Christ Resurrected On Saturday Morning

[Samie]

Well, let’s see, this teaching came from the clearly defunct prophet Ellen Gould White, did it not? The one who erroneously claimed as revelation from GOD that the church moved the sabbath to Sunday when Constantine came to power?

Hasn’t she been shown to be wrong on this subject enough that SDAs can finally reject her false prophecy and return to Christianity?

NO, you are terribly mistaken. My position is NOT from EGW. It only proves you don’t know what you are talking about. Your dragging of EGW on the issue is totally uncalled for since I NEVER mentioned her in my OP.

 

[ChrisCath]

It should be obvious that the Bible can “prove” just about anything.
Even the devil uses it.

But true understanding springs from the pillar of truth.

Unless you can tie your argument back to the whole bible, you’re just spinning your wheels I’m afraid.

 

[Samie]

…
vine's dictionary:

4413,protos
the superlative degree of pro, “before,” is used (I) “of time or place,” (a) as a noun, e.g., Luke 14:18; Rev. 1:17; opposite to “the last,” in the neuter plural, Matt. 12:45; Luke 11:26; 2Pet. 2:20; in the neuter singular, opposite to “the second,” Heb. 10:9; in 1 Cor. 15:3, en protois, lit., “in the first (things, or matters)” denotes “first of all;” ( as an adjective, e.g., Mark 16:9, used with “day” understood, lit.,“the first (day) of (i.e., after) the Sabbath,” in which phrase the “of” is objective, not including the Sabbath, but following it (cp. B, No. 3); in John 20:4,8; Rom. 10:19, e.g., equivalent to an English adverb; in John 1:15, lit., “first of me,” i.e.,“before me” (of superiority); (II) “of rank or dignity,” see CHIEF, Cp. B, Nos. 3 and 4.

There you have it: PROPER translation which explains that the objective use of “of” in the construct denotes that the statement, correctly translated LITERALLY would be “early on the first day AFTER the sabbath”…

Did you notice that Vine also allows translating protos into ‘CHIEF’? Did you likewise take note that “day” is supplied and “after” is inside parenthesis?

‘proi prote sabbatou’

From Strong’s data:

4404 **proi **{pro-ee’}
Meaning: 1) in the morning, early 2) the fourth watch of the night, from 3 o’clock in the morning until 6 o’clock approximately
Origin: from 4253;; adv
Usage: AV - in the morning 5, early in the morning 2, early 2, morning 1; 10

4413 **protos **{pro’-tos}
Meaning: 1) first in time or place 1a) in any succession of things or persons 2) first in rank 2a) influence, honour 2b) **chief **2c) principal 3) first, at the first
Origin: contracted superlative of 4253; TDNT - 6:865,965; adj
Usage: AV - first 85, chief 9, first day 2, former 2, misc 7; 105

4521sabbaton {sab’-bat-on}
Meaning: 1) the seventh day of each week which was a sacred festival on which the Israelites were required to abstain from all work 1a) the institution of the sabbath, the law for keeping holy every seventh day of the week 1b) a single sabbath, sabbath day 2) seven days, a week
Origin: of Hebrew origin 07676; TDNT - 7:1,989; n n
Usage: AV - sabbath day 37, sabbath 22, week 9; 68

From BGM Morphology & Ginrich Greek NT Lexicon

**sabbatou **noun genitive neuter singular common from sabbaton

You can see that based on the above, ‘proi prote sabbatou’ may be correctly translated into “early morning of the chief sabbath” without violating any rule of the Greek grammar.

 

[Samie]

It should be obvious that the Bible can “prove” just about anything.
Even the devil uses it.

But true understanding springs from the pillar of truth.

Unless you can tie your argument back to the whole bible, you’re just spinning your wheels I’m afraid.

My OP tells you I did. It’s the Friday crucifixion myth that has no biblical proof. From daytime Friday to Sunday before sunrise is only 2 days and 2 nights. Christ specified 3 days and 3 nights. Matt 12:40.

 

[Samie]

verse 9 is part of the lost ending of the gospel of Mark. The original ending was lost…so from v9 on…was added in later manuscripts…but are considered a part of the Gospel.

So you actually do not know when v9 was added.

But let me ask you question, knowing this, why do you accept the Gospel of Mark as part of Scripture? As inspired? Where is the chapter and verse where St. Mark claims authorship of the Gospel of Mark? And when you find this chapter and verse, why do you now accept Mark as the author? Why do you accept it as part of the Bible?

You don’t accept Mark as part of the Bible? Because it tells you Sunday resurrection is a myth? Sorry, I can’t go along with your anti-biblical stance.

…
What is your proof, outside of SDA sources, that the sunday keeping translators made a deliberate mistranslation?

They did in their translation of ‘prote sabbatou’ into ‘first day of the week’ because the Greek makes no mention of ‘hemera’ yet they inserted the word ‘day’ and used the word ‘week’ in reference to ‘sabbatou’ despite the fact that the Greek has its own word for ‘week’ which is ‘hebdomas’.

 

[Samie]

Dear Brother Pablope;

Please don’t drag the SDA Church nor EGW into the issue. My view is totally different from what they have. I am SDA, yes. But my position in this issue is not what the SDA Church believes nor what EGW believed.

It would be unethical for you to continually drag them into this issue.

Thank you.

In Christ Our Risen Savior,
Samie

 

[Incomplete]

I stand corrected on the excommunication of Copernicus in the same way you should be in the excommunication of Galileo. Galileo never was excommunicated.

You’re right. I was thinking about his trial. So either way, I’m not sure who you thought was excommunicated. Galileo’s trial was not about proposing a theory.

Why are you so certain you know what the early Christians didn’t know? It’s clear from their writings that they claimed Christ rose on a Sunday. Also note that it was the Catholic church through which God brought us the Bible. Why would they include something that “proves” a Saturday resurrection when they believed in a Sunday resurrection?

 

[Samie]

…

Why are you so certain you know what the early Christians didn’t know? It’s clear from their writings that they claimed Christ rose on a Sunday. Also note that it was the Catholic church through which God brought us the Bible. Why would they include something that “proves” a Saturday resurrection when they believed in a Sunday resurrection?

God has His own way of preserving Truth. He did not allow the truth about Christ’s resurrection to be totally buried beneath man’s doctrinal maneuvers in the translation of the Bible from the original tongues it was written. God who preserved His Son from the annihilation of babies in Bethlehem surely will likewise preserve the Truth about the real weekday of the resurrection of His Son from being annihilated.

 

[Incomplete]

God has His own way of preserving Truth. He did not allow the truth about Christ’s resurrection to be totally buried beneath man’s doctrinal maneuvers in the translation of the Bible from the original tongues it was written. God who preserved His Son from the annihilation of babies in Bethlehem surely will likewise preserve the Truth about the real weekday of the resurrection of His Son from being annihilated.

I would agree with that. He preserved it though His Church. Why should we believe He allowed the truth to be buried for centuries, only to be revived again by you? It makes no sense.

So are you saying He is preserving His truth through you?

And back to my original question, why are you so certain you know what the early Christians didn’t know? It’s clear from their writings that they claimed Christ rose on a Sunday. Also note that it was the Catholic church through which God brought us the Bible. Why would they include something that “proves” a Saturday resurrection when they believed in a Sunday resurrection?

 

[pablope]

You don’t accept Mark as part of the Bible? Because it tells you Sunday resurrection is a myth? Sorry, I can’t go along with your anti-biblical stance.

Huh…where did I say this, Samie…this is what I posted…

Verse 9 is part of the lost ending of the gospel of Mark. The original ending was lost…so from v9 on…was added in later manuscripts…but are considered a part of the Gospel.So you actually do not know when v9 was added.

Let me reiterate…

I gave you a historical fact…v9 to 20 of Mark 16 are not part of the original gospel of Mark…the original ending is lost forever…from v9 on…was added, later…to sort of complete the gospel ending…so you do not really know what is actually the gospel ending from v9…but no matter, this is wholly accepted by us Catholics.

And so I asked you the following questions, Samie…

[SIGN]But let me ask you question, knowing this, why do you accept the Gospel of Mark as part of Scripture? As inspired? Where is the chapter and verse where St. Mark claims authorship of the Gospel of Mark? And when you find this chapter and verse, why do you now accept Mark as the author? Why do you accept it as part of the Bible?[/SIGN]

They did in their translation of ‘prote sabbatou’ into ‘first day of the week’ because the Greek makes no mention of ‘hemera’ yet they inserted the word ‘day’ and used the word ‘week’ in reference to ‘sabbatou’ despite the fact that the Greek has its own word for ‘week’ which is ‘hebdomas’.

 

[pablope]

Dear Brother Pablope;

Please don’t drag the SDA Church nor EGW into the issue. My view is totally different from what they have. I am SDA, yes. But my position in this issue is not what the SDA Church believes nor what EGW believed.

It would be unethical for you to continually drag them into this issue.

Thank you.

In Christ Our Risen Savior,
Samie

Ok…I apologize…let me ask you then…if you do not believe what the SDA believes or what EGW believed…then what do you believe? Why are you SDA, in the first place?

 

[pablope]

God has His own way of preserving Truth.

And how did God accomplish this? Could you demonstrate how God did it?

He did not allow the truth about Christ’s resurrection to be totally buried beneath man’s doctrinal maneuvers in the translation of the Bible from the original tongues it was written. God who preserved His Son from the annihilation of babies in Bethlehem surely will likewise preserve the Truth about the real weekday of the resurrection of His Son from being annihilated.

 

[Samie]

I would agree with that. He preserved it though His Church.

So, by ‘His Church’ you mean the Roman Catholic Church? If so, do you have any biblical basis for such claim? If NONE, why claim?

Why should we believe He allowed the truth to be buried for centuries, only to be revived again by you? It makes no sense.

Yes, it doesn’t. Let’s just say I’m just one of those who allowed themselves to become instruments in God’s hands for the cause of Truth.

So are you saying He is preserving His truth through you?

No, God preserved it through the Greek Scriptures.

And back to my original question, why are you so certain you know what the early Christians didn’t know?

Did I say so in any of my posts? How could anybody know FOR CERTAIN what the early Christians didn’t know when those Christians themselves don’t know those things?

It’s clear from their writings that they claimed Christ rose on a Sunday.

Which is not what Scriptures say.

Also note that it was the Catholic church through which God brought us the Bible.

I would suggest you make some more readings on this.

Why would they include something that “proves” a Saturday resurrection when they believed in a Sunday resurrection?

They did not and cannot include anything in the Greek Scriptures. Sabbath resurrection is in the Greek Scriptures and they were not written by RC’s. There was NO RC Church yet when Mark wrote the gospel that bears his name.

 

[Samie]

Ok…I apologize…let me ask you then…if you do not believe what the SDA believes or what EGW believed…then what do you believe? Why are you SDA, in the first place?

I did not say I do not believe ALL what the SDA’s and EGW believe. I suggest, be not blinded by your own condition - believe one believe all - otherwise you would assume others to be in the same condition you are in. For your information, since it appears you really don’t know this, the SDA’s and EGW believe in a Sunday resurrection.

 

[Incomplete]

So, by ‘His Church’ you mean the Roman Catholic Church? If so, do you have any biblical basis for such claim? If NONE, why claim?

Check the history books. The only church around was the Catholic church.

Yes, it doesn’t. Let’s just say I’m just one of those who allowed themselves to become instruments in God’s hands for the cause of Truth.

Do you have any biblical basis for such claim? If NONE, why claim?

No, God preserved it through the Greek Scriptures.

Which were preserved by the Catholic Church.

Did I say so in any of my posts? How could anybody know FOR CERTAIN what the early Christians didn’t know when those Christians themselves don’t know those things?

That makes no sense at all. We have tons of writings from them. Believe it or not, they talked to each other after the Resurrection and spread the word. The stuff they wrote, where did it come from if they didn’t know?

Which is not what Scriptures say.

People have already given you ample evidence that Scriptures say this. You gave us one quote in Greek that has been disputed and base everything on that one quote.

I would suggest you make some more readings on this.

I would suggest the same of you.

They did not and cannot include anything in the Greek Scriptures. Sabbath resurrection is in the Greek Scriptures and they were not written by RC’s. There was NO RC Church yet when Mark wrote the gospel that bears his name.

The Catholic church, through the Holy Spirit, determined what books were in the Canon. The Gospel of Mark, in fact, is part of the Canon they determined. That’s why, for example, there is no Shepherd of Hamas in the canon. When Mark wrote the gospel that bears his name, he did not know he was writing scripture. He just wrote. The Catholic church, knowing the teachings that had been handed down to them, knew what was true, and would not have included in Scripture things that went against what they knew.

 

[Samie]

And how did God accomplish this? Could you demonstrate how God did it?

Through the Greek Scriptures.

Correct…and we have the testimony of the Apostles…of the first Christians…of the those whom the Apostles taught…who later succeeded the Apostles…who passed on this knowledge…this Tradition to their successors…and so forth through the centuries…and still goes on to this day in the CC.

So, since the Apostles derived their teachings from the Lord, teachings which you claim were passed on to the CC, why is it that what you as Catholics practise is different from what the Lord wanted His followers to follow?

So…I think this is the second time I am asking you…why do you believe the SDA and not what the Apostles taught? What the early Christians practiced…as taught by the Apostles?

No, I believe God, not the SDA. If my lifestyle is somehow similar to what the SDA teaches it is simply because we SDA’s, follow what the Savior wanted His followers to follow, although I differ from the official belief of the SDA Church in the resurrection day of the Lord.

 

[eddadonkey]

+JMJ+

Through the Greek Scriptures.

Ah you mean the Scriptures that was sifted from all the rest of the ancient documents, protected from persecutors, heretics, and barbarian invaders, copied and recopied lovingly by hand then by printing, by the Catholic Church? OK we gotcha

So, since the Apostles derived their teachings from the Lord, teachings which you claim were passed on to the CC, why is it that what you as Catholics practise is different from what the Lord wanted His followers to follow?

And how do you know what the Lord wanted His followers to follow? Can you give examples? Or are these that we “practise” things that you just do not like?

No, I believe God, not the SDA. If my lifestyle is somehow similar to what the SDA teaches it is simply because we SDA’s, follow what the Savior wanted His followers to follow, although I differ from the official belief of the SDA Church in the resurrection day of the Lord.

Ah so you are better than most people in knowing what the Lord wants His followers to do and know. Never mind that “the official belief of the SDA Church in the resurrection day of the Lord” is the same one documented as believed by all followers of Jesus Christ since antiquity.

 

[Samie]

…

The Catholic church, through the Holy Spirit, determined what books were in the Canon. The Gospel of Mark, in fact, is part of the Canon they determined. That’s why, for example, there is no Shepherd of Hamas in the canon. When Mark wrote the gospel that bears his name, he did not know he was writing scripture. He just wrote. The Catholic church, knowing the teachings that had been handed down to them, knew what was true, and would not have included in Scripture things that went against what they knew.

That is true, they just compiled what books are to compose the canon. And in one of those books is ‘proi prote sabbatou’ of Mark 16:9. They knew it was true, like what you said.

 

[eddadonkey]

+JMJ+

That is true, they just compiled what books are to compose the canon. And in one of those books is ‘proi prote sabbatou’ of Mark 16:9. They knew it was true, like what you said.

What is the Tenth Commandment of the Old Covenant?

 

[Samie]

And how do you know what the Lord wanted His followers to follow?

Oh, they’re in Scriptures. In fact, St. Peter said:

1 Peter 2:21 (The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

For unto this are you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps.

And the Lord Himself said:

John 12:26 (The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

If any man minister to me, let him follow me; and where I am, there also shall my minister be. If any man minister to me, him will my Father honour.

Can you give examples? Or are these that we “practise” things that you just do not like?

Yes. Here’s one:

Luke 4:16 (The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

And he came to Nazareth, where he was brought up: and he went into the synagogue, according to his custom, on the sabbath day; and he rose up to read.

You see, our Shepherd is in church on Saturdays. Are you?

Ah so you are better than most people in knowing what the Lord wants His followers to do and know. Never mind that “the official belief of the SDA Church in the resurrection day of the Lord” is the same one documented as believed by all followers of Jesus Christ since antiquity.

Those are your words, not mine.