Posted on 03/14/2010 8:47:22 PM PDT by Gerhard Ebersöhn
I made a terrible mistake in my previous post. Please rectify it. I ‘quoted’ Justin as having used the expression “the Lord’s Day”; I meant to write “the Day of the Sun”. My apologies!
I think in my response I was a little too fast in typing. I had much going on yesterday and was thinking of two or three things at once - not a very good thing to do. In doing that I didn't really examine every one of your words (your style of writing is different than most people. :-)
Yes, I now think I understand you much better. I just went over all that you posted - took quite a while, there were a lot of them! And I had to also examine those who responded to you to understand your response in various post. Together that took up the greater part of this morning.
I have developed my own transliteration, and find it working very comfortably; so kindly allow me presenting to you the Greek as is.
Okay, I can do the same - but I was thinking of the actual Greek. But a transliteration? No, not really. Anyway, thanks for the time you spent doing so. I too am a student of the Greek Scriptures, and of history. That I disagree with the well-known so-called "church fathers", and take their writings as merely their opinions, I do consider the period in which they wrote. To understand my studies of the Greek better you would have to read two rather long articles concerning Greek terms which I feel have been overworked to the detriment of end-time doctrines. I'll send the links to you in a private message.
You having claimed “Luke 24:1 is Luke’s record of the same event!”
My error, sorry. Lukes 24 starts on a Sunday morning, i.e., sunup on the first day of the week (as it was dawning). Luke 23:56, as you pointed out in various terms, was the day before the High Sabbath - the day Jesus was crucified! There is a few days missing between Luke 23:56 and Luke 24:1.
These things may all have been “explained to the women” by the angel of Sunday morning, at least 15 hours after the Resurrection as such “On the Sabbath mid-afternoon” BEFORE.
I think we will just have to disagree with this "15 hours after the resurrection" and the "mid-afternoon" part - although you may be right and I'm leaning in that direction! I have a close buddy who I worked with for over 20 years who really dug into this event. He is now retired and living in the Philippians for a few years before moving back to the USA. He would probably agree with you!
A while back I wrote a little article supposing that Jesus rose on Saturday afternoon (like you say), and it really enticed a lot of people to send me letters :-) It resulted in me saying "Good, maybe it will cause people to really start reading and examining what they were told to believe by their leadership". PS: that was quite "a while back" - 25 years ago!
Thanks for your patience and endurance in your beliefs.
Obj:
You having claimed “Luke 24:1 is Luke’s record of the same event!”
My error, sorry. Lukes 24 starts on a Sunday morning, i.e., sunup on the first day of the week (as it was dawning). Luke 23:56, as you pointed out in various terms, was the day before the High Sabbath - the day Jesus was crucified! There is a few days missing between Luke 23:56 and Luke 24:1.
Ans:
Part 1:
Lk24:1 records the first visit to or rather AT the tomb -— the women REACHED the tomb; they did not only “LEFT TO go and have a look at the tomb” like in Mt28:1 (‘thehohrehsai ton tafon’).
It was the First visit to the tomb. That means I say the women had SEVERAL accomplished visits at the tomb during Saturday night before the Lord “first appeared to MM.” Now obviously Jesus did not at this visit according to Luke appear to anyone. So it could not have been one visit the women made to the tomb on Sunday morning. Admitting more than one visit, one allows for more than one visit. Which in fact there were.
It was the First visit to the tomb. Why was it the first?
It was the first because “they came unto the sepulchre bringing the spices with them, ready / prepared” -— which means they DID NOT YET KNOW THE TOMB WAS EMPTY, but that the body was still in it intact. Had any one of them been to or at – inside – the tomb before, that person would certainly have told them the body was gone and they just as certainly would not have bothered to bring their spices along.
Did anyone tell these women the tomb was opened? Of course, MM must have told them. But that, is not recorded; but is inferred. How is it inferred? By taking into consideration Jn20:1-10, where it says that MM “on the First Day of the week cometh unto the sepulchre and seeth the STONE TAKEN AWAY FROM the sepulchre; THEN she runneth to SP and to the other disciple .... and told THEM”. The text goes on to tell that the two MEN went to the tomb, and that the MEN found the tomb EMPTY before any WOMAN or WOMEN, did! Then the two men went back home. Because when the two Mary’s (mentioned at the closing of the Burial in Lk23:55 Mk15:47 Mt27:61) “with others” came to the grave bringing their spices with in Lk24:1, EXPECTING the body still in the tomb, Mary Magdalene could not yet have known that the body was gone. She therefore when, according to Jn20:1-2 she had seen the taken away stone, could not have ENTERED the tomb also, but must have left without having discovered that it was empty. And she must have left where she had told Peter and John before they returned and she could be informed by them that the tomb in fact was empty. So she still did not know the tomb was empty when she and the other women came to the tomb according to the story told in Luke 24:1. When Mary told Peter and John “they took away the Lord”, she only could have said what she SUSPECTED; not what she really knew. And, if John 20 tells of the resurrection happening at the time of Mary’s arrival at the tomb in Jn20:1 -— as tradition wants it -— she should have SEEN nobody took the body away, but the Lord coming forth from the grave. Which of course is untrue and the vain imaginations of men.
Therefore Lk24:1 was the first realised visit of any women inside the tomb. And therefore Luke’s time on the clock given is the earliest of any of the Gospels’. And because the first witness that the Lord was risen, it was given at the women’s first visit by two angelic witnesses to ensure its trustworthiness. And many other factors count, that clearly indicate that Luke’s record is of the women’s discovery of the EMPTY tomb, while Mary’s discovery recorded in Jn20:1-10 was of the OPENED tomb.
Mary’s discovery of the opened tomb was the earlier; the several women’s discovery of the empty tomb was the later. Therefore though the discovery of the empty tomb was the first of the visits women paid the tomb during the rest of the course of that night and morning, it was later, and AFTER, Mary’s first sight of the taken away door stone and Peter and John’s subsequent visit in Jn20:1-10 ..... CONTRARY TRADITION that John the twentieth chapter AS A WHOLE and UNINTERRUPTED FROM verse 1 past verse 11 tells of Jesus’ resurrection and simultaneous appearance to Mary Magdalene.
Mary’s discovery of the opened tomb was the earlier; the several women’s discovery of the empty tomb was the later. Therefore the time on the clock given for Mary’s coming and seeing in Jn20:1 is the earlier; and Luke’s for the several women’s visit in 24:1 is the later -— CONTRARY TRADITION that the two Gospels record the SAME EVENT, supposedly the Resurrection, supposedly ‘more or less at the same time’!
TBC.
Obj:
You having claimed “Luke 24:1 is Luke’s record of the same event!”
My error, sorry. Lukes 24 starts on a Sunday morning, i.e., sunup on the first day of the week (as it was dawning). Luke 23:56, as you pointed out in various terms, was the day before the High Sabbath - the day Jesus was crucified! There is a few days missing between Luke 23:56 and Luke 24:1.
Ans:
Part 2:
Re: “Lukes 24 starts on a Sunday morning, i.e., sunup on the first day of the week (as it was dawning).”
The time of night given in Lk24:1 (Gr. ‘orthrou batheohs’) is ‘earliest morning of night / deep darkness / after midnight morning’. It was not “sunup ..... as it was dawning”.
Re: “Luke 23:56, as you pointed out in various terms, was the day before the High Sabbath - the day Jesus was crucified!”
Now for certain I, did not in any ‘terms point out’ “the day” implied in “Luke 23:56” was “the day before the High Sabbath - the day Jesus was crucified!”
This is one of the commonest errors of confusion with regard to the chronology of the days of Jesus’ last passover. What I did say, was this:
“Any theory about on which days of the week our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected stands or falls by its answering for the day He was BURIED on: “That Day great day sabbath” of the passover, Abib 15, from its BEGINNING “EVENING HAVING HAD COME”, Mk15:42 Mt 27:57 Lk23:50 Jn19:31,38 — UNTIL its ENDING having begun “MID-AFTERNOON” “by the time of the Jews’ prepararions” “the Sabbath (Seventh Day of the week) drawing near”, Lk23:54 Jn19:42 — “That Day having been The Preparation which is The Fore-Sabbath” : the Sixth Day of the week, ‘Friday’.”
I said – in other words – the day Jesus was BURIED -— NOT “crucified” -— was the day OF -— NOT “before” -— the High Sabbath. Because Abib 15 the ‘great day sabbath’ of passover or passover FEAST or passover Feast-Sabbath, is (or was) “That Day”, “great day”, “sabbath”, “in-the-bone-of-day-day”: BURIAL DAY by distinction of passover season. BURIAL was of the essence of this particular day right through its history as right through the Scriptures. BURIAL was the faithful and unfaithful DUTY of this day performed on this day, the ‘sabbath’ of passover. SO, was it in the Passover of Yahweh once for all through Jesus Christ’s INTERMENT on that one and for eternity ONLY ‘Friday’. The Crucifixion had NOTHING MORE to do with THIS day! The Crucifixion by the time the day of BURIAL had begun “When now it having become evening already” Mk15:42 Mt27:57 was at least, THREE HOURS PAST. No word of the Crucifixion is found in between the fiftieth verse of Luke 23 the BEGINNING of Burial-day and “Luke 23:56” the END of Burial-day.
Re:
“There is a few days missing between Luke 23:56 and Luke 24:1.”
Lk23:56b indicates the start of the Seventh Day “Sabbath according to the (Fourth) Commandment”. Its following morning is mentioned by Matthew in 27:62, and its “mid-afternoon as it began to dawn towards the First Day of the week” in 28:1. Its completion is presupposed in Mk16:1, “the Sabbath having gone through”. Its total interval before it is implied in the mention of “the First day of the week” in Lk24:1 Mk16:2 Jn20:1 and Mk16:9. There are NO “days missing between” anywhere in the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ last Suffering, Death and Resurrection.
Are you going post the whole article? I don't think many, if any, are still reading this thread. It has the same number of readers as it did a few days ago. Have you read any of the other threads on the forum? Hardly any of them are worthy of reading :-) - they are simply partisan threads pushing their denominational connections. Sad in a way.
I'll continue to read it, but sure wish some others were accessing it to express their opinions.
I downloaded this yesternight from freerpublic ....
ICH HATT EINEN KAMERADEN
Ich hatt einen Kameraden,
Einen bessern findst du nit.
Die Trommel schlug zum Streite,
Er ging an meiner Seite
Im gleichen Schritt und Tritt.
Eine Kugel kam geflogen:
Gilt sie mir oder gilt sie dir?
Ihn hat es weggerissen,
Er liegt mir vor den Füßen
Als wär’s ein Stück von mir
Will mir die Hand noch reichen,
Derweil ich eben lad’.
“Kann dir die Hand nicht geben,
Bleib du im ew’gen Leben
Mein guter Kamerad!”
Sometimes the world is just me and my companion in the ‘good fight’ .... all my life ....
Back to ....
Obj:
That’s your prerogative. Christians do not keep any day of the week special, nor force the day they meet on others - nor do they ridicule those who meet on days they don’t. Meeting on the first day of the week is Biblical; and celebrating the Lord’s supper during the assembly is also very Biblical - according to Paul, especially. The Lord’s supper, according to the Bible, was celebrated when they met on the first day of the week - a celebration to remember Jesus’ death and resurrection until He comes again! There is no obligation for a Christian to celebrate Jesus’ resurrection on a Saturday anywhere in the Bible. Do you find anything wrong with what I said?”
Ans:
Re:
“Christians do not keep any day of the week special”. I think you know full well it’s untrue. Only look around you on Sundays. Only think of the Gospels -— they were written years after the establishment of Christianity, and reflect nothing like that “Christians do not keep any day of the week special”— on the contrary the ‘special keeping’ of the Sabbath byin earliest Christianity gave cause for much of the Gospel’s writing! And ‘special keeping’ of the Sabbath is always in the Gospels directly linked to Christ’s practice and teaching of, and on, it.
Never ever do the Gospels – these latest of Christian writings – hint in the direction of ‘special keeping’ of the First Day of the week. Now exactly this utter absence of ‘special keeping’ of the First Day of the week has been the cause and reason for dishonest translators, to artificially and artfully create an impression of ‘special keeping’ of the First Day of the week in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament through false, corrupted and mutilating ‘translating’ of it. Shame on Christianity! And shame on “Christians”, that they “do not keep” the Sabbath Day of the LORD your God -— “The Lord’s Day” -— “special”, but discarded it as a thing of filth, and replaced it with the pagan ‘Day of the lord Sun’ as a thing of supreme glory. Shame on Protestantism that it in wonderment followed after the false prophet and antichrist, in this the greatest of his traits and triumphs over true Christianity.
Re: “Christians do not ..... ridicule those who meet on days they don’t.” True. That doesn’t give them leave to neglect their Christian duty of rightly dividing and proclaiming the Word of God.
Re:
“Meeting on the first day of the week is Biblical”. It is not ‘Biblical’.
Re:
“celebrating the Lord’s supper during the assembly is also very Biblical”. True, but not “also”, meaning also “meeting on the first day of the week” and “on the first day of the week .... celebrating the Lord’s supper during the assembly (on the first day of the week)”. That, is NOT true, “especially” not, “according to Paul”.
Re:
“according to Paul, especially. The Lord’s supper, according to the Bible, was celebrated when they met on the first day of the week”
According to Paul and therefore according to the Bible, the Lord’s Supper was celebrated: “WHEN on the First Day of the week HAVING BEEN ASSEMBLING STILL after they before HAD HAD ASSEMBLED to break bread (to ‘celebrate The Lord’s supper’) : PAUL” -— the only Subject of the only verb of the only sentence -— “discussed matters (‘dielegeto’) with them”; which unequivocally declares the PERFECT (Tense): the assembled, quote: “Assembled BEFORE they STILL were assembling on the First Day of the week”; which IMPLIES unequivocally the assembled, the disciples, “assembled” on the Seventh Day and Sabbath Day BEFORE “on the First Day of the week” when “they still were assembling”. ‘Synehgmenohn’ is NO Verb; it is a Participle and a Perfect Participle at that. To say “The Lord’s supper was celebrated when they met on the first day of the week” depends completely on FLAWED -— on purpose FLAWED -— ‘translation’ of the Greek in Act 20:7 (as were it an INDICATIVE, FINITE, NOMINATIVE, Imperfect or Aorist).
Re:
“There is no obligation for a Christian to celebrate Jesus’ resurrection on a Saturday anywhere in the Bible.” Yes, ‘on a Saturday’. But listen to this: “Because Jesus had given them rest God would not speak of an opportunity of salvation again, THEREFORE emphatically (‘ara’) a keeping of the Sabbath Day REMAINS OBLIGATORY FOR THE PEOPLE OF GOD: HE (Jesus) HAVING ENTERED into his own rest as God in his own.” Jesus of course “entered into his own rest” and “gave them rest” by nothing other than that He rose from the dead again! There cannot another relation be drawn THAN THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST FROM THE DEAD between the “rest” that “Jesus had given THEM” and “He having entered into his OWN rest as God in his own” and “the People’s still obligatory keeping of the SABBATH Day”. “The Word of God is sharper than a two-edged sword” Hb4 goes on immediately to say! We cannot play around with the graveness of these elements that constitute the essence and form the basis of the declaration for Christians in Hebrews 4:4-5,8-10— “thus concerning the Seventh Day” that -— as “a keeping of the Sabbath Day -— remains for the People of God” the Christian Believers, to ‘celebrate’ or “FEAST” as Paul says in Col2:16-17 they actually DID.
Please, for the sake of clarity, note that where I wrote, “According to Paul and therefore according to the Bible, the Lord’s Supper was celebrated: “WHEN on the First Day of the week HAVING BEEN ASSEMBLING STILL after they before HAD HAD ASSEMBLED to break bread (to ‘celebrate The Lord’s supper’).....” I could better have said, “According to Paul and therefore according to the Bible, the Lord’s Supper was celebrated, as follows:
“WHEN on the First Day of the week HAVING BEEN ASSEMBLING STILL after they before HAD HAD ASSEMBLED to break bread (to ‘celebrate The Lord’s supper’)....” I did not mean to convey the idea the Lord’s Supper was on the First Day of the week: I meant to say it was NOT on the First Day because the disciple “were STILL on the First Day gathered together” in the same place “AFTER they BEFORE HAD HAD” by implication “gathered together” on the PREVIOUS day, the Sabbath.
My study of religious History did not reveal Christians holding a "sabbath" day as a special day to meet for worship. However, History does show that early Jewish Christians continued to assemble on the Sabbath. I imagine that there may have been many arguments about it by Jewish Christians and non-Jewish Christians. But, suffice to say, 99% of the writings of early Christians record that the first day of the week was the day they met to worship and partake of the Lord's supper.
The Gospels do not mention anything about the first day of the week for worship, period. The Gospels closed at the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. The subject was not considered before the "Church" was started on Pentecost. It was the introduction of the Gospel to the Gentiles when the first day of the week was chosen to be the day for meeting together for worship, "communion or the Lord's supper", teaching, fellowship and exhortation to grow in the knowledge of Christ. I don't see anything in the letters of the NT to indicate that Christians should set aside a Sabbath for meeting together for worship, etc. What you say is not all that clear - it is a mix of opinion and parts of Scripture IMHO.
Paul, in Romans 14:1-8, reveals some very interesting insight into this subject - especially verse 5! "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." As I stated before, let me back it up with what Paul has to say (Verse 4): "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? to his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand."
To me, those two verses sum up Paul's exhortation on the keeping of a special day or on not keeping a special day set aside for assembling together for worship, etc. If you notice, I did not put my opinions in those verses - I just let them speak for themself. However, if you want to keep a Sabbath day as the day you meet together with others of the same mind, I have no problem with that, and praise you for continuing in living your life for the Lord. The same would apply if you chose not to eat meat, or if you chose to eat only vegetables. Consider that.
Your writing shows you have faith...keep it strong!
Before I step off my last Scripture reference, Acts 20:7 I must say I expressed the Perfect-Participle connotation of the Greek ‘synehgmenohn’ not that well. ‘Having been assembling’ doesn’t make good sense. There seems to be conflict between the Passive and the Active ‘feel about’ the term. Maybe I should have said ‘having had assembling’ or ‘having been assembled’, as does Marshall in the Nestle Interlinear NT. However, the idea is as the Grammars say, to convey the idea of the presently ongoing result of a past finished act. I repeat, ‘synehgmenohn’ is NOT the Verb of the sentence and must not be so translated as to replace the true Predicative Verb , “conversed” - ‘dielegeto’.
While the above is not Biblical Scripture, it is what Acts 20:7 seems to tell us. You agree with that?
Re:
“they assembled on the first day of the week to break bread (the Lord’s supper)” -— “they assembled” is a Finite, Indicative Continuous VERB; ‘synehgmenohn’ is a Perfect Participle: NO Verb whatsoever; it does not describe an action but a circumstance or condition. It is more Adjectival than Adverbial seeing it describes the disciples as “having been assembling STILL AFTER having HAD been assembling BEFORE” -— there you are! Now I have got it right! Every word and every concept of this IS CONTAINED IN the Perfect Participle ‘synehgmenohn’. Only then, comes the VERB of the only Sentence of the passage Act20:7 into play -— “dielegeto” Paul “conversed”. Please read book 3/2 ‘Troas’. (+-1970)
Re:
“While the above is not Biblical Scripture, it is what Acts 20:7 seems to tell us. You agree with that?”
Ans:
The above - ‘synehgmenohn’ - as definitely as it tells us “the disciples were still being assembling on the First Day of the week”, as definitely tells us “the disciples BEFORE were assembling The-To-Break-Bread-Assembling” (Infinitive of Noun Force); which as definitely IMPLIES that they on the DAY BEFORE, “were assembling The-To-Break-Bread-Assembling”. Because afterwards on the evening of the NIGHT of the First Day of the week, was ‘Saturday night’ on which “they were being assembling still”, the Sabbath must have been the DAY “BEFORE” their “being assembling STILL on the First Day of the week”.
You're reading too much into this verse. It's not talking about the Sabbath Day itself - it's talking about what was taking place on the first day of the week.
Obj:
You’re reading too much into this verse. It’s not talking about the Sabbath Day itself - it’s talking about what was taking place on the first day of the week.
Ans:
“What was taking place on the first day of the week” were two things: the disciples “were being assembling still”; “Paul addressed them”. That is all. I don’t read something more into it like tradition (and you) do: I don’t read into it that “they assembled” -— which is NOT in this verse or in this word, ‘syneghmenohn’. That is you and tradition who are ‘reading too much into this verse’ claiming ‘it’s talking about’ the disciples “assembled on the First Day”. It is UNTRUE; “They assembled” is not in the verse or in the word ‘synehgmenohn’. They did not assemble on the First Day. That “they BEFORE were being assembled” -— that is, BEFORE on the First Day of the week -— is STATED in and by the word ‘synehgmenohn’ AS CERTAINLY AS is STATED in it and by it that the disciples on Sunday evening “were being assembling STILL”. I ‘read’ no more into this verse or word than is STATED and in statement of Perfect Participle is implied in it.
I don’t read more into this verse than tradition does, that reads into it that Paul ‘PREACHED’ on the First Day; that reads into it that Paul ‘preached’ ALL NIGHT; that reads into it that there were far more people there than those mentioned in the context, etc., like that Paul raised the dead. I STRICTLY stay with the Facts of the Text! I don’t read more into it because I don’t NEED to, whereas tradition cannot do without reading too much into this text otherwise they have NO text in the whole of the NT to base Sunday-observance on and must READ IT INTO the NT at this place or admit defeat.
Here is a better translation of Acts 20:7 - "And on day one of the sabbaths, the disciples having been gathered to break bread, Paul reasoned with them, being about to exit the next day, and he extended the word until midnight."
You may not agree with the above, but it is very much in line with what Luke wrote in Acts 20:7. However, I do applaud you for the attempt you have made trying to translate the Greek of Eberhard Nestle. There is a similar term in verse 8 to the one discussed (sunegmenon), and that term is "sunegmenoi", which translates as "gathered together". Check it out. I'll say more in a day or so as I do some more checking concerning something else you said in this post!
Keep working! You'll eventually get it!
Re:
Your “STILL being assembling” is not what the word “sunegmenon” means in our English language.
Ans:
Alright -— that is an unfortunate repeat of my inferior ‘rendering’; let’s use Marshall’s again, “having been assembling”. Marshall’s is also unfortunate though, because it is a Continuous Present ‘in the English language’. It therefore should be, “having been assembling STILL AFTER having HAD been assembling BEFORE” as I said before. You see the difference? Marshall’s is INCOMPLETE. Now add -— legitimately and unavoidably -— the word ‘STILL’, to get, “having been assembling STILL”, and the meaning changes significantly. Now it is the correct English for HALVE of the word ‘synehgmenohn’; the other HALVE of its intrinsic meaning has still not been expressed.
This other halve NEEDS BE expressed to convey what BOTH the word as such AND the context in Acts 20 DEMAND.
The example you have given is correct; I do NOT deny or contradict: “the disciples having been gathered”. But it MUST be added: “the disciples having been gathered STILL”. Now HERE is where the corruption starts ..... “the disciples having been gathered still TO BREAK BREAD” is applying -— with cunningness -— the WRONG HALVE of the meaning of the Perfect Participle to the Infinitive of Noun Force “The To Break Bread” or ‘Lord’s Supper’.
“The disciples having been gathered STILL” is the ADVERBIAL ‘halve’ of ‘synehgmenohn’ and therefore applies to the VERB of the sentence, which is, “Paul DISCUSSED”. The OTHER aspect of the Perfect Participle cannot just be ignored by pretending it does not exist; to do so would be fraudulent dealing with the text. The just as essential other ‘halve’ of ‘synehgmenohn’ is that of its INITIAL IMPLIED ACT; and that intrinsic implication of it is the ADJECTIVAL that from the nature of it applies to the immediately contextual NOUN, which is the Noun by the idiomatic force of the Greek Infinitive: “the disciples BEFORE HAVING BEEN ASSEMBLING TO BREAK BREAD on the First Day of the week STILL having been assembling, Paul addressed them.” The IMPLICATION of which is just as undeniable and unassailable as that the disciples ‘gathered, BEFORE’, ON THE DAY BEFORE -— ON THE SABBATH.
Re:
“Please tell me where I read anything into the verse that is not there.”
Ans:
That you claim: the “term .... “sunegmenoi” ..... translates as “gathered together”.”.
And alright, you haven’t mentioned them, but the other things I mentioned are usually ‘read into’ this verse and its context. So, if you are an exception, I apologise.
Re:
There is no “y” in the Greek word, it is a “upsilon”, i.e., a “u” in our English alphabet, not a “y”. Also, your putting the English letter “h” in the word as your way to “transliterate” the word into English is questionable to say the least - it’s a guttural “jot” or “tittle” in the Greek language.
Ans:
I am not dogmatic about anything with regard to my ‘transliteration formula’ which I ‘designed’ for my own convenience and which you are free to replace with whatever you prefer. I meant my method to be readable by any without knowledge of the Greek language. The ‘h’ indicates the long sounding vowels. The ‘y’ is used by linguists instead of the ‘u’ and prevents confusion in certain instances. I after many years still exchange the signs myself. It’s inconsequential.
Obj:
Any objective reader can read the following account given by Matthew, and conclude that the “they” of vv.8—9 refers to the two Mary’s mentioned in v. 1. Unless, of course, Matthew was an inept writer. You see, GE, you are attempting to harmonize these accounts even at the cost of destroying the coherency of each individual story. ...... To illustrate, consider this brief account of a bank robbery:
“At 9 AM, two brothers, armed with handguns, walked into a bank. By 9:04 AM, they managed to rob the bank before fleeing by foot.”
Are there any indicators that the “they” of the second sentence refer to persons other than the two brothers mentioned in the first sentence?
Ans:
Matthew was no ‘inept writer’; we are the inept analysers and interpreters.
The harmony and coherency of Matthew’s individual story like the three others— the ‘harmony’ and ‘coherency’ in and of the one ‘account’, are what compose, establish and confirm the harmony and coherency of and within ALL four the ‘accounts’ or ‘stories’ without ‘destroying’ a single historic truth or fact of event or smallest detail concerning the one or the other or all together. Having said that, we have just made a broad, general statement of truth; we have not given an explanation for our conclusion yet.
The question therefore that remains to be asked as well as to be answered, is, Is there such an indicator or explaining factor that might support our conclusion about Matthew’s ‘individual story’, that it is totally true, faultless and a masterly composition by a very apt and inspired writer contradicting none of the other Gospels? And the answer is an unequivocal, ‘literal’, Yes! Verse 5a: “..... answered / explained / expounded the angel (to) the women and said to them .....”. The angel “explained” or “answered” in detail about inducing and abducing events and circumstances before and after Jesus’ Resurrection “Sabbath’s mid-afternoon when there suddenly was a great earthquake”. This whole picture from Matthew fits into the larger picture where no piece from the other Gospels, can.
Obj:
1. If you were right, and “The “they” of v. 9 is the same “they” as in v. 8, namely Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (v.1)”, then, Verse 1 gives wrong information of who left to go see the tomb;
Wait, you just agreed that the “they” of v. 8 is the same as the “they” of v. 9. So what’s the deal?
Ans:
The ‘deal’ is the “they” of v. 8 is the same as the “they” of v. 9” but neither is the ‘they’ in verse 1. Because the ‘they’ does not exist in verse 1; verse 1 states two women: “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” and means THEM only; not indiscriminately ‘they’; not ANY women. Jesus “appeared to Mary FIRST” which means He appeared to Mary M ALONE; she was not with other women when Jesus appeared to her. Both Mark in 16:9 and John in 20:11ff, speak of Mary as having been ALONE WHEN Jesus appeared to her “first of all” -— before anyone else. In Mt28:8,9 Jesus appears to an unknown number of women together, at once. Jesus appeared to NO ONE woman or man in 28:1. It is not even said anyone REACHED the tomb or was AT the tomb when the earthquake occurred. 28:1 states the two Marys “On the Sabbath went / set out / departed TO, (go) see / look at the sepulchre.”
NOW THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT “the angel explained to the women” in chapter 28 before verse 5, at the grave about THE TWO MARY’S “On the Sabbath-day WHEN THERE WAS a great earthquake”. The angel therefore on Sunday morning (not stated) must have “informed” the several women -— Mary M absent -— about the Resurrection that must have had occurred as stated: “In the end of the Sabbath-day” BEFORE. The angel then and there at the grave on Sunday morning must have FURTHER “said to the women .....” that Jesus was not there at the grave; but that He had risen, verses 5b-7. “Then they departed quickly from the sepulchre” WHERE “the angel had EXPLAINED to them” on Sunday morning.
That is why and how “two women would leave” -— in time just before the Resurrection they yet knew nothing about -— “but ‘women’ irrespective” be met by the risen Jesus and “see Him” they by now were well “informed” about by the angel a few minutes ago.
Obj:
About: “Why would they all hold Him by the feet, but only Mary (supposedly) touched Him according to John; etc. etc. like two angels when Jesus appears the first time; but one angel in Mt; In John at the grave; in Mt on the road to Jerusalem ..... ???
Again, I’m not sure what you are trying to ask. Try to be more clear, please.”
Ans:
I am simply trying to tell you Mt28:1-4,5a tells about the Resurrection “On the Sabbath”; and Mt28:5-10 tells about Jesus’ SECOND APPEARANCE on Sunday morning; and that Jesus’ appearance to Mary M was his FIRST appearance (earlier on) on Sunday morning -— THREE different locations, occasions and circumstances as well as three different set-ups of personae and their different understanding in each situation:
1) Jesus’ Resurrection -— “EXPLAINED to the women” -—
“Sabbath’s mid-afternoon as it began to dawn towards the First Day of the week when there suddenly was a great earthquake”;
2) “Early on the First Day of the week” Jesus’ FIRST IN PERSON APPEARANCE to Mary Magdalene on her own in the absence of the other women in front of the grave;
3) Jesus’ SECOND APPEARANCE -— logically -— some time later on Sunday morning -— logically -— to the other women, and -— logically -— Mary M. not present.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.