Christ Resurrected On Saturday Morning

[SwissGuard25]

Nice words there, brother. Last recourse when you run out of biblical basis. Again, where in Matt 28?

Are you kidding me.

The very first sentence
Mathew 28:1
“After the Sabbath”
and in Mathew 28:5-6
It says he has risen

What part of this do you not understand?

 

[SwissGuard25]

it looks like it’s the other way around, brother. Until now you have not pointed where in matt 28 proves your claim. You just repeat yourself over and over and over again, wasting space and time in the process.

what part of it do you not understand

mathew 28:1
“after the sabbath” do you got that after the sabbath?
The whole chapter was after the sabbath jesus rose after the sabbath!!!
Mathew you 28:5
“he has risen”

the two marys went to see jesus but an angel said he rose from the dead.

After the sabbath

mathew 28:1!!!

 

[SwissGuard25]

Matthew 28 plainly states, “After the Sabbath.” This is the translation of St. Jerome, the first person ever to make a Bible. (Such things as Bibles did not exist at all, before he made the very first one. Even Books of the Gospels didn’t begin to exist until after he had made the first Bible, in the 400s AD.)

It’s either she is to stubborn to admit it. Or she was brainwashed so badly by Ellen G White she is in denial that she is wrong.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

scripturecatholic.com/sunday_worship.html might help with this topic.

As this is in the article, let’s not forget other important verses such as 2 Thess. 2:15.

On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure." Didache, 14 (A.D. 90).

“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death–whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master.” Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).

 

[Samie]

Are you kidding me.

The very first sentence
Mathew 28:1
“After the Sabbath”
and in Mathew 28:5-6
It says he has risen

What part of this do you not understand?

Well, what I do not understand is how you allowed yourself to be duped into believing such nonsensical reasoning that could even insist it was the angel who gave the great commission:

Matt 28:5 And the angel answered
Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations

 

[Samie]

If St. Jerome made any mistakes whatsoever, then what you call a Bible is nothing but a fraud - such thing as a Bible does not exist at all and what St. Jerome made was merely of human origin; not Divine.

There can be no mistake. The Bible was given to St. Jerome from God, perfect in every way.

But if not, then there is no such thing as the Bible.

St Jerome wrote in Latin, not in Greek. ‘proi prote sabbatou’ is Greek not Latin. Don’t drag him into the issue.

 

[Samie]

Is the dictionary now your bible? The problem with “bible Christianity” is that, lacking any continuous history, and having no authority, it must reverse-engineer salvation history using the incomplete, fragmentary written record. Errors are guaranteed. 30,000 and counting to date.

What dictionary? The New Testament was in Greek then translated into different languages so we need to see how it really was in the original language it was written. What’s so wrong with that?

 

[JM3]

The New Testament was in Greek then translated into different languages so we need to see how it really was in the original language it was written. What’s so wrong with that?

1. The Gospel of Mark was written 3 to 4 decades after the event.
2. Mark was not an eyewitness.
3. Christianity is based on the spoken witness of the Apostles.
4. To say that you have more insight then those who heard the words of the Apostles is…foolish.

 

[po18guy]

For ethical reasons, please start a new thread and don’t clutter this thread.

God’s revealed truth clutter?

Your response is code for an embarrassing lack of answers.,Numerous other posters have asked for response rather than regurgitation.

We have no bullet to dodge if you are shooting blanks.

 

[Samie]

1. The Gospel of Mark was written 3 to 4 decades after the event.
2. Mark was not an eyewitness.
3. Christianity is based on the spoken witness of the Apostles.
4. To say that you have more insight then those who heard the words of the Apostles is…foolish.

If you have nothing to say relative to ‘proi prote sabbatou’, is calling someone foolish not outright foolishness in the first place?

 

[onlyvoice]

what part of it do you not understand

mathew 28:1
“after the sabbath” do you got that after the sabbath?
The whole chapter was after the sabbath jesus rose after the sabbath!!!
Mathew you 28:5
“he has risen”

the two marys went to see jesus but an angel said he rose from the dead.

After the sabbath

mathew 28:1!!!

I think (I may be wrong here) what Samie is trying to tell you is that Matthew 28 does not say the resurrection happened that morning “in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week” when the women came to visit the tomb.

Notice that when the women arrived at the tomb the angel told them, “He is not here. For he HAS RISEN." Christ was already “risen” when the women arrived. The angel did not say He rose that morning. He said Christ has already risen. They were not told WHEN Christ rose, nor that He rose that morning, but only that Christ has already risen.

Hope this helps.

 

[Samie]

God’s revealed truth clutter?

Your response is code for an embarrassing lack of answers.,Numerous other posters have asked for response rather than regurgitation.

We have no bullet to dodge if you are shooting blanks.

You don’t have to dodge; you were hit bull’s eye.

 

[po18guy]

Not having access to the hundreds of books that “prophet” Ellen Gould White wrote, and since the Saturday resurrection is unsupportable by scripture, it appears that this is an Ellen Gould White “prophecy.”

And they hammer on the Catholic Church for relying on extra-biblical sources of revelation.

It’s Ellen, isn’t it?

 

[Samie]

I think (I may be wrong here) what Samie is trying to tell you is that Matthew 28 does not say the resurrection happened that morning “in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week” when the women came to visit the tomb.

Notice that when the women arrived at the tomb the angel told them, “He is not here. For he HAS RISEN." Christ was already “risen” when the women arrived. The angel did not say He rose that morning. He said Christ has already risen. They were not told WHEN Christ rose, nor that He rose that morning, but only that Christ has already risen.

Hope this helps.

Thank you. Hope he understands this time.

 

[Samie]

Not having access to the hundreds of books that “prophet” Ellen Gould White wrote, and since the Saturday resurrection is unsupportable by scripture, it appears that this is an Ellen Gould White “prophecy.”

And they hammer on the Catholic Church for relying on extra-biblical sources of revelation.

It’s Ellen, isn’t it?

Unsupported by Scriptures? It’s your Sunday resurrection myth that blinded you to see the truth. Did you notice you even have nothing to say relative to ‘proi prote sabbatou’ except to mudsling Ellen White who did you no wrong?

 

[po18guy]

Unsupported by Scriptures? It’s your Sunday resurrection myth that blinded you to see the truth.

Listen to what you are saying! In essence: Martin Luther was too stupid to avoid being fooled by the evil Catholic Church. Jean Calvin was too stupid. Huldrych Zwingli was too stupid. 495 years of your brother Protestants are all too stupid. 29,999 separate denominations are all too stupid. The entire Christian world is too stupid! But you, your bible and your Greek dictionary are smart.

I might be over-sensetive, but this sounds like arrogance to me.

 

[po18guy]

I think (I may be wrong here) what Samie is trying to tell you is that Matthew 28 does not say the resurrection happened that morning “in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week” when the women came to visit the tomb.

Notice that when the women arrived at the tomb the angel told them, “He is not here. For he HAS RISEN." Christ was already “risen” when the women arrived. The angel did not say He rose that morning. He said Christ has already risen. They were not told WHEN Christ rose, nor that He rose that morning, but only that Christ has already risen.

Hope this helps.

We know that. OP is simply making a nonsensical, agenda-driven argument. Now, at the risk of offending, consider the bible as being sacred Cliffs Notes. Cliffs Notes are not the complete story, but convey a substantial amount of the original author’s intent. The point being that they are not complete, and neither is the bible. See Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, 1 Corinthians 11:34. OP is filling in the blanks with made up stuff to fit the SDA agenda. That is why no other Christian agrees with the SDA.

What the OP is doing is like buying a car with 500 miles on it and then driving in reverse for 500 miles and claiming that where he ends up is where the car was made. He is reverse engineering Church history. That is illogical and theologically dangerous.

Why does the SDA then celebrate the Catholic Christmas? If they are a real church, with the real truth, they need to introduce their own Christmas.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Ok, time to end this debate regarding Mark 16:9

I suggest everyone interested in this debate to read this article apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2022

Explains how for Jews the only day that was named was the Sabbath and was used a reference point to indicate other days, “The Jews reckon the days of the week thus; One day (or the first day) of the sabbath: two (or the second day) of the sabbath;” etc.” Read the entire article to see sources and how this was and is understood by Scholars since the Apostles put pen to paper.

This is reinforced by Luke 18:12

nēsteuō dis tou sabbatou apodekatō panta hosa ktōmai

Mark 16:2 (As stated in the article, imagine the stupidity to state in the prior verse after the sabbath and now in this verse on the sabbath. mia tōn sabbatōn here denotes, one day of the sabbath, as is shown in verse 9, meaning Sunday.)

kai lian prōi tē mia tōn sabbatōn erchontai epi to mnēmeion anateilantos tou hēliou

1 Corinthians 16:2 is another instance

And finally, Mark 16:9

prōtē sabbatou

Only thing I find odd is mia is used in 2 and prōtē in 9, though it’s been suggested that 9-20 was added later by the writer or by a different writer altogether since the language is different. No problem though, both words mean first/one.

As far as the context of a verse indicating the actual Sabbath day, Luke 13:14 and Mark 6:2

 

[Samie]

Listen to what you are saying! In essence: Martin Luther was too stupid to avoid being fooled by the evil Catholic Church. Jean Calvin was too stupid. Huldrych Zwingli was too stupid. 495 years of your brother Protestants are all too stupid. 29,999 separate denominations are all too stupid. The entire Christian world is too stupid! But you, your bible and your Greek dictionary are smart.

I might be over-sensetive, but this sounds like arrogance to me.

Those are your own stupid words, not mine.

 

[Samie]

We know that. OP is simply making a nonsensical, agenda-driven argument. Now, at the risk of offending, consider the bible as being sacred Cliffs Notes. Cliffs Notes are not the complete story, but convey a substantial amount of the original author’s intent. The point being that they are not complete, and neither is the bible. See Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, 1 Corinthians 11:34. OP is filling in the blanks with made up stuff to fit the SDA agenda. That is why no other Christian agrees with the SDA.

Which only proves your ignorance of SDA doctrine and inability to understand that what is in the OP is NOT SDA doctrine.

What the OP is doing is like buying a car with 500 miles on it and then driving in reverse for 500 miles and claiming that where he ends up is where the car was made. He is reverse engineering Church history. That is illogical and theologically dangerous.

Theologically dangerous to you who is ascribing to the false doctrine of Sunday resurrection myth.

Why does the SDA then celebrate the Catholic Christmas? If they are a real church, with the real truth, they need to introduce their own Christmas.

Start your own thread on Christmas and prove there you have a monopoly of Christmas celebration.