Again Elle, you are confusing length of time with a specific time. 8 days in length are not the "8th" day. Not sure who you think you can deceive by that.

Try other things like, "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day", means morning comes first...?!
You'd be amazed how many would fall for that one.

There's one! Yep. Lots of people would go for that. Justify themselves. Between the evenings. Keep the Sabbath. So at noon, we have a moment of silence and pat ourselves on the back for "keeping" the Sabbath. yeah.

Oh, Elle, I can hardly believe the lengths you will go to, to try to accuse someone relating the simple Biblical story as a lie.

Your repeating your "liar" accusation, does not in the least convince me that those Disciples arrived in Emmaus in the middle of the afternoon, and returned to Jerusalem before dark.

Yes, it was the EVENING of the first day of the week. People in those days usually went to bed when the sun went down, they not having electricity etc. The sun was not yet down when they arrived in Emmaus.
HOWEVER, that evening the disciples back in Jerusalem, didn't go to bed, they would not sleep till they learned for a certainty what had become of the body of their Lord... thus they prolonged their "day" -- and yes, it was after dark, when the messengers from Emmaus arrived back in Jerusalem. Though they had not yet gone to bed, yet, from an actual reckoning of time, Sunday had already slipped into Monday and counting forward eight days, the count would be from Monday to Monday.
The next meeting with Jesus was on a Monday, or even Tuesday.

And of course that is the crux of your whole argument that Christ had to appear to the eleven during the daylight hours of Sunday. == Because Sunday observers have created a non-substantiated theory that Jesus only appeared to people on Sundays after his resurrection. But it is in that theory where the lie really lies.


The rest of your post was steeped in assumptions.
There are plenty of people who try to line up all the names and link them together and write stories that would fall under the term "historical fiction".

The assumptions come from this verse:
John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

1. How many women are mentioned? Some say three, some say four.
Jesus' mother, Jesus' aunt, a second Mary, and a third Mary.
So there is no absolute proof that Jesus' aunt was the same as the "wife" of Cleophas.


2. The word "wife" is supplied, it's not even in the original.
All it says is that there is some connection.
Also, how do you know the second traveler on the road to Emmaus wasn't Cleophas' wife? It would make more sense, really.
Usually husband and wife travelled together to the Passover in Jerusalem.
How do you know she didn't have to prepare the meal when they got home?
Why would she go home just hours before her husband? Women travelling without their menfolk wasn't really all that safe.

So really, what you presented is simply a field of speculation -- The possible variables are pretty large.



One thing from scripture -- Cleopas was NOT going home to Emmaus to tell important ladies the good news of the resurrection!!!
Scripture is pretty clear that he did not believe the news was true -- he didn't really believe the "ladies" who had shared their testimony that morning, and Jesus reprimanded him of being "slow of heart to believe."

If Jesus' mother and aunt were already there in Emmaus I'm pretty sure the Biblical account of Jesus arrival there would have been very different. Very different indeed!!!

No, those ladies were not there, we would have heard about it if they were. EGW's account makes WAY more sense, and fits scripture But your story most certainly adds all kinds of things to the Biblical account --

That was pointing to the Cross.

Unfortunately, there are many who insist that the Ten Commandments that define sin, and are the only words physically written by the finger of God Himself, are equivalent to the rules given to direct our attention to the cross. A closer study of the word "forever" (owlam, Strong’s, H5769) would be helpful.

Exo 21:6
"Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him ‘for ever’." (owlam, Strong’s H5769)

Is Mr Peterson suggesting that in heaven, human slaves will serve their human masters "for ever"? Their servitude ended when they died. Just as the seven yearly sabbaths ended at the cross.

It is always fascinating to me, that those who support the Catholic attempt to change God’s definition of sin, focus their efforts on the Sabbath. If the definition of one sin may be changed, then surely all such definitions may be changed? By this logic murder, false witness, adultery, stealing etc. are all acceptable to God...

I need clarification as I don't if I understand correctly what you said above. BTW who is Mr. Peterson? I think we have the same understnding of olam ; but let me bring the root word and 1 text (as there's plenty more like the one you quoted and mine that makes no sense with the english translation of olam as forever. At times it can mean forever; but their is very few application of the word olam means such.

owlam root word is alam (h5956) that means "to conceal, hide, be hidden, be concealed, be secret".

Jonas 2:6 " I descended to the roots of the mountains. The earth with its bars was around me forever [olam], But Thou hast brought up my life from the pit, O LORD my God."

Jonas was only in the whale for 3 days not forever; but when he entered he had no clue how long he would be there.



??? What did you do about the other Sabbaths the law talks about? Do you live by only a few words God spoke that you select....or seek to understand and live by ALL Gods word?

Yeah, Elle, we already talked about how you "live by ALL Gods word". You suggest others should, but you only follow what you say by your own imaginations. The other sabbaths ended. That was the main message Paul was dealing with all the Judaizers who wanted everyone to keep the law of Moses. They denied Christ's sacrifice.

saying so does not make it true. Show me where what I say is my own imagination. That's the best way to deal with the issue and study. I always address you with the specific where I find you only use one text to proof text. One text cannot give the whole picture.

I don't beleive the Judaizers denied Christ's sacrifice and other rituals; but they applied it in their Old covenant mindset. That's what Paul was commenting about that the laws should be viewed and applied with a New covenant mindset. However, the Jews(not the Judaizers) did denied Christ's sacrifice.

Concerning other sabbaths ended...again that is your say. According to Paul in Hebrew 4, he was talking about entering the Tabernacle-Jubilee rest (not the 7 day rest) that the Israelites refused to enter and all perished in the desert for it. So for Paul he recognized other Sabbaths that still needs to be prophetically fulfilled.

I stand corrected. Insead of "imagination" I should have said, not Biblical.

Dearest Elle,

I shall miss our lively discussions:
your insights over which we would so often contend,
your studious presentations that showed so well, how you loved the Word.
Though, at times we would disagree, the fruit of God’s Spirit was plain to see:
your patience, your gentleness, your kind gift of time, the hours of labor spent to share what you believed and the ache in your heart for each lost soul yet to be found.

For one small moment, sleep in peace. And, you will wake to touch His face:
the One who loves you most. At last, in the Light and Love of His grace,
you and I both shall see, no longer through dark glass. And then, perhaps we’ll laugh
together at how blind we were, and how very much eternity has yet to teach us...

I miss you Marie-Mai,
my Sister, my friend.

Or they change it to allow for idols.