The Fourth Commandment

[BobRyan]

Second, the Hebrew term translated "week" is missing from the fourth commandment terminology in Exodus and Deuteronomy, as well as, from the creation account terminology in Genesis.

My position is that Moses intentionally avoided using the term "week" in the fourth command, as well as, from the creation account. The fourth command specifies nothing more than six periods of "yom" (day) followed by, and thus also, preceded by a seventh period of "yom" (day) sabbath without any specific application to any particular "yom" in the Jewish calander week, month or year nor limited to a 24 hour “yom.”

The SDA response would be to note that your argument is flawed in Moses' writings because prior to Ex 20:8-11 "REMEMBER the Sabbath day... SIX Days you shall labor" we have in Ex 16:23 "Tomorrow is THE Sabbath" and we have in vs 22-28 - the example of the weekly cycle of manna in which the exact weekly cycle was determined down to the very day. This is the precise selection of the day - context in Ex 20 for "REMEMBER the Sabbath".

It would be impossible to suppose that the exegetical rendering of the statements in Ex 20:8-11 was translated as "pick any day in 7".

It cannot be successfully denied that God’s ultimate design for the Sabbath command is seen by his OWN APPLICATION of it. It can be easily shown that His OWN APPLICATION exceeds the Seventh Day Sabbatarian restriction to the seventh day “of the week.”

2Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God"
2Peter 2:21 "Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from God".

Therefore, my hypothesis has some validity. God applies the Sabbath law not only to other 24 hour periods “of the week” than the seventh day “of the week” (1st, 8th, 10th, 15th, 22nd, 50th) in Leviticus 23, but he applies it to greater periods of 24 hours (month, year) in both Leviticus 23 and 25. The exclusion “of the week” was necessary to provide God’s wider application of the Sabbath law to other days in the week and other periods greater than 24 hours.

Your efforts to make Ex 20 God's Word and Lev 23 some derivative of God's Word is noted - and flawed.

Lev 23 is ALSO God's Word and establishes the annual feast days every bit as much as Gen 2:1-3 established the 7th day Sabbath.

Second, the omission “of the week” was necessary to prohibit the exclusive application and understanding of the Sabbath law to the seventh day of their current week

AT this point you are in the realm of total nonsense as the Ex 16 and Ex 20 language specifically refute your speculation above.

There are other substantial evidence found in both the Old and New Testaments to confirm this transition from the seventh to the first.

AT this point your argument is totally flawed by the devastating fact that Acts 13, 15, and 17 all make references to the Sabbath that CLEARLY show the Sabbath to be in keeping with the day that the Jews were keeping.

Furthermore - even 1Cor 16:1-2 was shown to flatly contradict your assertion - since the designator for "week day one" was not SABBATH but was still "week day one" in a context where you try to eisegete the idea of a "week day one Worship service" for the supposedly new Sabbath - even though none is mentioned there -- yet the term for the day is "week day one" and in Acts 15 the term for the SABBATH is still SABBATH.

The beginning of the first day of the week in Jewish times occurs on Saturday in our calendar as it begins 6 p.m. our Saturday evening.

Much of that is true - although A portion of that also is wrong. In Lev 23 God says "from evening until evening shall you celebrate your Sabbaths" and in Genesis 1 "evening and morning were the nth day". It is sunset that begins the Sabbath.

From the New Testament it can be easily proven that Christ arose from the grave before sunrise on the first day of the Jewish week no earlier than 3 a.m before sunrise. This is the new Sabbath of Psalm 118 and Mark 16:9 and the better Sabbath observance in Hebrews 4:9-11.

Psalms 118 makes no mention at all of Sabbath OR of week day 1.

Mark 16:9 makes no mention at all of week-day-one as Sabbath.

Heb 4 makes no mention at all of Week-day-one as Sabbath.

Your argument never actually gets off the ground.

==========================================

That is the SDA response to your OP - and I do not see it as being the same as the one-on-one differences you are having with GE.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[rstrats]

Dr. Walter,

re: "I agree that Mary Magdalene in John 20 made two trips to the tomb on Sunday morning. First, with all the women (Mt. 28:1; Mk. 16:1-2; Lk. 24:1). Then they went back and told the apostles and she came back with them and that is when Christ appeared to her (Jn. 20:2-17)."

You have that reversed. If John 20:1-2 is correct, then Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2 and Luke 24:1 would have to be at least the second time at the tomb.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Mark 16:9 only pin points the Lord's resurrection at "proii" - between 3am to 6am

Well, if we should go according to the words Matthew used, only “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” were the actresses during this episode of the Gospel Story. But obviously Dr Walter thinks different, and reckons “they”, “the rest of the women” and therefore “all the women”, were involved, from start to finish, because he says, ““1. Every text above gives the day they came - the first day of the week”
“2. Every text above gives the time they came to the tomb was at sunrise
a. “sunrise” (not sunset)
b. “morning” (not evening)
c. “early” proii - 3am to 6pm or 4th watch
d. “dawn” - epiphosko - to get brighter (not darker)
3. They started while it was yet “dark” between 3 a.m to 6am
4. They arrived at sunrise not sunset
5. The rest of the women went back but Mary stayed.
6. Jesus rose between 3 am. to 6 a.m and then appeared to Mary.

Thus the clear chronological order is as follows:
1. Began their journey while it was yet dark between 3 am to 6pm Sunday Morning.
2. They came “early” on the first day of the week
3. They arrived at the selphchre at SUNRISE Sunday morning.
4. They got their at Sunrise while it was twilight, saw it was empty and all the women but Mary Magnalene ran back to tell the apostles.
5. Jesus appeared to Mary - Mk 16:9.
………
There was a “watch” at the tomb (Mt. 28:11)and the precise watch is designated by the repeated Greek term “proii” or the fourth watch between 3am to 6am.”

So who is right, Matthew or Dr Walter?

See, that Dr Walter only in the last position --- last in chronological position --- places “5. Jesus appeared to Mary - Mk 16:9”. He places Jesus’ first appearance AFTER everything in Matthew. Except Dr Walter’s postscript about the guard, of course …. as a parenthesis, one might say.

Matthew does not do that though; Matthew mentions the Marys and the guards present and involved in the period of time which he had in mind, never mind now what period of time that was. That is what we must find out; we cannot at this stage of our investigation make assumptions and claim what period of time it was. I do not want to argue ‘in a circle’ which I have before shown, is the method used by Dr Walter.

We conclude therefore that Dr Walter takes Mary Magdalene right through all the events in company with all the other women …. Even right through Matthew 28 from verse 1 of the chapter until …. where shall we say? …. until all the disciple men and women were found together in Jerusalem somewhere where and when all the women Mary Magdalene included, told all the disciples men and women together that the Lord actually “met them”, and that they “held Him at his feet” and that He actually spoke to them all and told them all to go to ‘the twelve’ (eleven by then) and tell them that He had raised from the dead. THEN after it all, comes Dr Walter’s point number “5. Jesus appeared to Mary - Mk 16:9”.

So did Jesus appear to Mary alone AFTER He had had appeared to her and the other women together, again? What shall we believe, that Jesus appeared to Mary alone AFTER He had had appeared to her and the other women together, AGAIN, and not “first” and because “first”, all by herself, “first”— “Mk 16:9”?

Shall we believe Dr Walter, and not Mark— “Mk 16:9”?

So, WHO, act in Mt28:1, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” only, or, “they” and “the rest of the women” therefore “all the women”? And the answer is inevitable: “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” only— as Matthew wrote it, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary”.

 

[Dr. Walter]

John 20:1 is the first time to the tomb with the rest of the women, thus concurrent with Mt. 28:1; Mk 16:1-2; Lk. 24:1.

John 20:11 is Mary's return trip with the disciples

Dr. Walter,

re: "I agree that Mary Magdalene in John 20 made two trips to the tomb on Sunday morning. First, with all the women (Mt. 28:1; Mk. 16:1-2; Lk. 24:1). Then they went back and told the apostles and she came back with them and that is when Christ appeared to her (Jn. 20:2-17)."

You have that reversed. If John 20:1-2 is correct, then Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2 and Luke 24:1 would have to be at least the second time at the tomb.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. - KJV


When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. - ASV


At evening on that day, the first day of the week, when, for fear of the Jews, the doors were shut where the disciples were, Jesus came among them and said to them, May peace be with you! - BBE


When therefore it was evening on that day, which was the first day of the week, and the doors shut where the disciples were, through fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and says to them, Peace be to you. - Darby


Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith to them, Peace be to you. - Webster

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Sorry I don't buy it! John 20:1; Mat. 28:1 and Mark 16:1-2 are the same not different accounts.

Mark 16:1-2 describe the same coming to the tomb. Verse one simply notes the Jewish Sabbath was over. Verse 2 simply notes what day after the Jewish Sabbath they commenced to the tomb. Mark 16:8 is qualified by Matthew 28:9-10 but same return trip to disciples.

Matthew 28:1 is the very same account of Luke 24:1 and John 20:1 as well as Mark 16:1-2.

Matthew 28:1 places the Sabbath "behind" them and they went to the tomb "INTO" (Gr. eis) first day of the week when the light was getting brighter NOT DIMMER.

Mark 16:9 occurs on the first day of the week, Sunday morning AFTER Jesus rose that morning between 3am to 6am BEFORE sunrise and BEFORE the women came with Mary Magdalene the first time. Verse 9 marks the return trip of Mary with disciples that same day.

GE:
Dear Dr Walter, you bought yourself a cat in a bag (as we say in Afrikaans) when you ‘bought this’, somewhere along your way:
“John 20:1; Mat. 28:1 and Mark 16:1-2 are the same not different accounts.” John 20:1; Mat. 28:1 and Mark 16:1-2 in fact contain FOUR “different accounts”, or one must account for contradictions exponentially.

Say the factors involved were, to mention ONLY, the Persons; Acts; Places; Times; Circumstances. Reckoning ONLY 3 variants to each ‘category’, Persons could be, 1, 2, 3, (3+); Acts could be “to go see”, “bought”, “inspect”; Places could be the traders, home, grave; Times could be “Sabbath’s-time”, “after the Sabbath”, “very early before sunrise”; Circumstances could involve “the angel of the Lord”, not to mention “two angels”, “the door-stone away from the tomb”, an angel “from heaven descending” or an angel “sitting inside”, and you have to explain 59049, liberally, difficulties; but strictly, irreconcilabilities. You bought yourself a bag with 59049 vicious cats and there are several other bags where you bought this one from.

Four stories; not one. How? Well,
It is Jn20:1-2 (not 3-10 or 11-17);
It is Mt28:1-5a (not 5b-10);
It is Mk16:1; and
It is Mk16:2-8 (not 9).

Repetition won’t change the stories! It is vain you multiply or divide by 1, 59049 will stay 59049— 1“John 20:1; Mat. 28:1 and Mark 16:1-2 are the same not different accounts” x 1“Mark 16:1-2 describe the same coming to the tomb x 1Verse one simply notes the Jewish Sabbath was over x 1Verse 2 simply notes what day after the Jewish Sabbath they commenced to the tomb x 1Mark 16:8 is qualified by Matthew 28:9-10 but same return trip to disciples =1.

It is also vain or worse you multiply or divide by 0, 59049 will immediately become 0!—

x 0Matthew 28:1 is the very same account of x 0Luke 24:1 and x 0John 20:1 as well x 0as Mark 16:1-2 x 0Matthew 28:1 places the Sabbath "behind" them and they went to the tomb "INTO" (Gr. eis) first day of the week when the light was getting brighter NOT DIMMER x 0Mark 16:9 occurs on the first day of the week, Sunday morning AFTER Jesus rose that morning between 3am to 6am BEFORE sunrise and BEFORE the women came with Mary Magdalene the first time x 0Verse 9 marks the return trip of Mary with disciples that same day = 0

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Mark 16:9 only pin points the Lord's resurrection at "proii" - between 3am to 6am

GE:
My post referred to Matthew; not to Mark 16:9.
Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1563182#post1563182
Well, if we should go according to the words Matthew used, only “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” were ……— as Matthew wrote it, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary”.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally Posted by Dr. Walter

Instead of introducing yourself and saying, "Dr. Walter, I am in agreement with your position even with Mark 16:9 in regard to the day and time of the resurrection but I take exception for your use of Mark 16:9 in the case of Mary as the same time with all the other women that same Sunday morning" you just started in with an attack without any clarification joining with the Seventh Day Adventists who were already engaged and denying that Mark 16:9 had anything to do with Sunday morning resurrection.

If all you wanted to do was discuss the chronological order of events on Sunday morning then you should have started another thread for that purpose or informed me that was your purpose instead of just joining in with the SDA in their attack of a Sunday morning resurrection use of Mark 16:9.

If you notice the thread subject this is about the fourth commandment and its application in regard to Saturday or Sunday.


GE:
Everything I have said on this thread is about the Sabbath, and therefore about the Fourth Commandmant.

I believe the Sabbath for its CHRISTIAN REASON D'ETRE STOLEN FROM IT AND BESTOWED UPON THE FALSELY CLAIMED DAY OF JESUS' RESURRECTION.

I approach everything I argue from the standpoint of a Reformed Protestant Christian as I have told everyone always. Since the Lord took hold on me I have studied this subject and shall stop when I cannot go on any more. A few times already I thought today is the last day, so put in, put in! All my effort; I tell myself. (I believe the Lord tells me it.)

Thank God He gave me a wife who kept it out with me and for the most respectful and loving of children and family.

And thank God He gave me the toughest of opposition from everywhere, so what I believe got tested thousands of times, and by as I said the very best in the manner of criticism.

I am thankful for it; with exceeding joy. May this be the word that shall be last over my lips: I am thankfull for what the Lord has shown me in and through his Written Word in the face of strongest onslaught humanly speaking.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

This is how any Christian would suppose from the standpoint of the sanctity that Christianity has attached to Sunday for thousand and a half thousand years.

One thing is INDISPUTABLE: The translators of the Bible into English before the twentieth century were NOT ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN ANY SUNDAY-SABBATH CONTROVERSY; they all accepted the status quo and establishment's preferences WITHOUT QUESTIONING. What can you expect differently in the translation of the Bible? But I'll tell you what you will find, since AWARENESS OF THE ISSUE, PRECISELY WHAT YOU SEE IN 'modern' quasi translations. EVERY OBVIOUS OR SUBTLE 'alteration' or attempt at 'improvement' or updating or whatever, betrays and reveals the EMBARRASSMENT and increasing AUDACITY with which every 'new translation' is undertaken by reason of Christianity's fear, dishonesty and SINNING in regard to Sunday worship.

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. - KJV


When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. - ASV


At evening on that day, the first day of the week, when, for fear of the Jews, the doors were shut where the disciples were, Jesus came among them and said to them, May peace be with you! - BBE


When therefore it was evening on that day, which was the first day of the week, and the doors shut where the disciples were, through fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and says to them, Peace be to you. - Darby


Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith to them, Peace be to you. - Webster

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

..........Psalms 118 makes no mention at all of Sabbath OR of week day 1...............That is the SDA response to your OP - and I do not see it as being the same as the one-on-one differences you are having with GE.

GE:
Ja, whenever it's you and me, you cause me to loose my temper. You are certainly not my 'favourite' discourese-fellow or opponent,

How typical indeed is your "SDA response"! You close your eyes for the ONLY REAL Sabbath-Sunday issue, as were it beneath you; too stupid thing for your high and lofty thought and insight to take notice of; you will only politely not get involved - even though the argument --- according to you --- is a one-on-one difference with NO BEARING on the topic of the 'thread'.
But the true reason you tolerate GE vs DW's mutual harangue is because you cannot because you are too ignorant and disinterested in anything other than your daily soul's diet on the gravel of the hills of Gilboa.

 

[BobRyan]

GE - your insults have become a bit of a tradition on this board so don't let me stop your tirade. I was just helping Walter with the difference between you and Seventh-day Adventists.

Am having a very good time at the GC session this year.

Happy Sabbath.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE - your insults have become a bit of a tradition on this board so don't let me stop your tirade. I was just helping Walter with the difference between you and Seventh-day Adventists.

Am having a very good time at the GC session this year.

Happy Sabbath.

in Christ,

Bob

GE:
Thank you, Bob Ryan. What a mighty instrument can the Sabbath be in God's hands unto peace and reconciliation between men. Like in this instance. I neeeded the reprimand. Thank you, Bob Ryan, and forgivness, please. Ja I knew I was doing wrong - I always know, and always do wrong. A well, thank God my sins are forgiven in Christ and a beautiful change awaits my character not far in the distant future. And I thank God I know I am not able to bring that change about before then; because that would have driven me nuts completely.

Have a Christ-filled Lord's Day!
GE

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

..........Psalms 118 makes no mention at all of Sabbath OR of week day 1............Bob

GE:
Perhaps one day --- God is the same God of miracles today than when He created the world --- the Seventh-day Adventists will recognise that Psalm 118 is speaking of the Sabbath Seventh Day of the week, the Lord's Day AND ITS REASON FOR BEING: CHRIST'S RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD as if He is speaking today this very "Seventh Day The Sabbath of the LORD your God." But I don't think I shall be around by then....

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dr. Walter,

re: "I agree that Mary Magdalene in John 20 made two trips to the tomb on Sunday morning. First, with all the women (Mt. 28:1; Mk. 16:1-2; Lk. 24:1). Then they went back and told the apostles and she came back with them and that is when Christ appeared to her (Jn. 20:2-17)."

You have that reversed. If John 20:1-2 is correct, then Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2 and Luke 24:1 would have to be at least the second time at the tomb.

GE:
Very observant, Strats; I missed that one for sure!

It's revelations like this that gives me such pleasure and encouragement that everything is not vergebens.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Mark 16:9 only pin points the Lord's resurrection at "proii" - between 3am to 6am

GE:
Dr Walter, how can you straight faced keep on maintaining this untruth vis a vis first, Mk16:9 does not mention the Lord's Resurrection, and, vis a vis Jn20:11-17 which places this appearance at earliest after the gardener should have been at his place of work; would he have started '3 to 4 am'? It's not even cynical or comical. And vis a vis Mk16:2-8 which does make mention of the time of morning "very early before sunrise" even up to 3 to ZERO hours before sunrise YET CHRIST HAD NOT APPEARED YET?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dr. Walter,
"I agree that Mary Magdalene in John 20 made two trips to the tomb on Sunday morning. First, with all the women (Mt. 28:1; Mk. 16:1-2; Lk. 24:1). Then they went back and told the apostles and she came back with them and that is when Christ appeared to her (Jn. 20:2-17)."


GE:
I think Dr Walter agrees with Bob Ryan (the Seventh-day Adventist here), obviously, only.

According to Jn20:1-2 Mary - ALONE - made ONE 'return-trip'.

According to Jn20:11-17 Mary made ONE 'standing after / behind' after ANOTHER implied 'one-way-trip to the tomb', that 'trip' being mentioned by Mark in 16:2-8.

 

[billwald]

The real miracle would be that the days of the week were accurately tracked for 6000 or more years.

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE:
Dr Walter, how can you straight faced keep on maintaining this untruth vis a vis first, Mk16:9 does not mention the Lord's Resurrection, and, vis a vis Jn20:11-17 which places this appearance at earliest after the gardener should have been at his place of work; would he have started '3 to 4 am'? It's not even cynical or comical. And vis a vis Mk16:2-8 which does make mention of the time of morning "very early before sunrise" even up to 3 to ZERO hours before sunrise YET CHRIST HAD NOT APPEARED YET?

I think your chronology as well as your interpretation of John 20:1 and Matthew 28:1 is completely messed up.

John 20:1 does not record a separate instance where Magdalene does a solo trip to the tomb. If you will notice that John gives no visit to the tomb by the women and their return to tell the disciples but THIS ONE. This is like the difference between the gospel accounts about the blind beggars. One gospel mentions two while the other mentions only one. Why? Because the focus is upon the one begger not because there was not another beggar. Likewise in John 20:1. The focus of John is on Mary as she is the main character in all of the gospel accounts becasue she was the first one that Jesus appeared to (Mk. 16:9). However, all the rest of the women were with her when she left in the dark early (proii) Sunday morning on the same day Jesus rose fromt the grave (Mk. 16:9).

 

[rstrats]

billwald,

re: "The real miracle would be that the days of the week were accurately tracked for 6000 or more years."
　


No need to go back that far. Assuming that the Messiah knew which day of the week the Sabbath was, we can know what day it is today. Although the calendar in use, a Roman calendar, has indeed been changed, that change did not break the weekly cycle. As you know, prior to the change, it was called the Julian calendar because it originated at the time of Julius Caesar, 45 B.C. - several decades before the birth of the Messiah. The one change was ordered by Pope Gregory, and since then it has been called the Gregorian calendar. However, as mentioned above, the change did not alter the weekly cycle. The "Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, p. 251, under the article "Lilius," says, regarding this change, that "….every imaginable proposition was made, only one idea was never mentioned, viz, the abandonment of the seven-day week." Vol. 3, p. 740, under the article "Chronology," the same reference, says that "It is to be noted that in the Christian period, the order of days in the week has never been interrupted." So it would seem that the weekly cycle of the calendar that has been in effect since 45 B.C. has never had any alteration from the time of the Messiah until now. The Saturday of today is the same seventh day of the week as it was in the Messiah’s time. One could, therefore, be pretty sure that they would be keeping the same Sabbath day that the Messiah kept, setting an example - the same day He said He was Lord of.

Here are several quotes regarding the continuity of the seven day week:

"The week of seven days has been in use ever since the days of the Mosaic dispensation, and we have no reason for supposing that any irregularities have existed in the succession of weeks and their days from that time to the present." --Dr. W.W. Campbell, Statement. [Dr. Campbell was Director of Lick Observatory, Mt. Hamilton, California.]

"As far as I know, in the various changes of the Calendar there has been no change in the seven day rota of the week, which has come down from very early times." --F.W. Dyson, Personal letter, dated March 4, 1932. [Dr. Dyson was Astronomer Royal, Royal Observatory, Greenwich, London.]

"As to Question (1)--I can only state that in connection with the proposed simplification of the calendar, we have had occasion to investigate the results of the works of specialists in chronology and we have never found one of them that has ever had the slightest doubt the continuity of the weekly cycle since long before the Christian era.

"As to Question (2) --There has been no change in our calendar in past centuries that has affected in any way the cycle of the week." --James robertson, personal letter, dated March 12, 1932. [Dr. robertson was Director of the American Ephemeris, Navy Department, U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, D.C.]
　
"In spite of all of our dickerings with the calendar, it is patent that the human race never lost the septenary [seven-day] sequence of week days and that the Sabbath of these latter times comes down to us from Adam, through the ages, without a single lapse." --Dr. Totten, Statement. [Dr. Totten of New Haven, Connecticut, was Professor of Astronomy at Yale University when this statement was made.]
　
　
　
If you have documentation that shows that the seven day cycle has been interrupted at some point between the first century and now I would very much like to see it.

 

[rstrats]

Dr. Walter,

re: "John 20:1; Mat. 28:1 and Mark 16:1-2 are the same not different accounts."

They can’t be the same. If John 20:1-2 is correct, then Matthew 28:1-8 and Mark 16:1-7 are either incorrect or they are referring to a later visit by Mary M. to the tomb.

Matthew 28:1-8 says that when Mary M. went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

However, John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.