Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Diego1618
One problem that we run into is that the women may have bought and prepared the ointments and spices on Friday but they returned, according to Gregg's theory, on Sabbath. This would be breaking Sabbath. They would have been coming to the tomb to prepare the body (anoint it) on Sabbath. They would not have done this.

Another thing, the Jewish culture teaches that everything revolves around the Sabbath. When the Sabbath ends they start counting towards the next.

Like this:

Sunday = The first of Sabbaths

Monday = The second of sabbaths

Tuesday = The third of sabbaths

Wednesday = The fourth of sabbaths

Thursday = The fifth of sabbaths

Friday = Preparation Day

Saturday = Sabbath

I hope this helps

The research seems to never end. lol

-Jay

41 posted on 11/01/2009 6:02:55 AM PST by Achi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]


To: Achi
One problem that we run into is that the women may have bought and prepared the ointments and spices on Friday but they returned, according to Gregg's theory, on Sabbath. This would be breaking Sabbath.

The oral law (The Mishna), which was in effect at the time, dictated that to perform these functions for a corpse would not be an illegal activity on the Sabbath. This is what would have been allowed:

A. They prepare all that is needed for a corpse. B. They anoint and rinse it, C. on condition that they not move any limb of the corpse. D. They remove the mattress from under it. E. And they put on sand so that it will keep. F. They tie the chin, G. not so that it will go up, but so that it will not droop. H. And so in the case of a beam which broke I. they support it with a bench or the seams of a bed, J. not so that it will go up, but so that it will not droop. K. They do not close the eyes of a corpse on the Sabbath, L. nor on an ordinary day at the moment the soul goes forth. M. And he who closes the eyes of a corpse at the moment the soul goes forth, lo, this one sheds blood. [p. 207, The Mishnah, A New Translation, Shabbat 23:5]

The women rested according to the Law on the first Sabbath but they had legal justification to go to the tomb on the weekly Sabbath. It was the custom for grieving friends and relatives to go to a grave on the third day to pay last respects. It was at this point in time that death was considered permanent. So a Sabbath morning visit to The Lord's tomb by the women for the purpose of anointing his body would have been in accord with the oral law and would not have broken the Sabbath commandment.

42 posted on 11/01/2009 6:19:54 AM PST by Diego1618 (Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid.......(John Wayne))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: Achi
Achi,

      Diego answered your question about the women "working" on the Sabbath the same way I would have—by quoting the relevant section of the Mishnah.   I would add that in Jewish culture, that when tasks of like nature were required that it was usually left to the women to do it.   The body of Yeshua was wrapped in a single linen sheet on the eve of the Passover Sabbath, then after that Sabbath, on Friday Joseph and Nicodemus wrapped the body in linen strips with the 100 weight of spices.   The remaining task was left to the women to complete the anointing on the third day.  The Mishnah Shabbat 23:5 is directed toward the situation when the body is already in the grave, and defines what housekeeping may be done for the body on the sabbath.   It specifically allows them to "anoint" the "corpse".

I don't know where you got the list in your post.   However, it is entirely contrived to correspond with the grammar and syntax of "first of the sabbaths".

Please see (http://www.torahtimes.org/images/ChartoftheWeek02.jpg)

The facts.

1. The alleged usage does not occur in either English, Greek, Syriac, or Aramaic.

2. The alleged use does not occur in vernacular speech of Hebrew or any language.

3. The alleged usage only occurs in written form in parts of the traditional Jewish literature after AD 140.

4. The alleged usage does not occur in any language before AD 100, but only after the Church altered the meaning of the phrase, "first of the sabbaths", for which the first evidence of the alteration is the Didache.

5.  In the actual Hebrew usage the phrase is אחד בשבת, the earliest instance which is AD 140.

6.  In the Hebrew there is a lack of correspondence between the Greek σαββατων which is in the plural, and the Hebrew שבת which is singular.

7. Further, there is a lack of correspondence between the Hebrew preposition ב and  the genitive case used by the Greek.   To make it correspond would require the dative case in Greek.

8. Further the Hebrew word אחד is in the masculine gender whereas the Greek word is in the feminine.

9.  The Hebrew expected from μια των σαββατων is אחת השבתות.

In linguistics even exact correspondence of a phrase may still have different meanings:

1.  When will the ambassador arrive?  HEISNOWHERE and I hear him knocking at the door.

2.  When did you last see the ambassador?  We've looked all over for him, and HEISNOWHERE.  Whatever shall we do?

In linguistics a slight alteration of grammar can change the whole meaning of a phrase:

1. This is to be the "first of the months" 2. It is the "first of the month"

We see that the plural makes all the difference in the world.

     Now since we have shown that there are three major differences, it cannot be shown that the one phrase was meant to mean the other phrase.   And just as I have said before, just because a monkey has 98% the same DNA as man does not mean that man came from monkey.   The same thing works here.  Just because there are some similarities between two phrases does not mean one means the other.

"Sunday = The first of Sabbaths

Monday = The second of sabbaths

Tuesday = The third of sabbaths

Wednesday = The fourth of sabbaths

Thursday = The fifth of sabbaths

Friday = Preparation Day

Saturday = Sabbath"

Therefore this list is contrived and misleading.  It was made to order to look like "first of the sabbaths" but has so many differences with the limited Mishnaic usage that it has the be ASSUMED they are the same.   But the evidence does not warrant the assumption.

 

The Friday-Sunday theory cannot claim one objective straightforward piece of evidence that uniquely supports it.

I am not saying you made this list up Achi,  it looks to me like Bishop Lightfoot first created it:

    You will notice two things about the Bishop.  First he believed in Sabbath transference theology to Sunday, and second, he mistranslated the Hebrew or Aramaic where he wanted to to make it look like it matched up with the NT, mostly out of ignorance of Hebrew, Aramaic, and wishful theology that the Talmud would rubber stamp his beliefs of NT usage.   His ignorance shows up right away in supposing that שבא means  "Sabbath".  Actually this word is the same as שבע

 

in which Aramaic has transmutted the ayin for alef.   The word simply means "seven", i.e. "one in seven" in the larger phrase.  Its a dead giveaway when the tav is only used for "preparation of sabbath" and "sabbath" itself.

      Notice the Bishop's last comment?  The "new sabbath".   Well this is just the original Gnostic theology.   Like good cultists the 2nd century Gnostics admitted the grammar was "first of the Sabbaths" but since their followers had no Torah context, they reinterpreted the phrase like any cultist would:  they made it the "first of the sabbaths" of the new creation, i.e. the first sabbath of the new dispensation --Sunday to go along with their Mithraic syncretism.

46 posted on 11/01/2009 9:32:53 AM PST by Daniel Gregg (www.torahtimes.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson