The Bible Says Christ Rose Early Saturday Morning

[BobRyan]

It is Mk 16:9 that tells when Christ resurrected. John 20:1 & 19 do not mention when the Lord resurrected.

Luke 24 says that week-day-1 is the third day since the trial of Christ.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

AS John 317 noted

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.)

Indeed there is a consistency in translating this as "week" between Luke 18 and Luke 24:1

And when you look at the language of Luke 23 it is impossible to miss.

54 It was the preparation day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.

55 Now the women who had come with Him out of Galilee followed, and saw the tomb and how His body was laid.

56 Then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.

That is "the commandment" for rest. No other commandment in the Bible is exclusively about rest and nothing else. And the text makes it clear that only one commandment is being identified.

No new testament writer uses such language to refer to anything but the weekly Sabbath.

[Samie]

AS John 317 noted

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.)

Indeed there is a consistency in translating this as "week" between Luke 18 and Luke 24:1

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

AS John 317 noted

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.)

Indeed there is a consistency in translating this as "week" between Luke 18 and Luke 24:1

Hi Bob;

I guess you may have missed my post addressing Luke 18:12 (Pls click here to see that post). If you have the time you could review it and show me how I could have erred.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

when you look at the language of Luke 23 it is impossible to miss.

54 It was the preparation day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.

55 Now the women who had come with Him out of Galilee followed, and saw the tomb and how His body was laid.

56 Then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.

That is "the commandment" for rest. No other commandment in the Bible is exclusively about rest and nothing else. And the text makes it clear that only one commandment is being identified.

No new testament writer uses such language to refer to anything but the weekly Sabbath.

Pls note that I NEVER in this thread suggested that the Sabbath mentioned in Lk 23:56 is NOT the weekly Sabbath.

Again, Luke tells us the preparation of spices and ointments was done BEFORE the Sabbath of the Decalogue.

[Samie]

"dis tou sabbatou" = "twice a week" says the Rome-inspired translators and believed on by the world. Even Sabbath-keepers quickly run to their aid. No wonder the Lord had hinted even the elect could be deceived.

Why can't it be "twice on Sabbath" when "sabbatou" refers to "sabbath" and NEVER to "week" as proven from its occurrences in the Greek Old Testament? Because they say it makes more sense to fast twice a week than fast twice a day.

Where in Scriptures is the record of fasting twice a week? NONE. But to the supporters of the Sunday keeping lie, it is more sensible, even without Scriptural basis.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Pls note that I NEVER in this thread suggested that the Sabbath mentioned in Lk 23:56 is NOT the weekly Sabbath.

Again, Luke tells us the preparation of spices and ointments was done BEFORE the Sabbath of the Decalogue.

Then you have a problem because the Luke 24 statement follows immediately after the Luke 23 reference to the Sabbath of the 4th commandment.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Pls note that I NEVER in this thread suggested that the Sabbath mentioned in Lk 23:56 is NOT the weekly Sabbath.

Again, Luke tells us the preparation of spices and ointments was done BEFORE the Sabbath of the Decalogue.

Then you have a problem because the Luke 24 statement follows immediately after the Luke 23 reference to the Sabbath of the 4th commandment.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: Samie

On the other hand, Mark tells us, the spices which these same women prepared, were bought AFTER the sabbath was past (Mk 16:1). But don't worry, there is NO contradiction.

Mark was referring to a ceremonial Sabbath that occurred ahead of the Sabbath of the Decalogue referred to by Luke.

There is no example in all of scripture where Passover is referred to simply as "Sabbath" rather than "Passover".

In every case it is mentioned either as Passover or as the Feast of Unleavened bread.

Not even once as just "Sabbath"

[Lysimachus]

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.

According to James White, Uriah Smith, J. N. Andrews, and S. N. Haskell, this belief of yours was hurting the Sabbath cause more than uplifting it. And they wrote great lengthy articles debunking a Wednesday crucifixion and Saturday resurrection. Their lengthy articles on it pretty much HURLED it as dangerous theology. But you think you are smarter than these great men of research. Ellen White was quite aware of these arguments in her day.

Once again Samie, your stubbornness is only hurting you more and more.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

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.

According to James White, Uriah Smith, J. N. Andrews, and S. N. Haskell, this belief of yours was hurting the Sabbath cause more than uplifting it. And they wrote great lengthy articles debunking a Wednesday crucifixion and Saturday resurrection. Their lengthy articles on it pretty much HURLED it as dangerous theology. But you think you are smarter than these great men of research. Ellen White was quite aware of these arguments in her day.

Once again Samie, your stubbornness is only hurting you more and more.

Don't pretend, Lysimachus, that you don't know what Sabbath resurrection were those great men of research were up against.

It's your stubborness of clinging to the lie of Sunday resurrection that you need to put a stop to. Your sheer inability of disproving the Biblical basis I had shown should have been enough to silence you.

Since when were you able to read men's minds? If it is your attitude to think you are smarter than anybody else, don't ascribe it to me, brother. Stop your stubbornness of being quick at accusations but slow at the Word.

Sorry, but I believe you need to be whipped sometimes.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Pls note that I NEVER in this thread suggested that the Sabbath mentioned in Lk 23:56 is NOT the weekly Sabbath.

Again, Luke tells us the preparation of spices and ointments was done BEFORE the Sabbath of the Decalogue.

Then you have a problem because the Luke 24 statement follows immediately after the Luke 23 reference to the Sabbath of the 4th commandment.

[Samie]

An avid fan is asking for a quote. I need to oblige:

From the The New Testament in the Original Greek, Byzantine Text Form, 2005. Compiled and arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont.

Quote:

[John317]

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

Originally Posted By: Samie

Don't shift my basis, brother. It is Mk 16:9 that tells when Christ resurrected. John 20:1 & 19 do not mention when the Lord resurrected.

What is the connection, then, that you see between proi protee sabbatou and the "skirt of Rome"?

John 20: 1 says that the women came to the tomb early on the morning of the first day of the week. It is obvious that Christ had risen a short time before they came to the tomb.

Matt. 28: 1: "Now, the sabbath having passed, as it was growing light toward the first day of the week, there came Mary...."

Luke 24: 1: "On the first day of the week, as the dawn was just breaking, they came to the tomb..."

Mark 16: 1 and 2: "And the sabbath being past, Mary, the Magddalene, and the mother of James, and Solome, purchased aromatic spices in order that, having come, they might anoint Him. And very early in the morning of the first day of the week they came to the tomb, the sun having risen."

While it's true that none of those verses contain the words "Jesus was resurrected on the morning of the first day of the week," they all do offer strong circumstantial evidence that Christ's resurrection took place at the beginning of the first day of the week. And of course Mark 16: 9 supports this.

Therefore, it seems to me that if you're going to say there's a connection between Mark 16: 9 and the "skirt of Rome," you would have to say there's also a connection between the other verses and the "skirt of Rome," because they all provide evidence of a Sunday resurrection.

Originally Posted By: Samie

No connection? And who started belief in a Sunday-sabbath, brother?

The mere fact that the Sunday-sabbath started in Rome and Alexandria is no evidence that Mark 16: 9 should be translated "the first of the sabbaths" or "one of the sabbaths."

You need to show a direct relationship between Mark 16: 9 and the "skirt of Rome." You have not done that yet.

Originally Posted By: Samie

To make the deception complete, the enemy of truth tampered with the verse that tells of Saturday resurrection to perpetrate the lie of a Sunday resurrection.

What evidence do you have that "the enemy of truth" tampered with Mark 16: 9?

This is based on conjecture, isn't it?

Do you really believe that God inspired men to write the truth of the gospel of Christ only to allow it to be altered and perverted by Satan? (God did allow some changes to made, but none of those changes alter the fundamentals of the gospel or would cause anyone to accept false doctrines.)

It isn't enough merely to point out the fact that the oldest manuscripts of the ending of Mark's Gospel stop at Mark 16: 8 with the words, "they were afraid." It is likely that Mark did not write verses 9 to 19, and that these verses were added because it was thought that Mark 16: 8 ended the Gospel too abruptly. We can accept added verses because they agree with the rest of the Gospels. They were probably added sometime in the first century and by someone whose authority the believers accepted. I accept them as authentic even if Mark himself did not write them.

[John317]

An avid fan is asking for a quote. I need to oblige:

From the The New Testament in the Original Greek, Byzantine Text Form, 2005. Compiled and arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont.

Quote:

That is the reading of the Majority Text. There's only a difference of one word between that text and the Critical text. The only difference is in the prepostion, apo. The majority text has apo whereas the Critical text has para. Virtually all manuscripts of Mark 16: 9 read apo.

The difference has no affect at all on the translation. Both prepositions in this text mean "from," so "from whom..."

[Samie]

Quote:

Again, and again, only Mark 16:9 explicitly tells when Christ rose from the tomb and it was early morning of the chief sabbath, Saturday.

All other resurrection related verses only say that when Christ's followers went to the sepulcher they found an already empty tomb.

I stand firm that "sabbatou" can never refer to "week" as evidenced by its occurrence in the LXX where in all those said occurrences, "sabbatou" was from the Hebrew "shabbath" which is always "sabbath" and NOT "week". The Hebrew has "shabua" for "week" and there is not a single occurrence in the LXX that "sabbatou" was translated from "shabua".

Even the Hebrew New Testament has "shabbath" in Mk 16:9.

From Hebrew New Testament 1886/1999. Salkinson-Ginsburg edition of 1886, revised 1999 to conform to the Textus Receptus Greek NT. Copyright © 1999 by The Society For Distributing Hebrew Scriptures:

Quote:

On the strength of these Scriptural evidences, I stand firm on solid ground that Christ rose from the grave early morning of the chief Sabbath, Saturday.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Pls note that I NEVER in this thread suggested that the Sabbath mentioned in Lk 23:56 is NOT the weekly Sabbath.

Again, Luke tells us the preparation of spices and ointments was done BEFORE the Sabbath of the Decalogue.

Then you have a problem because the Luke 24 statement follows immediately after the Luke 23 reference to the Sabbath of the 4th commandment.

[BobRyan]

1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.

2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb,

And that is also stated in that same chapter to be the "third day" since the trial of Christ.

It is sunday no matter how you slice it.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

John 20: 1 says that the women came to the tomb early on the morning of the first day of the week. It is obvious that Christ had risen a short time before they came to the tomb.

Matt. 28: 1: "Now, the sabbath having passed, as it was growing light toward the first day of the week, there came Mary...."

John 20:1 does NOT say the women;

John 20:1 does NOT say that the women came;

John 20:1 does NOT say that the women came to the tomb early on the morning.

You're right that John 20: 1 itself only mentions one woman, Mary Magdelene. But according to Matthew 28: 1, Mary Magdelene came to the tomb with "the other Mary."

Mark 16: 1 gives the added information that the second Mary was the mother of James and that Salome came to the tomb with the two Marys. (Salome was the wife of Zebedee.)

Luke 24:1 also says there was more than one woman who came to the tomb early that morning.

So the Gospels make it clear that these women came to the tomb "at the dawning toward the first day of the week," or "as the first day of the week began to dawn" (NKJV).

[John317]

X20

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Matt. 28: 1: "Now, the sabbath having passed, as it was growing light toward the first day of the week, there came Mary...."

Now, be so kind as to give us the Version you quote Matthew 28:1 from?

And please give us its date of publication?

It would also help if we might know who served on the translation committees.

I quoted Matt. 28: 1 from Kenneth S. Wuest's translation. It was first published in 1961.

What is the problem you see with Wuest's translation?

Can you point out any significant difference between it and the KJV's translation: "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."

I also like the translation of the NRSV, "After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb."

Here's the ESV: "Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb."

All saying the same thing, right?

[John317]

Matt. 28: 1: "Now, the sabbath having passed, as it was growing light toward the first day of the week, there came Mary...."

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

For your information, dear John, here is the Greek of John 20:1, Tehi de miai tohn sabbatohn Maria heh Magdalehneh erchetai prohï skotias eti ousehs eis to mnehmeion kai blepei ton lithon ehrmenon ek tou menhmeiou, trechei oun

blepei ton lithon ek ---sees the STONE away

The first verse lacks trechei oun, which is the beginning of the second verse.

ek is not "away" but is the preposition "from." You forgot the verb hermenon, "taken away."

But what is your purpose in quoting the entire passage in transliterated Greek?

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

prohï skotias eti ousehs ---(the) early OF-dark still being = dusk = ;being early darkness (before proper darkness) still

So, do you believe that instead of its being dawn, the text says it was dusk, BEFORE it got really dark?

Why do you translate "early darkness"?

As I tried to explain to you before, the adjective/adverb prohi (early) modifies the verb erxetai (coming). Prohi (early) doesn't modify skotias (darkness). So Mary was coming early in the morning. It wasn't the early part of the dark as you think.

It was early morning. It was early on the first day of the week. In fact, the word prohi (Strongs #4404) means "morning." See Matt. 16: 3, "and at morning [prohi]..." Also see Matt. 20: 1, "... early in the morning [prohi]..."

Prohi occurs 10 times in the New Testament, and all ten times it is translated "morning" or "early morning."

In Acts 28: 23, it is translated, "...from morning [prohi] till evening..."

Could you please explain according to the rules of Greek grammar and translation why you believe John 20: 1 should be translated "early darkness"?

[John317]

Gerhard, the above post shows why both you and Samie should stop trying to translate the New Testament for yourselves and depend on the standard translations of the Bible. There's nothing more dangerous than having just enough knowledge to think you can translate the Bible for yourself, even after it has been shown to you that you are in error. You said yourself earlier that you are both terrible at translating the Greek, so why do you insist on doing it?

That would be like a person who doesn't know the Russian language going to Russia and insisting that it's the Russians who don't know Russian. Crazy, huh? Well, that's about what you guys are doing here.

[John317]

So yes, although Mary did not realise, that was a relative short time after Jesus had resurrected. To be exact, about three hours. Because. For your information dear John317, here is the old so much more trustworthy KJV of Matthew 28:1 about when suddenly there occurred a great earthquake, Late in the end of the Sabbath from

sabbatohn

Sabbaths / Sabbaths-time / of-the-Sabbath-Days / in the Sabbath / on the Sabbath

opse sabbatohn

late / ripe/full /fullness / extended / slow hours ---all at the hand of REAL incidences of use.

Yes, at Matt. 28: 1 the word opse (Strongs #3796) can mean "late" or "at evening." It occurs only 3 times in the entire NT: Matt. 28: 1; Mark 11: 19 and 13: 35.

Mark 11:19

And when evening came they went out of the city.

Here it can also be translated, "became late in the day."

Mark 13:35

Therefore stay awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the c-o-c-k crows, or in the morning—

Opse is related to opsia which occurs 15 times in the NT and is consistently translated as "evening".

[Samie]

Gerhard, the above post shows why both you and Samie should stop trying to translate the New Testament for yourselves and depend on the standard translations of the Bible. There's nothing more dangerous than having just enough knowledge to think you can translate the Bible for yourself, even after it has been shown to you that you are in error. You said yourself earlier that you are both terrible at translating the Greek, so why do you insist on doing it?

That would be like a person who doesn't know the Russian language going to Russia and insisting that it's the Russians who don't know Russian. Crazy, huh? Well, that's about what you guys are doing here.

Oh, thanks for the advice you gave that unluckily included me.

I had not insisted I knew Greek better than anybody else because I never will not, nor did I ever do it anywhere, anytime in this forum or anywhere else in this globe.

I had just merely shown that the very same rules used by the translators who taught the world Sunday resurrection are the same rules they themselves violated by just merely translating "sabbatou" to "week". Why?

Because the same Greek "sabbatou" used in the NT 12 times in these verses - 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 the contested verse and Lk 18:12 were all translated to refer to "sabbath". Score 10 against 2, in favor of "sabbath". What must prevail, sabbath or week?

In the LXX, "sabbatou" occurred 16 times - 2 Chr 23:8; Neh 10:32; 13:15, 17, 19, 22; 2 Macc 5:25; 8:26; Ps 37:1; 47:1; 91:1; Isa 66:23; Lam 2:6 - and, as you have already admitted, were all derived from the Hebrew "shabbath" which always refer to "sabbath" and not to "week". Score: 16 - 0, in favor of "sabbath".

Summary of Scores:

1..."sabbath" 16 (LXX) + 10 (NT) = 26

2......"week" 0 (LXX) + 2 (NT) = 2

"week" scored 2 and that includes the verse at issue, Mk 16:9. So if we don't include Mk 16:9 because it is the one in contention, "week" has but a score of 1 for taking Luke 18:12.

If we further examine Luke 18:12, we find that the only reason given why "sabbatou" was translated into "week" is that it makes more sense to fast twice a week than twice a day. But is there Scriptural record of fasting twice a week? The answer is none. Therefore the translation into "week" was based upon the common sense of the translators which, sadly, has no Scriptural basis.

This brings us into the reality that Sunday resurrection is based upon the common sense of the translators, which has no Scriptural basis, after all. The world then, was for centuries made to believe in a doctrine that was based not on Scriptures, but on the senses of the translators.

Dear readers, this layman doesn't care to be castigated, called names, or whatever may yet come, for as long as I bring the truth, solidly based on the infallible Word of God, and in so doing expose the lie of Sunday resurrection, God be my Help.