The Bible Says Christ Rose Early Saturday Morning

[Lysimachus]

I don't believe God would allow Rome to tamper with the Greek Samie. Sorry. We as the brethren reject your interpretation. You're on a plank of your own, bouncing around, pretending to "know it all".

[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.

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!

That comment makes me smile, brother.

And your belief in the Sunday resurrection lie and castigating the one who exposes the lie does not aid in furthering the lie Sunday-keepers started?

Think again...

[Lysimachus]

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

[Samie]

I don't believe God would allow Rome to tamper with the Greek Samie. Sorry. We as the brethren reject your interpretation. You're on a plank of your own, bouncing around, pretending to "know it all".

The Romish church had already done the tampering, brother. "proi prote sabbatou" is "early morning of the chief sabbath".

Again and again, in the Greek Old Testament, all occurrences of "sabbatou" is from the Hebrew "shabbath" which always refers to "sabbath" and NEVER to "week".

The fact that in Mark 16:9 "sabbatou" was made to refer to "week" is proof enough of the Romish tampering to perpetrate the Sunday resurrection lie.

God foreknew Rome will tamper the translations to propagate the Sunday resurrection lie, but He had caused the existence of the LXX so that when the proper time comes, the lie perpetrated will be unmasked.

Now is that proper time.

[John317]

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.

Originally Posted By: Samie

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

Yes, it should have read Ps. 102: 25-27. Those verses show that Christ would not remain in the grave.

Daniel 12: 2 also points to Christ's resurrection because without it, there would be no resurrection of the saints. Christ's resurrection makes no sense except as the first-fruits of the resurrection of the saints. See 1 Cor. 15: 20:--

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Originally Posted By: Samie

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?

Jesus Himself said the Old Testament contains prophecies that He would die and rise again the third day. He said, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead."

Compare Jonah 1: 17; Hosea 6: 2. It is likely that Paul was inspired to see the same meaning in Jonah 1: 17 that Jesus did. See Matt. 12: 40.

[Samie]

Open your Greek Old Testament, brother Lysimachus, and see for yourself the evidence that all occurrences of "sabbatou" were all derived from the Hebrew "shabbath".

The fact that Romish translators made "sabbatou" to refer to "week" in Mk 16:9 is proof of the Sunday resurrection lie. Castigate me for that, I don't really care. Call me names, I don't care.

All I care for is to present truth as it is from unadulterated Scriptures.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

I don't believe God would allow Rome to tamper with the Greek Samie. Sorry. We as the brethren reject your interpretation. You're on a plank of your own, bouncing around, pretending to "know it all".

The Romish church had already done the tampering, brother.

Samie, God has watched over the Bible and has kept it pure from false doctrines. Yes, some changes were made, but those changes didn't alter any doctrines. For instance, 1 John 5: 7 was probably added, as was John 5: 4, but those verses won't lead anyone into false doctrines. In fact, 1 John 5: 7 supports the rest of the Bible. John 5: 4 simply reflects the belief of the people of that time, that an angel stirred up the water. But that verse is entirely missing in some of the most ancient manuscripts, showing that it probably wasn't a part of the original text.

[John317]

God foreknew Rome will tamper the translations to propagate the Sunday resurrection lie, but He had caused the existence of the LXX so that when the proper time comes, the lie perpetrated will be unmasked.

Now is that proper time.

Samie, the LXX actually contains evidence pointing to "week" as the correct translation in Mark 16: 2, 9. The evidence has already been shown on this thread. I realize you don't accept that translation, and it's all right if you want to go on believing in a Sabbath resurrection. The only problem with it is when you cause division in the church over it. Then it becomes another side-issue that works in Satan's favor because it keeps you from being a strong witness for the truth and it drives wedges between people who should be working in agreement to spread the gospel.

[Samie]

...

Originally Posted By: Samie

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?

Jesus Himself said the Old Testament contains prophecies that He would die and rise again the third day. He said, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead."

Compare Jonah 1: 17; Hosea 6: 2. It is likely that Paul was inspired to see the same meaning in Jonah 1: 17 that Jesus did in Matt. 12: 40.

Which will take us back to the 3 days and 3 nights components of the "third day" phrase, which likewise unmasks the Sunday resurrection lie.

Unadulterated Scriptures tell us Christ resurrected early morning of the chief sabbath, Saturday, and that He was crucified on the prosabbaton of a ceremonial sabbath, giving us exactly 3 days and 3 nights from crucifixion to resurrection.

On the other hand, the Sunday resurrection lie can only account for 2 days and 2 nights.

[Samie]

...

Samie, God has watched over the Bible and has kept it pure from false doctrines. Yes, some changes were made, but those changes didn't alter any doctrines. For instance, 1 John 5: 7 was probably added, as was John 5: 4, but those verses won't lead anyone into false doctrines. In fact, 1 John 5: 7 supports the rest of the Bible. John 5: 4 simply reflects the belief of the people of that time, that an angel stirred up the water. But that verse is entirely missing in some of the most ancient manuscripts, showing that it probably wasn't a part of the original text.

I am not saying God is not watching over the Bible. In fact, what we are doing now is evidence He is active in preserving truth as it is from unadulterated Scriptures.

But you cannot just deny there are successful attempts of tampering with the Greek Scriptures. Let me depart momentarily from the issue at hand to illustrate my point.

In Gal 2:16, the Greek Scriptures tell us we are justified by the "faith of Christ". Open any 20th century translation and you will find that we are now justified by "faith in Christ".

I am merely pointing out that translations could contain doctrinal biases departing from what the Bible writer himself has in mind.

Back to the issue: Whereas Mark was referring to the chief sabbath, Saturday, in "prote sabbatou", translators made what he wrote in Mk 16:9 to refer to the first day of the week, Sunday.

But God had made a way for the lie to be exposed. And truth must prevail.

[John317]

Open your Greek Old Testament, brother Lysimachus, and see for yourself the evidence that all occurrences of "sabbatou" were all derived from the Hebrew "shabbath".

No one denies this, but that is no proof that "sabbatou" cannot mean "week" in certain contexts. There are seven days in the week, which is the reason "sabbatou" was used by the Greek-speaking Jews to refer to the weekly cycle.

Here are the texts in the New Testament where "sabbatou" is correctly translated "week":

Matt 28: 1

Mark 16: 2,9

Luke 18: 12-- "I fast twice in the week..."(Fasting twice a week makes a lot more sense than fasting twice on a single day.)

Luke 24: 1

John 20: 1

John 20: 19

Acts 20: 7-- "the first day of the week" makes much more sense than "one of the sabbaths."

1 Cor. 16: 2-- Again, "the first day of week" makes much more sense than "on one of the sabbaths." Is Paul telling the Corinthians to lay aside their offerings "on one of the sabbaths"? No, of course not. Paul is instructing them to set aside their offerings every first day of the week, at the end of Sabbath. After the sun went down on Sabbath, they were to review their finances and decide what they could give as offerings. (See The Complete Jewish Bible.)

[Samie]

...

Samie, the LXX actually contains evidence pointing to "week" as the correct translation in Mark 16: 2, 9. The evidence has already been shown on this thread. I realize you don't accept that translation, and it's all right if you want to go on believing in a Sabbath resurrection. The only problem with it is when you cause division in the church over it. Then it becomes another side-issue that works in Satan's favor because it keeps you from being a strong witness for the truth and it drives wedges between people who should be working in agreement to spread the gospel.

Again, in the Septuagint, all occurrences of "sabbatou" are all derived from the Hebrew "shabbath". "shabbath" always referred to "sabbath" and NEVER to "week".

Now, show me I am wrong, brother. Show me even one occurrence of "sabbatou" in the Septuagint that was not derived from "shabbath".

As to harmony, I am for harmony inside the church. But harmony for truth; NOT harmony to be united together in believing the Sunday resurrection lie perpetrated by the enemy of truth.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Open your Greek Old Testament, brother Lysimachus, and see for yourself the evidence that all occurrences of "sabbatou" were all derived from the Hebrew "shabbath".

No one denies this, but that is no proof that "sabbatou" cannot mean "week" in certain contexts. There are seven days in the week, which is the reason "sabbatou" was used by the Greek-speaking Jews to refer to the weekly cycle.

In the LXX, "sabbatou" were all from the Hebrew "shabbath" referring to "sabbath" and NEVER to "week". It is the Hebrew "shabuah" that means "week".

None of us in this forum ever had that special opportunity of asking a Greek-speaking Hebrew in Jesus' time as to their use of "sabbatou" in that period. But God preserved for us the LXX.

If indeed, as claimed, "sabbatou" can refer to "week", then even one occurrence of that reference can be found in the Septuagint. Sadly, there is none. People were just made to believe that "sabbatou" can refer to "week" in certain context, a context that NEVER existed in the LXX.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Samie

God foreknew Rome will tamper the translations to propagate the Sunday resurrection lie, but He had caused the existence of the LXX so that when the proper time comes, the lie perpetrated will be unmasked.

Now is that proper time.

Samie, the LXX actually contains evidence pointing to "week" as the correct translation in Mark 16: 2, 9. The evidence has already been shown on this thread. I realize you don't accept that translation, and it's all right if you want to go on believing in a Sabbath resurrection. The only problem with it is when you cause division in the church over it. Then it becomes another side-issue that works in Satan's favor because it keeps you from being a strong witness for the truth and it drives wedges between people who should be working in agreement to spread the gospel.

Exactly!

And then when Samie goes out to witness to people about the Sabbath, those starving souls for truth will hear Samie saying "Jesus rose on Saturday" while the rest of his Adventist brethren are saying "Sunday"---this obvious contradictory will serve more to "eclipse" the importance of the Sabbath in their minds, and have them focus more on the fact that we are divided amongst ourselves than anything--and suddenly all the other important truths of the Sabbath will simply fall at the bottom of the scale in importance.

Samie just does not want to come into harmony with his brethren. He is very stubborn.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Open your Greek Old Testament, brother Lysimachus, and see for yourself the evidence that all occurrences of "sabbatou" were all derived from the Hebrew "shabbath".

No one denies this, but that is no proof that "sabbatou" cannot mean "week" in certain contexts. There are seven days in the week, which is the reason "sabbatou" was used by the Greek-speaking Jews to refer to the weekly cycle.

Here are the texts in the New Testament where "sabbatou" is correctly translated "week":

Matt 28: 1

Mark 16: 2,9

Luke 18: 12-- "I fast twice in the week..."(Fasting twice a week makes a lot more sense than fasting twice on a single day.)

Luke 24: 1

John 20: 1

John 20: 19

Acts 20: 7-- "the first day of the week" makes much more sense than "one of the sabbaths."

1 Cor. 16: 2-- Again, "the first day of week" makes much more sense than "on one of the sabbaths." Is Paul telling the Corinthians to lay aside their offerings "on one of the sabbaths"? No, of course not. Paul is instructing them to set aside their offerings every first day of the week, at the end of Sabbath. After the sun went down on Sabbath, they were to review their finances and decide what they could give as offerings. (See The Complete Jewish Bible.)

::

[Samie]

In the Greek NT, there are 12 verses where "sabbatou", the genitive singular case of "sabbaton" was used: Matt 12:8; Mark 2:28; 6:2; 16:1, 9; Luke 6:5; 13:14, 16; 14:5; 18:12; John 19:31; Acts 1:12.

Except for Mark 16:9 and Luke 18:12, all these verses translated "sabbatou" into "sabbath".

On what basis was "sabbatou" in Mk 16:9 and Lk 18:12 made to refer to "week"? Many are quick to say it was how the Greek language operated that period. But how did they know?

But God knows the Sunday resurrection lie will be perpetrated using Mk 16:9 and a back up from Lk 18:12. So, He caused the production and preservation of the LXX.

"Fasting twice a week makes more sense than fasting twice on a single day", is the reason offered for Lk 18:12. But look and examine the Scriptures if you can find even a single recorded occurrence of fasting twice a week. None.

Instead, Scriptures delineates fasting at daytime (see Judg 20:26; 2 Sam 1:12) from fasting at nighttime (Dan 6:18). Jesus Himself fasted 40 days and 40 nights. Taken one day at a time, that is fasting twice a day, one during daytime, the other at nighttime.

Mark and Luke were both referring to the sabbath but the Romish translators, in order to perpetrate the lie of Sunday resurrection, made it appear otherwise.

But the lie had been unmasked.

[Samie]

...

Exactly!

And then when Samie goes out to witness to people about the Sabbath, those starving souls for truth will hear Samie saying "Jesus rose on Saturday" while the rest of his Adventist brethren are saying "Sunday"---this obvious contradictory will serve more to "eclipse" the importance of the Sabbath in their minds, and have them focus more on the fact that we are divided amongst ourselves than anything--and suddenly all the other important truths of the Sabbath will simply fall at the bottom of the scale in importance.

Samie just does not want to come into harmony with his brethren. He is very stubborn.

I'd rather be stubborn in clinging to the truth than be found stubbornly clinging to the skirt of Rome.

[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

[John317]

And then when Samie goes out to witness to people about the Sabbath, those starving souls for truth will hear Samie saying "Jesus rose on Saturday" while the rest of his Adventist brethren are saying "Sunday"---this obvious contradictory will serve more to "eclipse" the importance of the Sabbath in their minds, and have them focus more on the fact that we are divided amongst ourselves than anything--and suddenly all the other important truths of the Sabbath will simply fall at the bottom of the scale in importance.

Very well put, Lysimachus.

Samie, please read this and think about it prayerfully.

[John317]

I'd rather be stubborn in clinging to the truth than be found stubbornly clinging to the skirt of Rome.

But you're not clinging to the truth when you teach that Christ was raised on the Sabbath.

Was Ellen White stubbornly clinging to the skirt of Rome when she wrote that Christ was resurrected on the first day of the week?

There's absolutely no connection between the "skirt of Rome" and the translation, "first day of the week," in John 20: 1 and 19.

[John317]

Mark and Luke were both referring to the sabbath but the Romish translators, in order to perpetrate the lie of Sunday resurrection, made it appear otherwise.

What Romish translators? There are hundreds of protestant translators who have translated the Bible, and virtually all of them agree on the translation of John 20: 1 & Luke 24: 1, etc.

In your thinking, is everyone who would translate John 20: 1 to read "first day of the week," a Romish translator?

Is Jack J. Blanco a Romish translator?

[John317]

Let's look again at this example:

1 Cor. 16: 2-- Again, "the first day of week" makes much more sense than "on one of the sabbaths."

Is Paul telling the Corinthians to lay aside their offerings "on one of the sabbaths"? No, of course not. Paul is instructing them to set aside their offerings every first day of the week, at the end of Sabbath. After the sun went down on Sabbath, they were to review their finances and decide what they could give as offerings. (See The Complete Jewish Bible.)

If what you say is true about sabbatou referring to the Sabbath in 1 Cor. 16: 2, it would mean Paul is telling the believers to lay aside their offerings on the Sabbath day. "Laying aside" includes a review of their business and their financial situation in order to decide how much they should give as an offering. I seriously doubt the apostle Paul would have told the believers to do those things on the Sabbath day.

Personally I find this very strong evidence that Paul is talking there about the "first day of the week," and not "one of the sabbaths."

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

I'd rather be stubborn in clinging to the truth than be found stubbornly clinging to the skirt of Rome.

But you're not clinging to the truth when you teach that Christ was raised on the Sabbath.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Mark and Luke were both referring to the sabbath but the Romish translators, in order to perpetrate the lie of Sunday resurrection, made it appear otherwise.

What Romish translators? There are hundreds of protestant translators who have translated the Bible, and virtually all of them agree on the translation of John 20: 1 & Luke 24: 1, etc.

In your thinking, is everyone who would translate John 20: 1 to read "first day of the week," a Romish translator?

Is Jack J. Blanco a Romish translator?

Why in a hurry to evade Mark 16:9, brother? My basis for this thread is Mark 16:9. Go to that verse, and I'll meet you there.

After either you or I give up, then we go to other verses. OK?

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

And then when Samie goes out to witness to people about the Sabbath, those starving souls for truth will hear Samie saying "Jesus rose on Saturday" while the rest of his Adventist brethren are saying "Sunday"---this obvious contradictory will serve more to "eclipse" the importance of the Sabbath in their minds, and have them focus more on the fact that we are divided amongst ourselves than anything--and suddenly all the other important truths of the Sabbath will simply fall at the bottom of the scale in importance.

Very well put, Lysimachus.

Samie, please read this and think about it prayerfully.

You don't consider me as merely acting on impulse, do you? This layman can also be prayerful even if others think he is not.

But rest assured, I won't teach Saturday resurrection and at the same time introduce myself as SDA. Nor do I go out and proclaim, "Hey, I am an SDA. And I am here to tell you the SDA's believe in the lie of Sunday resurrection."

But teaching a Saturday resurrection will not eclipse the importance of the Sabbath. Instead, it would greatly uplift the importance of the Sabbath. Both truth serve to uplift each other. Rather than mix truth with a lie. Together, they become untruth.