Christ Resurrected On Saturday Morning

[BobRyan]

Speaking of week day 1 late in the day "besides all this - TODAY is the THIRD day". Luke 24:21

[Gibs]

Everyone can make of this of when and how long Jesus was in the tomb and it will never be settled.

I have wrestled with it and find that you will not go wrong if you take these two verses and take them as they read. The first one of Matt. you need to reason just a bit but John is straight out but both state the same.

Mt 28:1 ¶ In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Dawn is the break of day and Sabbath ended at sundown so it is Sunday. Now John speaking of the same event,

Joh 20:1 ¶ The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Anyone with different ideas of it, run with it but you will never have have it your way with any that aren't already on board with you.

I care not to hear any of the "twists" put on this. I will run with those two scriptures with no twist.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

The king did say "after 3 days" and "on the third day" for the same period of time.

2 Chronicles 10:5 And he said unto them, Come again unto me after three days. And the people departed.

2 Chronicles 10:12 So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day, as the king bade, saying, Come again to me on the third day.

But I just think when Scriptures itself say that "after 3 days" was fulfilled "on the third day", then the converse is always true.

Originally Posted By: Q.E.D.

Why would one think that?

Q.E.D.

Originally Posted By: Samie

Because the Bible says so.

Where does the Bible say "I just think when Scriptures itself say that "after 3 days" was fulfilled "on the third day", then the converse is always true." ???

I am sorry if you misunderstood me.

I simply meant that since the Bible records "after 3 days" were fulfilled "on the third day", then the converse is also true, that is, "on the third day" gets fulfilled "after 3 days".

[Samie]

Everyone can make of this of when and how long Jesus was in the tomb and it will never be settled.

I have wrestled with it and find that you will not go wrong if you take these two verses and take them as they read. The first one of Matt. you need to reason just a bit but John is straight out but both state the same.

Mt 28:1 ¶ In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Dawn is the break of day and Sabbath ended at sundown so it is Sunday. Now John speaking of the same event,

Joh 20:1 ¶ The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Anyone with different ideas of it, run with it but you will never have have it your way with any that aren't already on board with you.

I care not to hear any of the "twists" put on this. I will run with those two scriptures with no twist.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

I noticed that the two verses you gave merely stated the going to the sepulcher of some of the Lord's followers. But none as to when did He resurrect. Yes, they found an empty tomb. But when did He rise?

It's only Mark 16:9 that tells us when: "proi prote sabbatou" = "early morning of the chief sabbath".

[Samie]

Speaking of week day 1 late in the day "besides all this - TODAY is the THIRD day". Luke 24:21

Not quite week day 1, was it? Verse 1 says "mia ton sabbaton" = "one of the sabbaths" NOT "first day of the week".

[Gibs]

Mt 28:1 ¶ In the end (close of) the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

says the same as

Joh 20:1 ¶ The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Gibs]

Some of the Jews, mybe the largest percent used the Babylonian method of deterning the new moon, when it first became visible to them but was actully there and they couldn't see it. It would be at the horizon in the western sky and still not dark enough to pick it up, seeit and so they would celebrate passover later than should have been. There was two passovers as much as two days apart.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Gibs]

I'm just telling you all that Mat and John are saying the same thing of the same event,

Mt 28:1 ¶ In the end ( The Close ) of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Joh 20:1 ¶ The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

His Word is plain to me and there is no disagreeace between Mat and John.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

There is only one verse in Scriptures that explicitly say when Christ rose from the grave. ................................

SD

Mistake!

There are many Scriptures that clearly imply when Christ would rise.

But there is _no_ verse in Scriptures, or rather Gospels, that explicitly says when Christ rose from the grave. Mark 16:9 does not even say so much as that Christ “rose”; what, “when Christ rose”.

You give us the Verb, please Samie, of the sentence with which Mark 16:9 begins. O yes, from the KJV; that will be good enough. But if you can, the Verb in the Greek sentence.

Anastas de proi prote sabbatou...

Anastas verb participle aorist active nominative masculine singular from anistemi

anistemi {an-is'-tay-mee} from Strong's <450> (5631)

Meaning: 1) to cause to rise up, raise up 1a) raise up from laying down 1b) to raise up from the dead 1c) to raise up, cause to be born, to cause to appear, bring forward 2) to rise, stand up...

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

......................

there is just nothing in Matthew and John that explicitly say when Christ rose.

..........................

SD:

It's true, there is nothing in Matthew or John that explicitly says THAT Christ rose.

But Matthew 28:1 very explicitly gives the TIME and DAY and circumstances WHEN Christ rose, because He rose when the earthquake occurred and the angel opened the grave, no doubt.

Assumption. The verse does not say so.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

............

All other resurrection verses only tell of the coming of some of the Lord's followers to the sepulcher only to find an already empty tomb. ....................

SD:

Which are “all other resurrection verses”?

The ones you know.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

.................

That empty tomb was proof He has indeed risen. But when? Only Mark 16:9 says when: on 'proi prote sabbatou'

...................

SD:

Again you must tell us what or which word or words in Mark 16:9 actually say(s), “He rose”, before you can just assume “'proi prote sabbatou' … proof(s) He has indeed risen … early morning … the weekly sabbath, Saturday”.

I already did. Post #508259 page 5

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

..............

Anastas de proi prote sabbatou...

Anastas verb participle aorist active nominative masculine singular from anistemi

anistemi {an-is'-tay-mee} from Strong's <450> (5631)

Meaning: 1) to cause to rise up, raise up 1a) raise up from laying down 1b) to raise up from the dead 1c) to raise up, cause to be born, to cause to appear, bring forward 2) to rise, stand up...

SD:

One... From which 'grammar' did you get this, "Anastas verb participle aorist active nominative masculine singular from anistemi "

Two... With reference to, "anistemi {an-is'-tay-mee} from Strong's <450> (5631)

Meaning: 1) to cause to rise up, raise up 1a) raise up from laying down 1b) to raise up from the dead 1c) to raise up, cause to be born, to cause to appear, bring forward 2) to rise, stand up... "

Where do you find this word in Mark 16:9?

Grammar Source:

GIND - Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition, edited by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick William Danker. Copyright © 1965 by The University of Chicago Press.

From Greek Scripture:

BNT - Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland 27h Edition. Copyright © 1993 Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

The ones you know.

SD:

I want to know the one's you know; only the places, please.

The resurrection verses found in Matt 28, Mark 16 (except v9, of course), Luke 24 and John 20.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Assumption. The verse does not say so.

SD:

So what do you assume it implies happened?

Sorry, I'm not fond of assuming. I just believe what Scriptures say.

[BobRyan]

Luke 24 says that Sunday "is the third day" since the trial and crucifixion of Christ. That only works with a Friday crucifixion and a week-day-one resurrection.

And on the day of the crucifixion they return to rest - for it was the preparation day - for the Sabbath commandment's observance.

in Christ,

Bob

[Gibs]

Because Jesus Christ resurrected Himself on the first day of the week does in no way give Sunday keepers any ground to stand on whatever. To begin to think that is utter foolishness.

He proved He didn't change the Sabbath and nothing can abrogated that He sets forth as there is no shadow of changing in Him.

Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

His custom of keeping the Sabbath was not changed after His Resurrection all must know.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[jasd]

QR frame:

>>"besides all this - TODAY is the THIRD day". Luke 24:21<<

The rest of the text reads: “...since these things were done.”

The question necessarily arises: what things?—inclusively... Let’s not forget that at least one thing that was done after the crucifixion was the later setting of the guards, which would allow for a day other than Friday for the crucifixion. In fact, it would necessitate a day other than Friday.

>>Not quite week day 1, was it? Verse 1 says "mia ton sabbaton" = "one of the sabbaths" NOT "first day of the week".<<

I may be wrong, but doesn’t mia translate to the ordinal first, as in “first of the sabbaths”? Even taking that sabbaton is a genetive plural – one can only arrive at the fact that it address the first day of the week; however, not in so many words. It, transliterated, refers to the first day of the week as the “first of the sabbaths”. What’s that?

Some say that that implies the first of the Pentecostal Sabbaths. That would need the acceptance that one of the two “sabbaton/sabbatwn/Sabbaths” of Matthew 28:1 would have to be a synecdoche (...reaching, reaching, reaching), as the first ‘sabbaton/sabbatwn/Sabbaths’ is as plural as is the second, genetive or not, meaning (as some say) Sabbath’s end/fullness (unlikely) or end of the Sabbaths. Note: it is still a plural sabbatwn and not a singular sabbatou.

The first use of “sabbaton/sabbatwn/Sabbaths” in Matthew 28:1 must be viewed both as 'standing alone' from the festal Sabbaths preceding and literally the ‘end of the sabbaths’, as its preceding Friday was the only day interim upon which the women could purchase the spices and ointments for anointing the body of Jesus Christ. Meaning, that that Friday was not a Sabbath or part of a contiguous multiplicity of Sabbaths.

Matthew 28:1 has already informed the expositor that Jesus Christ had risen late the day before, late/end of the Sabbaths. Mark 16:9, taken together with Matthew 28:1 must, in fact, refer then to Sunday morning following the resurrection, as the chief Sabbath, when Jesus Christ appeared to Mary. Oy!

“Say what!” --Pogo

[BobRyan]

QR frame:

>>"besides all this - TODAY is the THIRD day". Luke 24:21<<

The rest of the text reads: “...since these things were done.”

The question necessarily arises: what things?—inclusively...

[jasd]

>>SD:<<

Oy! so SD stands for Sour Digestion, eh? ;-) Knew it didn’t stand for yourself. That’d be affectacious, yes?

>>How confused!<<

I get that from your summation below. Slow down and quit trying to outpost everybody else. Read what is written – carefully.

>>Ridiculous … “The first use of “sabbaton/sabbatwn/Sabbaths” … _preceding_, and, literally _the ‘end_ …”?<<

I give you a pass, as that is exactly how I viewed your Thursday crucifixion exposition. Sorry. Try again, without the apparent need of being so overweening.

>>Ridiculous … how can “in the end of the Sabbaths” (in first ‘sabbaths-phrase’ supposedly) be “TOWARDS the first of the sabbaths” (in the second ‘sabbaths-phrase’)?<<

Try again – word by word.

YLT Matt 28:1 And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre,

Regardless, any purported use of earlier MSS by certain exegetes – the Textus Receptus, the Nestlé-Aland, the Byzantine Majority text, Greene’s Interlinear, Robertson, et al... concur with Young’s Literal.

That’s waayyy good enough for me.

You see what I mean about being overweening?—you think that one ought to embrace your readings upon your bolded exclamatories, rather than such as YLT? Love thems fontings...

>>“The … use of “sabbaton/sabbatwn/Sabbaths”…”, DOES NOT EXIST, “… in Matthew 28:1”;<<

Ahh, silly you, of course it does. Twice. Unless, you have access to a lost MS extraordinaire. Anyway, I have to work with what is available to me – whilst not purporting to even have a handle on English, let alone Koine Greek, or Dolma Greek, or Moussaka Gr... sorry, my glands in surge.

>>ONLY “sabbatohn” exists. No; not even “sabbatohn” exists isolated in Matthew 28:1-4. To view the word ‘sabbatohn’ independently is a mistake already. It is not "standing alone".<<

Disabuse me should I err, but is not sabbaton, sabbatwn, and left-handedly sabbatohn the same genitive plural ‘Sabbaths’? And is not the first sabbatwn of Matthew 28:1 indicative of the then passing Seventh-day Sabbath? And for one who cannot embrace such a thing as either a Thursday crucifixion or a Friday crucifixion – the ‘Sabbaths’ indicated by the first instance of sabbatwn in Matthew 21:1 proves that it was separated from the preceding two Sabbaths by a profane day, namely, Friday – upon which the women were able to obtain their spices and ointments for the anointing of Jesus Christ.

Redux: what I mentioned as standing alone was in reference to its (the Seventh-day Sabbath) separation from the contiguity of the immediately preceding Sabbaths – thereby, nullifying the argument that the plural sabbatwn of the first instance in Matthew 28:1 was but portion of/to the immediately preceding Sabbaths – in explanation for its plural nature.

>>The first “Sabbatohn” ONLY exists in THREE, TIME-indicating phrases in Matthew 28:1, 1) “In SABBATH’S FULLNESS”; 2) “SABBATH’S in the very mid-afternoon”; SABBATH’S DAY as it began to dawn TOWARDS the First Day of the week”.<<

Ever heard of synonyms? So, how many ways do you spell Dostoevsky?

Anyway, ‘late’ is the almost exclusive meaning of opse in first century Greek. However, one may, however loosely, infer “FULLNESS” or more specifically ‘end’, as well. Sheesh. But [number] singular genitive? Uhhhh... really?

And 2) “mid-afternoon”. You think? epifwskoush/epifohskóúsehi may as easily mean inclining toward the light. What, which light? Chronology provides the answer. When, exactly, was Jesus Christ entombed? It was not mid-afternoon. It was nearer to the evening dawning – and hours past the “fullness” of a mid-afternoon. The time was early Spring sans the long days of Summertime.

And re the final sabbatwn phrase: disregarding the [number] of the word, I ask, “What is ebdoma?”

What juxtapositions – like surgery with a garden trowel.

So, why are you translating a [case] genitive and [number] plural as [case] genitive [number] singular? What’s your authority to change a [number] plural to a [number] singular. Is that lexically correct?—or permissible?

So, everybody who wrote Greek in the profane world knew that the word for week was ebdoma?—except whoever wrote Matthew – and some few others?

So, why is sabbatwn translated ‘sabbath’ in the first instance and ‘week’ in the next? Seems like bullocks to me, yes?

Writ should harmonize without arbitrary confections and biases of the expositor.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

"besides all this - TODAY is the THIRD day". Luke 24:21

The rest of the text reads: “...since these things were done.”

Quote:

Quote:jasd

The question necessarily arises: what things?—inclusively...

>>Which is why I say to look at vs 19-21 -- the text is its own interpreter in that case.<<

Good point.

“19 And He said to them, "What things?" And they said to Him, "The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,

20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to the sentence of death, and crucified Him.

21 "But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened.”

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Let’s not forget that at least one thing that was done after the crucifixion was the later setting of the guards,

>>A detail that the 2 disciples do not include in their list. If we just stick with the text then Sunday is being identified as the "third day" since the crucifixion death of Christ. (At the very latest) <<

You’re right, the two disciples did not go into detail of a great many things re the “things...”, which leads to the conclusion that they were summarizing. Well, we have the means to do more than summarize; we can overview.

>>But giving you the benefit of the doubt - and so starting with the latest event that they give when defining their own statement about "this is the third day since THESE THINGs happened" -- the best you get is a week-day-one resurrection being called "the third day"<<

Indeed. That is irrefutable. But think on this: defending a Friday crucifixion necessitates a circumlocution of Jesus Christ’s own words. That is to say, those particular defenders utilize the idiom “a portion of a day counts as a whole.” Well, that is a weak stick to lean upon, as the Jewish Pesahim says that should one employ that tactic of temporal measurement, he or she is allowed to do so only upon the beginning or the ending. Not both ends.

The defense of a Friday crucifixion depends upon a short count day on both ends – Friday and Sunday.

The crucifixion has to have occurred on another day.

>>The idea that the sealing of the stone on Saturday was 3 days before the resurrection day walk to emaus on "week day one) does not work by any method known to mankind.<<

A Wednesday crucifixion would allow that.

>>The idea of introducing an event not mentioned in their own account as the start for their reference to "Third day" is even less supportable.<<

We know for a fact that they summarized the events. Writ records the disciples as relating only a partial telling of events.

>>If Sunday evening -- as they walk to Emaus is to be accounted as the "THIRD DAY" since the crucifixion death of Christ, then Saturday is "the 2nd day" and Friday is the "first day" -- and that would be the day of the trial and crucifixion.<<

But it would not fulfill the ‘three days AND three nights’ of Jesus Christ’s own words. Besides, we know that Jesus Christ gave us a NT count of Roman time, “Are there not 12 hours in the day and 12 hours in the night?”

That would put the kibosh upon Jewish idiomatic time factoring...

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Grammar Source:

GIND - Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition, edited by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick William Danker. Copyright © 1965 by The University of Chicago Press.

From Greek Scripture:

BNT - Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland 27h Edition. Copyright © 1993 Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart.

SD:

And Samie, I forgot to remind you, you have not yet told us / me where you find the word 'anistehmi' - that is, the Indicative Finite Verb - in Mark 16?!

Digital Database Source:

BNM - BibleWorks Greek New Testament Morphology. This morphology database, a Greek New Testament morphology compatible with the BLM, is the result of collaboration between Michael Bushell (BibleWorks); Jean-Noel Aletti, SJ, Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome; and Andrzej Gieniusz, CR, Doctor in Sacra Scriptura. The BNM and the BLM use the same coding scheme and lemma spellings, facilitating GNT and LXX comparative studies. Copyright © 1999-2001 BibleWorks, LLC.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

.....................

Digital Database Source:

BNM - BibleWorks Greek New Testament Morphology. This morphology database, a Greek New Testament morphology compatible with the BLM, is the result of collaboration between Michael Bushell (BibleWorks); Jean-Noel Aletti, SJ, Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome; and Andrzej Gieniusz, CR, Doctor in Sacra Scriptura. The BNM and the BLM use the same coding scheme and lemma spellings, facilitating GNT and LXX comparative studies. Copyright © 1999-2001 BibleWorks, LLC.

SD:

Man, I/m very sorry Samie, but I cannot see the Finite Indicative Verb 'anistehmi' in any morphology in your 'Database Source' above, or, in Mark 16:9, you know?

So please Samie man, please tell me why?

P.S.

And o yes, .... what was it again ....? Ah!

Did you find that 'data' about the word 'anastas' in Mark 16:9 really like you have posted it here on this thread?

Yes, Samie?

Or,

No, Samie?

I'm sad, you didn't, SD. But I just have it in the one I had been using, as well as with other databases, too. You could use mine if you like so you could for yourself see what my database say about anistemi and anastas. Unluckily, I cannot send it over digitally to you since it runs up to 3GB in compressed format and only 25MB is allowed to be sent via email per send.

[John317]

There is only one verse in Scriptures that explicitly say when Christ rose from the grave. .... Only Mark 16:9 says when: on 'proi prote sabbatou'

The first part of verse 9 reads, "And having risen early on [the] first [day] of the week..."

This can be proved by the following evidence given below.

Originally Posted By: Samie

The Greek phrase 'proi prote sabbatou' is better rendered 'early morning of the chief sabbath' rather than the generally accepted 'early morning of the first day of the week'.

It literally reads, "early on [the] first of the week."

The reason virtually all translations read this way is that it is the only correct way to translate it.

Do you know of any competant Greek scholar who has translated it as you've given it? If so, please quote it and give the translator's name and the title of the translation.

I can give a list of over 60 highly regarded translations which consistently translate 'proi prote sabbatou' as "early on [the] first [day] of the week." This is in harmony with all the Greek-English lexicons and dictionaries as well as with all Greek grammars used in colleges and universities for the teaching of koine Greek.

Originally Posted By: Samie

It is worth noting that the Greek makes no mention of 'day'(hemera) nor of 'week'(hebdomas).

Do you have a copy of the Greek Septuagint? If so, look at Psalm 94. It contains the heading "A Psalm of David For the Fourth Day of the Week."

Notice the Greek translation of "the Fourth Day of the Week." The word for "week" is Sabbatou, the same word that occurs in Mark 16: 9. It also does not contain the word "day."

Also notice the heading of Ps. 48: "A Psalm of praise for the sons of Core on the second day of the week."

Again, the Greek word for "week" is the exact same word, sabbatou, which occurs in Mark 16: 9. And as before, it omits the word "day."

Originally Posted By: Samie

In fact, in the Septuagint, 'sabbatou' (genitive, singular) always refer to 'sabbath' (a single day) and NEVER to 'week' (7 days).

See note above on Ps. 94 and 48 for proof that the Septuagint does indeed use the word "sabbatou" to mean "week."

Originally Posted By: Samie

But the Sunday-keeping Bible translators seemed to have put in a tint of doctrinal bias in their rendering of the phrase in order to give a semblance of Scriptural authority to their Sunday-keeping.

...

Before looking to some kind of "seeming" doctrinal conspiracy as an explanation for the way sabbatou is translated, I would recommend examining the linguistic and grammatical evidence. Whether it is translated "chief sabbath" or "first [day] of the week" has nothing to do with whether the translator is a Sabbath keeper or a Sunday keeper.

The Didache, written between 50 and 120 AD, also uses sabbaton to signify "week."

It refers to "second [day] of the week" (Mondays) and to "the fifth [day] of the week" (Thursdays).

See paragrpah 8 of the Didache.

[Samie]

Hi John317;

You said about "proi prote sabbatou":

It literally reads, "early on [the] first of the week."

The reason virtually all translations read this way is that it is the only correct way to translate it.

Do you know of any competant Greek scholar who has translated it as you've given it? If so, please quote it and give the translator's name and the title of the translation.

I can give a list of over 60 highly regarded translations which consistently translate 'proi prote sabbatou' as "early on [the] first [day] of the week." This is in harmony with all the Greek-English lexicons and dictionaries as well as with all Greek grammars used in colleges and universities for the teaching of koine Greek.

During Copernicus' time, almost all scholars did not believe the heliocentric theory. In fact, Copernicus was excommunicated for the belief he alone publicly held. Now, we know Copernicus was right.

The Lord and His followers were also an insignificant minority during His earthly ministry. The Sabbath-keepers are an insignificant minority as well compared with the Sunday-keepers and the Muslims.

You see, the majority can also be wrong.