The Bible Says Christ Rose Early Saturday Morning

[John317]

"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.

Great points, Lysimachus.

One more strong piece of evidence that Christ was not raised on the weekly Sabbath day.

[John317]

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.

Originally Posted By: Samie

Saturday resurrection a distraction from the 3-angels' messages, you say? Think again.

Isn't the everlasting gospel of the 1st angel that need to be preached the gospel about Jesus? But are you sure you are not preaching another Jesus, and therefore, another gospel (see 2 Cor 11:4)? The real Jesus of the unadulterated Scriptures rose on Saturday, NOT on Sunday!

Being precise about which day of the week Jesus was raised from the dead was never a part of Paul's gospel. The Bible is clear about which day it was--- the first day of the week, three days after He was nailed to the cross-- but Paul's gospel is not changed by believing that Christ was raised on Wednesday or Thursday or Sunday or Sabbath. The distraction comes from believing & teaching that it's essential to the gospel for the resurrection to have occurred on Wednesday or Sabbath.

I believe Satan would love to see the SDA Church begin to insist that Christ was raised from the dead on the Sabbath instead of on the first day of the week. It would do nothing but cause people to shake their heads in disbelief and make it even harder to get them to listen to the Three Angels' Messages. Such a teaching would also cause division within the SDA church, as if we don't have enough other issues already causing division and distractions from the Third Angels Message.

Here is Paul's gospel:

1 Cor. 15:1-8

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, [2] and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain.

[3] 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. [8] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

And:

Galatians 2:15-21

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; [16] yet 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.

[John317]

The 2nd angel talks about the great city. The great city had made all nations drink of her lies, including the lie of Sunday Resurrection which gave a semblance of Scriptural authority to another lie she perpetrated, Sunday-keeping. When honest Sunday-keepers who keep Sunday believing it was the resurrection day of Christ, know that Saturday is indeed the true resurrection day of the Lord, they will renounce Sunday and keep the true Sabbath instead.

That would be a wrong reason to keep the true Sabbath. Nowhere do the Scriptures teach that people should keep the day of the week on which Christ was raised from the grave. Obedience to God's commandments must be based on truth, not on unsubstantiated arguments and poor evidence.

There's absolutely no valid evidence that the Roman Catholic Church is responsible for the belief that Christ was raised from the grave on the first day of the week. That belief was held long before the existence of the Roman Catholic Church. The first-day resurrection is based on firm New Testament evidence and not on tradition.

[John317]

...

The 3rd angel speaks of worship. Worship God or the arch-deceiver? But is it not a display of worship to the nemesis of truth when we believe the lie he perpetrated, rather than believe the truth of unadulterated Scriptures God has now caused to be manifested?

Therefore, Saturday resurrection is part and parcel of our proclamation of the 3 angels' messages.

Yes, the Third Angel calls for all the world to worship God in the true sense of the word. It calls for us to turn away from all false worship.

But while worship of God requires faith-based obedience to God's commandments, including the Sabbath command, there's nothing in Scripture which would lead me to conclude that it's essential to believe in a Saturday resurrection of Christ. In my view, such a teaching distracts from the real issues and only gives people a reason to doubt our understanding regarding the Sabbath.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: 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.

Great points, Lysimachus.

One more strong piece of evidence that Christ was not raised on the weekly Sabbath day.

Yeah, a strong piece of evidence indeed, against the lie of a Sunday resurrection.

Luke, in unadulterated Scriptures, was speaking about sabbath, brethren. He called that day "mia ton sabbaton" or "one of the sabbaths". Was Sunday one of the sabbaths then?

I am amazed at why you rather believe the lie perpetrated by the Romish church that Luke spoke about the first day of the week when he wrote "mia ton sabbaton". I had been asking you whether you can show from Scriptures that that specific Sunday was one of the sabbaths in that paschal week, but you kept mum, since you cannot prove it from Scriptures. Yet despite your utter incapability of showing biblical proof of the Romish stand, you are bent in protecting the lie.

[Samie]

...

Being precise about which day of the week Jesus was raised from the dead was never a part of Paul's gospel

[John317]

Luke, in unadulterated Scriptures, was speaking about sabbath, brethren. He called that day "mia ton sabbaton" or "one of the sabbaths". Was Sunday one of the sabbaths then?

There are Sunday-keepers who believe your translation is correct: that the verse reads, "one of the sabbaths." Some of them also believe it reads, "the first of the sabbaths." They believe it's a reference to Sunday being the new Sabbath for Christians under the New Covenant.

I don't think it makes any sense for Luke to call the weekly Sabbath "one of the sabbaths."

It's already been shown on this thread that mia ton sabbaton was the way the Greek-speaking people of that time referred to "the first day of the week."

[Samie]

Here is Paul's gospel:

1 Cor. 15:1-8

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, [2] and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain.

[3] 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. [8] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Luke, in unadulterated Scriptures, was speaking about sabbath, brethren. He called that day "mia ton sabbaton" or "one of the sabbaths". Was Sunday one of the sabbaths then?

There are Sunday-keepers who believe your translation is correct: that the verse reads, "one of the sabbaths." Some of them also believe it reads, "the first of the sabbaths." They believe it's a reference to Sunday being the new Sabbath for Christians under the New Covenant.

[John317]

Did you know that unadulterated translation of Scriptures tell of "faith of Jesus Christ" rather than of "faith in Jesus Christ"?

The literal translation of Rev. 14: 12 is "the faith of Jesus." That's how both the King James Version and the New King James read, they're correct. The New American Standard has a note in the margin which agrees with this. It's also the translation of N.T. Wright's recently published Kingdom New Testament.

But the verse is saying the people described in that verse will remain faithful to Jesus. They certainly maintain their faith in Jesus. At the same time, of course, they maintain the same faith that Jesus had-- i.e, the same beliefs and the same trust in His Father.

[John317]

There are Sunday-keepers who believe your translation is correct: that the verse reads, "one of the sabbaths." Some of them also believe it reads, "the first of the sabbaths." They believe it's a reference to Sunday being the new Sabbath for Christians under the New Covenant.

Originally Posted By: Samie

This is your "biblical proof" that Sunday is one of the sabbaths? Hardly a proof, brother.

No, I didn't say it's proof that Sunday is one of the sabbaths. I am pointing out that believing it should be translated "one of the sabbaths" doesn't convince Sunday-keepers to keep the weekly Sabbath. That was one of your arguments in support of teaching a Sabbath resurrection. I am showing evidence that there's no evidence that Sunday-keepers would be persuaded to change for that reason, even if it were true.

[John317]

I don't think it makes any sense for Luke to call the weekly Sabbath "one of the sabbaths."

Originally Posted By: Samie

Luke wrote "mia ton sabbaton" referring to sabbath. What does not make sense is the lie he was referring to Sunday.

No, Luke was referring to the first day of the week.

Please explain why Luke would tell us that Christ rose from the grave early on "one of the sabbaths."

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Did you know that unadulterated translation of Scriptures tell of "faith of Jesus Christ" rather than of "faith in Jesus Christ"?

The literal translation of Rev. 14: 12 is "the faith of Jesus." That's how both the King James Version and the New King James read, they're correct. The New American Standard has a note in the margin which agrees with this. It's also the translation of N.T. Wright's recently published Kingdom New Testament.

But the verse is saying the people described in that verse will remain faithful to Jesus. They certainly maintain their faith in Jesus. At the same time, of course, they maintain the same faith that Jesus had-- i.e, the same beliefs and the same trust in His Father.

I was referring to Gal 2:16 you quoted earlier relative to Paul's gospel. Paul meant "faith of Jesus Christ" but translators made it appear he meant "faith in Jesus Christ".

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: John317

There are Sunday-keepers who believe your translation is correct: that the verse reads, "one of the sabbaths." Some of them also believe it reads, "the first of the sabbaths." They believe it's a reference to Sunday being the new Sabbath for Christians under the New Covenant.

Originally Posted By: Samie

This is your "biblical proof" that Sunday is one of the sabbaths? Hardly a proof, brother.

No, I didn't say it's proof that Sunday is one of the sabbaths.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie[quote name='John317

I don't think it makes any sense for Luke to call the weekly Sabbath "one of the sabbaths."

Originally Posted By: Samie

Luke wrote "mia ton sabbaton" referring to sabbath. What does not make sense is the lie he was referring to Sunday.

No' date=' Luke was referring to the first day of the week.

[John317]

Here is Paul's gospel:

1 Cor. 15:1-8

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, [2] and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain.

[3] 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. [8] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Originally Posted By: Samie

I thought you said the correct day of Christ's resurrection is not in Paul's gospel? Paul knew it was on "proi prote sabbatou" or "early morning of the chief sabbath", on the third day in accordance with Scriptures.

You're assuming something that you haven't yet shown to be true. Where does Paul give evidence of being aware of "proi prote sabbatou"? Paul's letters never speak of the importance of knowing which day of the week Christ rose from the grave. I'm not suggesting that I don't think it makes any difference whether we know which day Christ rose from the grave; all I'm saying here is that Paul's gospel does not make it an issue.

Paul may indeed have known the words of Mark 16: 9, but we can't be sure of it. He never quoted or referred to any of the Gospels.

1 Corinthians was probably written about A.D. 55. Mark's Gospel was most likely written some time in the 60s. Some biblical scholars suggest a date of A.D. 55. Yet even if the Gospel of Mark were written in A.D. 55, it is highly unlikely Paul would have seen it before he wrote 2 Corinthians.

Paul learned about the events of Christ's ministry directly from Christ as well as from Peter and James. When Paul speaks of Christ dying for our sins according to the Scriptures and Christ's resurrection on the third day according to the Scriptures, he's talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the New.

See Ps. 2: 7; 16: 10; 61: 7; 68: 18; 101: 25-27; 110: 1; Isaiah 25: 8; 26: 19; 53: 10-12; Daniel 12: 2; Hosea 6: 2; 13: 14.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: John317

Here is Paul's gospel:

1 Cor. 15:1-8

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, [2] and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain.

[3] 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. [8] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Originally Posted By: Samie

I thought you said the correct day of Christ's resurrection is not in Paul's gospel? Paul knew it was on "proi prote sabbatou" or "early morning of the chief sabbath", on the third day in accordance with Scriptures.

You're assuming something that you haven't yet shown to be true. Where does Paul give evidence of being aware of "proi prote sabbatou"? Paul's letters never speak of the importance of knowing which day of the week Christ rose from the grave. I'm not suggesting that I don't think it makes any difference whether we know which day Christ rose from the grave; all I'm saying here is that Paul's gospel does not make it an issue.

Paul may indeed have known the words of Mark 16: 9, but we can't be sure of it. He never quoted or referred to any of the Gospels.

1 Corinthians was probably written about A.D. 55. Mark's Gospel was most likely written some time in the 60s. Some biblical scholars suggest a date of A.D. 55. Yet even if the Gospel of Mark were written in A.D. 55, it is highly unlikely Paul would have seen it before he wrote 2 Corinthians.

Paul learned about the events of Christ's ministry directly from Christ as well as from Peter and James. When Paul speaks of Christ dying for our sins according to the Scriptures and Christ's resurrection on the third day according to the Scriptures, he's talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the New.

Paul was doubtless referring to such Scriptures as the following: Ps. 2: 7; 16: 10; 61: 7; 68: 18; 101: 25-27; 110: 1; Isaiah 25: 8; 26: 19; 53: 10-12; Daniel 12: 2; Hosea 6: 2; 13: 14.

Ps 101:25-27 is a typo error; Dan 12:2 is a 2nd Coming verse.

Do you know of any Old Testament Scripture that speaks of Christ's resurrection on the third day?

If none, then, from what Scriptures did Paul base his 'third day' statement in 1 Cor 15:4?

It was the Holy Spirit Who inspired him to write 1 Cor 15:4, is it not then possible that same Holy Spirit Who inspired Mark to write "proi prote sabbatou" would have likewise inspired Paul to know about it, not to mention the fact that Paul was closely related with the Sanhedrin and hence knew the related events that Crucifixion week?

This is more than proof that Paul knows Christ resurrected on "proi prote sabbatou", on the third day according to Scriptures.

[BobRyan]

Luke 24 says that the first day of the week- is the "third day" since the trial of Christ.

end of story.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

If Sunday is the third day - and Christ is resurrected for most of that day - there is no way out of a Friday trial and crucifixion.

And you can't have an early Saturday resurrection following a Friday crucifixion that has Christ in a 3 days and three nights scenario for his death and burial and then resurrection.

Furthermore it makes no sense to have Sunday appearances while waiting around all Saturday and Saturday night - in resurrected form.

in Christ,

Bob

[Samie]

Luke 24 says that the first day of the week- is the "third day" since the trial of Christ.

end of story.

in Christ,

Bob

Luke in chapter 24 wrote that the 'third day' is "mia ton sabbaton" or "one of the sabbaths".

Since it is impossible to prove from the Bible that the first day of the week - Sunday - is one of the sabbaths in that paschal week, Luke, therefore, did not say what you said he said.

[Samie]

The fact that Luke wrote "mia ton sabbaton" is evidence enough there was more than one sabbath in that paschal week: a weekly sabbath, and at least a ceremonial sabbath.

The Sunday resurrection lie perpetrators made the world believe there was only the weekly sabbath and that the ceremonial sabbath coincided with it.

The first full moon after the vernal or spring equinox in AD 31, occurred on Tuesday. Christ, through Whom the Father made the worlds and gave instructions as to when Passover is to be celebrated, celebrated Passover right on schedule, on a full moon, a day ahead of the national celebration of the Jews. That was Tuesday night.

In this thread, it had been shown how Scriptures explicitly point us to Wednesday, the prosabbaton of the Jewish Passover celebration, as crucifixion day. 3 days and 3 nights later, on early Saturday morning, Christ rose from the tomb.

[Samie]

The fact that Luke wrote "mia ton sabbaton" is evidence enough there was more than one sabbath in that paschal week: a weekly sabbath, and at least a ceremonial sabbath.

The Sunday resurrection lie perpetrators made the world believe there was only the weekly sabbath and that the ceremonial sabbath coincided with it.

The first full moon after the vernal or spring equinox in AD 31, occurred on Tuesday. Christ, through Whom the Father made the worlds and gave instructions as to when Passover is to be celebrated, celebrated Passover right on schedule, on a full moon, a day ahead of the national celebration of the Jews. That was Tuesday night.

In this thread, it had been shown how Scriptures explicitly point us to Wednesday, the prosabbaton of the Jewish Passover celebration, as crucifixion day. 3 days and 3 nights later, on early Saturday morning, Christ rose from the tomb.

Astronomical data corroborating Scriptural data for the truth of early Saturday morning resurrection of the Lord. This astronomical corroboration cannot be found for the Sunday resurrection lie.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Luke, in unadulterated Scriptures, was speaking about sabbath, brethren. He called that day "mia ton sabbaton" or "one of the sabbaths". Was Sunday one of the sabbaths then?

There are Sunday-keepers who believe your translation is correct: that the verse reads, "one of the sabbaths." Some of them also believe it reads, "the first of the sabbaths." They believe it's a reference to Sunday being the new Sabbath for Christians under the New Covenant.

I don't think it makes any sense for Luke to call the weekly Sabbath "one of the sabbaths."

It's already been shown on this thread that mia ton sabbaton was the way the Greek-speaking people of that time referred to "the first day of the week."

Excellent point! So Samie is re-inforcing and helping Sunday keepers!

[Lysimachus]

Alright, Bob my friend, only difficulty, we do not have "Sunday is the third day" in Luke 23:21.

So would you mind to say again what you minded to say?

We do not have an explicit "Thursday is the first day" either. We do not have a "Friday is the second day" either. We do not have a "Saturday is the third day" either. In fact, we do not have "any" week day pagan name as associated with any "number" of a day in the Bible!

Thus, your argument that "we do not have a 'Sunday is the third day'" does not fly, in light of the fact that the very days you claim are the "first", "second", and "third" days nowhere have "Thursday", "Friday" or "Saturday" attached to them either.

Thus, your own logic plays right back at ya.

[Samie]

From the Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland 27h Edition. Copyright © 1993 Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, this is what is written in Luke 24:1

Quote:

Somebody in this thread wanted to make some impressions, and I don't blame him for that. He wanted to include the iota subscript included in his spelling, an editorial symbol invented in the 12th century long after Luke had written the gospel that bears his name.

He did not even care to explain why he took the liberty of translating the plural "sabbaton" in Lk 24:1 into the singular "week".

But the truth remains: "one of the sabbaths" is NOT an incorrect translation of "mia ton sabbaton". As I had for so many times pointed out, parallel translations occur in "one of the maids" (Mk 14:66) for "mia ton paidiskon" and "one of the synagogues" (Lk 13:10) for "mia ton sunagogon"

Back to the issue: Since Sunday-keeping translators translated "mia ton sabbaton" into "first day of the week" and "one of the sabbaths" is not an incorrect translation of the phrase, it follows that "first day of the week" = "one of the sabbaths".

But since it cannot be proven from the Bible that Sunday, the first day of the week, was one of the sabbaths in that paschal week, we then come to the inevitable conclusion that "first day of the week" is not a proper translation of "mia ton sabbaton".

"sabbaton" was derived by the Greeks from the Hebrew "shabbath". In the Greek Old Testament, all occurrences of "sabbaton" were from "shabbath" which always referred to "sabbath" and never to "week".

As to why in the resurrection verses "sabbaton" was made to refer to "week" is proof enough of the Sunday resurrection lie.