Christ Resurrected On Saturday Morning

[Samie]

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?

There is no Biblical proof the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ taught what you said they taught.

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.

He was seen on that Saturday according to the Greek Bible:

John 20:19

Οὔσης οὖν ὀψίας τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ τῇ μιᾷ σαββάτων, καὶ τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων ὅπου ἦσαν οἱ μαθηταὶ διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔστη εἰς τὸ μέσον καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν.

Christ Himself said He will be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth (Matt 12:40). From daytime Friday to Sunday before sunrise is only 2 days & 2 nights. Therefore, He did not die Friday nor resurrected Sunday. See my OP.

 

[SwissGuard25]

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.

Waita Copy and Paste Me.

And you still haven’t proven anything all you did is take what Ive been saying to you and used it on me.

Stubborn to accept the Bible?

WOW

DUE ME A FAVOR AND READ THE CHAPTER.

IT HAPPENED AFTER THE SABBATH.

No he didn’t ressurect on Saturday Mathew 28 says after the Sabbath what part of that do yo not understand? It is so simple a caveman can understand it. Face it you have nothing to prove.
Seriously, SDA Church does NOT USE THE BIBLE!!
I mean where in the Bible does it say to call someone the Anti-Christ?

 

[Samie]

** 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.

But St. Peter did not say on what weekdays the preaching occurred.

 

[po18guy]

But St. Peter did not say on what weekdays the preaching occurred.

Are you now alleging that the Sabbath was from sundown Thursday to sundown Friday?

This has become surreal.

 

[jmcrae]

There is no Biblical proof the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ taught what you said they taught.

Sure there is - Acts 20:7

He was seen on that Saturday according to the Greek Bible:

John 20:19

19 On the evening of that** first day of the week**, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

**The first day of the week is Sunday. **

Christ Himself said He will be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth (Matt 12:40). From daytime Friday to Sunday before sunrise is only 2 days & 2 nights. Therefore, He did not die Friday nor resurrected Sunday. See my OP.

He was alive and well on Thursday evening at sunset, when He was praying in the Garden of Gethsemane. At sunset, it became Friday, and His Passion began, when He was arrested in the Garden after sunset. Before sunset on Friday (between 3 pm and 6 pm) He died on the Cross for our sins, which is why Friday at 3:00 pm is called the Hour of Mercy. He remained in the tomb from Friday before 6:00 pm until Sunday at sunrise.

 

[SwissGuard25]

There is no Biblical proof the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ taught what you said they taught.

Than how did the Sunday teaching start?
Just out of nowhere?
The Apostles started it and it was passed down until you.
I mean seroiusly? Why would anyone change it?

He was seen on that Saturday according to the Greek Bible:

Mathew 28 says otherwise, and Mathew was written before the other Gospels

Christ Himself said He will be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth (Matt 12:40). From daytime Friday to Sunday before sunrise is only 2 days & 2 nights. Therefore, He did not die Friday nor resurrected Sunday. See my OP.

He died on Friday.
THE JEWS DO NOT USE OUR CALENDER!!!
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN.
That is the verse I told you!!!
Think about it He crucified and buried Friday evening then spent the night, 1 day and night, then Saturday a new day, which starts at sunset, so that’s 2 nights, Then Saturday, which is one day so two days, Then Saturday Night, So three Nights. Then Sunday Morning Three days.

Mathew 28:1-7
"1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6*** He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.*** 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

Mathew 28:7
The angel tells the two Marys to tell the disciples he has risen.
Hmmmmmm
Why would the Angel tell them to tell the Disciples that Jesus is risen. Possibly because he has just risen.
What’ya Know.
So the disciples didn’t see him on Saturday (The Sabbath) but AFTER THE SABBATH (Matt 28:1)

I don’t know how to explain it to you anyway else.
I am sorry to tell you that the Crazy Lady you followed was wrong but one cannot be this stubborn to listen to the Bible.

 

[Samie]

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

No, it is a product of accepting only what the Bible originally says. The Bible says in the original tongue ‘proi prote sabbatou’.

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.

On the other hand, I have the backing of the whole Bible in the original tongues its books were written. All the phrases translated ‘first day of the week’ were all from Greek phrases containing the root word ‘sabbaton’, a word derived from the Hebrew ‘shabbath’ which is our ‘sabbath’ and not from ‘shabua’ which is a period of 7 (days/years) or ‘week’…

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.
…

Since the original autograph / manuscript of Mark is lost, there is no telling that the claims the Sunday-keeping scholars made about the addition is authentic or not.

Othe 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.

It is in keeping with the words of our Savior Himself and admonition of Apostle Paul why I reject Tradition:

**Mark 7:7-8 **

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do

**Colossians 2:6-8 **

6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:

7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

On the other hand, I have the backing of the whole Bible in the original tongues its books were written. All the phrases translated ‘first day of the week’ were all from Greek phrases containing the root word ‘sabbaton’, a word derived from the Hebrew ‘shabbath’ which is our ‘sabbath’ and not from ‘shabua’ which is a period of 7 (days/years) or ‘week’…

The Apostles wrote it - do you really think they misinterpreted it, and that you, Samie, have been appointed 2,000 years later to set them straight?

Since the original autograph / manuscript of Mark is lost, there is no telling that the claims the Sunday-keeping scholars made about the addition is authentic or not.

Those “Sunday-keeping scholars” were the disciples and followers of St. John the Evangelist. I seriously doubt they were misinterpreting anything.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

This is curious.

I did a search of "proi prote sabbatou"and found these results:

google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22proi+prote+sabbatou%27%22&pbx=1&oq=%22proi+prote+sabbatou%27%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=5081l8892l0l9118l7l5l2l0l0l0l213l839l0.3.2l7l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=20d79f0a81e4895c&biw=1143&bih=623

It seems that only Adventists sites address this. (And, of course, the CAFs threads which discuss that phrase.)

So when you say, "This is how I understand proi prote sabbatou, what do you mean?

Are you a Greek scholar?

How did you “come to understand” this meaning?

IOW: what credentials do you have for saying that proi prote sabbatou means what you say it does, when there is no other scholarship which addresses this?

 

[SwissGuard25]

No, it is a product of accepting only what the Bible originally says. The Bible says in the original tongue ‘proi prote sabbatou’.

On the other hand, I have the backing of the whole Bible in the original tongues its books were written. All the phrases translated ‘first day of the week’ were all from Greek phrases containing the root word ‘sabbaton’, a word derived from the Hebrew ‘shabbath’ which is our ‘sabbath’ and not from ‘shabua’ which is a period of 7 (days/years) or ‘week’…

Since the original autograph / manuscript of Mark is lost, there is no telling that the claims the Sunday-keeping scholars made about the addition is authentic or not.

It is in keeping with the words of our Savior Himself and admonition of Apostle Paul why I reject Tradition:

**Mark 7:7-8 **

Lets see what the bible says about Oral Tradition

Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus’ Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn’t He have said a word about it?

 

[pablope]

No, it is a product of accepting only what the Bible originally says. The Bible says in the original tongue ‘proi prote sabbatou’.

You verse is not originally part of Mark’s Gospel…so to prove your point…you have to go back earlier…to other writings or the other gospels.

Otherwise, you are shooting blanks and will not get anywhere. 200 years or so had passed when this passage had been added…so Christianity was well on its way to conquer Rome, and eventually the word…so there could have been a change in language, in understanding at the time this verse was added.

On the other hand, I have the backing of the whole Bible in the original tongues its books were written. All the phrases translated ‘first day of the week’ were all from Greek phrases containing the root word ‘sabbaton’, a word derived from the Hebrew ‘shabbath’ which is our ‘sabbath’ and not from ‘shabua’ which is a period of 7 (days/years) or ‘week’…

 

[pablope]

It is in keeping with the words of our Savior Himself and admonition of Apostle Paul why I reject Tradition:

**Mark 7:7-8 **

It is in keeping with the words of our Savior Himself and admonition of Apostle Paul why I reject Tradition:

Mark 7:7-8

Quote:
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do

**Colossians 2:6-8 **

Let us see who follows a tradition of men…

You have a 66 book Bible, or a 39 book OT as opposed to the 46 books of the Catholic Canon.

From the promulgation of the Bible, starting in AD382 to about the 1820, all Bibles, catholic and protestant had the same number of books…46 books.

In 1820 or so, a Bible Society…the British Foreign Bible Society, made a decision to not print the DC books, or what you may call the Apocrypa…removing 7 books from the OT…which later was adopted by protestants and their variants…including the SDA.

And reason…to save money on printing costs. So it seems you are the one following a tradition of men.

You also believe in the writings of EGW…well, this is another tradition of men.

You also believe in a literal 1000 yr reign of Christ…this is another tradition of men…

And you also believe in going Bible alone…or Sola Scripture…this is another tradition of men…started only during the 1500s by martin Luther…and adopted by the SDA…

And this is just scratching the surface…

 

[EricFilmer]

Improper perhaps, yet related. Both have the same to do with understanding of or even refusal to understand what is written.

And yet the same argument could be said about you. Do you claim to have the power of infallibility, able to determine with 100% accuracy that your interpretation of the Scripture passages in question are correct, and that all Christians ought to adhere to it?

And if it is your intention to answer this question, “No,” then I ask that you do so in light of the following comment you made to po18guy: ”Theologically dangerous to you who is ascribing to the false doctrine of Sunday resurrection myth.”

Well, that is your evaluation of what I had posted. The practice of millions just cannot convince me they are right for the Bible explicitly says the saved are a little flock but it is as the sands of the sea on the other side of the fence. Is there anything in Scriptures about Sunday-keeping? You know there’s none. Should I then accept Sunday-keeping just because millions believe in it for so long? So with the resurrection day of the Lord.

You have been shown repeatedly by others that Scripture says that Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday. Also, way back in Post #13 Mintaka gave you this link to an article by Louis Rushmore that specifically addresses the Greek words in question: The Sabbath or the First Day of the Week. This article defends the Sunday interpretation of the Bible passages in question. You acknowledged this article in Post #15 but (unless I missed it) you never actually commented on the material therein.

What you have been stating in this thread is that your personal interpretation of Mark 16:9 is the correct one and the one embraced by all other Christians throughout history (with the possible exception of fellow SDA members or Sabbatarianists) is incorrect. Once again, you seem to ascribe to yourself some form of infallibility, at least as far as your behavior in this thread shows.

I do not claim to be better than anybody else. It is what Scriptures say that I am presenting.

And yet the Greek Orthodox Christians can make the exact same claim. They would (and do) say is that one of the reason they believe that Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday is because the gospels say that he did, and therefore “it is what Scriptures say.”

And yet in terms of the interpretation used by Greek Orthodox Christians (and other Christians), you stated the following:

“The Greek phrase ‘proi prote sabbatou’ is better rendered ‘early morning of the chief sabbath’ rather than the generally accepted ‘early morning of the first day of the week’.” (Post #1, emphasis added)

“Theologically dangerous to you who is ascribing to the false doctrine of Sunday resurrection myth.”
(Post #220, emphasis added)

In light of such statements of yours, clearly explain to me how you are not claiming to have Greek skills superior to those of the Greeks themselves.

You are free to show how I am wrong.

I’ll come back to this in a moment.

You are telling me the Sunday-keeping Greek Orthodox could not be mistaken as to what the Greek means.

I never said that they could not be mistaken. My point is that it is unlikely that all the Greek Scripture scholars misinterpreted Mark 16:9 for 2000 years, and no one got it right until the SDAs (and those influenced by them) came along.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Indeed, you are right. But that does not in any way lie in the way of practising what is not authorized by the Greek Scriptures, yet, insist the same malpractice is what the Greek testament says knowing full well nobody dare question their understanding of the Greek being their mother tongue. Is this scenario improbable? I don’t think so.

This attempt at refuting my position has no merit. As history clearly shows, the Catholic Church and the non-Greek Orthodox Churches have debated with Greek Orthodox theologians over matters of Scripture since antiquity. So yes, Christians have “dared” to question their understanding of Greek many times in the past. If there was an issue with their interpretation of Mark, it would have come up long ago. And if Catholics and/or the other Orthodox Churches wouldn’t have brought it up, the Protestant Reformers would most certainly would have.

Exactly the same thing they did with Sabbath-keeping to Sunday-keeping. And yet they have the Ten Commandments (although in modified form) displayed in many of their edifices. If they can maneuver Sunday into the forefront, what can prevent them from doing the same with the resurrection day of Christ?

Assuming that this is true, what would have prevented them from simply rewording the Greek manuscripts in a manner that you think would have more clearly expressed the Sunday Resurrection doctrine? After all, we do not have the original copies of any book of the Bible, but rather copies of copies of copies and so forth. If I remember correctly, the oldest surviving copy of a NT text dates to the 4th Century. So that was plenty of time for Sunday-keeping scribes to alter the text. But they continued to write “proi prote sabbatou” which, according to you, does not correctly translate into “early morning of the first day of the week.”

Aren’t you curious why the reason for Sunday-keeping is that it was the Lord’s resurrection day? Sorry, but it appears to be a case of a-bogus-rest-day based on-a-bogus-resurrection-day.

I am certainly curious as to your personal theory in the matter. I will remind you of the three questions I asked you in Post #133.

As of the moment, I know of no one. But did Copernicus flinch just because no one before him attacked the geocentric theory of the solar system? Did Einstein waver because no one before him had presented the special and general theory of relativity? Were the Wright brothers dissuaded from flying their machine because no one else had done it before them?

I don’t think you understood what I was asking. I’m simply wondering if anyone made the interpretation of Mark 16:9 that you did prior to the start of the SDAs. If no one did, then this lends evidence to the idea that your translation of Mark 16:9 is exclusive to the SDAs (or those influenced by them).

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

You are free to show how I am wrong.

Ok, I will. But considering my lack of Greek skills, here how I will do it…

Theory #1: The Traditional Interpretation of Mark 16:9 and its Implication
The Greek phrase “proi prote sabbatou” means, “early morning of the first day of the week.”
If this is a correct translation of the Greek, we should see widespread agreement among Christians. In fact, we see universal agreement among Catholics, Protestants, the various Eastern Orthodox Christians and the various Oriental Orthodox Christians.

Theory #2: Your Interpretation of Mark 16:9 and its Implications
“The Greek phrase ‘proi prote sabbatou’ is better rendered ‘early morning of the chief sabbath’ rather than the generally accepted ‘early morning of the first day of the week’.” (Post #1). According to you, Jesus rose from the dead on a Saturday, not a Sunday.

As I pointed out in Post #133, all the various Churches which grew from the original 19 Apostolic Sees (which includes the Catholic Church, all the various Eastern Orthodox Churches and all the various Oriental Orthodox Churches) have taught that Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday, and proclaim this to be a doctrine with apostolic origins. Therefore, if your interpretation of Mark 16:9 is correct then here are the implications:

1) The belief that Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday had to be a false doctrine fabricated by someone within one of the 19 Apostolic Sees. Because St. Ignatius specifically states that Christians “were 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” (Letter to the Magnesians, 9:1) this means that this doctrine had to be fabricated no later than A.D. 110. This false doctrine would then have had to quickly spread throughout its own Apostolic See, and then spread to, and be accepted by, all of the other 18 Apostolic Sees spread out over three continents.

2) As we can see in the NT and the writings of the ECFs, doctrinal disputes happened almost immediately in the Ancient Church. But if the Sunday Resurrection doctrine is false, there is no record of it ever having been debated by the ancient Christians.

3) One of the elements of the Protestant Reformation was the belief that many doctrines taught by the Church were not apostolic in origin, but rather created by men. The Reformers examined the NT in Greek, and rejected any doctrine that could not be proven from its text. But whereas the Reformers debated one another concerning many theological notions, they all taught that Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday, and affirmed that Christians are to observe the Sabbath on Sundays. In light of this, if your translation of Mark 16:9 is correct then this means that, a) All the Reformers somehow missed examining Mark 16:9, or, b) All the Reformers decided to buy into the false Sunday Resurrection teaching, and therefore purposely fail to live up to the very principle the Reformation was supposed to address.

4) As I mentioned earlier, we have no original text of any book of the Bible, but only copies of copies of copies, and so forth. If your translation of Mark 16:9 is correct, and that “proi prote sabbatou” does not properly render the expression, “early morning of the first day of the week”, then the Sunday-keeping scribes who copied Mark knew it. So even though the forces in the Church were willing to intentionally teach people an incorrect rendering of Mark 16:9, they decided to have the scribes continue to write “proi prote sabbatou” rather than something else which would better express the Sunday Resurrection doctrine. So on one hand, they were unorthodox enough to teach people a false doctrine (which would make people fail to properly observe the Sabbath) but, on the other hand, they were orthodox enough not to change what was written in the Bible.

Question: Why have the vast majority of Christians consistently translated “proi prote sabbatou” as “early morning of the first day of the week” for some 2000 years?

According to Theory #1, the answer is, “Because that’s exactly what the Greek says.”

According to Theory #2, the answer (basically) is, “Because there has been a worldwide effort to intentionally mistranslate Mark 16:9. This is a conspiracy which has encompassed all the Scripture scholars belonging to the Catholic Church, all the Eastern Orthodox Churches, all the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and all the Protestant denominations. Moreover, this conspiracy arose prior to A.D. 110, and then quickly encompassed all the Apostolic Sees spread out over three continents in the ancient world.”

Now, while contemplating these two theories, I apply the philosophical principle of Ockham’s Razor, namely:
When examining competing explanations that make the same conclusion, the simplest explanation (i.e., the most obvious, or the one that makes the fewest assumptions) should be deemed the most plausible until proven wrong..
It goes without saying that, in this regard, Theory #1 beats Theory #2 hands down.

However, if you disagree, and think Theory #2 is the most plausible, then clearly demonstrate how in a reasonable manner. Because the way I see it now, I cannot accept your interpretation of Mark 16:9 as being valid without likewise accepting a conspiracy theory of a magnitude that absolutely boggles the imagination.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

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

Because that’s all they were, responses. My point still stands without rebuke. Also, I don’t have time educating someone about the Jewish lunar calendar or help you understand the lunar eclipse that happened.

Why don’t you give a comment about Christ being the firstfruit and Sunday is the feast of First Fruits?

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.

You do know there are books outside of Sacred Scripture. Glad scholars don’t have the “if it ain’t in bible, it ain’t true” mentality. Read the article again and memorize the 3rd and 4th paragraph.

‘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.

1. Fasting twice a day sounds like square circles or 0 ÷ 0
2. Jewish tradition, scholars, Early Church Fathers and reason stand against your opinion.
3. We don’t practice the heretical and man made tradition of Sola Scriptura, so we’re perfectly able to retrieve information outside of scripture. As jmcrae pointed out The Didache made was a direct reference to fasting twice in the week. I suspect the hypocrites were Christians still observing Jewish customs. And, the Greek in the Didache uses the sabbath to indicate the week and reference point to indicate the particular days, like in the Talmud and in Sacred Scripture.

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).

This is the same argument used against Matt 1:25, and I’ll just remind you the modern definition of ‘until’ is not the ancient scriptural understanding of ‘until’. ‘Until’ in Sacred Scripture did not always mean the action is terminated, especially with a fast which has always been practiced in a 24+ hour period.

When Daniel was thrown into the den of lions, King Darius “passed the night fasting” (Daniel 6:18).

And what gives you the idea that this is a spiritual fast? Obviously the King was extremely saddened and bothered for sending Daniel into the den because he didn’t eat, didn’t listen to music, didn’t bed a concubine, nor slept. This was not a fast.

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).

And? Nowhere does it indicate nor suggest he stopped.

Fasting for a short period in a day is practiced by the apostles themselves (Acts 13:3; 14:23).

In verse 2 of chapter 13 shows they were fasting already.

Given that both 13:1-3 and 14:22-23 were ordinations into the priesthood, 14:22-23 were a series of them, it would follow that this was an extremely holy event for them. Usually Jews fasted during times like these all day. That is speculative, but then again nowhere in these verses indicate that they ended their fasting after the ordinations. Though it is interesting that in the early Church, Embers Days were special days reserved for ordination and the entire day, the clergy and laity fasted.

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.

This was a long consecutive fast… not eighty different fasts like you’re interpreting as to try and justify your position. Biggest reach I have ever witnessed yet in this forum, I don’t think I’ll see that bar being raised anytime soon, if ever.

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’.

Again, we don’t practice heretical man made traditions such as Sola Scriptura. Funny enough, the Communion of the Rome Catholic Church is the only Church who observes all scripture and leaving out nothing.

 

[in_servitude]

In Matthew, there is a description of the guards that were set before the tomb to ensure no funny business was done to Jesus’s body. Let’s look at that from Samie’s point of view.

Saturday Morning, the guards wake up and see and empty tomb. The large rock has been rolled away, and the burial cloth is on the floor. What do they do?? In Samie’s world, nothing!! They just continue to guard an empty tomb. They do that **all **Saturday long. Then, Saturday night comes, and they just continue their guard of the empty tomb. Sunday morning comes and the followers of Jesus come and discover the empty tomb along with the burial cloth still there on the floor. I find it odd that the guards would have been so careful to leave it undisturbed. The scriptures are careful to say that they go to the Chief Priests “while” the women go and get the apostles. Can you imagine the conversation between the guards and the Chief Priests?

Guards: “The tomb is empty!”
Priests: “Really? Let’s do something to cover this up!”
Guards: “We can’t! They already know!”
Priests: “How did they find out?”
Guards: “They saw it this morning - with the burial cloth on the floor.”
Priests: “Did they come during the night then?”
Guards: “Oh no, it was empty all day yesterday.”
Priests: “WHAT? You didn’t tell us? What were you doing?”
Guards: “Nothing, really. Just guarding an empty tomb.”
Priests: “Oh geez, now what?” … “Ok, here’s how we can cover this up…”

Yeah, the tomb was guarded - and so the theory of a Saturday resurrection becomes problematic since there were other actors in this play. **It was not just a lonely place waiting for the women to discover it empty. ** Rather, there were guards posted. I think this was something God planned - to make the story of the resurrection even more believable.

 

[SwissGuard25]

Than how did the Sunday teaching start?
Just out of nowhere?
The Apostles started it and it was passed down until you.
I mean seroiusly? Why would anyone change it?

Mathew 28 says otherwise, and Mathew was written before the other Gospels

He died on Friday.
THE JEWS DO NOT USE OUR CALENDER!!!
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN.
That is the verse I told you!!!
Think about it He crucified and buried Friday evening then spent the night, 1 day and night, then Saturday a new day, which starts at sunset, so that’s 2 nights, Then Saturday, which is one day so two days, Then Saturday Night, So three Nights. Then Sunday Morning Three days.

Mathew 28:1-7
"1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6*** He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.*** 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

Mathew 28:7
The angel tells the two Marys to tell the disciples he has risen.
Hmmmmmm
Why would the Angel tell them to tell the Disciples that Jesus is risen. Possibly because he has just risen.
What’ya Know.
So the disciples didn’t see him on Saturday (The Sabbath) but AFTER THE SABBATH (Matt 28:1)

I don’t know how to explain it to you anyway else.
I am sorry to tell you that the Crazy Lady you followed was wrong but one cannot be this stubborn to listen to the Bible.

 

[Nicea325]

Good tailor-style reasoning. Cut out one phrase from a verse and another phrase from a verse miles away and put them together to make a sentence to prove your hopeless case.

Geeeee…much like you have done over and over? Slice and dice verses and sling others,yet COMPLETELY taking verse out-of-context from their proper entirety to prove your “Johnny-come-lately” SDA church and novelties. Your belief is a LIE and you have bought it as Truth. By the way: do you still circumcise your fellow SDA brethen and obey ALL Jewish laws?

 

[AtourDOMAN]

father ~Wolfe says, He replaced the Sabbath with the Sunday. End of Discussion.
And we are tribe of Levi… wearing Pentatuche colours in the liturgy… so he does know,

but Christ was ressurrected on the first day of the Week, this is what the Bible Says, my New Jerusalem also, its biblical, its fact you need to accept.

3 days and nights in the Belly of the earth as he quoted Jonah. XX

And it’s “S_A_B_B_A_D_I_E_U_X” dont miss quote me.

Sabbath to Sabbath ifs your crowning kingdom, we celebrate both, its in the ten commandements… They still stand. ( X 613 of them))

If you goto Your Saturday night Mass (6pm), you will be fullfilling both requirements, Sabbath and Ressurrection day. The Catholic Church knows this. I think.

play nice.

And God bless,

Atour MArc.