is devastating to your argument.

John makes it as clear as language can make it that this assembling was on the first day of the week not the second day of the week.

We agree that the resurrection was on week-day-one and that 8 days later (rather than 7 days later) they were still hiding out.

But at no point do we have "resurrection memorial" language associated with a "7 day cycle". Not in John - not in all of the NT.

Again - a devasting fact to be overlooked by your argument so far.

Paul went to the synogue on the Jewish Sabbath because his modus operandi was to the Jew first and then to the gentiles. In the synoguoge they gave visiting rabbi's the floor. This does not mean that the church met on the Jewish Sabbath as there is no record of the church ever meeting on the Jewish Sabbath.

sadly for the week-day-one argument, the Act 13 and Acts 17 example of Sabbath after Sabbath meetings for worship and Bible study are far more explicit than anything in all of the NT for week day one.

So while you are free to discount each successive Sabbath observance explicitly shown for NT saints - you have nothing of the sort for introducing the supposed new idea of swithing the 4th commandment to week-day-one.

Even worse - the fact that we all know that the Sabbath term in Acts 13 and Acts 17 is NOT a reference to week-day-one is proof that such a term was not the NT term for Sunday.

Your arguments concerning I Cor. 16:1-2 are extremely weak.

My only point there is that NO meeting of any kind is mentioned in 1Cor 16 as having taken place on week-day-one.

Not even one meeting.

This was the perfect place "again" to introduce the idea.

Your lack of objectivity at that point is apparent.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What STRANGE translation are you quoting from? Whatever translation it is, it is completely biased rather than objective in how it handles the Greek text. ....

GE:
No, Dr Walter, I am “quoting from” the actual text— ‘the Greek’ and virtually transliterate rather than use a “STRANGE translation” like you do. I am not going to repeat it here; you can look it up ON THIS THREAD since my first post in it on 16.9.2010, post 69, above.

You find 'my' translation “STRANGE” because it is both CORRECT, and, COMPLETE. You see, it is easy to ‘translate’ the Perfect Participle ‘ehthroismenous’-“STILL crammed in” with an Indicative Verb that has no past, perfect, initial act, that introduced a present ongoing result. It is easy to mention the RESULT for a finite ACTION. In other words, to LIE, and say “the first Lord's day worship service of the church began”. And make the Adjectival Adverbial Participle the main Verb of the sentence. Or, likewise, handle the Present Participle used in Jn20:19 in the same disrespectful way such as I have explained already in this thread, above.

 

[Dr. Walter]

My friend I have had five years of class room Greek under teachers who have their Ph.D in Greek.

I don't claim to be a Greek scholar but I am perfectly capable of translating a text and determining if someone else is dealing with the text honestly.

Your translation is wrong. The Perfect Participle describes THEIR CONDITION during "the same day" not the identity of the day.


The present participle actually modifies "the SAME day" which in turn modifies "the first day of the week."

Better go back to Greek class.

GE:
No, Dr Walter, I am “quoting from” the actual text— ‘the Greek’ and virtually transliterate rather than use a “STRANGE translation” like you do. I am not going to repeat it here; you can look it up ON THIS THREAD since my first post in it on 16.9.2010, post 69, above.

You find 'my' translation “STRANGE” because it is both CORRECT, and, COMPLETE. You see, it is easy to ‘translate’ the Perfect Participle ‘ehthroismenous’-“STILL crammed in” with an Indicative Verb that has no past, perfect, initial act, that introduced a present ongoing result. It is easy to mention the RESULT for a finite ACTION. In other words, to LIE, and say “the first Lord's day worship service of the church began”. And make the Adjectival Adverbial Participle the main Verb of the sentence. Or, likewise, handle the Present Participle used in Jn20:19 in the same disrespectful way such as I have explained already in this thread, above.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What crazy translation are you reading that translates a preset tense participle into past tense English???

‘having been the First Day of the week’ in verse 19

The KJV correctly translates it as "BEING" not HAVING BEEN! This proves that "even" merely means late afternoon as he says explicitly it was the "SAME" day, not another day!

GE:
From 'strange', to, 'crazy'; that's progress....

So, does Dr Walter say John 20:19 is happening at this moment, in the present because it is written in the Present Tense? O my, Dr Walter, ever heard of Greek Aspects of Time rather than Tenses? Ever heard of a Past Tense sense of use of the Present Tense --- in whichever language? Sometimes it gets called the ‘Historic Present’; it has other names as well --- every scholar has his own ‘name’ for the ‘Past Present’. But Dr Walter maintains “‘having been the First Day of the week’ in verse 19" is “a present tense participle” in present tense English-meaning and not ‘past tense English’-meaning. Because the ‘past tense English’-meaning— for Dr Walter, means it’s a “STRANGE” and “crazy translation”.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You exposing your ignorance of the Greek language. The present tense does not speak concerning the time of the reader but the time of the writer.

Secondly, there has to be a contextual reason that demands that the normal meaning of the present tense be disregarded and another meaning be sought. Furthermore, the other meaning must be contextually demonstrated rather than abritrarily demanded by someone who obviously has had poor training in Greek grammar.

Furthermore, your perfect tense term does not modify the date but the condition of those during that day. The present partciple modifies the day. Hence, your whole translation is a complete falsification.

GE:
From 'strange', to, 'crazy'; that's progress....

So, does Dr Walter say John 20:19 is happening at this moment, in the present because it is written in the Present Tense? O my, Dr Walter, ever heard of Greek Aspects of Time rather than Tenses? Ever heard of a Past Tense sense of use of the Present Tense --- in whichever language? Sometimes it gets called the ‘Historic Present’; it has other names as well --- every scholar has his own ‘name’ for the ‘Past Present’. But Dr Walter maintains “‘having been the First Day of the week’ in verse 19" is “a present tense participle” in present tense English-meaning and not ‘past tense English’-meaning. Because the ‘past tense English’-meaning— for Dr Walter, means it’s a “STRANGE” and “crazy translation”.

 

[rstrats]

Dr. Walter,

You have a question directed to you in post #80.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It would not IF you count what John identifies in verse 19 as "the SAME day" as the first day in this number of eight. This is exactly how the previous three days are counted by Luke. Luke counts the first day of the week as "this is the third day" and counts the day of crucifixion as the first in the promise of three days he will rise again.

Therefore, I have counted these eight days just as Luke has counted the previous three days.

Dr. Walter,

re: "...you have to have objective mind..."

Agreed. An objective mind would take or not take scripture for what it does or doesn’t say. It wouldn’t make assumptions - as a subjective mind would - in an effort to help validate one’s already seated positions with regard to doctrinal issues.
　
　
re: "Sorry, it was John 20:26 not John 20:29 and note the word ‘again’ and the same group in the same place with the doors locked again and ‘eight days’ begins with the day in John 20:19..."

Your subjective mind is assuming that the "after eight days" comment is in relationship to the first day mentioned in verse 19. You are assuming that it was still the first day when Thomas was told about the appearing of the Messiah in verse 25. But even if the "after eight days" comment was referring to eight days after the "first day" in verse 19, you would end up at the second day of the week at the earliest. What if verse 26 had said; "And after one day, His disciples were again inside..."? To what day would that be referring?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your chronology is in error. Mark uses the technical term for the fourth watch of the night which occurred at 3am to 6am (Gr. proee") and places it on the first day of the week in Mark 16:9.

Jesus uses the same Greek term for the fourth hour of the night twice but the clearest is found in the SAME gospel of Mark 13:35

Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning ]Gr. proee]:


Now when Jesus was risen early [Gr. proee] the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

It was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover.[1]
It was the Preparation of Passover six o’clock am ... Behold, your King![2] It was the third hour when they crucified Him.[3] When the sixth hour was come, there was darkness until the ninth hour.[4] Jesus then after, yielded up the ghost.[5]

And all the people that came to that sight, when having seen the things which were done, went away and returned.[6]

[1] Jn18:28
[2] Jn19:14
[3] Mk15:25
[4] Mk15:33
[5] Mt27:50
[6] Lk23:48


Friday The Feast

After this because it was the Preparation, Joseph of Arimathea, secretly for fear of the Jews, went[1] in[2] boldly unto Pilate[3], (and) besought (him) that he might take away the body of Jesus.[4] And Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore and took down[5] the body of Jesus (and) away[6]. Having bought linen[7], Joseph wrapped[8] the body. There came also Nicodemus who the first time came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh about an hundred pound. Then prepared[9] they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen with the spices as the manner of the Jews is to bury.[10]
[1] Mt27:58
[2] Mk15:43 – cf. Jn18:28
[3] Lk23:52
[4] Jn19:38 ‘arehi’
[5] Mk15:46a, Lk23:53a ‘kathelohn’
[6] Jn19:38c ‘ehren’
[7] Mk15:46
[8] Lk23:53 ‘kathelohn – enetulicsen’
[9] Jn19:40a, ‘elabon – edehsan’; Mt27:59a ‘labohn – enetulicsen’
[10] Jn19:39-40


Daylight Procession

The women also, who came with Him from Galilee (Mary Magdalene and the other Mary), followed the procession.[1]

There was a garden in the place where He was crucified, and in the garden a new sepulchre, hewn out of rock[2], wherein was never man yet laid.[3] There laid they[4] Jesus because of the Jews’ preparations.[5]

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre[6] beheld where[7] (and) how his body was laid.[8]

(Joseph) rolled a great[9] stone unto the door of the sepulchre[10], and departed.[11]

(The women) returned home also, and prepared spices and ointments.[12]

The day was The Preparation, afternoon while the Sabbath drew on.[13]

[1] Lk23:55
[2] Mk15:46c, Mt 27:60b
[3] Jn19:41
[4] Jn19:38a, 39a, Joseph and Nicodemus
[5] Jn19:42
[6] Mt27:61
[7] Mk15:47
[8] Lk23:55b
[9] Mt27:60c
[10] Mk15:46d
[11] Mt27:60d
[12] Lk23:56a
[13] Lk23:54

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Self-correction, with my apologies:
Re:

..... In this sense and sentence therefore, the use of ‘meth’ hehmeras ….’ has simply NO ‘idiomatic’ force but is intended purely ‘literal’.......

--- which of course is wrong. Please read: In this sense and sentence therefore, the use of ‘meth’ hehmeras ….’ has simply THE ‘idiomatic’ force intended purely ‘literal’, 'on the eighth day'. Just like Robertson meant. It would be on a 'Tuesday' eight days later.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Robertson NEVER said that. Robertson said the exact opposite. Robertson said that the proper way to interpret those eight days was exactly as Luke intepreted the previous three days. Luke began his count with the day of crucifixion. Likewise, John would begin his count with the "SAME DAY" in verse 19 end thus end his count with the next first day of the week.

My friend, who in the world taught you Greek???????

Self-correction, with my apologies:
Re:
--- which of course is wrong. Please read: In this sense and sentence therefore, the use of ‘meth’ hehmeras ….’ has simply THE ‘idiomatic’ force intended purely ‘literal’, 'on the eighth day'. Just like Robertson meant. It would be on a 'Tuesday' eight days later.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

.....The Perfect Participle describes THEIR CONDITION during "the same day" not the identity of the day......

GE:

Absolutely! That's what I've been saying all the while and Dr Walter all the while has been denying.

The Perfect Participle describes THEIR CONDITION: "being crammed in together STILL after having been crammed in BEFORE" Lk24:33 ANY TIME, not necessarily "the same day".

NOWHERE IS "the same day" written in Greek!

In John it is written "It being evening on THAT DAY"-'ousehs opsias hehmerai ekeinehi' Jn20:19. The disciples were thus "found" Lk24:33.
Subsequently, i.e., by means of the Locative Dative or Dative of Time, "ON THAT day"-'hehmerai ekeinehi', the RELATIVE DATIVE identifies "the day TO" which REFERENCE or RELATION is being made, which was, "TO the First Day of the week"-'tehi miai sabbatohn'.

Don’t switch the functions of relation of the Dative!

Thus the present participle actually modifies "THAT day" which in turn modifies "the first day of the week."

I have constantly been in ‘Greek class’ now for up to fifty years, and still and more and more am learning.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Robertson NEVER said that. Robertson said the exact opposite. Robertson said that the proper way to interpret those eight days was exactly as Luke intepreted the previous three days. Luke began his count with the day of crucifixion. Likewise, John would begin his count with the "SAME DAY" in verse 19 end thus end his count with the next first day of the week.

My friend, who in the world taught you Greek???????

GE:

I do not say Robertson said that; but I do say what Robertson said - from your quote of him – amounts to exactly that.

Again, NOWHERE do the words "SAME DAY" appear "in verse 19".

And: Luke's 'interpretation' of "the previous three days" has NOTHING to do with John's "count". John does not 'count' at all; and his reference to "That day with reference to the First Day of the week" has NOTHING to do with Luke's reference to "today is the third day since" "the day of crucifixion".

I hope you also studied 'interpretation' of the Text or 'hermeneutics' or ‘exegesis’ or something like that I think the scholars call it.

And, honourable Dr Walter, who cares about who taught me, a plumber called of God to pour molten lead down the eistatians of the sleeping watchmen on the walls of the Holy City?

 

[Dr. Walter]

If you want to make a fool of yourself that is your business. The KJV simply translates "ekeinos" which is translated "same" 20 times in the KJV and modifies "day" or "this" day. The present participle also modifies "this" day which is identified as "the first day of the week."

the perfert passive participle has nothing to do with identifying what day it is only what they had been doing on "ekeinos" that day or the first day of the week.

Give it up pal!

GE:

Absolutely! That what's I've been saying all the while and Dr Walter all the while has been denying.

The Perfect Participle describes THEIR CONDITION: "being crammed in together STILL after having been crammed in BEFORE" Lk24:33 ANY TIME, not necessarily "the same day".

NOWHERE IS "the same day" written in Greek!

In John it is written "It being evening on THAT DAY"-'ousehs opsias hehmerai ekeinehi' Jn20:19. The disciples were thus "found" Lk24:33.
Subsequently, i.e., by means of the Locative Dative or Dative of Time, "ON THAT day"-'hehmerai ekeinehi', the RELATIVE DATIVE identifies "the day TO" which REFERENCE or RELATION is being made, which was, "TO the First Day of the week"-'tehi miai sabbatohn'.

Don’t switch the functions of relation of the Dative!

Thus the present participle actually modifies "THAT day" which in turn modifies "the first day of the week."

I have constantly been in ‘Greek class’ now for up to fifty years, and still and more and more am learning.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Your chronology is in error. Mark uses the technical term for the fourth watch of the night which occurred at 3am to 6am (Gr. proee") and places it on the first day of the week in Mark 16:9.

Jesus uses the same Greek term for the fourth hour of the night twice but the clearest is found in the SAME gospel of Mark 13:35

Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning ]Gr. proee]:


Now when Jesus was risen early [Gr. proee] the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

GE:
Dear Dr Walter, Kindly point out to me where I DID NOT say that "Mark uses the technical term for the fourth watch of the night which occurred at 3am to 6am (Gr. proee") and places it on the first day of the week in Mark 16:9"? Well, yes, I make it after sunrise, not before, because Mary supposed Jesus for the gardener who would have been on duty by sunrise normally.

Is the difference that great in meaning to you? Why? Because ‘proh-i’ ONLY means “the fourth watch of the night which occurred at 3am to 6am”? Then naturally, I must disagree, because ‘proh-i’ could and does mean the fore- or early- or beginning-part of any period of time.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

If you want to make a fool of yourself that is your business. The KJV simply translates "ekeinos" which is translated "same" 20 times in the KJV and modifies "day" or "this" day. The present participle also modifies "this" day which is identified as "the first day of the week."

the perfert passive participle has nothing to do with identifying what day it is only what they had been doing on "ekeinos" that day or the first day of the week.

Give it up pal!

GE:
Who denied “The KJV simply translates "ekeinos" which is translated "same" 20 times in the KJV and modifies "day" or "this" day”?
Me?

But who does NOT mention the KJV may be ten times 20, translates "ekeinos" "THAT" only?
and each time of the (believed) 20 times, “THAT same”, “the VERY same”, “the SELFsame” etc.?
and not once “same” as such?
And of those (believed) 20 times modifies other things than “"day" or "this" day”” like “year”, or, “hour”?

And most important, NOT ONCE THROUGHOUT, ‘translates’ "ekeinos", "same", in context with the Dative of Relation or Reference?

And that, if one would wish to IDENTIFY “THAT day” with the ‘SAME day’ , he would use the Genitive in the way that the same John uses it where he IDENTIFIED “THAT day” with “great day OF Sabbath” of the Passover in nearby verse 31 in chapter 19?

So yes, the Perfect Passive Participle has nothing to do with identifying what day it was. Not what Dr Walter has been saying so far though …. Because he is still alleging the Perfect Passive Participle is identifying “what they had been doing on "ekeinos" that day or the first day of the week”— while “the first day of the week” was the PAST day “TO” which “that (‘ekeinos’) day”, ‘referred’ through the medium of the ‘Basic Functional Dative’ of Reference or Relation.

We are making progress though: From “STRANGE” to “crazy” to ‘foolish’. I hope we are going to end up at despised and ridiculed yet TRUE.