The Bible Says Christ Rose Early Saturday Morning

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

...

Just because "mia" is translated "first" in many instances in the Bible, it would justify translating "mia ton sabbaton" into "first day of the week"? What happens with the occurrences where "mia" is also translated into "one"?

I showed the evidence that mia can be translated correctly as "first" because it was argued that mia means "one," not "first." It was used as evidence that the verses related to the resurrection were mistranslated.

Thousands of words in both Testaments are translated in different ways, depending on context. If you look up "heis" in Greek lexicons or dictionaries, you will see that "mia" is sometimes "equivalent to protos first Mt 20: 21; 1 Cor 16: 2; Titus 3: 10" (Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Gingrich, page 61).

I have already responded to you, which I now repeat, that I have no issue against your treatment of "mia".

Your view on "mia" does not and cannot justify translating "sabbaton" to "week", an issue you seem to have failed to adequately address.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: John317

Jesus slept in the grave on the Sabbath just as He rested on the first Sabbath in Eden.

Originally Posted By: Samie

This is your own notion, brother. You were equating the death of Christ to the rest in Eden for which you have no Biblically-endorsed paralellism to base on.

Can I conclude, then, that you don't accept Ellen White's prophetic ministry?

She wrote:

Quote:

Christ rested in the tomb on the Sabbath day, and when holy beings of both heaven and earth were astir on the morning of the first day of the week, He rose from the grave to renew His work of teaching His disciples. But this fact does not consecrate the first day of the week, and make it a Sabbath. Jesus, prior to His death, established a memorial of the breaking of His body and the spilling of His blood for the sins of the world, in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, saying, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." 1 Corinthians 11:26. And the repentant believer, who takes the steps required in conversion, commemorates in his baptism the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. He goes down into the water in the likeness of Christ's death and burial, and he is raised out of the water in the likeness of His resurrection. . .to live a new life in Christ Jesus. {FLB 303.2}

Thanks for asking the question, brother. For readability, my response is in my next post.

[John317]

It really is just another side-issue (among many others) to get God's remnant people off the really important issues, such as the Three Angels' Messages.

Originally Posted By: Samie

.... The true Christ of the true gospel is Him Who rose early morning of Saturday according to Scriptures. A christ who rose on another day of the week is not the Christ of Scriptures. Beware of another Jesus (see 2 Cor 11:4).

You certainly aren't saying that this is a salvation issue and that Christians who believe and teach a first-day resurrection will be lost as result of that belief, are you?

As I read Paul on the gospel, I see no mention that it includes knowing exactly which day of the week Jesus was raised from the grave.

Quote:

1 Cor. 15:3-7

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, [4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, [5] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. [6] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. [7] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Galatians 1:6-12

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— [7] not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. [8] But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

[10] For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

[11] For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. [12] For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Here's the truth of the gospel of Christ according to the apostle Paul:

Quote:

Galatians 2:16-21

We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

[17] But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! [18] For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. [19] For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. [20] It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. [21] I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

I see no room in the gospel for the idea that people must believe Christ rose from the grave on the Sabbath. People can be saved even if they believe He was raised on Wednesday. To be right about which day of the week he was raised is not essential to anyone's justification or salvation. It is not even a part of the commandments of God.

[Samie]

Hi John;

I heartily accept the ministry of Sister White. The following questions directly answered from her writings explain this fact:

1. According to Sister White, is it right to assume that all our doctrines are without error?

“There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation.” {RH December 20, 1892, par. 1} CW 35.2 (Counsels to Writers and Editors)

2. What is our duty when newly-found truths are revealed to us as we humbly study God’s Word?

“The prophet of God declares that in the last days knowledge shall be increased. There are new truths to be revealed to the humble seeker. The teachings of God’s word are to be freed from the errors and superstition with which they have been encumbered. Doctrines that are not sanctioned by the Scriptures have been widely taught, and many have honestly accepted them; but when the truth is revealed, it becomes the duty of every one to accept it.” 4SP 186.3 (The Spirit of Prophecy Volume 4)

3. Can we expect harmony among God’s people when new truths based on the Bible and the Bible alone are received?

“When God’s word is studied, comprehended, and obeyed, a bright light will be reflected to the world; new truths, received and acted upon, will bind us in strong bonds to Jesus. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this holy word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God’s word is infallible. Instead of wrangling with one another, let men exalt the Lord. Let us meet all opposition as did our Master, saying, “It is written.” Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline.” {RH December 15, 1885, Art. A, par. 16} 1SM 416.2 (Selected Messages Book 1)

4. What group of people did Sister White say God will have upon the earth?

“But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority,—not one or all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain “Thus saith the Lord” in its support.” {RH June 7, 1906, par. 5} (GC 595.1)

5. There are people whose profession it is to study Scriptures, who understand what the Bible says in its original tongue, why don’t we just let them do the studying and tell us what to believe?

"Satan is constantly endeavoring to attract attention to man in the place of God. He leads the people to look to bishops, to pastors, to professors of theology, as their guides, instead of searching the Scriptures to learn their duty for themselves. Then, by controlling the minds of these leaders, he can influence the multitudes according to his will." {RH June 7, 1906, par. 6} (GC88 595.2)

In taking what the Bible and the Bible alone speaks concerning an issue as Sister White counseled us to do, is proof of real belief in the prophetic ministry of Sister White.

[John317]

I'm very familiar with those quotes. She was talking about the church having doctrinal error and needing to compare its beliefs with the Bible. She's not saying in any of those quotes that her published writings are in error and that we will need to reject what she wrote.

Do we need to judge her writings by the word of God? Yes, certainly.

But my point here is that you reject what Ellen White wrote in the Faith I Live By, page 303.

Doesn't that also mean you reject what she claimed about God showing her those things in vision.

[John317]

Jesus slept in the grave on the Sabbath just as He rested on the first Sabbath in Eden.

Originally Posted By: Samie

This is your own notion, brother. You were equating the death of Christ to the rest in Eden for which you have no Biblically-endorsed paralellism to base on.

No, it isn't my own notion. I'm not writing my own opinions on these things.

Ellen White wrote the following:

Quote:

Christ rested in the tomb on the Sabbath day, and when holy beings of both heaven and earth were astir on the morning of the first day of the week, He rose from the grave to renew His work of teaching His disciples. But this fact does not consecrate the first day of the week, and make it a Sabbath. {FLB 303.2}

At the very beginning of the fourth precept God said, "Remember," knowing that man, in the multitude of his cares and perplexities, would be tempted to excuse himself from meeting the full requirements of the law, or in the press of worldly business would forget its sacred importance. It is not the first day, or any common day, but the seventh that God has blessed and set apart for a sacred use. As he surveyed his work of creation, he saw that it was very good, and he rested on that day. And he designed that man should keep it holy because he himself on that day had rested. Signs of the Times, July 29, 1897

[John317]

Hi John;

I heartily accept the ministry of Sister White.

Yet you've found ways of rejecting what Ellen White wrote, even supposedly based on her own words and counsel.

When it comes to the resurrection of Christ (as well as other biblical topics), Ellen White was in agreement with the Scriptures. Your ideas would cause us to believe that Ellen White contradicts the Scriptures. If she contradicts the Scriptures, that would make her a false prophet, wouldn't it? It seems to me Paul and John and Peter would be shown to be false apostles if their books contradicted the Scriptures. Doesn't the same principle apply to Ellen White?

[Samie]

You certainly aren't saying that this is a salvation issue and that Christians who believe and teach a first-day resurrection will be lost as result of that belief, are you?

[Samie]

I'm very familiar with those quotes. She was talking about the church having doctrinal error and needing to compare its beliefs with the Bible. She's not saying in any of those quotes that her published writings are in error and that we will need to reject what she wrote.

[Samie]

Yet you've found ways of rejecting what Ellen White wrote, even supposedly based on her own words and counsel.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: John317

Jesus slept in the grave on the Sabbath just as He rested on the first Sabbath in Eden.

Originally Posted By: Samie

This is your own notion, brother. You were equating the death of Christ to the rest in Eden for which you have no Biblically-endorsed paralellism to base on.

Can I conclude, then, that you don't accept Ellen White's prophetic ministry?

She wrote:

Quote:

Christ rested in the tomb on the Sabbath day, and when holy beings of both heaven and earth were astir on the morning of the first day of the week, He rose from the grave to renew His work of teaching His disciples. But this fact does not consecrate the first day of the week, and make it a Sabbath. Jesus, prior to His death, established a memorial of the breaking of His body and the spilling of His blood for the sins of the world, in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, saying, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." 1 Corinthians 11:26. And the repentant believer, who takes the steps required in conversion, commemorates in his baptism the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. He goes down into the water in the likeness of Christ's death and burial, and he is raised out of the water in the likeness of His resurrection. . .to live a new life in Christ Jesus. {FLB 303.2}

AMEN

[Samie]

pkrause,

Thanks for the shout, brother.

At least other readers of this thread have heard. And not only heard but have also realized, that the only contribution you have in your defense of the lie perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church is your shout.

[Samie]

EGW's counsel is to defend doctrine by the Bible and the Bible alone.

Sadly, many are quick to castigate anyone who, through Scriptures alone, shows a position they had held for so long as not in accordance with Scriptures, by labeling him as not believing in the prophetic ministry of Sister White.

But why don't they castigate themselves first because it is clear as noonday they don't believe the counsel of Sister White to defend doctrine through the Bible and the Bible alone?

[Samie]

We are in a period dubbed by the GC as Revival & Reformation.

But when an SDA member presents to this forum a Bible truth NOT in accordance with the official doctrine of the church, and forum members are unable to defend the official stand of the Church through Scriptures alone, then the member is labeled as not accepting the prophetic ministry of Sister White whose counsel it is to defend doctrine via Scriptures alone.

We shout of present truth, but when a present truth is presented many choose to cling to the "truth" of the past, which is now proven as untruth.

Revival and Reformation? With the current attitude displayed, many will remain unrevived, much less reformed.

[Bert1958]

Samie. What are you going to do with Luke 23: 54 - 24:1? Surely you aren't going to destroy the pagan Easter for all the protestants? If only the Protestants would read and have faith in the bible evidence. It's like the law and grace parallel. Of course we can keep the law and have God's grace. God wrote it and it's perfect.We are not legalists because we love and respect God's Holy law. Yep, it doesn't mean we have salvation but it may mean we jepodise our salvation by wilfully neglecting it. Read Romans 3 : 31. isn't that definitive enough?

" 23:54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

23:55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.

23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

Chapter 24

24:1 Now upon the first [day] of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain [others] with them.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: John317

It's become obvious in this discussion that you are both sad cases when it comes to translation of the Greek. I can't believe that you guys think you are able to translate the NT better than people who've dedicated their lives to its translation. You'd be better off staying with the best published translations rather than trying to come up with your own.

Note- Interestingly this summer at Camp I spoke at length about Bible versions with one of our Conference's pastor and a translation scholar.

He told me a bit about the translations we offered, one-by-one, and schooled me a bit. It was a fascinating talk. He really wanted to buy our Hebrew OT, but said it was a bit too pricey for him at the time.

He did tell me that all of our Oxford translations (which will be the NRSVs and some others) were of excellent scholarship.

He did also tell me that when he researched the NIV he was surprised at the scholarship that produced it.

What he told me was nothing new to me, as it matched up with what John317 has been telling us over the years.

I will have to respectfully disagree with you about the NIV having "excellent scholarship" behind it. Too much evidence has been produced revealing that, while I do not believe the NIV is a "Jesuit Bible", I do believe that the Jesuits have gotten their hands in the pie with that translation.

I use the NIV a lot, don't get me wrong. But without question, a number of Bible texts are completely missing. The Greek is just gone. Entire passages in the NIV were deleted.

[Lysimachus]

Samie,

As of yet, you still have to prove that the translations of "sabbatou" as "week" and not "Sabbath" are Roman corruptions. You have produced no such evidence, just your guesses based on supposed evidence.

Apparently you refuse to accept that in the Greek, a same word may have multile meanings and uses. The "third Sabbath" or "fourth Sabbath" or "fifth Sabbath"makes absolutely no sense at all, in light of the fact that "days" are being discussed, not weeks. The translators knew these rules of interpretation very well.

You've carried Rome's corruptions to the extreme, practically demeaning God as a weak God, that could not preserve the basic understanding of when Christ resurrected.

God would not allow Rome to go this far to confuse people, as He is not the author of confusion. What God will allow Rome to do, however, is only go so far as corrupting other translations/versions of the Bible, but not the Greek. Jesus himself used the LXX.

You need to get off your high horse, and admit when you have been proven wrong. John317 has thoroughly refuted you, now it's time to submit.

[Gail]

Quote:

I will have to respectfully disagree with you about the NIV having "excellent scholarship" behind it. Too much evidence has been produced revealing that, while I do not believe the NIV is a "Jesuit Bible", I do believe that the Jesuits have gotten their hands in the pie with that translation.

I use the NIV a lot, don't get me wrong. But without question, a number of Bible texts are completely missing. The Greek is just gone. Entire passages in the NIV were deleted.

Marcos, it wasn't me who said it, it was the pastor, and he didn't say "excellent scholarship" regarding the NIV, but was surprised at the level of scholarship that was there.

The "excellent scholarship" comment was made concerning the Oxford bibles.

Just clarifying.

One thing I do like about the NIV is that there are footnotes where manuscripts differ.

[Lysimachus]

Marcos, it wasn't me who said it, it was the pastor, and he didn't say "excellent scholarship" regarding the NIV, but was surprised at the level of scholarship that was there.

The "excellent scholarship" comment was made concerning the Oxford bibles.

Just clarifying.

One thing I do like about the NIV is that there are footnotes where manuscripts differ.

Thanks for the clarification Gail. My apologies if I misunderstood what you said. I agree that the NIV has a lot of good attributes in it that I like.

[Samie]

Samie. What are you going to do with Luke 23: 54 - 24:1? Surely you aren't going to destroy the pagan Easter for all the protestants? If only the Protestants would read and have faith in the bible evidence. It's like the law and grace parallel. Of course we can keep the law and have God's grace. God wrote it and it's perfect.We are not legalists because we love and respect God's Holy law. Yep, it doesn't mean we have salvation but it may mean we jepodise our salvation by wilfully neglecting it. Read Romans 3 : 31. isn't that definitive enough?

" 23:54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

23:55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.

23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

Chapter 24

24:1 Now upon the first [day] of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain [others] with them.

It is quite apparent you missed many of my posts in this thread that already addressed your concern.

"preparation day" does not always refer to the 6th day of the week. It could also be "preparation day" for a ceremonial sabbath. The day on which the Lord was crucified, Scriptures explicitly say was "preaparation" for Passover (John 19:14), and therefore preparation for a ceremonial sabbath. Recall that the daytime following the eating of the Passover meal is a ceremonial sabbath.

Luke said preparation of spices and ointments was done, before the sabbath. But Mark said the ointments to be prepared were bought after the sabbath (Mk 16:1). No contradiction because Mark was referring to the ceremonial sabbath in that paschal week that occurred ahead of the weekly sabbath Saturday. When the ceremonial sabbath, which occurred Thursday, was past, the women bought and prepared spices and ointments, Friday, and rested the sabbath according to the commandment, Saturday. Since the Lord was crucified the day before the ceremonial sabbath which occurred Thursday, He was therefore crucified Wednesday. 3 days and 3 nights later (Mt 12:40), on early morning of the chief sabbath, He resurrected (Mk 16:9).

It is not incorrect to translate the Greek phrase "mia ton sabbaton" (sabbaton spelled with an omega, is plural) in Lk 24:1 into "one of the sabbaths". Compare "mia ton paidiskon" translated as "one of the maids" (Mk 14:66) and "mia ton sunagogon" translated as "one of the synagogues" (Lk 13:10). The going to the sepulchre by some of the Lord's followers was on "one of the sabbaths". Because it is impossible for Sunday to be "one of the sabbaths" in that paschal week, the translation of "mia ton sabbaton" into "first day of the week" is Biblically untenable.

[Samie]

Samie,

As of yet, you still have to prove that the translations of "sabbatou" as "week" and not "Sabbath" are Roman corruptions. You have produced no such evidence, just your guesses based on supposed evidence.

[Lysimachus]

To make Jesus rise on Saturday morning would make the Sabbath a day of work and get-up-and-go.

I reject Samie's interpretation. It is a lie.

To say that Rome fabricated a Sunday resurrection is nothing but a foolish human invention to bring attention to oneself for inventing something sensational.

Rome made a lot of corruptions, but this is extreme. God would not allow His Bible to be tampered with that much. Had the Bible been tampered to that degree, it would reveal God's weakness in being able to preserve His Bible---and thus, God should not complain if the masses of the people in the world are "deceived" that Jesus rose on Sunday. The average person will not be able to read or understand Greek.

What was God thinking?

[Lysimachus]

"And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened." (Luke 24:13,14)

They would not be traveling/walking on the Sabbath day a 7-mile distance. Thus, this cannot be the Sabbath. There is no intimation anywhere that that day spent was the Sabbath. None of them went into any Synagaogue or any such thing.

I cannot believe what kind of STUPID distractions people come up with. These are distractions to get us side-tracked from the 3-angels messages, and Samie is proving himself to be an instrument of deception, holding people up from doing the Lord's work to get them sidetracked arguing about non-sequitur things. Yikes, it can be so irritating and annoying!

[Samie]

To make Jesus rise on Saturday morning would make the Sabbath a day of work and get-up-and-go.

[Samie]

"And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened." (Luke 24:13,14)

They would not be traveling/walking on the Sabbath day a 7-mile distance. Thus, this cannot be the Sabbath.