11 And the Messenger of Yãhweh appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense¹.

(MISB: Luke 1:11): http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/luke.html#1:11

http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html

 1. This is where Yahweh stood when He spoke “face to face” with Moses in the tent. Other times Moses heard a voice from behind the veil in the most holy place. The location is sufficient to identify the Messenger of Yahweh here as the pre-incarnate Yeshua.

19 And the Messenger answered and said to him, “I am the Mightiest-Man-of-G-d¹, who stands in the presence of the Almĩghty; and I have been sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news.

(MISB: Luke 1:19): http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/luke.html#1:19

http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html

 1. The names “Gabriel” and “Michael” are in fact Messianic titles meaning, “Mighty man of G-d” and “One who is as G-d”. In Luke 1:11, the Messenger is identified as the Messenger of Yahweh, and he stands at the right of the alter of incense. This is where Yahweh customarily stood in the Tabernacle when He spoke to Moses. These Messianic titles were turned into names of mere angels by the Rabbis because they had to undo the Messianic Prophecies in Daniel. “One who is as G-d” in Daniel 12:1 is none other than Messiah Yeshua. Further, the Church fell for the change because it drank of Gnosticism which did not want to identify the “Messenger of Yahweh” passages (cf. Luke 1:11) with Yeshua and Yahweh. The Gnostics rejected the identification between Yeshua and Yahweh. The word גִּבֹּרֵי־אֵל is a superlative plural construct. It means “Mightiest Man of G-d” (see Dan. 9:21).

43 And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Adõnai¹ should come to me?

(MISB: Luke 1:43): http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/luke.html#1:43

http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html

 1. Elizabeth’s Adonai was Yahweh, so when she confesses that Miryam is “the mother of my Adonai”, she is confessing that Yeshua is Yahweh. Yahweh limited himself and took the form of a human spirit in Yeshua. So Yeshua’s spirit, his soul, his person, is Yahweh in human form. Some claim that Yeshua’s spirit, soul, or personality is not Yahweh, but this would be to deny that he is Yahweh. Even as the Messenger (Angel) of Yahweh, the spirit of the Messenger was the Spirit of Yeshua, which is part of the One Ruakh of Yahweh. There is no “other” human only spirit in Yeshua or the Messenger of Yahweh who is not Yahweh.

11 For today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Mẽssiah Yãhweh¹.

(MISB: Luke 2:11): http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/luke.html#2:11

http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html

 1. or, “Anointed Yahweh”. Yeshua was appointed to be the Messiah in Gen. 3:15. Here Yeshua is designated the Messiah at his birth. And he is also identified as Yahweh at his birth. For that part of the Almighty that is the person of Yeshua took the form of a human spirit, so that the human spirit, the human soul is Yahweh. Yeshua’s personality, himself, his consciousness is Yahweh’s own self. The divine-nature leaves aside the glory and attributes that are incompatible with being human, and becomes human. Yeshua leaves his pre-incarnate glory to become a man. It is incorrect to speak of Yeshua’s human and divine natures as separate. They are not separate. They are one and the same. Limiting the Almighty One so that he cannot become a man is to be blamed on Greek philosophical ideas of divine transcendence wherein G-d always has to exist in the most gloried state and cannot take any other form. Such ideas are alien to the Hebrew Scriptures.

18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and¹ then marries another commits adultery. And he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.²

(MISB: Luke 16:18): http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/luke.html#16:18

http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html

 1. The conjunction is coordinate here. That is, the divorce and remarriage are being understood as the same act or very closely together. Divorce is like a death. If someone truly loved their spouse then one would expect the grief to continue at least a year, and perhaps longer. We don’t expect another woman to be floating around someone’s life after a legitimate divorce. If that is the case—if a remarriage occurs right away, then you can be sure it was adultery that was going on. Even if the couple did not sleep together before the divorce, adultery in the heart.

 2. Women get divorces too for the wrong reasons. For instance they go after someone else, or they want to go after someone else, then they get a divorce, and then marry that person. Yeshua is saying that anyone who marries a woman who was just divorced and then falls for her is really committing adultery. If one gets a divorce, one should be real clear on the reasons, a. immorality, b. unbeliever unwilling to accommodate scriptural observance (i.e. foreign marriage), c. physical abuse. Then one should not be remarrying right away.
         One type of second marriage is not allowed by the Torah: A divorced woman cannot remarry the first husband after a second marriage. (Deut. 24:1-4).

56b And on the one Sabbathⁿ they rested [according to the commandment]ª, 1 but on the first of the sabbaths, at deep dawn, they came² to the tomb, bringing the ¹spices³ which they had prepared.

(MISB: Luke 23:56-24:1): http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/luke.html#24:56b

http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html

 n. This was the annual Sabbath, Nisan (or Aviv) 15. It fell from Wednesday sunset to Thursday sunset, March 24 sunset-25 sunset, AD 34. As the death occured late Wednesday afternoon, it would be unnecessary to begin anointing the body until the close of the annual Sabbath at sunset on Thursday. So they merely wrapped it in a single linen sheet. The main embalming was done immediately after the annual Sabbath, and the final anointing with sweet spices left for the women on the weekly Sabbath.

 a. An important VI century Greek MSS, Codex Bezae “D” lacks the phrase “according to the commandment”. The text witnessed to may be no later than 250 AD. Otherwise, there was no need to anoint the body on the annual Sabbath (and so they did rest on that day), it being only one day after Yeshua’s death. The main anointing was left for Joseph of Arimathea to do on Friday, and the final anointing to the women on the weekly Sabbath out of final respect for the dead. See Mishnah Shabbat 23:5.

Also, if the reading is retained, there is a commandment to rest on this Sabbath in Lev. 23:7. And this day is also called “the Sabbath” in Lev. 23:11, 15.

 1. M. 23:5 They may make ready [on the Sabbath] all that is needful for the dead, and anoint and wash it, provided that they do not move any member of it. They may draw the mattress away from beneath it and let it lie on the sand that it may be the longer preserved; they may bind up the chin, not in order to raise it but that it may not sink lower. So, too, if a rafter is broken they may support it with a bench or with the side-pieces of a bed that the break may grow no greater, but not in order to prop it up. They may not close a corpse’s eyes on the Sabbath; nor may they do so on a weekday at the moment when the soul is departing; and he that closes the eyes [of the dying man] at the moment when the soul is departing, such a one is a shedder of blood. Danby, Mishnah 23:5

 2. GEMARA: Did not R. Jehudah. in the name of Samuel say, that it once happened that a disciple of R. Meir, while entering behind his master into the bathhouse, wished to rinse off a place for his master to sit down, and his master would not permit it; so he wanted to grease the steps with oil, but the master said that the floor must not be oiled? Hence we see, that a thing which must not be handled must not be anointed or washed. How then is it permitted to wash and anoint a corpse? If the floor of a bathhouse be allowed to be washed, there is fear lest another floor will be washed also (and thus smoothen any holes which may be in the floor); but a corpse and a floor cannot be confounded, and it is allowed to wash and anoint a corpse out of respect to the dead.

 3. כג,ה עושין כל צורכי המת, סכין ומדיחין אותו, ובלבד שלא יזיזו בו אבר. ושומטין את הכר מתחתיו, ומטילין אותו על החול, בשביל שימתין. קושרין את הלחי--לא שיעלה, אלא שלא יוסיף. וכן קורה שנשברה, סומכין אותה בספסל או בארוכות המיטה--לא שתעלה, אלא שלא תוסיף. אין מאמצין את המת בשבת, ולא בחול עם יציאת נפש; וכל המאמץ עם יציאת נפש, הרי זה שופך דמים.

Mishnah Shabbath 23:5.

21 “And we were hoping that it was he who was about to redeem Israel. But also on top of all this, today leads away the third day from when these things happened¹.”

(MISB: Luke 24:21): http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/luke.html#24:21

http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html

 1. The crucifixion on Wednesday afternoon in AD 34 makes this text a fatal contradiction to both, Easter Sunday and the Sunday Pentecost. Yeshua was raised on the first sabbath after Passover just before dawn (cf. John 20:1). But in hopes of maintaining a Sunday Pentecost (Shavuot) and a Sunday date for the wave sheaf offering, one has to adopt the mistranslation, “first day of the week”. Then Cleopas’ remark will have to be made on Sunday. However, counting from Wednesday makes Sunday day 5.   Wed=1, Thur=2, Fri=3, Sab=4, Sun=5.  So there is no way that Sunday can “lead away” the third day. (An exahustive study of the words “from when” in the LXX and other NT passages will show that inclusive counting is required, that is, all the examples are against counting Thursday as day 1.)

 The reading adopted here is that of Codex Bezae, a few other Manuscripts, and the Syriac, which omit the word “this” in front of “day”. The scribes who copied the other manuscripts altered the text to read, “this third day” instead of “third day” because they realized the text contradicted their Friday to Sunday chronology. Inclusion of the word “this” contradicts all Wednesday-Sabbath chronologies, including those that have the resurrection at the very end of the Sabbath. But since we know that Yeshua died on the 14th of Nisan in AD 34, which was a Wednesday, it is thereby proved that Codex Bezae is correct in omitting the word “this”.

So, to summarize, all readings of this text contradict a resurrection at the close of the Sabbath, because this entails that Cleopas make his remark on Sunday. This then shows that the wave sheaf was on Sunday argument as a type of resurrection is invalid, and thus shows that the same reasoning for a Sunday Pentecost is invalid. The omission of the word “this” in the Western Text and the contextual reason for Cleopas’ lack of hope show that it was after the end of the third day. Thus an Easter Sunday resurrection down the traditional lines of Friday-Sunday is also shown impossible.