The Fourth Commandment

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"?

 

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’).

 

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’.

 

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”.

 

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.

 

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”.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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".

 

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