Christ Resurrected On Saturday Morning

[Samie]

Ok, time to end this debate regarding Mark 16:9End now? Why so sudden when you have not even submitted a rebuttal of my responses to you?
Trevor Stamm;8915740:

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.The articlle in the link provided miserably failed to show biblically how on earth did ‘sabbaton’ was made to refer to week by no less than the Sunday-keeping authors themselves.

This is reinforced by Luke 18:12

nēsteuō dis tou sabbatou apodekatō panta hosa ktōmai’dis tou sabbatou’, translated ‘twice in the week’ is better translated ‘twice on sabbath’ there being no record anywhere in Scriptures of fasting twice a week. On the other hand, fasting twice a day is Scriptural. It should be noted that the Bible delineates fasting in the daytime vis-à-vis fasting at nighttime.

When the Israelites hesitated to battle against the tribe of Benjamin they “fasted that day until even” (Judges 20:26). Upon knowing of the death of Saul and Jonathan, David and his men “fasted until even” (2 Samuel 1:12). When Daniel was thrown into the den of lions, King Darius “passed the night fasting” (Daniel 6:18). If we read Daniel’s prayer and supplication (see Daniel 9), it will not take us more than five minutes but the scripture says it was done with fasting (Daniel 9:3). Fasting for a short period in a day is practiced by the apostles themselves (Acts 13:3; 14:23). Fasting twice a day is not a product of imagination. Christ Himself “fasted forty days and forty nights” (Matthew 4:2). Taken one day at a time, that is fasting twice a day, one at daytime, the other at nighttime.

Not being backed up by Scriptures, **Fasting twice a week is a product of imagination **of the Sunday-keeping translators to give a semblance of scriptural basis in their translation of ‘sabbatou’ and made it refer to ‘week’ instead of to ‘sabbath’.

 

[anodos]

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?

In “Seventh-Day Adventists Believe…a Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines”,
which I’ve been been refered to as one of the best sources to go to for SDA beliefs, it agrees that Christ rose on a Sunday:
“Why did those who were turning from worship on the seventh day choose Sunday and not another day of the week? A major reason was that Christ was resurrected on Sunday; in fact, it was alleged that He authorized worship on that day.” (chapter 19, pg 261)
It goes on to list some of the earliest sources for Sunday worship, those who lived near the time when Jesus lived, and accuses them (of course) of not citing Biblical sources for their practise.

Yet on page 254 of the same chapter, it claims that “Lord’s Day” referred to the Sabbath and there is no biblical reason to assume that the early church meant “Sunday” when they said “Lord’s Day”:
“Many are under the impression that John was referring to Sunday when he stated he was ‘in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day’ (Rev. 1:10). In the Bible, however, the only day referred to as the Lord’s special possession is the Sabbath. …Since, in the scripture, the only day the Lord calls His own is the seventh-day Sabbath, it seems logical to conclude that it was the Sabbath to which John was referring. Certainly there is no Biblical precedent to indicate he would apply that term to the first day of the week, or Sunday”.

Yet when the earliest sources for Sunday worship, those who lived near the time when Jesus lived, spoke of Sunday worship, they did not use the term “Sunday” at first, they said “Lord’s Day”. “Sunday” seems to have taken a little longer to enter the Christian vocabulary. If Revelation was dictated by John to someone like Polycarp, as some scholars have said (or even if it wasn’t), it makes no sense that Polycarps’ generation would mean something totally different than John’s when it said “Lord’s Day”, and that somehow John meant Saturday when Ignatius meant Sunday.

So yes, according to this source, SDAs do believe that Jesus resurrected on Sunday, but if they had followed their earlier logic (against history) they could have tried to argue that the term “Lord’s Day” in the earliest Christian writings was proof of a Sabbath resurrection and observance rather than Sunday…

 

[SwissGuard25]

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

READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER IT SAID JESUS RESURRECTED.

Wow you are really stubborn

 

[jmcrae]

‘dis tou sabbatou’, translated ‘twice in the week’ is better translated ‘twice on sabbath’ there being no record anywhere in Scriptures of fasting twice a week.

They fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays; we know this from the Didache. (The Didache was written by the first disciples of the 12 Apostles - it is their eye-witness report of what the Apostles were teaching them by word of mouth.

The Carmelites still continue in the tradition of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays even until now.

 

[SwissGuard25]

Thank you. Hope he understands this time.

It so obvious.

Okay suppose Christ resurrected the day before would he just wait a whole day for nothing as his apostles wait for him?
NO THAT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS!

Jesus was Crucified on a Friday
Mathew 12:40
“For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
Jewish Calender.
A new day begins at sundown so.
So he resurrected on a Sunday. Where in the Bible does it say Jesus resurrected on a Saturday?
It doesn’t it was Passover!
Hear do some research what does Sunday have in common with Passover, and the Resurrection of Jesus?
C’mon I know you can get it.

 

[SwissGuard25]

End now? Why so sudden when you have not even submitted a rebuttal of my responses to you?

YOU HAVEN’T PROVED ANYTHING!
All you do is say Mark over and over again when we keep telling you what else the Bible says but a just ignore it!
You haven’t rebuked anything all you do is say Mark.

If you’re that Stubborn we can teach you anything!

 

[Samie]

They fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays; we know this from the Didache. (The Didache was written by the first disciples of the 12 Apostles - it is their eye-witness report of what the Apostles were teaching them by word of mouth.

The Carmelites still continue in the tradition of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays even until now.

There’s none in the Bible which is the basis of my position. The phrase is in the Bible and therefore any contention for or against its translation should find proof from the Bible.

 

[jmcrae]

There’s none in the Bible which is the basis of my position. The phrase is in the Bible and therefore any contention for or against its translation should find proof from the Bible.

Why would St. Jerome have put it in the Bible? It was known to all, and it does not pertain to salvation - it is an optional devotion.

 

[Samie]

YOU HAVEN’T PROVED ANYTHING!
All you do is say Mark over and over again when we keep telling you what else the Bible says but a just ignore it!
You haven’t rebuked anything all you do is say Mark.

If you’re that Stubborn we can teach you anything!

What you are telling me is NOT what the Bible says but what you want it to say. In fact ‘onlyvoice’ in his post has volunteered to help you understand what the Bible says but you are just too stubborn to accept what the Bible says.

 

[Samie]

Why would St. Jerome have put it in the Bible? It was known to all, and it does not pertain to salvation - it is an optional devotion.

What pertains to salvation is whether one believes in a lie or truth. Sunday resurrection is a lie.

 

[PRmerger]

There is only one verse in Scriptures that explicitly say when Christ rose from the grave. All other resurrection verses only tell of the coming of some of the Lord’s followers to the sepulcher only to find an already empty tomb. That empty tomb was proof He has indeed risen. But when? Only Mark 16:9 says when: on ‘proi prote sabbatou’

Could you please cite an online text that has this Greek translation?

Thanks.

 

[jmcrae]

What pertains to salvation is whether one believes in a lie or truth. Sunday resurrection is a lie.

Sunday Resurrection was taught by the Apostles and believed by all Christians until you. Which is more likely - that the Apostles were wrong? (They were there.) Or that you are wrong?

What you are telling me is NOT what the Bible says but what you want it to say. In fact ‘onlyvoice’ in his post has volunteered to help you understand what the Bible says but you are just too stubborn to accept what the Bible says.

If Jesus had risen from the dead on the Saturday, they would have seen Him on the Saturday. But the Apostles tell us by means of the Oral Tradition that He descended into Hell and was preaching to the dead on the Saturday. Plus, we know that He was supposed to be in the grave for three days - not only two.

 

[po18guy]

jmcrae:

If Jesus had risen from the dead on the Saturday, they would have seen Him on the Saturday. But the Apostles tell us by means of the Oral Tradition that He descended into Hell and was preaching to the dead on the Saturday. Plus, we know that He was supposed to be in the grave for three days - not only two.

** 1 Peter 4:6** tells us specifically that He preached the Gospel to the dead. This verse, as well as 1 Peter 3:19 are the primary sources of “He descended to the dead” in the Apostle’s creed.

 

[pablope]

You call Bible facts SDA propaganda? Is it because you do not know they are from Scriptures?

You understanding of Scripture is a product of SDA tradition…or Samie Tradition.

In your pride…this is what you are doing and not realizing it…you are doing a pick and choose approach, not taking the whole of Scripture…and the whole understanding and practice from the very beginning of Christianity.

And if you are going to keep on using Mark 16V9, which is an addition to the original Gospel of Mark, added sometime between AD200 to AD300, you indeed will keep shooting blanks. Find another verse to back up your belief and interpretation…there should be other parts of the Bible to back up your belief…find other verses or parts of the Scripture that are part of the original writings, not additions…otherwise, you have blanks.

(calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/)

On the other hand, Samie cannot embrace the tradition of the early Church, because, as shown above, in many important ways that tradition is incompatible with his own SDA or Samie theology.

How does Samie deal with this dilemma? He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church…(like what Samei is doing…)

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Samie. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Samie is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

The problem with the pick-and-choose approach is that it is entirely ad hoc insofar as one picks and chooses from among Church Fathers and councils only those statements one agrees with, to be ‘authoritative.’ In this way Samie is engaging in special pleading: he criticizes Catholics and other Christians for selectively rejecting the Christian tradition, while he himself selectively rejects the Christian tradition…The result is that Samie identifies tradition in the same way that an archer might paint a target around an arrow he has already shot into a wall.

 

[po18guy]

In “Seventh-Day Adventists Believe…a Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines”,
which I’ve been been refered to as one of the best sources to go to for SDA beliefs, it agrees that Christ rose on a Sunday:
“Why did those who were turning from worship on the seventh day choose Sunday and not another day of the week? A major reason was that Christ was resurrected on Sunday; in fact, it was alleged that He authorized worship on that day.” (chapter 19, pg 261)

Thank you for posting this. So where, one wonders, did the OP come up with this odd Saturday resurrection claim? As far as “authorizing” worship on Sunday, let’s have a look at Matthew 28:9. Here, after rising on the first day of the week, Jesus allowed the women at the tomb to “adore” him - that is worship on the first day. It appears to have been authorized . As well, Acts 20:7 shows that the breaking of the bread (in which our Lord was made known at Emmaus), the gathering, the remembrance of our Lord, was held on the first day of the week, not the last. How anyone can rationally argue that this was the Mosaic Sabbath is far beyond me.

It goes on to list some of the earliest sources for Sunday worship, those who lived near the time when Jesus lived, and accuses them (of course) of not citing Biblical sources for their practise.

Of course, what the SDA conveniently ignores here is that there was not a shred of new testament written at that time! It also conveneintly ignores Acts 20:7, which is reportedy a “biblical source” The Church had only its Apostolic practice to go on. Since the true Church must be Apostolic, it does today what the Apostles back then did - gather and worship on the Lord’s day.

Yet on page 254 of the same chapter, it claims that “Lord’s Day” referred to the Sabbath and there is no biblical reason to assume that the early church meant “Sunday” when they said “Lord’s Day”: “Many are under the impression that John was referring to Sunday when he stated he was ‘in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day’ (Rev. 1:10). In the Bible, however, the only day referred to as the Lord’s special possession is the Sabbath. …Since, in the scripture, the only day the Lord calls His own is the seventh-day Sabbath, it seems logical to conclude that it was the Sabbath to which John was referring. Certainly there is no Biblical precedent to indicate he would apply that term to the first day of the week, or Sunday”.

Private interpretation (against 2 Peter 1:20) that is completely separated from the Apostolic practice. Since the SDA have no Apostolic practice, they must develop their own meaning of “Lord’s day”. Fine, except that they got it wrong, choosing to cling to the old covenant and not the new.

Yet when the earliest sources for Sunday worship, those who lived near the time when Jesus lived, spoke of Sunday worship, they did not use the term “Sunday” at first, they said “Lord’s Day”. “Sunday” seems to have taken a little longer to enter the Christian vocabulary. If Revelation was dictated by John to someone like Polycarp, as some scholars have said (or even if it wasn’t), it makes no sense that Polycarps’ generation would mean something totally different than John’s when it said “Lord’s Day”, and that somehow John meant Saturday when Ignatius meant Sunday.

Indeed, neither the word “Saturday” nor “Sunday” appear in Scripture. The days of the week were noted as to their order, but not named, other than as the Sabbath or the following “Lord’s day”. “Sunday” is only the modern term for the first day of the week. I do not know where OP is coming from.

So yes, according to this source, SDAs do believe that Jesus resurrected on Sunday, but if they had followed their earlier logic (against history) they could have tried to argue that the term “Lord’s Day” in the earliest Christian writings was proof of a Sabbath resurrection and observance rather than Sunday…

While I have not specifically addressed the resurrection with an SDA pastor and friend, never has he ever mentioned a resurrection other than on Sunday, just as is plain from scripture. I have no idea how OP has arrived at this twist of scripture (and SDA doctrine) - except for practicing the unauthorized private interpretation of scripture.

 

[po18guy]

There’s none in the Bible which is the basis of my position. The phrase is in the Bible and therefore any contention for or against its translation should find proof from the Bible.

Paul teaches that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Paul gathered and broke bread on the first day of the week. As to using the scripture, the devil did so. Was he right? Even God;s sacred words (especially God’s Word) can be twisted.

We are not saying that you are malicious - only that your Sabbath resurrection claim is clearly wrong to everyone but you. Not even the SDA believes in a Sabbath resurrection.

 

[Samie]

Could you please cite an online text that has this Greek translation?

Thanks.

Since this is how I understand ‘proi prote sabbatou’ and as far as I know there is no other one before who has come to this same understanding, there is then no online Bible that reflects it so far. I just presented it to open up minds to new light radiating from the word of God.

 

[po18guy]

What you are telling me is NOT what the Bible says but what you want it to say. In fact ‘onlyvoice’ in his post has volunteered to help you understand what the Bible says but you are just too stubborn to accept what the Bible says.

Please explain how you are not projecting here.

 

[po18guy]

Since this is how I understand ‘proi prote sabbatou’ and as far as I know there is no other one before who has come to this same understanding, there is then no online Bible that reflects it so far. I just presented it to open up minds to new light radiating from the word of God.

My bible leads me to oppose you. So, who is correct, and to whom do we go to solve this dilemma?

 

[jmcrae]

Since this is how I understand ‘proi prote sabbatou’ and as far as I know there is no other one before who has come to this same understanding, there is then no online Bible that reflects it so far.

Statistically speaking, and based on your personal experiences in school, at work, and everyday life, which is more likely?

1. That you have made an error.
2. That you are a genius beyond all other human comprehension, who can know things that no other human being on earth, including those who make it their life’s work to study the Scriptures, and who speak Greek as their native language, cannot know.