Kingdom Ready Blog

What Day Did Jesus Die?

April 12th, 2010 by Mark C.

The “Six Reasons To Celebrate Hanukkah” thread had gotten so long that it took a long time just to open, besides the fact that it had evolved into several different unrelated discussions. Because of this I have moved the most recent discussion, concerning what day of the week Jesus died on, to this separate thread, so anyone interested can pick it up from here.

on 01 Apr 2010 at 10:34 pm654 Doubting Thomas

Everyone
My biggest Pet Peeve is that they call tommorow Good Friday. What’s good about it??

Jesus was betrayed then falsely accused then beaten then crucified where he suffered in terrible agony for many hours finally giving up his spirit and dying. I don’t see one good thing that happened on this day. As a matter a fact I think it is almost an insult to Jesus for us to be calling it Good Friday.

Just wondering if anyone else agrees with me or not…

(I could understand calling it Good Sunday when he was raised from the dead)
on 01 Apr 2010 at 10:57 pm655 robert

Thomas
I agree even though I dont hold to Friday crucifiction. Cant see how the sign of Jonah 3 day,3 nights could be possible. there are some that will scream its a hebrew idiom because the phase 3rd day is use also which could mean part of first day,all of second,and part of third but they are defining backwards.
I also dont celebrate easter because it was being celebrated long before Jesus died. Jesus’ name was just put upon it
on 02 Apr 2010 at 4:26 am656 Mark C.

It was called Good Friday because of the significance of Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins. While I can see that logic, it does seem like it would make more sense to call the day of his resurrection “Good” instead. In any case we can certainly be thankful for and celebrate the fact that He Is Risen!
on 02 Apr 2010 at 6:54 pm658 Doubting Thomas

Robert
You said, “I also don’t celebrate Easter because it was being celebrated long before Jesus died. Jesus’ name was just put on it.”

I can see your point about the crucifiction being on the Thursday but I don’t see your point about Easter. I know the Pagans celebrated the Equinox and the arrival of spring as their biggest and most important holiday, but from what I understand the Jewish people always celebrated Passover during the week after the first Full Moon after the Equinox.

Jesus was raised from the dead on the first Sunday after Passover and we celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after Passover. I know the Roman Catholic church celebrated Easter very lavishly making the holiday actually start 40 days before Easter, when Lent starts in order to compete with the Pagan spring festivals, but it seems to me that they are still celebrating the right day that Jesus was raised to life…
on 02 Apr 2010 at 7:20 pm659 robert

Thomas
easter is the pagan replacement of the Passover.
Jesus wasnt resurrected on sunday and if you read all 4 gospels you wil find nowhere where it states he was,It just says that when it was discovered in 3 of them and one of them plainly states it was at the end of the Sabbath,before it began to dawn toward the first day which would mean saturday eve.
passover is to be observed on the 14th of Nisen not sunday unless it falls on it
on 02 Apr 2010 at 7:40 pm660 Mark C.

Thomas,

For another viewpoint, see this article:
http://www.godskingdomfirst.org/DayJesusDied.htm

(If the link doesn’t work for you, try typing the address directly into your browser’s address bar.)
on 02 Apr 2010 at 8:01 pm661 Mark C.

PS – The word for “dawn” in Matt. 28:1 is epiphosko, a form of epiphausko, meaning “to shine upon” and from the root word for shedding light. And Mark 16:2 plainly says, “they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.” It’s true it doesn’t record the actual event of Jesus rising (since nobody saw it), but he did say many times he would rise “the third day.”
on 02 Apr 2010 at 8:40 pm662 Doubting Thomas

Mark C.
The above link worked fine for some reason. I’ve got to say that your well researched article seems to make perfect sense to me.
on 02 Apr 2010 at 9:13 pm663 robert

Thomas
If you like research than you will like this.
this is all i will present on subject unless you ask me for more

http://www.logon.org/english/S/p159.html
on 02 Apr 2010 at 10:59 pm664 Doubting Thomas

Robert
I remember reading that one of the biggest arguments between the early Eastern and Western churches was about the date of Easter. Apparently they argued about it for more than 100 years. Your article also makes a lot of sense. Here is a case where I thought I was pretty certain about something but am now finding out that it is much more complicated then I could ever have imagined.

Mark’s article makes sense and your article also makes sense. The end result is I am confused and a bit overwhelmed by all this data and information you guys have provided for me. All I can say is I thank Jesus for giving himself up to be crucified and I thank God for raising him back to life again giving us all hope of the resurection to come.

I am curious though, What day does the 14th. of Nisen fall on this year??
on 02 Apr 2010 at 11:24 pm665 robert

Thomas
Sorry wasnt trying to burden you was just stating my belief till Mark had to give his explainations in his article on how my beliefs were wrong.
I could of left you with several links but felt you would ask if you wanted to know but my hand was forced by Mark.

Btw passover started Monday at sunset till Tuesday sunset as the High Sabbath
on 02 Apr 2010 at 11:38 pm666 Doubting Thomas

Robert
You didn’t burden me. I was the one who asked. It’s just that I didn’t realize how complicated it was. I can now see why the early Eastern and Western churches argued about it for more than a 100 years.

So I guess for you Easter starts at sunset on Saturday?? I know you said you don’t celebrate Easter but I don’t know what else to call the day that Jesus was raised from the dead.

Maybe Good Saturday Evening….
on 03 Apr 2010 at 12:07 am667 robert

“So I guess for you Easter starts at sunset on Saturday?? ”

Thomas
actually i honor the death,burial and resurrection as Jesus instructed me to on passover the way he instructed his apostles to
on 03 Apr 2010 at 12:39 am668 Mark C.

Thomas,

It only gets complicated when people start trying to figure things out beyond what the Scriptures say. I did a follow-up article dealing with the attempts to determine the date of the crucifixion:

http://www.godskingdomfirst.org/JesusPassover.htm

When we stick to what the Bible says and understand it in light of the culture in which it was written, it’s quite simple. Jesus died on the Preparation day, the day before the Sabbath. He was raised and seen on the third day, which according to the way they reckon the counting of days, is the First Day of the week, which we call Sunday. The disciples said, “Today is the third day since these things happened.”

The Bible is usually much simpler when we don’t have man’s opinions and theories complicating things.

By the way, “Resurrection Sunday” is a frequently used designation that avoids the Pagan term Easter and focuses on the resurrection. Or if you prefer, “Resurrection Day,” to avoid naming the day as Sunday. Whatever we call it, the important thing is the resurrection.
on 03 Apr 2010 at 9:45 am669 Ray

About Good Friday,

It was the worst of all days, and yet it was the best that we can learn of Jesus. That day tells us the gospel. That day tells us of the very nature of man that needed to be changed.

If I had only one day that I could talk about and tell someone about Jesus, I think I should pick that day.
on 03 Apr 2010 at 10:37 am670 robert

“When we stick to what the Bible says and understand it in light of the culture in which it was written, it’s quite simple. Jesus died on the Preparation day, the day before the Sabbath. He was raised and seen on the third day, which according to the way they reckon the counting of days, is the First Day of the week, which we call Sunday.”

Mark
Actually the day of the crucifixion was the preparation to the passover FEAST, A HIGH SABBATH
As we see in Luke Jesus was taking down from the tree and laid in the sepulchre just before the HIGH SABBATH. Everyone Honored the High Sabbath then returned the day after which was the preparation for the weekly Sabbath. this was the first time they would of been able to purchase spices and ointments and prepare the body. at this point the tomb would of been sealed. the women then rested on the next day which was the weekly sabbath
So if on the day after his resurrection it was said it was the third day since it was probably in reference to the sealing of the tomb. everyone was surprised because they were not expecting Jesus to be raised till 3 full days after the tomb was sealed. what they didnt understand was Jesus was in the heart of the earth the moment he Died

Luke 23
54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. 55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. 56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment
John 18
28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover:
John19
31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away
on 03 Apr 2010 at 11:37 am671 robert

“By the way, “Resurrection Sunday” is a frequently used designation that avoids the Pagan term Easter and focuses on the resurrection. Or if you prefer, “Resurrection Day,” to avoid naming the day as Sunday. Whatever we call it, the important thing is the resurrection. ”

If you understood the pagan easter you would see this is no defense.
here is a little about it.
——————————————————-
The first thing we must understand is that professing Christians were not the only ones who celebrated a festival called “Easter.”

“Ishtar”, which is pronounced “Easter” was a day that commemorated the resurrection of one of their gods that they called “Tammuz”, who was believed to be the only begotten son of the moon-goddess and the sun-god.

In those ancient times, there was a man named Nimrod, who was the grandson of one of Noah’s son named Ham.

Ham had a son named Cush who married a woman named Semiramis.Cush and Semiramis then had a son named him “Nimrod.”

After the death of his father, Nimrod married his own mother and became a powerful King.

The Bible tells of of this man, Nimrod, in Genesis 10:8-10 as follows: “And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad,and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.”

Nimrod became a god-man to the people and Semiramis, his wife and mother, became the powerful Queen of ancient Babylon.

Nimrod was eventually killed by an enemy, and his body was cut in pieces and sent to various parts of his kingdom.

Semiramis had all of the parts gathered, except for one part that could not be found.

That missing part was his reproductive organ. Semiramis claimed that Nimrod could not come back to life without it and told the people of Babylon that Nimrod had ascended to the sun and was now to be called “Baal”, the sun god.

Queen Semiramis also proclaimed that Baal would be present on earth in the form of a flame, whether candle or lamp, when used in worship.

Semiramis was creating a mystery religion, and with the help of Satan, she set herself up as a goddess.

Semiramis claimed that she was immaculately conceived.

She taught that the moon was a goddess that went through a 28 day cycle and ovulated when full.

She further claimed that she came down from the moon in a giant moon egg that fell into the Euphrates River.

This was to have happened at the time of the first full moon after the spring equinox.

Semiramis became known as “Ishtar” which is pronounced “Easter”, and her moon egg became known as “Ishtar’s” egg.”

Ishtar soon became pregnant and claimed that it was the rays of the sun-god Baal that caused her to conceive.

The son that she brought forth was named Tammuz.

Tammuz was noted to be especially fond of rabbits, and they became sacred in the ancient religion, because Tammuz was believed to be the son of the sun-god, Baal. Tammuz, like his supposed father, became a hunter.

The day came when Tammuz was killed by a wild pig.

Queen Ishtar told the people that Tammuz was now ascended to his father, Baal, and that the two of them would be with the worshippers in the sacred candle or lamp flame as Father, Son and Spirit.

Ishtar, who was now worshipped as the “Mother of God and Queen of Heaven”, continued to build her mystery religion.

The queen told the worshippers that when Tammuz was killed by the wild pig, some of his blood fell on the stump of an evergreen tree, and the stump grew into a full new tree overnight. This made the evergreen tree sacred by the blood of Tammuz.

She also proclaimed a forty day period of time of sorrow each year prior to the anniversary of the death of Tammuz.

During this time, no meat was to be eaten.

Worshippers were to meditate upon the sacred mysteries of Baal and Tammuz, and to make the sign of the “T” in front of their hearts as they worshipped.

They also ate sacred cakes with the marking of a “T” or cross on the top.

Every year, on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox, a celebration was made.

It was Ishtar’s Sunday and was celebrated with rabbits and eggs.

Ishtar also proclaimed that because Tammuz was killed by a pig, that a pig must be eaten on that Sunday.
on 03 Apr 2010 at 11:48 am672 Mark C.

Robert,

None of the Gospels say it was the preparation for the Passover. The word for “preparation” is ALWAYS used in the NT to refer to the day before the weekly Sabbath.

Everyone Honored the High Sabbath then returned the day after which was the preparation for the weekly Sabbath. this was the first time they would of been able to purchase spices and ointments and prepare the body.

Luke says that the women prepared spices on the same day that he died and was buried (Luke 23:54).

So if on the day after his resurrection it was said it was the third day since it was probably in reference to the sealing of the tomb.

Luke 24:
18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?
19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.

They were talking about Jesus being condemned and crucified. They don’t make any mention of the sealing of the tomb.

Besides, you claim that the day after Jesus died was a high Sabbath, the first day of Passover, and that everyone observed it and then returned the next day which was the preparation for the weekly Sabbath. This means he died on Wednesday, Thursday was the high day, then Friday was the Preparation, followed by the Sabbath on Saturday. But the problem is, the tomb was sealed the day after Jesus died, which would be Thursday. Yet the disciples, on Sunday, said it was the third day since these things happened, which means that “these things” happened on Friday. It doesn’t fit.

everyone was surprised because they were not expecting Jesus to be raised till 3 full days after the tomb was sealed. what they didnt understand was Jesus was in the heart of the earth the moment he Died

The Bible says nothing about three days after the tomb was sealed. It says three days after his death. And the disciples weren’t fully expecting Jesus to be raised at all, and didn’t believe the first people who saw him. They had to be convinced.
on 03 Apr 2010 at 11:56 am673 robert

“Luke says that the women prepared spices on the same day that he died and was buried (Luke 23:54).”

Mark
Is say nothing of the sort.that is a complete fabrication
It says they returned to do that in verse 56

56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
on 03 Apr 2010 at 12:01 pm674 Mark C.

If you understood the pagan easter you would see this is no defense.

Who said anything about a defense? I said calling it Resurrection Sunday or Resurrection Day avoids the pagan name.

I won’t even get into the historical inaccuracies of the often-quoted “Two Babylons” from which the whole thing about Semiramis being Nimrod’s wife comes. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiramis.
on 03 Apr 2010 at 12:06 pm675 Doubting Thomas

Robert
That’s a fascinating story about Ishtar (Easter). I love historical stories like that. I’ve always liked history…
on 03 Apr 2010 at 12:16 pm676 robert

Thomas
In the OT you will find that the Israelites fell into the same type of worship as we see the roman catholic church founding fathers brought christianity. what God felt about then He still feels about it now.
Nowhere do you see any christians in the NT celebrating Easter, there is only one reference to easter in the NT but most translations have corrected it to Passover, But even still it was not a christian who it refers to as celebrating it, It was a hellenist Jew
on 03 Apr 2010 at 1:18 pm677 robert

“Robert,

None of the Gospels say it was the preparation for the Passover. The word for “preparation” is ALWAYS used in the NT to refer to the day before the weekly Sabbath.”

Mark
It seems you failed to read John

John 19:14
And it was the preparation of the passover
on 03 Apr 2010 at 4:46 pm678 Mark C.

Robert,

It seems you failed to read the article we are discussing.

http://www.godskingdomfirst.org/DayJesusDied.htm#sabbaths
on 03 Apr 2010 at 5:39 pm679 robert

Sorry didnt realize your articles were canonical.
Frankly on that subject i have no need to read since i have done a large amount of research on it myself.
I dont care how it can be twisted to mean what anybody wants it to say, there plenty of scholars who hold the same as i do.
on 03 Apr 2010 at 5:43 pm680 Mark C.

Is say nothing of the sort.that is a complete fabrication
It says they returned to do that in verse 56

Returned from where? From seeing how the body of Jesus was buried.

Luke 23:
54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
on 03 Apr 2010 at 5:49 pm681 robert

Ok
I read it again and still feel the same about it.
that it is very misleading
on 03 Apr 2010 at 6:54 pm682 robert

Is say nothing of the sort.that is a complete fabrication
It says they returned to do that in verse 56

Returned from where? From seeing how the body of Jesus was buried.

Mark
as you see in Mark16:1 and Luke 23:55-56 it was after the High sabbath that Mary bought spices then prepared them on the preparation day of the weekly Sabbath then rested on the Sabbath. you cant buy them after the Sabbath and prepare them before the Sabbath ,CAN YOU!!!!
the truth will set you free
.
Mark 16:1: And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
Luke 23:55-56: And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
on 03 Apr 2010 at 7:33 pm683 Mark C.

Notice that Mark 16:1 says they HAD bought spices. That’s past tense, referring to when they bought them before. And you haven’t dealt with the problem of the timing I referred to in comment #672.
on 03 Apr 2010 at 7:40 pm684 robert

And you haven’t dealt with the problem of the timing I referred ‘to in comment #672.”

Didnt see any problem,

Notice that Mark 16:1 says they HAD bought spices. That’s past tense, referring to when they bought them before.

You have to be kidding ” HAD” just means they had bought spices after the Sabbath. wow you reaching now!
on 03 Apr 2010 at 8:34 pm685 robert

Ok i can see where your imagination has a problem.
I cant say just when they sealed the tomb and put a guard on it but can from these verse state that they werent worried about it till the beiginning of the third day since it was their understanding that after 3 days he would rise again.
this “therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third” makes absolutely no sense because that woud of meant by your thought they could quit after one minute of the third day. this has to mean till after the third day using the first reference as the context

Matthew 27
62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, 63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. 64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. 65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. 66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.
on 03 Apr 2010 at 8:51 pm686 robert

62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation

I have never realized that this could mean just the day of the preparation of the Body of Jesus not refering to the passover or the weekly sabbath but that still makes no difference
on 03 Apr 2010 at 9:29 pm687 Mark C.

You have to be kidding ” HAD” just means they had bought spices after the Sabbath. wow you reaching now!

It doesn’t say after the Sabbath. It just says they “had bought spices” which means they bought them before the day they went to the tomb (the first day of the week).

I cant say just when they sealed the tomb and put a guard on it but can from these verse state that they werent worried about it till the beiginning of the third day since it was their understanding that after 3 days he would rise again.

The verses you yourself quoted in your comment contradict this. “Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate…” This is the next day, after the day Jesus died. So even if the disciples were referring to the sealing of the tomb when they said it was the third day since it happened, it wouldn’t fit with a Wednesday crucifixion, because the tomb would have been sealed on Thursday.

I have never realized that this could mean just the day of the preparation of the Body of Jesus not refering to the passover or the weekly sabbath but that still makes no difference

I didn’t say it meant the day of the preparation of the Body of Jesus. I said it meant the Preparation Day, the day before the weekly Sabbath. That’s what the word means.
on 03 Apr 2010 at 9:43 pm688 robert

It doesn’t say after the Sabbath. It just says they “had bought spices” which means they bought them before the day they went to the tomb (the first day of the week).

IT SAYS PLAIN AND CLEAR that they HAD BOUGHT THEM AFTER THE SABBATH

This is the next day, after the day Jesus died..

It doesnt say next day after Jesus died , it says next day after the day of preparation which could of been weekly Sabbath since it was their understanding that Jesus would rise AFTER 3 days , so by securing starting the 3rd day(sabbath) they were safe
on 03 Apr 2010 at 9:58 pm689 robert

Mark
the problem you are having is seeing this as part of the resurrection.
16And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

It says they bought spices after the sabbath that they “might come”(future tense) and anoint him.

then the account of resurrection had already happens occurs

2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Notice this is setting the time of that account.

the after the sabbath was just in reference to when they bought the spices and because Luke tells us when they prepared the spices in Luke 23 :56 we know it was before the weekly Sabbath which makes Mark’s statement refer to the HIGH SABBATH.
on 03 Apr 2010 at 10:18 pm690 robert

The Burial of Jesus
42 And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. 44 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. 45 And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. 46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre. 47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid

16:1 belongs within the burial as the 48th verse of 15th chapter

48And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
on 03 Apr 2010 at 10:19 pm691 Mark C.

Robert,

This is just simple English grammar.

Mark 16:
1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

After the Sabbath they came to the sepulcher at sunrise. The word “had” means that the action was past tense at that time, implying they had bought spices before that time.

Some versions translate it as “they bought spices” implying that they bought them the day after the Sabbath, which is possible, although I’m not sure if it would be possible to buy spices so early in the morning.

Now you might say they bought the spices the day after the high Sabbath (1st day of Passover), which would be Friday, and then went to the sepulchre on Sunday. But that still doesn’t account for the timing that the disciples referred to.

It doesnt say next day after Jesus died , it says next day after the day of preparation which could of been weekly Sabbath since it was their understanding that Jesus would rise AFTER 3 days , so by securing starting the 3rd day(sabbath) they were safe

Context, my friend. After describing the events of the crucifixion, then “when evening was come” Joseph asked for the body and buried it, verse 62 says, “Now the next day…” If this wasn’t until the weekly Sabbath, they’d have missed the “third day” deadline, since in Biblical reckoning the third day after Wednesday was Friday, not Saturday.

Plus, if they sealed the tomb on Saturday, how could the disciples’ statement that it was the third day refer to the sealing of the tomb? I’m not trying to be difficult, but it just doesn’t fit.

Everything fits perfectly with a Friday crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection – the “third day” as referred to in many verses. The only thing that doesn’t fit in many people’s minds is the one verse that says “three days and three nights,” which isn’t a problem when you understand the Hebrew idioms.
on 03 Apr 2010 at 10:29 pm692 robert

“This is just simple English grammar. ”

Mark you are very correct, Mark16:1 starts with an “And” Making it an continuence of the sentence prior not the sentence after

“Plus, if they sealed the tomb on Saturday, how could the disciples’ statement that it was the third day refer to the sealing of the tomb? I’m not trying to be difficult, but it just doesn’t fit. ”

Maybe it was the 3rd day since Joseph finished the burial and rolled the stone in front of it, the seal wasnt put there then ,it was the day after which could of been friday night at the beginning of the sabbath. SEEMS TO FIT PERFECTLY
on 03 Apr 2010 at 10:42 pm693 robert

““Now the next day…” If this wasn’t until the weekly Sabbath, they’d have missed the “third day” deadline, since in Biblical reckoning the third day after Wednesday was Friday, not Saturday.”

Mark
there are no Biblical reckoning for the third day , theres just OPINIONS
on 03 Apr 2010 at 11:29 pm694 Mark C.

Maybe it was the 3rd day since Joseph finished the burial and rolled the stone in front of it, the seal wasnt put there then ,it was the day after which could of been friday night at the beginning of the sabbath. SEEMS TO FIT PERFECTLY

Or maybe it was exactly what they said it was – “the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.”

there are no Biblical reckoning for the third day , theres just OPINIONS

It’s not opinions, it’s knowledge of the Biblical culture, which can be understood from any decent reference book. It is also clearly defined in at least three verses (Luke 13:32; Ex. 19:10-11; I Sam. 20:12) as “today, tomorrow, and the third day.”
on 03 Apr 2010 at 11:46 pm695 robert

“today, tomorrow, and the third day.”

Mark this is used everywhere, I have used this to mean what you say, but also have used it to mean 3 whole days.
the fact that 3 days,3 nights was the sign given and it was understood that after 3 days he would be raised again literally makes your claim false. the above day night requires at no more than 72 hours and no less than 48 hours. after 3days show it as no less than 72 hours. and the 3rd day can mean literally 72 hours. It was Jesus that stated there was 12 hours in day and then reference night as the time between days which we all can count without Jesus telling us that the night was also 12 hours.

But then again this is not for you, it for those seeking the truth who come here
on 04 Apr 2010 at 12:01 am696 Mark C.

Robert,

What you or I mean by “three days and three nights” is irrelevant. If you want to understand the Bible you have to understand it in light of the idioms and customs of its culture. The Biblical culture did not use the phrase to mean exactly three periods of 24 hours.

The article laid out all the evidence, so once again, we will have to let the readers decide for themselves.
on 04 Apr 2010 at 12:05 am697 robert

“If you want to understand the Bible you have to understand it in light of the idioms and customs of its culture.”

The fact is i do, it is just your ego that makes you think you do.

when you can understand “only beggotten son” was a hebrew idiom long before jesus for the WORD OF GOD then come back and i will accept your ego as deserved
on 04 Apr 2010 at 12:24 am698 Doubting Thomas

Let us not forget the main message of the season.

(1st. Peter 1:3) “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.”
on 04 Apr 2010 at 2:09 am699 Mark C.

The fact is i do, it is just your ego that makes you think you do.

You’ve been warned about that kind of attitude. We are done.

Thank you, Thomas, for putting things back into perspective.
on 04 Apr 2010 at 9:25 am700 robert

Mark
we all get a little frustrated with eachother ,that just life. i understood that the other day when you cursed me and I forgave you. and i also took my part of the blame.
you might need to look at some of the attitude you have with me to see why we dont get along. you might find its a 2 way street
on 04 Apr 2010 at 11:28 am701 Doubting Thomas

(1st. Peter 3:15)
“But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone that asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”

This is probably one of the hardest instructions to follow. Our basic emotions seem to be programed to become aggressive (sometimes angry) when defending our core beliefs. When I was a staunch atheist I used to get into huge arguments with my friend Tim where I would get very angry and very aggressive.

What always amazed me was how calm he would remain. He never got angry or aggressive back toward me. He seemed to have this inner peace that I didn’t have and a calm confidence in what he was saying. This example that he set had a lot to do with me reconsidering my atheist beliefs and later becoming a Christian.

He had something that I wanted. Inner peace and confidence…
on 04 Apr 2010 at 3:00 pm702 robert

THE HIDDEN AGENDA OF BAAL
Special Edition
By Rabbi/Brother Moshe Yoseph Koniuchowsky
UNIVERSAL FALSEHOOD
The worldwide believing community in almost one accord, holds to the false belief in a Sun Day resurrection of our Adon Melech Moshiach Yahshua. But is that what scripture teaches? Have you ever taken the time to delve into this on your own? Now at first glance, it seems like no big deal. After all, Shabbat or Sun Day; who really cares? After all, He rose from the grave, and because He lives we can live also. That’s the main thing right? Well yes and no.
If He didn’t rise on Sun Day AM at sunrise, then why have we been taught and told that He did? Is it just not another attempt by our adversary s.a.tan to deceive Yahshua’s true followers into the worship of the historical sky solar deity Baal or the common title of lord goad (Strongs # 1167)? Has s.a.tan deceived religious hierarchies to teach this to Messiah’s people in order to enslave Messiah’s talmidim into the Baal worship of their fathers, which Yahweh calls vanity and emptiness in which there is no profit? The Hebrew word profit is the word olah, which more literally means ascension, as in an offering to Yahweh that lacks any ascension value or upward adoration (Yirmeyahu/Jeremiah 16:19). Yahweh promises to end this blindness simultaneous to the time when His people, both Jewish and non-Jewish Israel, will discover His true Name as being Yahweh (Yirmeyahu/Jeremiah 16:21).
SOME ANSWERS
Starting in Vayiqra/Lev. 23, we see the use of the Hebrew word Shabbaton or Sabbatwn Strongs # 7677, meaning special Shabbat or annual Set-Apart Shabbat Day. We see this term used in direct reference to the annual moadim/appointed times of Yom Teruah/Feast of Trumpets Lev./Vayiqra 23:24, the Day of Atonement/Yom Kippur Vayiqra 23:32, and the first and last days of Sukkot/Tabernacles Lev. 23:39. The word for weekly Sabbath is Shabbat, Strongs # 7676; Clearly Shabbatons are special days of annual renewal, along with the weekly day of rest known as Shabbat. But understanding the difference in the terminology between Shabbat and Shabbaton is essential in understanding the precise timing of Moshaich’s rising from the tomb.
In Greek there is no word for Shabbat or Shabbaton for obvious reasons. Greeks did not celebrate and honor the Shabbat. Not much has changed has it? [see “The Hidden Message Of First Timothy” available in audio at: http://store.yourarmstoisrael.org/Qstore/c000001.htm
Therefore the terms for Shabbat and Shabbaton would have to be preserved in the Greek text of the Brit Chadasha by its authors. In Strongs Complete Dictionary of Bible Words under Greek #4521, Sabbatwn is said to be “of Hebrew origin” and by
“extension meaning week or weeks”.
This is a key to understanding Yahshua’s resurrection. In every Greek text where the resurrection is refereed to, the word used is the Hebrew word Shabbaton carried into the Greek text. We find this term as Sabbatwn in Matthew 28:1, Mark/Moshe 16:2, 9, Luke 24:1, Acts/MaAseh Shlechim. 20:6-7 and 1st Corinthians 16:2. Since there is no Greek words for either Shabbat or Shabbaton both Hebrew words are preserved in the inspired Greek text as Sabbatwn. Let’s look at the texts further.
ADDED WORDS
Matt. 28:1 “late on Sabbatwn [weekly] as it was getting dark, [havdallah/motzei Shabbat] towards “mia twn Sabbatwn” came Miriam…Now we see the use of the word Sabbatwn twice. Since Sabbatwn is a borrowed Hebraic term identifying certain special days of the feasts, we know that this must be referring to one of the 7 weekly Shabbaths between Unleavened Bread and Shavout/Pentecost, during the counting of the omer. Furthermore the Greek word mia does not mean first as is improperly translated. It means one. Mia is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word echad (Strongs #3391). It can mean first in some syntax BUT not in the way it is used in the Brit Chadasha to prove a Sun Day resurrection. In order for mia to mean Sun Day, the Greek word mia would have to be used in conjunction with the Greek word hemera meaning “day”. In other words the Greek “mia hemera” can mean “first day”, as in the “first day” in a numerical sequence of days. BUT here’s the problem with those who teach a first day/Sun Day resurrection.
The word DAY has been added to all the resurrection texts like Matt./Matityahu 28:1, Mark/Moshe 16:2 John/Yochanan 20:1, Luke/Lukus 24:1 where the Greek reads mia twn sabbatwn (one of weeks) or mia sabbatwn (one weeks) with the word day added in italics, meaning it is not in the inspired Greek text. The term mia twn sabbatwn again appears without the word day which has been added. Since the Greek word for day hemera does not appear IN ANY OF THE GOOD NEWS TEXTS ABOUT YAHSHUA’S RISING, we can easily conclude that the translators have had and continue to have an agenda in favor of justifying a Sun Day worship experience. But wait! There’s more.
The true Greek word for absolute one as in a sequence of numbers is not the word mia but protos, which means first (Strongs # 4413) as in first, foremost, in a sequence, first as in firstborn or firstly. If the texts of the Brit Chadasha/Renewed Covenant were referring to a Sun Day resurrection, the word that would have definitively done so is protos. When protos is used as first in a sequential order it does not need the added noun hemera/day in order to identify the day as Sun Day. Using protos “on the first” would have been sufficient.
Rather than using protos hemera or “first day”, the Greek texts use only mia, which primarily means one of, not first, (especially without the added identifier herema) and connects the word mia to the Hebrew word Shabbaton. In all resurrection texts it is said that Yahshua rose mia twn sabbatwn or mia sabbatown. In addition some resurrection texts like Matityahu/Matthew 28:1 give us clear additional insight that Yahshua’s ressurection was at the ending or exiting of the weekly 7th day Shabbat as well. So by usage of the term mia twn sabbatwn the Hebrew writers of the Brit Chadasha are making it evidently clear that Moshaich’s resurrection took place on a day that was both a weekly Shabbat, as well as an annual Shabbaton. To translate the term mia twn sabbatwn as “the first day” of the week, is not only changing the primary meaning of the word mia it IGNORES THE VERY FACT that the Hebraic term shabbaton even exists in the Greek text as sabbatwn! This practice by the Baal deceived translators, have both added and left out or subtracted words to the inspired Greek texts, a sin strictly forbidden in Deut./Devarim 12:32, Rev 22:18-19 and Jeremiah 8:8, a sin for which the translators may well burn in Yahweh’s Lake Of Fire, as it is said that such a one will inherit the plagues or curses/kelalot, contained in the Word of Yahweh.
SEVEN WEEKLY SABBATWNS
Since when does the word Shabbat or Shabbaton refer to Sun Day? Or in what language does Shabbat and Shabbaton magically become Sun Day? Scripture does not speak of protos herema but rather mia twn Sabbatwn “one of the Shabbaths.” Which one? Glad you asked!
The “official” Shabbatons are Teruah/Trumpets, Kippurim Atonement, and the first and last days of Sukkot. However over time the term Shabbaton came to refer to all the important annual Shabbat days in Israel that were not weekly Shabbats. As such, the seven weekly Shabbats between Unleavened Bread and Shavout/Pentecost are all considered Shabbatons, or special weekly Shabbats. This 50-day period is known as “sefirat ha-omer” or the counting of the omer (Lev. 23:16). During these seven weekly Shabbats, the counting would be ongoing, and the Day of Shavout/Weeks will have fully come on the 50th day after the weekly Shabbat during the Feast of Unleavened Bread or after seven completed weeks plus one day.
Keeping in mind that Matt 28:1 mentions two Sabbatwn s we can see that Messiah’s resurrection was at the end of the weekly Shabbat, specifically one (mia) of the seven weekly Shabbats (shabbatons) during the counting of the omer, between the week of Unleavened Bread and Shavout/Pentecost. Which one of the seven weekly Shabbats? Obviously the first one, since He died during the week of the Unleavened Bread and rose that same week on the weekly Shabbat, the first of seven Sabbatwns between the 50 days. This calculation works out in both the Sadducee and Pharisaic reckoning. How so?
If the Sadducees are right, and the reckoning starts on the day after the weekly Shabbat of the week of Unleavened Bread, (just at sundown of the weekly Shabbat, which would have commenced a first day counting) that weekly Shabbat would have been weekly Shabbaton number one right at sudown. If the Pharisees are correct, and the counting begins after the day of Unleavened Bread or the 16th of Aviv, that week’s weekly Shabbat was also the first of seven Sabbatwns during the 50 days of counting.
Remember that scripture is clear that Yahshua rose at the end of the weekly Shabbat, all the while also rising on mia twn Sabbatwn (one of the 7 Sabbaths between Unleavened Bread and Shavout/Pentecost) as well! Actually, Matt 28:1 best reads as follows: “after the Shabbat ‘one of the weeks’ ”, meaning one of the seven weekly Shabbats during the counting of the omer, also known as Shabbatons or Sabbatwns.
So the correct scriptural understanding of mia twn sabbatwn would fit either method of counting. We see this further illustrated in Acts 20:6-7, where Unleavened Bread has just passed into the first of the seven weekly Shabbatons between Unleavened Bread and Pentecost, and Luke the Ephraimite tells us that Rav Shaul/Paul gathered with and taught the disciples on mia twn sabbatwn, with once again the added word day appearing in italics NOT BEING IN THE ORGINAL GREEK TEXT. So we see the talmidim meeting on the first of seven weekly Shabbats during the counting of the omer. The Jews of the first century considered all 50 days as days of Sabbatwn, as witnessed by the usage of the term “fully come” in Acts 2:1. The 50th day of Pentecost was said to be “fully come”, as opposed to the other 49 smaller comings of Pentecost, during that 50 day period. The word fully or accomplished, is the Greek word sumplero Strongs # 4845, meaning to complete, fill up or sum total the 50 days of Sabbatwn.
Admittedly, the Leviticus 23 Shabbatons were limited to three particular feasts but in Hebraic understanding both then and now, the Passover season does not culminate until Shavout. The entire 50 days is known as the “season of our redemption”, and the traditional rabbis teach that Passover was not completed until Shavout and the giving of Torah on Mt. Horeb.
Scripture is clear in that Messiah’s disciples are to pursue, grasp and embrace the truth. Sun Day church worship is not a Renewed Covenant sacrament but rather an infiltration of the solar sky deity Baal/lord worship into the Renewed Covenant Israelite ecclesia. Nevertheless, it is still Yahshua the King over all Yisrael, who in these last days is surely purifying the sons of Levi and their students as a refiners fire, through the correction of His Ruach HaKodesh.
on 04 Apr 2010 at 3:41 pm703 Doubting Thomas

Robert
I can see that you have a lot of convincing evidence on your side. Just curious, What is Ruach HaKodesh??
on 04 Apr 2010 at 4:12 pm704 robert

holy spirit
on 04 Apr 2010 at 4:58 pm705 robert

Here is another 3rd day possibility
saturday (sabbath) was the 3rd day of passover with wed being the preparation,with thursday being the 1st and the feast,with friday being the 2nd and the preperation of weekly sabbath, and with saturday being the 3rd and the Sabbath.
Jesus was our passover and he knew that,so the reference to the 3rd day was to the days of passover week
on 05 Apr 2010 at 11:18 am706 Mark C.

Thomas,

Before accepting anything as “convincing evidence” it is a good idea to test it. The Bible says to “prove all things; hold fast to that which is good” (I Thess. 5:21) and to “believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (I John 4:1). I know these are from writings of John and Paul, but it’s still good advice.

I wouldn’t even continue the debate if it were just a matter of viewpoints and opinions. But the above article contains several factual errors, which I thought it would be only fair to point out, in the interest of accuracy.

Starting in Vayiqra/Lev. 23, we see the use of the Hebrew word Shabbaton or Sabbatwn Strongs # 7677, meaning special Shabbat or annual Set-Apart Shabbat Day. We see this term used in direct reference to the annual moadim/appointed times of Yom Teruah/Feast of Trumpets Lev./Vayiqra 23:24, the Day of Atonement/Yom Kippur Vayiqra 23:32, and the first and last days of Sukkot/Tabernacles Lev. 23:39. The word for weekly Sabbath is Shabbat, Strongs # 7676; Clearly Shabbatons are special days of annual renewal, along with the weekly day of rest known as Shabbat. But understanding the difference in the terminology between Shabbat and Shabbaton is essential in understanding the precise timing of Moshaich’s rising from the tomb.

The word Shabbaton is defined in Strong’s as “a sabbatism or special holiday:— rest, sabbath.” The Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, defines it as follows:

Sabbath observance, sabbatism

1. of weekly sabbath
2. day of atonement
3. sabbatical year
4. of Feast of Trumpets
5. of the 1st and last days of the Feast of Tabernacles

It is used in reference to the special Sabbaths connected with the feasts, but it is also used regarding the weekly Sabbath. It is used as such in the following verses:

Ex 16:23 And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest [Sabbaton] of the holy sabbath [Shabbat] unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.
Ex 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath [Shabbat] of rest [Sabbaton], holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath [Shabbat] day, he shall surely be put to death.
Ex 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath [Shabbat] of rest [Sabbaton] to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
Le 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath [Shabbat] of rest [Sabbaton], an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath [Shabbat] of the LORD in all your dwellings.

Therefore the premise that this word indicates a yearly feast-day Sabbath rather than the weekly Sabbath is incorrect.

This is a key to understanding Yahshua’s resurrection. In every Greek text where the resurrection is refereed to, the word used is the Hebrew word Shabbaton carried into the Greek text. We find this term as Sabbatwn in Matthew 28:1, Mark/Moshe 16:2, 9, Luke 24:1, Acts/MaAseh Shlechim. 20:6-7 and 1st Corinthians 16:2. Since there is no Greek words for either Shabbat or Shabbaton both Hebrew words are preserved in the inspired Greek text as Sabbatwn.

Since the Greek word Shabbaton is used for either Shabbat or Shabbaton, there is no basis for saying that every reference is “the Hebrew word Shabbaton carried into the Greek text.”

Furthermore the Greek word mia does not mean first as is improperly translated. It means one. Mia is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word echad (Strongs #3391). It can mean first in some syntax BUT not in the way it is used in the Brit Chadasha to prove a Sun Day resurrection. In order for mia to mean Sun Day, the Greek word mia would have to be used in conjunction with the Greek word hemera meaning “day”. In other words the Greek “mia hemera” can mean “first day”, as in the “first day” in a numerical sequence of days. BUT here’s the problem with those who teach a first day/Sun Day resurrection. The word DAY has been added to all the resurrection texts like Matt./Matityahu 28:1, Mark/Moshe 16:2 John/Yochanan 20:1, Luke/Lukus 24:1…

The author himself had quoted the Strong’s definition for Sabbaton (Greek #4521) as “of Hebrew origin” and by “extension meaning week or weeks”. (Strong’s says that the word can mean, by extension, “a se’nnight, i.e. the interval between two Sabbaths.”) So the word can also mean “week” as in Luke 18:12, where the Pharisee says, “I fast twice in the week [Sabbaton].”

Since the Greek word for day hemera does not appear IN ANY OF THE GOOD NEWS TEXTS ABOUT YAHSHUA’S RISING, we can easily conclude that the translators have had and continue to have an agenda in favor of justifying a Sun Day worship experience.

The word “day” is in italics in the KJV, as are all added words. But there is no basis for concluding that it was added because of an agenda. Most italicized words are added for clarity because the meaning is included in the word that is in the text. Since the word Sabbaton can mean “week” as well as “Sabbath” the phrase used is simply saying “the first of the week.” Even in our culture, this is a normal and acceptable way of referring to the first day.

But wait! There’s more.
The true Greek word for absolute one as in a sequence of numbers is not the word mia but protos, which means first (Strongs # 4413) as in first, foremost, in a sequence, first as in firstborn or firstly. If the texts of the Brit Chadasha/Renewed Covenant were referring to a Sun Day resurrection, the word that would have definitively done so is protos. When protos is used as first in a sequential order it does not need the added noun hemera/day in order to identify the day as Sun Day. Using protos “on the first” would have been sufficient.

As a matter of fact, the word protos is used referring to the day on which Jesus was raised:

Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first [protos] day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Since when does the word Shabbat or Shabbaton refer to Sun Day? Or in what language does Shabbat and Shabbaton magically become Sun Day?

This is a straw man argument. Most Christians do not claim that Sunday has become the Sabbath. At least the ones I know. We claim that Sunday became a habitual day for meeting and worship together, and that the mandatory observation of the Sabbath is no longer required. Furthermore, Christians who worship on Sunday do not do so in honor of the sun god, despite the name of the day.

The “official” Shabbatons are Teruah/Trumpets, Kippurim Atonement, and the first and last days of Sukkot. However over time the term Shabbaton came to refer to all the important annual Shabbat days in Israel that were not weekly Shabbats. As such, the seven weekly Shabbats between Unleavened Bread and Shavout/Pentecost are all considered Shabbatons, or special weekly Shabbats.

Admittedly, the Leviticus 23 Shabbatons were limited to three particular feasts but in Hebraic understanding both then and now, the Passover season does not culminate until Shavout. The entire 50 days is known as the “season of our redemption”, and the traditional rabbis teach that Passover was not completed until Shavout and the giving of Torah on Mt. Horeb.

First of all, while it may have come to mean that in their practice, it is never called that anywhere else in the Old Testament, outside of the Torah (the books of Moses).

Secondly, the Sabbath that falls during the Passover week is specifically designated as a special high day in Lev. 23, which explains why John 19:31 says “for that Sabbath day was an high day.” Thus the day after Jesus died would be the weekly Sabbath during Passover.

PS-
Most of the references to the “third day” specifically refer to Jesus being killed, and raised the third day. No mention of the Passover is made, so it would be a stretch to say that it meant the third day of the Passover.
on 05 Apr 2010 at 11:43 am707 robert

I finally have put all the peices together for the timing of the Death,Burialand Resurrection.
Jesus was executed on the preparation of the Passover as the Lamb of God at the exact time to be the lamb of that passover.
he was taken down at the request of the jews with permission from the romans before sunset when the High Sabbath started.
The roman then delivered the body of Jesus to Joseph to be prepared for burial after the High Sabbath had begun probably morning.Joseph prepared the Body with the help of Nicodemus and then transported the body after the High Sabbath to the tomb and then prepared the tomb and closed it. the same day probably morning which was the preparation day of the weekly Sabbath the women purchased spices and prepared them during that day to refresh the body at a later time. on this day the high priest had the tomb sealed and guarded because the next day would of been the 3rd day which Jesus stated he would be rose on. the women came to the tomb early on the Sabbath to bring the spices they prepared the day before to refesh Jesus and the tomb to find the stone moved and Jesus not there. This day is refered to as One of Sabbaths with was the first Sabbath in a sequence of 7 to the countdown to Pentecost and is refered to exactly as that in the greek text.
So by understanding the culture and actual meanings of the time it is very understandable how 3 days ,3 nights and 3rd day (of passover week) should be understood.
whether the early church fathers didnt understand or chose to teach false doctrine we will never know. But we do know that when it came to the english translations it was translated to back the RCC belief without regard to the truth.
My guess is the early church fathers chose to teach false doctrine to separate christianity from judaism as we see in many other areas of traditional christianity.
They must of hated the jews more than they loved the truth
on 05 Apr 2010 at 11:55 am708 robert

Mark
Sorry but i sice yesterday i have read many scholars opinions on this and the best they could actually come up with was mia ton Sabbaton was an idiom that meant first day of week instead of its literal meaning of one of sabbaths, but couldnt explain the plural use of sabbath.
Very easy it was one sabbath of seven SABBATHS to come
on 05 Apr 2010 at 12:11 pm709 robert

Since the word Sabbaton can mean “week” as well as “Sabbath” the phrase used is simply saying “the first of the week.”

This is false
the word Sabbaton is plural which can mean between 2 sabbaths but never as week, If it could be then a week is only 6 days because there is only 6 days that are not sabbaths between 2 sabbaths.
week as being a definition of sabbaton is a late definiton to all lexicons and dictionaries by use of early church fathers and does not date back to Jesus’ death.
You must understand how definitions are added at particular times in history, you cant just claim something always meant that because it is in a lexicon or dictionary
on 05 Apr 2010 at 1:09 pm710 robert

seems that knowledge will be increased in the latter days.
I know mine has

Almost all English translations render the Greek phrases mian sabbaton, mias sabbaton, mia ton sabbaton, and prote sabbatou as “first day of the week.” However, none of these Greek phrases can literally be translated that way.
The Greek word mia and all of its forms represent the cardinal number “one.” The Greek word protos is the ordinal “first.” In the New Testament, mia, mian, and mias appear 79 times. They are rendered as “first” eight times in the Authorized Version, seven of them in the “first day of the week” passages (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2), and also in Titus 3:10 (where a better translaton would be “once”).
In Greek, the phrase “first day of the week” is properly rendered protes hemeras tes hebdomados. Interestingly, the Greek word for “day” does not appear in any of the “first day of the week” verses in the New Testament.
If we look at a literal rendering of these phrases, we see that they would be better translated as “one of the Sabbaths” (mian sabbaton, mias sabbaton, and mia ton sabbaton), or “First Sabbath” (prote sabbatou).
In 1926, Greek scholar A.E. Knoch first published his Concordant Literal New Testament. The goal of Knoch’s work was to eliminate doctrinal bias from the translation of the Greek New Testament into English. Let’s see how he translated these same resurrection verses:
MATTHEW 28:1 Now it is the evening of the Sabbaths. At the lighting up into one of the Sabbaths [mian sabbaton] came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to behold the sepulcher. (CLNT)
MARK 16:2 And, very early in the morning on one of the Sabbaths [mias sabbaton], they are coming to the tomb at the rising of the sun. (CLNT)
MARK 16:9 Now, rising in the morning in the first Sabbath [prote sabbatou], he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. (CLNT)
LUKE 24:1 Now in the early depths of one of the Sabbaths [mia ton sabbaton], they, and certain others together with them, came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they make ready. (CLNT)
JOHN 20:1 Now, on one of the Sabbaths [mia ton sabbaton], Miriam Magdalene is coming to the tomb in the morning, there being still darkness, and is observing the stone taken away from the door of the tomb. (CLNT)
JOHN 20:19 It being, then, the evening of that day, one of the Sabbaths [mia ton sabbaton], and the doors having been locked where the disciples were gathered together, because of fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst and is saying to them, “Peace to you!” (CLNT)
As you can see, in all the Gospel accounts of the resurrection, Knoch (who was not a Sabbatarian) translated these passages to show that Yeshua was raised on “one of the Sabbaths,” which Mark specifically called the “First Sabbath” (Mark 16:9). What would “one of the Sabbaths” or “First Sabbath” have meant to a 1st-century Jew? Was there such a thing that would have been understood by those living in Judea at that time?
Absolutely! As commanded by God in Leviticus 23:15-16, there were seven weekly Sabbaths between Passover and Pentecost that were to be counted every year:
LEVITICUS 23:15 “And you shall count for yourselves from the day after the [annual Passover] Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering: seven Sabbaths shall be completed. 16 Count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath; then you shall offer a new grain offering to the LORD. (NKJV)
At the time of Yeshua, the Jews counted seven weekly Sabbaths during a 50-day period starting from the 2nd day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread to determine when to celebrate Pentecost. In fact, the Greek word Pentekoste literally means “50th.”
To a religious 1st-century Jew, mention of “one of the Sabbaths” during this period of counting would have automatically been understood as one of the seven weekly Sabbaths between Passover and Pentecost. In fact, the first weekly Sabbath after the Passover high Sabbath was known to the Jews as the “First Sabbath,” as Johnston M. Cheney noted in his harmony of the Gospels:
Seven sabbaths were to be counted from the Feast of First-fruits or Passover. Consequently, these came to be known as “First Sabbath,” “Second Sabbath” etc., down to the seventh. And according to Julian Morgenstern, former President of Hebrew University, this practice continued in Galilee till the time of Christ or the Common Era. It is still observed by some groups in Palestine today. Thus, there was an annual date known as “First Sabbath,” just after Passover. (p. 230, The Life of Christ in Stereo)
“One of the Sabbaths,” mentioned by all of the Gospel writers (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19), refers to this “First Sabbath” (Mark 16:9), the first weekly Sabbath after Passover! In fact, when English translators render the Greek phrases mian sabbaton, mias sabbaton, and mia ton sabbaton as “first day of the week,” they do so without regard for proper Greek grammar. Unfortunately, human tradition has generally overridden the literal meaning of these Greek words.
If we take the original Greek text at face value, we can see that it is very likely that Yeshua was resurrected early on the morning of the first weekly Sabbath after the Passover high day (John 19:31)! This would mean that there is absolutely no support for Christians venerating Sunday as “the Lord’s Day”! (For a detailed study of the chronology of Yeshua’s death and resurrection, refer to my article “When Was Christ Resurrected?”)
Two other “first day of the week” passages are generally cited by Christians to prove that the early Church met on Sunday: Acts 20:7 and I Corinthians 16:2. We’ll begin by closely examining Acts 20, where Paul’s journey from Philippi to Troas is described:
ACTS 20:6 But we sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days we came to them at Troas, where we stayed for seven days. 7 On the first day of the week [mia ton sabbaton], when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. (ESV)
Verse 6 tells us that these events took place immediately after the Feast of Unleavened Bread. A literal translation of verse 7 is somewhat different than what most English versions show. When we examine verse 7 in the Greek, we see that the text again literally says “one of the Sabbaths,” not “first day of the week”:
ACTS 20:7 Now on one of the Sabbaths, at our having gathered to break bread, Paul argued with them, being about to be off on the morrow. Besides, he prolonged the word unto midnight. (CLNT)
Luke tells us that Paul and his colleagues arrived in Troas at least five days after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and that they stayed in Troas for seven days. Paul was on his way to Jerusalem to observe the feast of Pentecost (Acts 20:16). With an understanding of the Sabbath count to Pentecost (Lev. 23:15-16), it’s clear that mia ton sabbaton here indicates that Paul spent one of the seven weekly Sabbaths between Passover and Pentecost with the brethren in Troas. There is no significance to be found for Sunday in this passage.
The final place in the New Testament where Sunday allegedly appears is found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:
I CORINTHIANS 16:2 On [kata] the first day of the week [mian sabbaton] let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come. (NKJV)
Is Paul speaking of a weekly collection to be set aside by the Corinthians every Sunday so a sufficient amount would be available when he arrived? Or is it possible that Paul had something else in mind?
The key to understanding this whole passage is the Greek word kata, which begins verse 2. Thayer says kata is: “a preposition denoting motion or diffusion or direction from the higher to the lower . . .”
This Greek word is frequently rendered “after” by translators (”down from” = “after”). Let’s look at the difference it would make to translate this word as “after” instead of “on” in this verse, as well as rendering mia ton sabbaton as “one of the Sabbaths”:
“On the first day of the week” → becomes → “After one of the Sabbaths.”
Here is a literal rendering of the first two verses of I Corinthians 16:
I CORINTHIANS 16:1 Now concerning the collection that is for the saints, as I directed to the churches of Galatia, so also you do. 2 After one of the Sabbaths [kata mian sabbaton], let each one of you beside himself put something aside, storing up whatever he may have prospered, in order that when I come then collections may not be made; (literal translation)
A close reading of I Corinthians shows that Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were very important to the context of Paul’s instructions to the church there (I Cor. 5:7-8). It is likely that Paul wrote this epistle just before the arrival of the spring Holy Days. Paul’s encouragement to begin gathering a collection “after one of the Sabbaths” was likely intended to plainly tell the Corinthians WHEN to begin setting aside their offering so they would have it completed by the time he arrived. Once again, the most logical view of this Scripture does not include a recognition of Sunday worship.
CONCLUSION
The scriptural evidence indicates that it is very likely that Yeshua was raised from the dead on a SABBATH morning, not Sunday morning! In fact, it doesn’t appear that the “first day of the week” is specifically mentioned in the New Testament at all! Since the resurrection of the Messiah is the primary reason given by most Christians for exalting Sunday and worshiping on that day, the evidence presented in this article seriously weakens (if not outright destroys) any alleged biblical support for observing the first day of the week.
on 05 Apr 2010 at 9:49 pm711 robert

“Most of the references to the “third day” specifically refer to Jesus being killed, and raised the third day. No mention of the Passover is made, so it would be a stretch to say that it meant the third day of the Passover.”

Mark
Why as you can see in the passover there is a FIRST DAY and a SEVENTH DAY. Stands to reason there was a second day and MOST CERTAINLY A THIRD DAY. If it was counted between then how would they know when it was the seventh.
Since Jesus died before the start of the first, At sunset would of been the FIRST DAY.
This is way better than calling Jesus a liar when his only sign was 3 days and 3 nights.
Why claim an Idiom when there is a literal meaning that is extremely possible

Exodus 12
16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man [5] must eat, that only may be done of you.
on 06 Apr 2010 at 8:07 am712 Jaco

Guys,

I have not been following this thread for practical reasons, since I did some other reading of own. At request of one of our other bloggers, I decided to pick up the thread regarding the day of crucifixion. To be honest, I have not delved into the matter that deeply, other than knowing the general “proofs” of a Friday death of Jesus and a “Double Sabbath” on Saturday. I have stumbled upon statements of an alternative, Wednesday death of Jesus, but that’s about it. So, I am currently in agreement with Mark.

The evidence provided by Robert, however, is impressive. From a Greek grammatical perspective, Mark 16:1 does say “And being past the sabbath, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary that of the James, and Salome bought aromatics, that coming they might anoint him.” The “had bought” past perfect in English could or could not be inferred. It nevertheless is not explicit in the text. The sequence of events indicates a buying of aromatics after the sabbath.

Mia (cardinal numeral) ton (genitive article) Sabbaton (plural noun) does mean “one of the Sabbaths.” Interestinly enough, BDBG does not list “week” as one of the meanings of Shabbaton.

I truly stand challenged in this regard, and will have to revisit the evidence prayerfully from time to time.

Great job!

Jaco
on 06 Apr 2010 at 9:45 am713 robert

Jaco
Thank you
An open mind is all i ask.

Plus i notice when copied to latin vulgate it fails to give latin for first day of week. Omiting latin word for day, week and first.
If it was understood that way wouldnt it have been translated that way.

Here are a few more things to consider

The translators, bringing their a priori ideas about the phrase to the translating table, assume that the word “day” needs to be supplied in order to help the reader understand the expression. But this is true only if the three words in question actually refer to the first day of the week. If it means one of the Sabbaths, then the word day obviously is not there because it did not need to be there in the first place.

The word “day” is used hundreds of times in the N.T. to refer to various and sundry days, the Sabbath day(s), the third day, the seventh day, the eighth day, the day of Unleavened Bread (Luke 22:7), and even “first day of Unleavened Bread (Mk. 14:12).” In this latter verse, protee heemera is behind the English words “first day.”

So if we take the Holy Spirit to be the power that moved the writers, we see that there is precedent for including heemera (day) with “first” to indicate the first day of something. So the absence of heemera/day in the expression mia ton sabbaton is a strong indication that we are not dealing with a figure of speech, nor with a phrase that requires the word “day” at all in order to be understood. Instead, it is simply “one of the Sabbaths.” It makes little sense for the Greek word heemera to be left out of a reference to the first day of the week, but supplied in the expression “First Day of the Unleaveneds (Mk. 14:12).”

How would the Jewish authors of the N.T. have gone about conveying the idea of a seven day week in Greek? If you were a Jewish religious writer composing one of the books of the N. T., what Greek word would first Century readers and writers have been familiar with that would have conveyed the idea of a week? The answer to that question is found in the Septuagint (circa 280 B.C.), a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that was widely available in the time of Yeshua. The Septuagint uses the word hebdomadas

(os) to translate the Hebrew word for week, which is shavua.

Hepta hebdomadas is used in last part of Lev. 23: 15 for the seven weeks you are to number to get to the 50th day, called Pentecost. Until the morrow after the last week (eschatees hebdomados) shall you number 50 days.

Deut. 16:9–Hepta hebdomadas exarithmateis (seven weeks shall you number), and you shall keep the feast of weeks (heopteen hebdomadon).

The seventy weeks prophecy of Dan. 9 also uses this word hebdomadas a number of times.

There can be little doubt that this Greek word for week would have been chosen by John, Matthew, Mark, Paul and Luke had they sought to convey the idea of the first day of the week. How do we know this? Because the Septuagint (LXX) was used in all the synagogues of Asia Minor, Achaia, and Macedonia, and Greece. We are confident of this fact because of the large number of Hellenistic Jews, Greek proselytes, and God-fearers among the Gentiles who attended synagogue in these places, as is evident in the accounts throughout the book of Acts. We know that the word sabbaton was used in the LXX in the same way as in the N.T. to refer to weekly and annual Sabbaths. It is logical to assume that had they desired to mention “the first day of the week,” they would have used hebdomados.
on 06 Apr 2010 at 2:05 pm714 Mark C.

Jaco,

The “had bought” past perfect in English could or could not be inferred. It nevertheless is not explicit in the text. The sequence of events indicates a buying of aromatics after the sabbath.

If it is not explicit, how does the sequence of events indicate buying the spices after the Sabbath? They may have bought additional spices then, but the sequence of events in Luke indicates that they prepared the spices the same day Jesus died, and then rested on the Sabbath.

Luke 23:
54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

Mia (cardinal numeral) ton (genitive article) Sabbaton (plural noun) does mean “one of the Sabbaths.” Interestinly enough, BDBG does not list “week” as one of the meanings of Shabbaton.

The BDBG gives us the meanings of the Hebrew word Shabbaton. However the Greek word, which was derived from the Hebrew, does carry the secondary meaning of “week,” according to both Strong’s and Thayer and Smith’s Greek Lexicon.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/sabbaton.html

In addition, the author of the article Robert posted claimed that “the true Greek word for absolute one as in a sequence of numbers is not the word mia but protos,” and that if it had actually meant the first day of the week, “the word that would have definitively done so is protos.” I pointed out that protos is in fact used in Mark 16:9: “Now when Jesus was risen early the first [protos] day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.”

Notice also that it says early on that day in that verse, as well as in Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1. If it meant the Sabbath, he would have arisen early on the Sabbath, which doesn’t even fit with the theory under consideration (that he rose toward the end of the Sabbath).

Furthermore, Matthew 28:1 says, “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.” If the “first day of the week” meant the “first of the Sabbaths” it would be saying, “in the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first of the Sabbaths,” which makes no sense.

All four Gospels concur that it was the day after the Sabbath, being the first day of the week.
on 06 Apr 2010 at 2:31 pm715 robert

“The BDBG gives us the meanings of the Hebrew word Shabbaton. However the Greek word, which was derived from the Hebrew, does carry the secondary meaning of “week,” according to both Strong’s and Thayer and Smith’s Greek Lexicon.”

Mark
can you show me where they got this definition because it certainly didnt exist when the latin vulgate was written because the literal meaning is the same in latin
As again you claim idioms when there was and is still a perfectly good literal meaning amongst the jews.
plus you just ignore there were words used to express ” first day of the week” in greek used through out greek text.
This is so clear

” I pointed out that protos is in fact used in Mark 16:9: “Now when Jesus was risen early the first [protos] day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.” Notice also that it says early on that day. If it meant the Sabbath, he would have arisen early on the Sabbath, which doesn’t even fit with the theory under consideration (that he rose toward the end of the Sabbath).”

Mark
actually that is the most damaging evidence against Sunday resesrrection because it literal means FIRST SABBATH.
If you read all that i posted you would see the morning of the sabbath before light would be a better understanding which fits 3 days, 3 nights perfectly with the first day being his execution and the last night being his resurrection. as i have said 3 days,3 nights could be accomplished being no less than 48 hours but i will correct myself here to 48 hours and 2 seconds as long as one second belongs to the first day and one second to the last night
on 06 Apr 2010 at 2:55 pm716 robert

Luke 24
20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. 21 But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened.

while i am at it i am going to deal with Luke 24:21 with the phrase third day since.
If friday was the death the days since that would of been saturday and sunday making it only the 2nd day since.
if wednsday was the death the days since would of been thursday, friday and the Sabbath making the SABBATH THE 3RD DAY SINCE.
this is how the word “since” would be used in days since
on 06 Apr 2010 at 3:30 pm717 Mark C.

If you read all that i posted you would see the morning of the sabbath before light would be a better understanding which fits 3 days, 3 nights perfectly with the first day being his execution and the last night being his resurrection.

From Comment #659:

Jesus wasnt resurrected on sunday and if you read all 4 gospels you wil find nowhere where it states he was,It just says that when it was discovered in 3 of them and one of them plainly states it was at the end of the Sabbath,before it began to dawn toward the first day which would mean saturday eve.

Which is it?
on 06 Apr 2010 at 3:36 pm718 robert

“Furthermore, Matthew 28:1 says, “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.” If the “first day of the week” meant the “first of the Sabbaths” it would be saying, “in the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first of the Sabbaths,” which makes no sense.”

Mark
Maybe one of the LITERAL TRANSLATIONS will help it make sense. Keep in mind this man was NOT a sabbath keeper

MATTHEW 28:1 Now it is the evening of the Sabbaths. At the lighting up into one of the Sabbaths [mian sabbaton] came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to behold the sepulcher. (CLNT)
on 06 Apr 2010 at 3:42 pm719 robert

Mark
as i said if you read everything i posted you would find early before light on the sabbath would be a better understanding.
YES I MYSELF HAD TO COME TO A BETTER UNDERSTANDING.

Should i find something you wrote years ago which now you have a better understanding of and hold you at what you wrote years ago.

Hey i am just seeing all this myself. forgive me if i keep an open mind for better understandings.
on 06 Apr 2010 at 3:46 pm720 Brian Keating

Hi Robert,

Just for clarification, I’d like to try to draw a “diagram”, to see if I understand your position correctly.

One of the tricky things in this discussion is that in our calendar, days begin at midnight; but on the Jewish calendar, days begin at sundown. So, in the diagram below, the first line shows days in our calendar, with a slash (/) denoting each midnight. The second line shows days in the Jewish calendar, with a vertical bar (|) denoting each sundown.

The D character specifies the time that Jesus died, and the R character specifies the time that Jesus was resurrected.

/—-Wed—-/—-Thu—-/—-Fri—-/—-Sat—–/

|———–D|————|————|—–R——|————|

day of 1st day 2nd day 3rd day 4th day
preparation passover passover passover passover

So, in this diagram, Jesus died shortly before sundown, on Wednesday evening – on the day of preparation before passover. Then, Jesus was resurrected early in the morning on Saturday – on the third day of passover.

Robert, does this diagram accurately represent your position?

Brian
on 06 Apr 2010 at 3:49 pm721 robert

Brain
yes
on 06 Apr 2010 at 3:59 pm722 robert

Brian
sorry for getting your name wrong, but i guess it wasnt a bad mistake
on 06 Apr 2010 at 4:00 pm723 Jaco

Mark and Robert,

You are truly doing a great job. This is very interesting. Keep at it, guys.

Jaco
on 06 Apr 2010 at 4:30 pm724 Brian Keating

Hi Robert,

OK, let me expand a little bit now. First, here are two other points to note, from what I understand:

- Scripture indicates that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus did not place Jesus into the tomb, until after sundown on Wednesday.

- A well known Hebrew idiom is that even a small part of a day can be considered a full day.

So, assuming that the diagram I wrote above is correct, how does that information “fit in” with Jesus’ statement that he would be in the grave “three days and three nights”?

Here’s what I have come up with. Assuming that my diagram is correct, Jesus was in the tomb as follows:

- Nighttime on the first day of passover;

- Daytime on the first day of passover;

- Nighttime on the second day of passover;

- Daytime on the second day of passover;

- Nighttime on the third day of passover;

- And then, as soon as the first ray of sunlight appeared on the third day of passover, God raised Jesus from the dead.

I must admit, this doctrine appears to be very “logical” – and very inspiring. I am going to have to do more research on this subject.

Brian
on 06 Apr 2010 at 5:31 pm725 robert

Brian

“in the heart of the earth”
I think we should define that by Jonahs statement, I am in the pit of hell(sheol) when he was in the whale’s belly which we all know means just death.
this makes the first day his death and last night his resurrection agreeing with every account when translated literally from greek
on 06 Apr 2010 at 5:50 pm726 robert

here is an understanding from
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=1103

The Hebrew text of the Old Testament tells us that when a person dies he goes to “Sheol.” Sheol is not “a grave,” i.e., a physical place where the body is laid. A physical grave is qeber in Hebrew. Neither is Sheol the same as “dead” (Hebrew: muth), which is the absence of life. Neither Greek nor English have an equivalent word to Sheol. It refers not to the place where the dead are buried (a grave), but to the state of being dead. We might refer to it as “gravedom” (the realm and dominion of the grave), or “the” grave, versus “a” grave.
on 06 Apr 2010 at 6:28 pm727 Mark C.

Robert,

YES I MYSELF HAD TO COME TO A BETTER UNDERSTANDING.

Should i find something you wrote years ago which now you have a better understanding of and hold you at what you wrote years ago.

Who said anything about “years ago”? Since you wrote comment #659 only four days ago, I didn’t realize you had now come to a different conclusion.

So you’re saying that he arose on the Sabbath, and the women came to the tomb on the Sabbath? That would contradict the point that is made elsewhere that the women rested on the Sabbath and went to the tomb when the Sabbath had passed.

Maybe one of the LITERAL TRANSLATIONS will help it make sense. Keep in mind this man was NOT a sabbath keeper

MATTHEW 28:1 Now it is the evening of the Sabbaths. At the lighting up into one of the Sabbaths [mian sabbaton] came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to behold the sepulcher. (CLNT)

That doesn’t make any more sense than what I had said. Is it the evening of the Sabbath or the dawn of the Sabbath?

*******************

Brian,

Your chart doesn’t take into account the Biblical expression “the third day” being equivalent to what we would call “the day after tomorrow.” Robert claims that it’s just an opinion, but the Bible itself defines it in at least three verses (Luke 13:32; Ex. 19:10-11; I Sam. 20:12) as “today, tomorrow, and the third day.” So if he died on the preparation of the Passover, then the third day from his death would be the second day of Passover.

Besides, the word for Preparation is ONLY used of the day before the weekly Sabbath. That was the meaning of the word. It’s really quite simple. He died and was buried on the Preparation day (the day before the Sabbath) and arose on the first day of the week, being the third day from his death in Biblical reckoning.

In every one of the references to “the third day” it says Jesus would be or was killed or crucified, and raised the third day. No mention of the Passover is in any of those verses, so there is no basis for understanding it as the third day of the Passover.
on 06 Apr 2010 at 6:58 pm728 robert

So you’re saying that he arose on the Sabbath, and the women came to the tomb on the Sabbath? That would contradict the point that is made elsewhere that the women rested on the Sabbath and went to the tomb when the Sabbath had passed.

Mark
The reference to that was that they finished the preparation of the spices which would be consider work, but if you checked there is no command for visiting the dead or anointing them. so therefore they obeyed the command.

“That doesn’t make any more sense than what I had said. Is it the evening of the Sabbath or the dawn of the Sabbath?”

makes sense to me when refering to a jewish day. You do realize the eve used to come before the day.

Btw
How do you explain 3rd day since, which by no meaning can include day of because of the well define meaning afterward.
If friday was the death then it would be 1st day since which would mean the day before that. You telling me things i say dont make sense, then use this reckoning.
There a phrase about rocks and glass houses that comes to mind here

Brian
he addressed the rest to you
on 06 Apr 2010 at 7:05 pm729 Doubting Thomas

Robert (msg. 726)
The link to the article “Making the dead alive” was very interesting. Thanks….
on 06 Apr 2010 at 8:37 pm730 robert

“I must admit, this doctrine appears to be very “logical” – and very inspiring. I am going to have to do more research on this subject.”

Brian
If after researching this you still find it creditable would you write an article for here about. I have enjoyed your articles and your sytle of writing.
on 06 Apr 2010 at 9:24 pm731 Mark C.

The reference to that was that they finished the preparation of the spices which would be consider work, but if you checked there is no command for visiting the dead or anointing them. so therefore they obeyed the command.

The command about the Sabbath was to NO work of ANY KIND. In any case, a simple reading of the passage in Luke shows that they prepared the spices and then rested on the Sabbath. If visiting the tomb was not in violation of the Sabbath, why didn’t they do it that day? They waited until the Sabbath was passed.

makes sense to me when refering to a jewish day. You do realize the eve used to come before the day.

The word for “even” or “evening” is opsios which refers to late in the day, i.e. late afternoon to sunset. It’s from a root word that means late or after. Thayer and Smith’s defines it as: “late; evening; either from three to six o’clock p.m. or from six o’clock p.m. to the beginning of night.” It is the end of the day, not the beginning.

Btw
How do you explain 3rd day since, which by no meaning can include day of because of the well define meaning afterward.
If friday was the death then it would be 1st day since which would mean the day before that. You telling me things i say dont make sense, then use this reckoning.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve explained this. I really don’t know what you find so difficult about it. Here it is again from my article:

The exact meaning of the phrase “the third day” in its Biblical usage is defined in Luke 13:32. “And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.” Counting of days began with today as the first day, and tomorrow as the second day. The day after tomorrow was the third day, even though we would say only two days have elapsed, because we don’t count today as day one.

We can see this way of reckoning time in the Old Testament as well. In Exodus 19:10-11, we read, “And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.” And in I Samuel 20:12, we read, “And Jonathan said unto David, O LORD God of Israel, when I have sounded my father about to morrow any time, or the third day, and, behold, if there be good toward David, and I then send not unto thee, and shew it thee.” What we would call “the day after tomorrow,” they referred to as “the third day.”
on 06 Apr 2010 at 9:25 pm732 robert

Joseph
when you read all this would you tell me if this statement below is true

The third day of Passover Jesus the Messiah rose from the dead. Why is his rising on the third day important? I’m Gary Derechinsky and this is Christianity is Jewish.

The third day of Passover is the Jewish feast of first fruits. On this occasion the Jewish farmer would bring to the Temple as an offering to the Lord the first harvest of his field. This first harvest served to symbolize everything else that would be harvested was a gift from the Lord and ultimately belonged to God.

That is why Paul refers to Jesus as the “first fruits of those who die.” Jesus in effect represents the entire body of believers who one day will be resurrected from the dead and stand before the Lord with their Savior. That is why the resurrection of Messiah took place on the feast of first fruits.
on 06 Apr 2010 at 9:33 pm733 robert

“I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve explained this. I really don’t know what you find so difficult about it. Here it is again from my article:”

Mark
we all know how the idiom works, thats not the problem. the problem is whether it applies when the literal works within all i have explained.
Besides that you are just flat out ignoring that phrase has Since which means after the day of which shoots holes through your 3rd day sunday unless you change the day of Jesus’ death to thursday.
on 06 Apr 2010 at 10:31 pm734 Mark C.

The third day of Passover is the Jewish feast of first fruits. On this occasion the Jewish farmer would bring to the Temple as an offering to the Lord the first harvest of his field. This first harvest served to symbolize everything else that would be harvested was a gift from the Lord and ultimately belonged to God.

That is why Paul refers to Jesus as the “first fruits of those who die.” Jesus in effect represents the entire body of believers who one day will be resurrected from the dead and stand before the Lord with their Savior. That is why the resurrection of Messiah took place on the feast of first fruits.

Actually, the feast of firstfruits is not always the third day of Passover. It is the day after the Sabbath that falls during the Passover week.

Leviticus 23:
7 In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.
8 But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.
9 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest:
11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.
12 And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD.
13 And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the LORD for a sweet savour: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin.
14 And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:
16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.
17 Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD.

And since it mentions counting seven Sabbaths from that one, we know it’s talking about the weekly Sabbath and not the first day of Passover, which is a yearly “Sabbath” (although it’s not technically called that in the Bible).

This is what I’ve been talking about all along, regarding what John meant by “that Sabbath was a high day.” There would be no reason for him to say it was a high day if it was the first day of Passover, since it was obvious that the first day of Passover was a high day. Nor would it be necessary to say the weekly Sabbath was a high day. But because it was a special Sabbath, the one during the Passover week, it makes sense for him to point this out. And it also makes sense for Jesus to have risen on the morrow after the Sabbath during Passover, being the feast of the firstfruits.

we all know how the idiom works, thats not the problem. the problem is whether it applies when the literal works within all i have explained.
Besides that you are just flat out ignoring that phrase has Since which means after the day of which shoots holes through your 3rd day sunday unless you change the day of Jesus’ death to thursday.

With all due respect, it is clear from the fact that you say this, that you don’t know how the idiom works. It’s not a matter of there being both a literal and a figurative way of referring to numbering of days. It’s a matter of their culture numbering them as “today, tomorrow and the third day.” It is our culture that numbers days starting with the next day. The word for “since” is the Greek preposition apo which simply means “from.” In our culture the third day “from” something would start counting on the day after, but not in Biblical culture. The third day “from” today, in Biblical culture, is the day after tomorrow; i.e. “today, tomorrow, and the third day.”
on 06 Apr 2010 at 10:37 pm735 robert

http://www.1stbaptistfamily.com/Publications/Powerpoint/Archive/2009%20evening/2009-03-22%20evening%20Feasts%20%20Presentation%20week%201.pdf

Mark
your last post has helped, without it i couldnt understand how the First fruits were offered on the morrow after the passover but you have shown me that means the 2nd day after the passover which make Jesus’ resurrection on the 3rd day of passover making Jesus the First of the First fruits
on 06 Apr 2010 at 10:40 pm736 robert

Mark
i would address your last post but my last post already address it.
thank you so very much for the meaning of the morrow
on 06 Apr 2010 at 10:55 pm737 robert

Now if you claim sunday as the resurrection you cant have him offered as the first fruit till monday.
on 06 Apr 2010 at 11:00 pm738 Mark C.

your last post has helped, without it i couldnt understand how the First fruits were offered on the morrow after the passover but you have shown me that means the 2nd day after the passover which make Jesus’ resurrection on the 3rd day of passover making Jesus the First of the First fruits

It’s not always the 2nd day after the Passover. It’s the day after the weekly Sabbath that falls during the Passover, which would be different days of the Passover depending on what day of the week the Passover started. We don’t know what day of the week Passover started that year, but the day he was raised was the day after the Sabbath, and thus the firstfruits.

Now if you claim sunday as the resurrection you cant have him offered as the first fruit till monday.

I don’t understand your point. Why can’t you have him offered as the firstfruit until Monday? Sunday is the “morrow after the Sabbath” during the Passover week, which is when the firstfruits wave offering was to be done.
on 06 Apr 2010 at 11:03 pm739 robert

Mark
I am thru presenting my case, it is finished .
the truth is there for those who truly want the truth.
thankyou for part in finding the truth whether you see or not.

Good Night
on 06 Apr 2010 at 11:13 pm740 robert

Sunday is the “morrow after the Sabbath”

NO MARK SUNDASY IS THE MORROW OF THE SABBATH

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND MORROW(WHICH YOU SHOWED THE MEANING OF)MEANS 2ND DAY.

2ND DAY AFTER THE SABBATH IS MONDAY
on 06 Apr 2010 at 11:17 pm741 robert

Sunday would be TODAY AFTER THE SABBATH
on 06 Apr 2010 at 11:39 pm742 Mark C.

Robert,

“Morrow” means the next day. The next day after the Sabbath is the first day of the week, the day we call Sunday. In Biblical culture it is the second day, in relation to the Sabbath, since the Sabbath is counted as the first day, although in our culture we would say Sunday is the first day AFTER the Sabbath and Monday the second. This is the difference between Biblical culture and our culture.

Lev. 23:11 and 15 both say quite clearly that the firstfruit wave offering was done on “the morrow after the Sabbath.” That means the next day after the Sabbath, which is what we call Sunday.

Sunday would be TODAY AFTER THE SABBATH

Only if the speaker were speaking on Sunday. But in relation to the Sabbath, it is the next day, or the second day of counting in Biblical reckoning.

I’m glad you are through presenting your case, so we can let it rest. I agree, the truth is there for those who truly want the truth. You have a good night as well.
on 06 Apr 2010 at 11:50 pm743 robert

Mark
You scream 3rd day is an idiom but what you cant see is 3rd day Describes 2 IDIOMS. To day is an idiom of 1st day, to morrow is an idiom for 2nd day, 3rd day just shows the meanings of the first 2.

Lev. 23:11 and 15 both say quite clearly that the firstfruit wave offering was done on “the morrow after the Sabbath.”

so using the idiom to morrow would translated 2nd day
put that in the phrase “morrow after the sabbath(passover in this verse) would translate 2nd day AFTER the Sabbath.

I am thru with my case not thru showing you how to translate the “to morrow” idiom.
All you can see is 3RD DAY,3RD DAY .3RD DAY
Open your eyes because you have 3rd day imprinted on your eyelid
on 07 Apr 2010 at 2:06 am744 Mark C.

Robert,

First of all, I didn’t “scream” anything. I just keep repeating it and trying to say it in different ways because you don’t seem to be getting it.

Secondly, the word “morrow” means the next day, just as in our culture “tomorrow” is the day after today. This is not the idiom. The idiom has to do with numbering days, as in the second day, the third day, etc.

so using the idiom to morrow would translated 2nd day
put that in the phrase “morrow after the sabbath(passover in this verse) would translate 2nd day AFTER the Sabbath.

You’re still trying to understand it in light of our modern Western culture, and it doesn’t work that way. In our culture we say that the day after the Sabbath is the first day “after” the Sabbath, and the next day is the second day “after” the Sabbath. But in Biblical culture they didn’t say it that way. They didn’t start the counting on the day after, they started it the same day.

In Biblical reckoning, today is the first day, tomorrow is the second day, the day after tomorrow is the third day. The morrow after the Sabbath is the second day from the Sabbath, but that’s counting the Sabbath as the first day, and the day after the Sabbath as the second day.

Keep in mind that in most of the references it doesn’t say “after” but simply “rise the third day.” There are only two verses that say “after three days” and the word for “after” in both of them is the Greek preposition meta which is most often translated “with.”

Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

This is equivalent to the thirteen other verses in which he says he would be killed and rise “the third day.”

Matthew 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

If this meant after three complete days had passed, as our Western mind would understand it, then it would actually refer to something that happened on the fourth day. This can’t be the case, since Matthew 27:64 says that the chief priests requested a seal on the tomb “until the third day.”

Thus the day of Preparation is the day before the Sabbath, the day that Jesus died. The next day is the Sabbath, the second day after his death in their reckoning. Then the third day after his death is Sunday. You have to not think in terms of “after” in the sense of starting counting the next day as we do in our culture.
on 07 Apr 2010 at 7:45 am745 robert

Mark
3rd day is not an idiom
to morrow is an idiom for 2nd day
to day is an idiom for 1st

Lets make a chart like Brians

–to day—/ —to morrow—/—third day—

–1st day–/—2nd day—–/—-3rd day

The saying to day, to morrow and third day is not an idiom within itself. its a saying setting the meanings of “to day ” “to morrow” so we know what they mean when their used.
Third day is a numbering for days just like 4th,5th, ect which is in no way an idiom. the 4th day can consisted of parts of days Just like 3rd day.

really think about Mark
on 07 Apr 2010 at 9:22 am746 Mark C.

Robert,

I give up.
on 07 Apr 2010 at 12:05 pm747 robert

In Exodus 19:10-11, we read, “And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, And be ready against the third day:

From the above verse we see the phrase “morrow” is to mean 2nd day. so after using this definition you should be able to replace it everywhere in the bible and still should make perfect sense. But be careful not to replace any words other than ” morrow”.

this is what that verse it teaching us
on 07 Apr 2010 at 2:43 pm748 robert

Here is someone see the samething I am seeing, But forced by tradition he is forced to change the God’s words to keep Sunday resurection and also keep Jesus as first fruit offering Instead of looking for the truth.
He sees a great difference between morrow after and morrow of.

The Barley Wave-Sheaf Offering

The wave-sheaf offering shortly after Passover was the firstfruits of the ripened barley that the priest offered to God in the early Spring. It was always waved “on the morrow OF (NOT “after”) the Sabbath” at Passover (Lev 23:10-14). This day is sometimes called the Feast of Firstfruits. The Ascension of Jesus “on the morrow OF the Sabbath” is symbolized by the
wave-sheaf offering.
http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/spiritual/home_study/passover.htm

———————————————————
Here is biblical evidence that the sabbath in passover week is the passover day itself

Note the words “on the morrow after the Sabbath.” In this letter I will give you scriptural reasons why we count to Pentecost from the morrow after the first day of unleavened bread. We should base our opinions on the Scriptures alone. On this subject we find that Leviticus 23:11-14 states that the harvest was not to be eaten till after the wave sheaf and the food and drink offerings had been presented to YHVH.

Lev.23:11-14 And ye shall eat neither bread, not parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God.

The statutory progression of events was as follows:

First came the Sabbath. (the one we are trying to identify)
Then on the next day the wave sheaf and the meat and drink offerings were presented to YHVH.
And AFTER that Israel was allowed to eat bread, parched corn or green ears.
It is this third point, the eating of the bread, parched corn or green years, that gives us the clue as to which Sabbath triggers the 50th day count to Pentecost. We read further in the book of Joshua that the children of Israel, in obedience to the regulations laid down in Leviticus 23:11-14 ate the corn of the land “on the morrow after the Passover.”
Note the words “on the morrow after the Passover”.

Josh.5:10-12 And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal and kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month at even in the plains of Jericho. And they did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the Passover, unleavened cakes and parched corn on the selfsame day.
Looking at this passage closely and comparing it with the one in Leviticus 23, we cannot help but conclude that Joshua (a type of Messiah) was here faithfully carrying out the instructions given in Leviticus 23, and that “the morrow after the Sabbath” in Leviticus 23 and “the morrow after the Passover” in Joshua 5 were in fact referring to the same day. And so, though, we still haven’t identified the Sabbath of Leviticus 23:11, we now know that in the book of Joshua that same Sabbath was called “the Passover”. The inevitable question now becomes: and what day is the Passover held on – which in Leviticus 23:11 is simply called “the Sabbath”?

The answer is, the Passover is held on the first day of unleavened bread, which is also a Sabbath day. Yes, the Passover is held on the first day of unleavened bread (15th.Abib) Here is the proof.

Matt.26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to YAHSHUA saying unto Him, where wilt thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover.
Mark 14:12 And the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover.
Luke 22:7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed.

These three texts prove that the preparations for the Passover took place just before the first day of unleavened bread – that is, at the end of the 14th Abib. This is in complete agreement with YHVH’s instructions as recorded in Exodus 12 where we see how the Passover Lamb was slain towards the evening or end of the 14th Abib – the period which immediately preceded the first day of unleavened bread. (Exodus 12:5-6)

The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is: that Joshua must have kept the Passover on the first day of unleavened bread and then gone on to eat the corn of the land on the morrow after it.
In other words, Joshua’s 50 day count to Pentecost must have begun on the morrow after the first day of unleavened bread, which is a Sabbath day.

By way of summary we may say that we count to Pentecost from:

The morrow after the Sabbath. (Lev. 23:11) which elsewhere is referred to as
The morrow after the Passover (Joshua 5:11), which elsewhere is identified as
The first day of the feast of unleavened bread.
on 07 Apr 2010 at 5:39 pm749 robert

“The morrow after the Sabbath is the second day from the Sabbath, but that’s counting the Sabbath as the first day, and the day after the Sabbath as the second day”

Mark
that just dont make sense.

From the sabbath can not count the sabbath as the first day from.
Till you said that it made perfect sense

“The morrow after the Sabbath is the second day from the Sabbath”

Yep perfect sense
on 07 Apr 2010 at 6:57 pm750 Doubting Thomas

Robert
I’ve been thinking and praying about it and even though I don’t understand Greek your idea about a crucifixtion on Wednesday and and a resurrection on Saturday seems to make the most sense to me. A lot of what you guys were talking about went over my head and was beyond my understanding but I know how my heart feels…
on 07 Apr 2010 at 7:54 pm751 robert

Thomas
i dont know greek either, but there is some very good progams that translated for you but the best way is to just copy and paste it into search bar and look at all references to it. i dont trust just one because sometimes theres conflicts on meanings.
While i see this perfectly clear, I havent figured out how to explain it to others clearly, But i have a lot of brothers here that might help me with that.

there is no one that dispute the way your heart feels, so continue your quest for the whole truth using your heart as your deciding factor
on 07 Apr 2010 at 8:23 pm752 Doubting Thomas

Robert
You said, “There is no one that disputes the way your heart feels, so continue your quest for the whole truth using your heart as your deciding factor.”

Thank you. My heart has steered me well thus far…
on 08 Apr 2010 at 12:25 pm753 robert

1 Samuel 18
18And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house.

27 Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

As we see in the above verses Saul had David abidding with in his family and then making David a part of his family thru marrage. Soon after that his heart is turned against David to Kill him. From this point we see Saul looking for opportunies to do just that but Jonathan and Michal warned David and helped him escape.
But as we see in the verse below there was a real problem in the near future because David was abidding in Saul’s house he would be expected to sit at Saul’s table during the yearly sacrafices Feast, Not just one feast but all feast that were associated with the yearly sacrafice.
David speaking below was speaking the day before the NewMoon that he was expected to sit at Sauls table but knew if he did that would give Saul the opportunity to kill him. So David deisdes to hide himself till after the last feast which would of been the one at the Wave sheif offering on the third day of the yearly sacrafice.
Here is a usage of third day that is 18 days into the future and also the usage of the third day during the yearly sacrafice.

1 Samuel 20
5 And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, to morrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat: but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field unto the third day at even. 6 If thy father at all miss me, then say, David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Bethlehem his city: for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family.
on 08 Apr 2010 at 6:48 pm754 Mark C.

I won’t waste my time arguing about the meaning of words or the customs of Biblical culture, as anyone can look those up for themselves. The only other thing I will add is the following addition I made to my article (which can be seen at http://www.godskingdomfirst.org/DayJesusDied.htm) in response to the point about the Passover in Gilgal mentioned in Joshua 5.

——————————————————

It has been suggested that the Book of Joshua provides evidence that the Sabbath referred to in connection with Passover is the first day of Passover itself. Leviticus 23:14 says that they were not to eat bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears until after the wave offering was performed. Yet we read in Joshua 5:10-11 that “the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal, and kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at even in the plains of Jericho. And they did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the selfsame day.” It is therefore concluded that since they ate of the grain that day they must have previously performed the wave offering, and thus the wave offering was done on the “morrow after the Passover” not the morrow after the weekly Sabbath.

It must be understood, however, that the command about the wave offering in Leviticus is prefaced by the statement, “When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest” (Leviticus 23:10). It was for the purpose of giving God thanks for their harvest. At the Passover in Gilgal in Joshua 5, they had just crossed the Jordan into the Promised Land, and were still encamped. They had not yet settled and planted their own crops yet. That is why there is no mention of the wave offering in Joshua 5, and why they ate grain the day after the Passover (which it says was grain that was there already, not their own harvest).

The “morrow after the Sabbath” in Leviticus 23 must be referring to the weekly Sabbath that falls during the Passover week, as indicated by the above-mentioned facts: that they counted seven Sabbaths from then (not seven yearly convocations), and that the first day of Passover is not specifically called a Sabbath anywhere in the Old Testament.
on 08 Apr 2010 at 7:12 pm755 robert

“The “morrow after the Sabbath” in Leviticus 23 must be referring to the weekly Sabbath that falls during the Passover week, as indicated by the above-mentioned facts: that they counted seven Sabbaths from then (not seven yearly convocations), and that the first day of Passover is not specifically called a Sabbath anywhere in the Old Testament.”

Mark
this has nothing to do with the counting of sabbaths, it has all to do with when to start that count. From the morrow after the Passover sabbath after that you count weekly sabbaths.
So why would you even think what i said was they counted seven yearly convocations.

“When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof”

Mark
When God gave them the land for possession He gave all that existed in that land. if it wasnt their crops than God is a liar.
they certainly ate of it as was their own crop. they were in that same camp long enough to be healed from circumcision and to observe passover but didnt eat of the crops till after they offered it to God which shows the Passover is one and the same as the Sabbath spoke of in Leviticus 23. the HIGH SABBATH

You can find ways to explain everything away in the bible except what you believe
on 08 Apr 2010 at 7:38 pm756 Mark C.

Robert,

Please read Joshua 4-5 again. There is no mention of the wave offering. And verses 11&12 state, “they did eat of the old corn of the land… and they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.” It doesn’t make God a liar, because He said to offer the wave offering when they had come into the land and reaped their own harvest, which they had not yet done in Joshua 5.

Also read Leviticus 23 again. It does not say that the Passover was the high Sabbath. It is never specifically called that. It refers to the wave offering on the day after the Sabbath, and v. 15 says, “And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete.” From the context it’s obviously talking about weekly Sabbaths.

So why would you even think what i said was they counted seven yearly convocations.

I didn’t say you said that. I was pointing out that if “Sabbath” meant the first day of Passover, it would be a yearly convocation, and that is obviously not what it’s talking about. Even if the first day of Passover were called a Sabbath it wouldn’t make sense to refer to both yearly and weekly Sabbaths in the same sentence without differentiating. But as I said, the first day of Passover is not called a Sabbath.
on 08 Apr 2010 at 7:44 pm757 robert

.” It doesn’t make God a liar, because He said to offer the wave offering when they had come into the land and reaped their own harvest”

Mark
May i ask just who you think harvested it, Did they have their enemies harvest it for them.GOD FORBID
THEY HARVESTED IT ON THE OWN, IT WAS THEIR OWN HARVEST.

” seven sabbaths shall be complete.” From the context it’s obviously talking about weekly Sabbaths.”

Yes
was i not clear when i said they counted 7 weekly sabbaths From the morrow after the Passover SABBATH.
Maybe i was clearer that time
on 08 Apr 2010 at 8:11 pm758 robert

Joshua 5
11 And they did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the selfsame day.

the above verse Sounds almost identical to me as the below verse But one comes after A sabbath other after the passover.

Leviticus 23
14 And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God
on 08 Apr 2010 at 8:12 pm759 Mark C.

May i ask just who you think harvested it, Did they have their enemies harvest it for them.GOD FORBID
THEY HARVESTED IT ON THE OWN, IT WAS THEIR OWN HARVEST.

It doesn’t say that. It says they ate the OLD GRAIN that was there. It makes a point of saying it THREE TIMES. It also makes NO MENTION of the wave offering, and refers to the day after the Passover, not the day after the Sabbath. You’re reading all that into the passage.

was i not clear when i said they counted 7 weekly sabbaths From the morrow after the Passover SABBATH.
Maybe i was clearer that time

You were clear the first time. But it doesn’t say that.

You can find ways to explain everything away in the bible except what you believe

The difference between “explaining” and “explaining away” is just a matter of opinion.
on 08 Apr 2010 at 8:20 pm760 Mark C.

Joshua 5
11 And they did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the selfsame day.

the above verse Sounds almost identical to me as the below verse But one comes after A sabbath other after the passover.

Leviticus 23
14 And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God

They are similar, but not identical. Joshua says they did eat of THE OLD CORN, and the context is before they had their own crops, while Leviticus refers to when they had entered the land and harvested their own. And as you say, one comes after the Passover and one after the Sabbath. You are trying to prove that the two are identical so you can’t use this to prove it, that would be begging the question. And there is no place that explicitly calls the first day of Passover a Sabbath.
on 08 Apr 2010 at 8:29 pm761 robert

If they didnt harvest it, just how did they eat it
Like cows.
It was their own doing that harvested it, Doesnt matter who planted it , it was giving unto them BY GOD to be their own.
on 08 Apr 2010 at 8:32 pm762 Mark C.

Once again we have reached a point where we each claim the same Scriptures say something entirely different. The words are there for any to read, so once again, we will have to let the readers decide.
on 08 Apr 2010 at 8:35 pm763 robert

The way i see it only one claims something different.
Your so worried about what the reader thinks of you, I just feel its my duty and what the reader believes or dont believe is beyond my duty
on 08 Apr 2010 at 8:51 pm764 Mark C.

You have no basis for judging my motives. Please refrain from doing so.

Furthermore, I refer you to point #7 under “How To Disagree Respectfully and Fruitfully” on Sean’s blog policy page.

What we should avoid is taking the attitude of “I must proclaim The Truth, and continue to proclaim it whether they want to hear it or not.” If parties agree to disagree on a matter, they should let it go, and not keep bringing it up, especially in other threads that have nothing to do with the matter on which they disagree. If a poster continually proclaims his views with no intention of debating, it is seen as baiting an argument, which detracts from the thread, and it engenders strife as well.
on 08 Apr 2010 at 9:00 pm765 robert

Mark
there was no disrepect in that statement, just an observation.
and just stated my opinion on myself on whether it was my duty for someone to believe

” we will have to let the readers decide.”
From this i believe it wasnt a judgement
on 09 Apr 2010 at 10:27 am766 robert

Everyone
I would like to pose a challenge. this challange is not to prove or disprove any belief.
Suppose you have never heard anything about God and you found a book called the bible. this means you have no prior belief.you started reading it and when you got to
Joshua 5
10 And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal, and kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at even in the plains of Jericho. 11 And they did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the selfsame day.
And
Leviticus 23 5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD’S passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. 7 In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. 8 But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. 9 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: 11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.

was still fresh and your mind.
what would you feel the possiblity that the children of Israel performed the whole ceromony in Leviticus 23 and the sabbath spoke of was the Passover.

Now this possibilty doesnt reflect on your belief because there must be some deciding factor that your belief is based on. whether it be in what you read up to this point or after this point because as with many things we receive the context of things later.

After you give your honest opinion then give the reason you believe it does or doesnt.

this will help me see if i am reading something in or if it is really there.

Once you have done this honestly it will strenghten how you get people to get the correct understanding of it and might even change my belief of it.

Ask yourself if there poses any harm in doing this, if you do then dont do it, if you dont then what do you have to loose
on 09 Apr 2010 at 7:41 pm767 Doubting Thomas

Robert
I would like to respond but my knowledge of the ceremonies around the passover are very limited as is my knowledge of the OT…
on 09 Apr 2010 at 7:56 pm768 robert

Thomas
I am not sure there is any thing extremely relevant before Lev;23
So if you want you can read all of Lev 23 about all the festivals than give you honest view on Joshua 5
Dont worry about giving your belief because it is not about belief it about you comprehend it
on 09 Apr 2010 at 8:00 pm769 robert

Thomas
here is a good bible program that lets you see many versions
Top search bar where king james version is

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Leviticus+23&section=2&translation=kjv&oq=Leviticus%252023&new=1&nb=le&ng=23&ncc=23
on 09 Apr 2010 at 9:24 pm770 Doubting Thomas

Robert
You asked in ref. to Joshua 5, “What would you feel about the possibility that the children of Israel performed the whole ceremony in Leviticus 23 and the Sabbath spoke of was the passover??”

I have read the two and it seems that they probably performed the whole ceremony in Joshua 5 and that the Sabbath spoke of was indeed the passover. Of course I am just a layman. (I hope I understood your question correctly…)
on 09 Apr 2010 at 9:34 pm771 robert

If we are going to allow sabbaton to be translated week in the ressurection accounts then shouldnt we then need to understand Jesus was only Lord of the week.
there is no word meaning Day, From, After in the greek in ressurrection accounts. only words that mean ONE, OF THE, SABBATHS
Jesus is the Lord of the SABBATHS, NOT JUST A WEEK

Mark 2 :27 ,28 set the usage not some bias lexicon.
the fact is there wouldnt be any unbias lexicon because the majority dictates everything throughout history even the execution of those who differed in opinion

23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath (sabbata) day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. 24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath (sabbata) day that which is not lawful? 25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? 26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath ( sabbaton) was made for man, and not man for the sabbath (sabbaton)): 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath (sabbaton).
on 09 Apr 2010 at 9:44 pm772 robert

Thomas
thank you for your honest understanding of these 2 accounts but remember i also refered to other things that might set the context differently. but as for me i havent found one but there might be something i overlooked and thats why i posed this challenge to those who claim to understand the whole bible.
I could learn i am totally wrong but was willing to risk that
on 09 Apr 2010 at 10:42 pm773 Doubting Thomas

Robert
You quoted, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.”

Do you think that because we are all sons of Man that Jesus might be saying that we are all Lords of the Sabbath??

If the sabbath was made for man then maybe we were meant to be in control of it (or Lord of it) or am I way of base here…
on 09 Apr 2010 at 10:52 pm774 robert

Thomas
I think we can be co-lords with Jesus if we love it the way he did
on 10 Apr 2010 at 1:02 pm775 robert

Joseph
in post 732 i ask you a question but you were not around to answer it
on 11 Apr 2010 at 8:21 am776 Mark C.

If anyone is still interested, I have added a chart to my article that demonstrates how the reference to the day after the 7th Sabbath being the fiftieth day in Lev. 23:16 proves that it is the weekly Sabbath that the wave offering was done on. (Not to mention the fact that the first day of Passover is never specifically called a Sabbath, a point that seems to keep getting missed.)

http://www.godskingdomfirst.org/DayJesusDied.htm#sabbaths

If we are going to allow sabbaton to be translated week in the ressurection accounts then shouldnt we then need to understand Jesus was only Lord of the week.

I didn’t say that it only meant ‘week.’ It can be either, according to both Strong’s and Thayer & Smith’s.
on 11 Apr 2010 at 11:21 am777 robert

“They had not yet settled and planted their own crops yet. That is why there is no mention of the wave offering in Joshua 5, and why they ate grain the day after the Passover (which was grain that was there already, not their own harvest).”

Mark
There is nothing in Lev23 that demanded the crops to be planted by them, Just harvested in the land giving to them
on 11 Apr 2010 at 2:15 pm778 robert

Mark
I have now made my own arguement about the harvest not needing to be planted by them not relevent.
It seems this land where the whole of Israel camped after crossing the Jordan was presettled by 2 and half tribes of Israel at the time Moses was still living. they built cities and established the land.
It was their crops that were harvested which makes it the first crops harvested by Israel in the Land GOD gave them.
therefore the Feast of First fruits as commanded by God when the whole of Israel was done after that first Passover therefore proving the Sabbath mentioned in Lev23 was being used for the Passover not the weekly Sabbath.
If they didnt do the First fruits feast at that time they broke a command of God

Numbers 32 provides all the proof needed
on 11 Apr 2010 at 3:55 pm779 Mark C.

Robert,

Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh settled in Gilead which is EAST of the Jordan. The rest of the Israelites crossed over the Jordan and eventually settled in the land WEST of the Jordan. The record in Joshua 4-5 says they had just crossed the Jordan and were still encamped when they observed the Passover. It says nothing about the wave offering and THREE TIMES it said they ate the OLD CORN that was there.

But all of this is beside the point when you consider that Lev. 23:16 says that they counted 7 seven Sabbaths and the day after the 7th Sabbath was the fiftieth day. This only works if you start counting the day after the weekly Sabbath during Passover, as the chart in my article shows. And as I have said several times, the first day of Passover is never specifically called a Sabbath.
on 11 Apr 2010 at 4:48 pm780 robert

THREE TIMES it said they ate the OLD CORN that was there.

Mark
i was wrong about the side but nowhere does it state they ate corn( barley) that was from That land its says the land, but then after that it states they ate of that land that year after it.
But since they were in the land giving before crossing the jordan the harvest at that time was of Israel. It was old barley and wheat because the whole of Israel where being fed by manna till after the passover when they could bless the crops of past and present harvests of the land of the 2 and half tribes.
without there livestock there would not of even been a passover sacrafice. everything giving during all 3 feast came from land of the 2 and half tribes including their offering of the first fruits of their inherited land which they had settled and planted to feed themselves and their livestock. it never said any of Israel ate of it till the (morrow)2nd day after the passover when it was blessed by God. If the 2 and halfs tribes didnt offer their first fruits of their harvests they wouldnt of been able to ever eat of them nor could the 9 and a half tribes eat of their crops.
so therefore your last post has no effect nor does my mistake
on 11 Apr 2010 at 5:15 pm781 Mark C.

Robert,

Why are you ignoring the main point of my last two posts?
on 11 Apr 2010 at 5:21 pm782 robert

Sorry
was there a point in there.
if there was make it now
on 11 Apr 2010 at 5:25 pm783 Mark C.

I can see you are not interested in a serious discussion. It’s just as well, as this thread has gotten so long it takes a long time to even open.
on 11 Apr 2010 at 5:53 pm784 robert

“But all of this is beside the point when you consider that Lev. 23:16 says that they counted 7 seven Sabbaths and the day after the 7th Sabbath was the fiftieth day. This only works if you start counting the day after the weekly Sabbath during Passover, as the chart in my article shows. And as I have said several times, the first day of Passover is never specifically called a Sabbath.”

Mark
is this what your calling a point.
if so i will adressed
It doesnt stated the 50th day will be the day after the sabbath anywhere, to the matter of fact it says continue to number even after that day. therefor the year of Jesus resurrection it would start being counted at the 3rd day of passover till 7 sabbaths had been completed and after that to the 50th day. that would of made pentecost fall on sunday that year. But as we see amongst the jews of 1st century and till present it falls on a certain day of a jewish month because they count from morrow of passover.
It has been thouroghly shown to you that the sabbath in Lev23 is the passover itself.
It is very understandable how anyone could be confused at first glance but hard to understand this of someone who has supposably researched it.
You arguement that it doesnt specifically state passover as a sabbath it an arguement of need only because just a few verses later it shows that sabbath can be a day that is not the seventh day.
I guess when you say your thru and agree to disagree means you will continue you disagree within a subject that started out between me and Thomas and will continue till i present all evidence i can present on subject. Us regular posters do not have the advantage of just creating an article here so we discuss things where they get brought up.

***

Here is some early history that pentecost could fall on Friday.

Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 13.8.4 (252) where this first century AD Jewish historian and former Old Covenant Priest writes: “And truly he did not speak falsely in saying so; for the festival, which we call Pentecost, did then fall out to be the next day to the Sabbath …”

Sunday would be day after sabbath or 6 days to the sabbath
on 11 Apr 2010 at 7:21 pm785 Mark C.

It doesnt stated the 50th day will be the day after the sabbath anywhere, to the matter of fact it says continue to number even after that day.

Actually it does.
“And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days” (Lev. 23:15-16). It is quite clear if you look at the chart.

therefor the year of Jesus resurrection it would start being counted at the 3rd day of passover…

Why would you start counting at the third day of Passover, if your point is that the first day of Passover is the “Sabbath” referred to? It says to count seven Sabbaths from the day after the Sabbath. Furthermore it says to count “even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath” and that they would count fifty days.

…till 7 sabbaths had been completed and after that to the 50th day. that would of made pentecost fall on sunday that year.

If you start counting on the third day of Passover, the seventh Sabbath is the 43rd day, and the 50th day is the following Sabbath, not a Sunday. It doesn’t work. The only way the day after the seventh Sabbath is also the fiftieth day from the day after the Sabbath of Passover is if it were the weekly Sabbath. Besides, if it meant the day after the first day of Passover, why wouldn’t it just say, “the second day of Passover?”
on 11 Apr 2010 at 7:55 pm786 robert

“If you start counting on the third day of Passover, the seventh Sabbath is the 43rd day, and the 50th day is the following Sabbath, not a Sunday. It doesn’t work.”

Mark
WHAT?

If you start counting the 3rd day of passover you would count 50 days. since that count started on the sabbath resurrection and the count can not end before the Seventh sabbath after , that would make the seventh sabbath the 49 day that year and sunday the 50th
Now if passover was on monday then the 3rd day of passover would fall on wed. so counting from wed 50 days would put pentecost on thursday with seven sabbaths between.
do i need to do more math

***

Mark
If you still dont understand find a jew , they will explain it to you that it has worked perfectly since Exodus passover.
3500 years of doing it and you say it cant be done.
it is very well laid out from Exodus passover to the giving of the commandments. as it was done in OT with the marrying of the church it is done in the NT with the marrying of the church.
only difference is different prophets but both had the same chore

***

Lets say passover falls on sunday, the days of unleaven are 7 days with the first and seventh being a rest day. How do you bring the first fruits offering after the weekly sabbath when that day wouldnt be during the days of unleaven bread in Leviticus 23

You cant, burnt offerings are made during the days of unleaven

8 But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord seven days

If this doesnt challenge your claim then your claim is not the same claim the bible makes

30 Comments »

30 Responses to “What Day Did Jesus Die?”

on 12 Apr 2010 at 7:03 am1 Mark C.

Now, to continue…

If you start counting the 3rd day of passover you would count 50 days…

You still haven’t answered why you would start counting on the 3rd day when it clearly says to start counting on the day after the Sabbath. In your view the 1st day of Passover is the Sabbath referred to, so the day after is the 2nd day.

…since that count started on the sabbath resurrection…

It didn’t start on the Sabbath, it started the day after the Sabbath, regardless of whether you interpret that Sabbath as the 1st day of Passover or the weekly Sabbath.

…and the count can not end before the Seventh sabbath after…

I didn’t say it would. I said “the seventh Sabbath is the 43rd day, and the 50th day is the following Sabbath, not a Sunday.” That was if you started counting on the weekly Sabbath, the third day of Passover, as you suggested.

…that would make the seventh sabbath the 49 day that year and sunday the 50th

The seventh Sabbath is supposed to be the 49th day, and the next day the 50th, in any year. But that’s not what you have if you start counting on any day other than the first day of the week, the day after the weekly Sabbath. The 49th day will always be the same day of the week as the 1st day (being 7 X 7), with the 50th day being the next day. If you start counting on Monday, the 50th day will be Tuesday, etc.

If the counting was started on different days of the week in different years, then you end up with the 50th day being a different day of the week, depending on which day of the week the Passover started on. As I showed in the chart in my article (have you looked at it?), if the Passover started on Thursday as you have suggested, the counting of days started on Friday (the day after what you call the “high Sabbath”). Then the first weekly Sabbath is the second day of counting, the second Sabbath is the 9th day, the 3rd Sabbath is the 16th day, the 4th Sabbath is the 23rd day, the 5th Sabbath is the 30th day, the 6th Sabbath is the 37th day, and the 7th Sabbath is the 44th day. Then you continue counting and the 50th day is on the following Friday.

Or in the other case you suggested, if you start counting on the third day of Passover (the 1st day of Passover being your “high Sabbath”) then that 3rd day is the first weekly Sabbath, the 10th day is the second Sabbath, etc. until you get to the 43rd day which would be the seventh Sabbath, and then the 50th day would be the following weekly Sabbath (this would then be the 8th Sabbath!).

But the problem with both scenarios is that Lev. 23:16 specifically says, “Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days.”

Now if passover was on monday then the 3rd day of passover would fall on wed. so counting from wed 50 days would put pentecost on thursday with seven sabbaths between.

But you wouldn’t count from Wednesday, you would count from Tuesday, the day after the “Sabbath.” And even so, yes, you would have 50 days with seven Sabbaths in between, but the 50th day would not be the day after the seventh Sabbath, which is what verse 16 requires. The only way for the day after the 7th Sabbath to also be the 50th day is to start counting on the day after the weekly Sabbath. (Again, this is easier to see on the chart.)

do i need to do more math

No, just look at a calendar. (That’s why I made the charts for my article.)

If you still dont understand find a jew , they will explain it to you that it has worked perfectly since Exodus passover.

It’s not that I don’t understand, I just disagree. I also pointed out in the original article that the Sadducees and the Pharisees disagreed on the reckoning of Pentecost the same way we are doing, but that while the Pharisees’ reckoning was normative after 70 AD, the Sadducees’ reckoning was still the norm at the time of Christ. (This isn’t just my opinion, but quoted from the New Bible Dictionary.)

Lets say passover falls on sunday, the days of unleaven are 7 days with the first and seventh being a rest day. How do you bring the first fruits offering after the weekly sabbath when that day wouldnt be during the days of unleaven bread in Leviticus 23

It doesn’t say it had to be within the days of unleavened bread. It just says on the morrow after the Sabbath they were to present the wave offering of the first fruits.
on 12 Apr 2010 at 7:47 am2 robert

Mark
You method of counting doesnt add up because your not starting on right day because you start counting with 3rd day which would be first you come up with the 10th instead of 7th.
the 3rd day till you when to start counting doesnt say to start counting with 3rd day as first number

And yes burnt offering are during the Days of unleaven and is limited to seven, You need eight burnt offerings at least once every 7 years on average to work
It doesnt work the way christianity and sadducees does it but does work the way it was done in first century as witness by Josephus and how the jews do it now.

***

Josephus writes
“But ON THE SECOND DAY OF UNLEAVENED BREAD, WHICH IS THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF THE MONTH, they first partake of the fruit of the earth, for before that day they do not touch them .
“When a week of weeks has passed over after this sacrifice (which weeks contain forty and nine days,) on the FIFTIETH DAY, which is called Pentecost . . . (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 3, 10, 5-6).
on 12 Apr 2010 at 8:13 am3 Mark C.

Robert,

First of all, I’ve combined your multiple posts into one. You’ve been asked by Sean more than once not to keep making multiple comments in a row. I refer you to the policy page once again:

What Is Considered Inappropriate…
5. Overwhelming the recent comments list unnecessarily (try to put all of your comments in one entry per post)
6. Hijacking a post repeatedly (i.e. we all do this from time to time but if you do it constantly it really does become onerous)

Secondly, I really don’t understand what you are saying in the following comment:

You method of counting doesnt add up because your not starting on right day because you start counting with 3rd day which would be first you come up with the 10th instead of 7th.
the 3rd day till you when to start counting doesnt say to start counting with 3rd day as first number

I am not starting on the third day, I am starting on the day after the weekly Sabbath, regardless of when the Passover started. And as the chart demonstrates, starting the count on any other day of the week makes the 50th day fall on a day other than the day after the seventh Sabbath, which is what Lev. 23:16 requires.

And yes burnt offering are during the Days of unleaven and is limited to seven…

There are to be seven days of burnt offerings during Passover/Unleavened Bread, according to Lev. 23:8. But then verse 9 begins a new subject: “Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying…” It then goes on to describe the firstfruits wave offering, and all it says about the timing is the day after the Sabbath.

As for Josephus, he wrote Antiquities of the Jews around 94 AD, and as I said, the Pharisees’ way of reckoning Pentecost was the norm by then, but it was not at the time of Christ or before.
on 01 May 2010 at 1:51 pm4 Doubting Thomas

Robert
I’ve been giving this some thought and have found something that doesn’t seem to fit a Saturday resurection. From what I understand the early Christians got together every Sunday (the first day of the week) to share a meal which they called their communion.

Why would they have gathered together on Sundays if Jesus was resurected on Saturday (last day of week)???
on 01 May 2010 at 1:55 pm5 robert

Thomas
where do you find a reference to them gathering on sunday
on 01 May 2010 at 3:25 pm6 Doubting Thomas

Robert
Acts 20:7 says, “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.”

I also recall reading it somewhere else where it said that some people who had to work late in the fields would arrive late at the communion meal and (because there was no food left) would go away hungry, but I was using biblegateway.com and I can’t seem to find it…
on 01 May 2010 at 3:37 pm7 robert

Thomas
you will see sunday is just a mistranslation
Jaco also agrees it literally means “one of the Sabbaths.” not first day of the week in post 712

from post 702

Acts 20:6-7, where Unleavened Bread has just passed into the first of the seven weekly Shabbatons between Unleavened Bread and Pentecost, and Luke the Ephraimite tells us that Rav Shaul/Paul gathered with and taught the disciples on mia twn sabbatwn, with once again the added word day appearing in italics NOT BEING IN THE ORGINAL GREEK TEXT. So we see the talmidim meeting on the first of seven weekly Shabbats during the counting of the omer. The Jews of the first century considered all 50 days as days of Sabbatwn, as witnessed by the usage of the term “fully come” in Acts 2:1. The 50th day of Pentecost was said to be “fully come”, as opposed to the other 49 smaller comings of Pentecost, during that 50 day period. The word fully or accomplished, is the Greek word sumplero Strongs # 4845, meaning to complete, fill up or sum total the 50 days of Sabbatwn.
Admittedly, the Leviticus 23 Shabbatons were limited to three particular feasts but in Hebraic understanding both then and now, the Passover season does not culminate until Shavout. The entire 50 days is known as the “season of our redemption”, and the traditional rabbis teach that Passover was not completed until Shavout and the giving of Torah on Mt. Horeb.
——————————————————–
From post 710

Two other “first day of the week” passages are generally cited by Christians to prove that the early Church met on Sunday: Acts 20:7 and I Corinthians 16:2. We’ll begin by closely examining Acts 20, where Paul’s journey from Philippi to Troas is described:
ACTS 20:6 But we sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days we came to them at Troas, where we stayed for seven days. 7 On the first day of the week [mia ton sabbaton], when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. (ESV)
Verse 6 tells us that these events took place immediately after the Feast of Unleavened Bread. A literal translation of verse 7 is somewhat different than what most English versions show. When we examine verse 7 in the Greek, we see that the text again literally says “one of the Sabbaths,” not “first day of the week”:
ACTS 20:7 Now on one of the Sabbaths, at our having gathered to break bread, Paul argued with them, being about to be off on the morrow. Besides, he prolonged the word unto midnight. (CLNT)
Luke tells us that Paul and his colleagues arrived in Troas at least five days after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and that they stayed in Troas for seven days. Paul was on his way to Jerusalem to observe the feast of Pentecost (Acts 20:16). With an understanding of the Sabbath count to Pentecost (Lev. 23:15-16), it’s clear that mia ton sabbaton here indicates that Paul spent one of the seven weekly Sabbaths between Passover and Pentecost with the brethren in Troas. There is no significance to be found for Sunday in this passage.
The final place in the New Testament where Sunday allegedly appears is found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:
I CORINTHIANS 16:2 On [kata] the first day of the week [mian sabbaton] let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come. (NKJV)
Is Paul speaking of a weekly collection to be set aside by the Corinthians every Sunday so a sufficient amount would be available when he arrived? Or is it possible that Paul had something else in mind?
The key to understanding this whole passage is the Greek word kata, which begins verse 2. Thayer says kata is: “a preposition denoting motion or diffusion or direction from the higher to the lower . . .”
This Greek word is frequently rendered “after” by translators (”down from” = “after”). Let’s look at the difference it would make to translate this word as “after” instead of “on” in this verse, as well as rendering mia ton sabbaton as “one of the Sabbaths”:
“On the first day of the week” → becomes → “After one of the Sabbaths.”
Here is a literal rendering of the first two verses of I Corinthians 16:
I CORINTHIANS 16:1 Now concerning the collection that is for the saints, as I directed to the churches of Galatia, so also you do. 2 After one of the Sabbaths [kata mian sabbaton], let each one of you beside himself put something aside, storing up whatever he may have prospered, in order that when I come then collections may not be made; (literal translation)
A close reading of I Corinthians shows that Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were very important to the context of Paul’s instructions to the church there (I Cor. 5:7-8). It is likely that Paul wrote this epistle just before the arrival of the spring Holy Days. Paul’s encouragement to begin gathering a collection “after one of the Sabbaths” was likely intended to plainly tell the Corinthians WHEN to begin setting aside their offering so they would have it completed by the time he arrived. Once again, the most logical view of this Scripture does not include a recognition of Sunday worship.
on 01 May 2010 at 3:58 pm8 Doubting Thomas

Robert
Thanks. So they must have celebrated their communion meals on Saturday (last day of the week)??
on 01 May 2010 at 4:02 pm9 robert

Thomas
There is nothing to support this was even a communion meal , breaking bread was a term used for just a common meal.
But i believe it might have been a communion meal.
on 01 May 2010 at 7:26 pm10 Ray

I don’t know what day Jesus died. It all seems so complicated with a lot of information. But I know it was around or in the Passover somewhere.

When he died, it seems to me that he went to the Father, (John 7:33) then came back to the tomb to be raised from the dead, then was seen here on earth…quite often, but then again, it seems to me, possibly, quite often not. And after those days he taken up into heaven.
(Acts 1:9)

I often wonder if Jesus was ascending and descending during that time between his resurrection and his ascension.
on 09 May 2010 at 10:56 am11 Doubting Thomas

Robert
My friend Tim just sent me a link about the “First Apology of Justin Martyr” where Justin talks about early Christian communion services. Among other things it says they met every Sunday for these services. I am confused because Justin predates Constantine which would contradict your theory that the early church celebrated their Communion meals on the Sabbath before Constantine came along and changed it to Sunday…
on 09 May 2010 at 11:40 am12 robert

Thomas
Here is an article that might help understand.
Also many claim the 8th day means sunday but theres only 7 days in a week and sunday is the first. 8th day is reference to after the 1000 year sabbath rest when the new heaven and earth comes after the 2nd resurrection.
there are so many that use mistranslations to deceive, but there are many who translated to find the truth

http://www.cogwriter.com/ignatius.htm
on 09 May 2010 at 3:55 pm13 Doubting Thomas

Robert
As usual your link was very interesting and informative. It explains the historical evidence of Sabbath keeping very thoroughly and explains Justin’s heretical position on the matter.

Thank-you…
on 11 Oct 2010 at 11:50 pm14 robert

This is moved from another thread that is not about this subject, to the proper thread so people can read it to make their own mind up using the facts presented by the people in this discussion.

on 19 Sep 2010 at 8:44 am92 Marc Taylor
The 7th day sabbath is not binding for the New Testament church.

on 19 Sep 2010 at 8:51 am93 Doubting Thomas
RogCat
You said, “I, for one, believe in keeping ALL of the Ten Commandments, for they represent the ‘WILL’ of OUR Father.”

I agree with you completely. Robert and I also try to keep all of the Ten Commandments including the Seventh-Day Sabbath. David is a Messianic Believer (practicing Jew) and of course he also keeps the Sabbath, as well as all the other Jewish Holidays and traditions. As far as I know we are the only Sabbath keepers on this site, but you are right, it is nice to know to further our fellowship.

BTW – Welcome to KR and hope you enjoy your stay here…

on 20 Sep 2010 at 2:49 am94 RogCat
Marc,
I know that this is off topic, but since you commented on the 7th day sabbath, I just have to add that, of course, it is not binding to do the will of God. What ever gave you that idea?

But Jesus requires that we do the will of God IF he is to speak up for us on the day of Judgement. (And BTW, Jesus will be our Judge.)

If you choose to keep Sunday, instead of the day that God prefers, I guess that’s up to you. But I would not bet my life on that pleasing God. Sunday is a known pagan day, set aside to worship the sun god, Baal, whom God hates with a vengeance.

Finally, there is no good reason to change from Saturday to Sunday worship. we now know that Jesus was resurrected on Saturday! (By “we,” I mean those of us who have studied the matter in detail.)

on 20 Sep 2010 at 7:25 am95 robert
RogCat
We had a very good discussion on the subject of “upon the first day of the week” in what day did Jesus die thread which includes the correct translation for the greek for the accounts of the resurrection and also what day the christians met in Acts

on 21 Sep 2010 at 12:31 am96 RogCat
Thanks, Robert.
I took a quick peek at the site, but couldn’t quickly find the conclusions. I have gone though many such discussions on the subject of the Crucifixion, the Passover and Easter. The background on Easter is hillariously pagan. The Easter celebrated by Christians, today, is shockingly similar to the Easter that was established to honor the mother, who was also the wife, of Baal.

In the “Faith” that I started many years ago – the Assembly of the Covenant (AOC) – we found that Jesus died on a Wednesday. Due to a Jewish error, that day was also the Passover. So today, we of the AOC celebrate the “Christian Passover” – but that’s a long story. Thanks for the URL. I will enjoy reading through it.

on 22 Sep 2010 at 12:43 am97 RogCat
I read and read and read at the site where you discussed the day of the Crucifixion. I only got to about 705 or there abouts and stopped.
From there, I just jumped around a bit until I got to the bottom. Most likely I missed some good arguments, but I have studied the same material, myself, over many years – - – and I wanted so much to jump in and comment. LOL It was a great debate.

The way I see it, Robert has it right-on. I liked his narrative regarding the origin of Easter. I have similar write ups on that – - – and we differ only in a few minor details. If you don’t mind, Robert, I would like to copy it to add to my files. Just let me know how you want me to credit it to you. You can e-mail me if you like: aocfaith@yahoo.com

On one point, I don’t know whether or not you resolved it – - – I would like to say a few words. Regarding the Apostles getting together on the first day of the week – - – I am told that it was customary for Jewish people to get together for fellowship AFTER the Sabbath. Now since the Sabbath ends at dark, it was the first day of the week (that same night) when the Apostled got together for their customary fellowship meal.

Oh what a great discussion you-all had.

Thanks for sharring.

on 22 Sep 2010 at 7:20 am98 robert
RogCat
As far as i know you can copy anything here

In post 702 there is an article that deals with the actual greek used for the day of the resurrection and also the day the apostle’s had the Lords supper on.
It was the first Sabbath(one of Sabbaths) after the passover
in the 7 Sabbath count to Pentecost.

on 23 Sep 2010 at 2:19 am99 RogCat
Robert,

But Jesus clearly identified the meal that they were about to eat as the “Passover.” I trust that Jesus was correct – and that the Jews were wrong about the timing of the Passover. I have gone over God’s commands for the Passover, and I agree with Jesus. I guess that I’ll stick with the date that Jesus gave as the time of the Passover.

My understanding, of course, is that this was all done to fulfill prophecy. The Jews killed Jesus on the most holy day of the year, and didn’t know what they were doing. That is HOW Jesus became the Passover Lamb. That’s also why Jesus said, with his dying breath, “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.”

on 23 Sep 2010 at 7:44 am100 robert
RogCat
You are correct that Jesus was given them instructions on how to eat the christian passover meal.
I dont know what possessed me to state that breaking of bread meal that Paul preached on was anything other than an average meal ,but the day he and the apostles assembled on was no doubt A Sabbath as expressed in the greek and was the first weekly Sabbath after the passover in the count of seven to pentecost which i feel was done in honor of the resurrection

on 23 Sep 2010 at 8:36 am101 Mark C.
RogCat,

I took a quick peek at the site, but couldn’t quickly find the conclusions. I have gone though many such discussions on the subject of the Crucifixion, the Passover and Easter.

There wasn’t a conclusion, as we have different opinions regarding this matter. Fortunately it’s not an issue that is required for salvation.

Here is another perspective, if you’re interested. My original article (which was the source of the above mentioned thread):

http://godskingdomfirst.org/DayJesusDied.htm

And the followup which deals with things like the timing of the Passover:

http://godskingdomfirst.org/JesusPassover.htm

on 23 Sep 2010 at 5:26 pm102 robert
“Fortunately it’s not an issue that is required for salvation.”

Mark
I agree it isnt a salvation issue, at the least it is a least or greater issue and at most it could be an entering God’s 1000 year Sabbath rest issue which is for Israel and those joined to Israel by following God’s Laws set forth for Israel.
But its not something that gets your name written in the Lamb’s book of life so you can enter the New Heaven and Earth which is Salvation.

on 23 Sep 2010 at 5:48 pm103 Mark C.
Robert,

Even if I agreed that salvation was not the same thing as entering the Kingdom of God, do you really think that what day Jesus died on is an issue that could affect our entering into God’s rest? One could follow God’s Laws whether they believed he died on Wednesday or Friday.

on 23 Sep 2010 at 6:11 pm104 robert
Mark
As you can see by my last statement i said it could be a least or greater issue but it certainly could be a entering issue.
I think its clear there are entering issues like not possessing the signs of Israel but this is at least a least or greater issue.

on 25 Sep 2010 at 12:35 am105 RogCat
Personally, I think that it is a terrible thing to rob God of His Firstborn Son – - – by saying that Jesus was really God.

Who would dare face God after saying such a thing? One does not Rob God and get away with it.

Where is the common sense in Trinitarian thinking? Does it propose that God became his own Father? Or that God became his own Son? I think that God taught us better than to toss all logic aside like that.

Hebrews 1:5 ( NIV )
For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?

on 25 Sep 2010 at 8:59 am106 robert
RogCat
Did you read this yet.
pages 527-534

http://books.google.com/books?id=MlPrYQ5srKEC&lpg=PP1&dq=did%20calvin%20murder%20servetus&pg=PA528#v=onepage&q&f=true

on 25 Sep 2010 at 9:58 am107 Doubting Thomas
Robert,
I just read those pages you mentioned above (msg. #106). It is quite fascinating reading. Thanks for posting it.

Have a great Sabbath…

on 25 Sep 2010 at 10:18 am108 robert
Thomas
I didnt realize you missed this when i posted it as proof that Luke 3:22 read “Thou art my Son,This day i have begotten Thee”
which also was the original of Matthew and John according to very early witnesses in christianity.
This removes the possibility that Jesus prexisted as the Son prior to His baptism and sets the context of Luke’s birth narrative as the announcement of the future king of Israel not God begetten Jesus.

You have a great Sabbath too…

on 25 Sep 2010 at 5:42 pm109 Mark C.
Here’s another viewpoint:
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/dirks/jesus_adoption.html

The writer believes in the “eternal sonship” of Jesus, which of course I disagree with. But he presents a solid rebuttal to the adoptionist viewpoint.

on 25 Sep 2010 at 6:14 pm110 robert
Ty Mark but allready read that and many more on subject.
Historical evidence is by far a better witness than someones opinion or MSS that was corrupted for the false doctrines of the 4th century.
Not a one of the witnesses i provided have a motive because it turns out this reading falsified their later or current beliefs.
I am sure they would of perfered the corrupt reading but IT DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME!!!
Some of this just slipped by being changed by not being discovered, By the popularity making it impossible to change or Just flat out underestimating there significance by the trinitarian fathers.
But they are proven witnesses accepted by every scholar every since. the opinions may be heritical but the quotes from the bible they read are just quotes and ARE HISTORICAL!!

on 25 Sep 2010 at 7:32 pm111 Mark C.

Ty Mark but allready read that and many more on subject.
Historical evidence is by far a better witness than someones opinion or MSS that was corrupted for the false doctrines of the 4th century.

Perhaps you should read it again. The most conclusive proof IMO was the evidence within the rest of Scripture itself.

Not a one of the witnesses i provided have a motive because it turns out this reading falsified their later or current beliefs.
I am sure they would of perfered the corrupt reading but IT DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME!!!

Not a one of the witnesses you provided conclusively prove that they were quoting from a different MS rather than conflating quotations together in their writings.

Some of this just slipped by being changed by not being discovered, By the popularity making it impossible to change or Just flat out underestimating there significance by the trinitarian fathers.
But they are proven witnesses accepted by every scholar every since. the opinions may be heritical but the quotes from the bible they read are just quotes and ARE HISTORICAL!!

They are not accepted by every scholar, as I pointed out before. Most understand that the Patristic Writers often brought together references to various parts of Scripture, without specifically saying what text they were quoting from.

on 25 Sep 2010 at 7:54 pm112 robert
Mark
I did just refresh my reading and I dont see a single fact that changes anything. the fact this comes from a person who thinks Jesus prexisted ith God before his birth is the reason he has to have this mean what allows his belief to continue.
This is a very weak article and if it provides any logic it is against his belief.
The historical witnesess are just that and since there is no other verse that has Jesus as the son of God till his baptism but only that he Shall be called in the Birth narrative which we find was no lie because at his baptism this happened FOR THE FIRST TIME.
How can you just dismiss historical evidence using an opinion of a man with an agenda is beyond me.
You might just follow Marc because he does the same.

on 25 Sep 2010 at 10:24 pm113 Mark C.

How can you just dismiss historical evidence using an opinion of a man with an agenda is beyond me.

First of all, his belief in a pre-existent Jesus doesn’t necessarily prove he has an agenda, much less that his points are not valid. One could say the same about Bart Ehrman or any of the others who hold to an adoptionist viewpoint. I try to examine the evidence objectively.

Secondly, I don’t dismiss the historical evidence. I consider it in light of two things:
1. The Early Church Fathers often put together citations of various Scriptures to make their point. It does not conclusively prove they were quoting from a different MS.
2. The evidence WITHIN SCRIPTURE ITSELF would contradict the variant reading of Luke 3:22.
-He claimed to be the Son of God at 12 years old (Luke 2:41-51)
-Elizabeth called him her lord before he was born (Luke 1:41-44)
-As an infant he was called Christ the Lord (Luke 2:10-11; 25-32)

Furthermore, you keep saying that the birth narrative in Luke only says that he “shall be” called the Son of God which happens for the first time at his baptism. However, the context of the birth narrative clearly defines what it is talking about.

Luke 1:
30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
31 “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
32 “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;

Will he be called the Son of the Most High only figuratively, which was one meaning of the title Christ, the one anointed to be King? (”He shall be my son” – II Sam. 7:14) Or is there more to it?

33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”
34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”

The whole context is about Mary conceiving a son supernaturally. If it were only a figurative begetting, the angel would have said something about it happening in the future (i.e. his baptism). But instead, the angel gave the clearest definition of begetting possible:

35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

It is talking about the child that she would conceive. Notice it doesn’t say “The spirit will descend upon HIM and for that reason he will be called Son of God.” It says that By the power of God Mary would conceive a son, and FOR THAT VERY REASON that son would be called the Son of God. The only description that is any clearer is the one in Matthew:

Matthew 1:
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

If Joseph’s seed had been miraculously planted in Mary, as some have claimed, first of all what would be the point? And second, the angel would certainly have comforted Joseph by letting him know it was his own seed. But rather, the angel told him it was of God.

20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21 “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

As for there being no birth record in the “original” Matthew, while the Hebrew writing of Matthew that Papias and others referred to may not have, the Greek document which we know as the Gospel of Matthew was certainly not a corruption or a counterfeit, or it would never had gained acceptance in the first place. It most likely used the Hebrew document by Matthew as one of its sources, as well as others including Mark’s Gospel. The following overview of Matthew is insightful:

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Matt.htm

Here is a quote from it:

The authorship of the Gospel of Matthew is something of a puzzle. It is unlikely that the canonical Matthew represents a straightforward translation of an original Aramaic or Hebrew version composed by the apostle Matthew, since the author of the Gospel of Matthew probably used the Gospel of Mark as a source. Nevertheless, it is probably safe to conclude that the apostle Matthew wrote something in Aramaic or Hebrew that has some connection to the canonical Gospel of Matthew. But what exactly that text was and its connection to the canonical Matthew is difficult to determine.

So there is no evidence that the Gospel we know as Matthew did not and should not have a birth narrative. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was not only the Christ the Son of God in the figurative sense implied by prophesies, but also literally and physically conceived by God and not by Joseph.

on 25 Sep 2010 at 11:08 pm114 robert
1. The Early Church Fathers often put together citations of various Scriptures to make their point. It does not conclusively prove they were quoting from a different MS.

Yes it abosolutly means they were reading from a differebt MS or they would of quoted it as it read

———————————————–
2. The evidence WITHIN SCRIPTURE ITSELF would contradict the variant reading of Luke 3:22.
-He claimed to be the Son of God at 12 years old (Luke 2:41-51)

Actually everyone can call God Father,so your point is what?/?/
——————————————————–
2b-Elizabeth called him her lord before he was born (Luke 1:41-44)

He was proclaimed the future King of israel which would make him lord
——————————————————
2c-As an infant he was called Christ the Lord (Luke 2:10-11; 25-32)

This does not mean what you want,it just means he was a christ just as David,the priest and the prophets WERE
——————————————————
“32 “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;”

The context of this is the throne of David which he would receive LATER. Did he receive in his lifetime? NO

“If Joseph’s seed had been miraculously planted in Mary, as some have claimed, first of all what would be the point? And second, the angel would certainly have comforted Joseph by letting him know it was his own seed. But rather, the angel told him it was of God.’

The point is for a miracle birth without sex and secondly Matthews gospel had no narrative.
Nowhere does it state GOD FATHERED JESUS EVEN IN MATTHEW ,IT IS A READING THAT IS FORCED

“As for there being no birth record in the “original” Matthew, while the Hebrew writing of Matthew that Papias and others referred to may not have, the Greek document which we know as the Gospel of Matthew was certainly not a corruption or a counterfeit, or it would never had gained acceptance in the first place. ”

It only gained acceptance after Jesus became dIvine
———————————————————
Actually theses verse state Joseph was Jesus’ FATHER and being the SON OF GOD IS THE SAME AS KING OF ISRAEL

John1
45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. 46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. 49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

BUT BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE

on 28 Sep 2010 at 1:46 am115 RogCat
Robert,

I have been “out” for a day or so.

YES, I did read a part of the book that you referenced in #106 – - – especially again, the part that you referenced. There are other interesting sections in that book, too. It’s a good reference.

Thanks.

on 05 Oct 2010 at 8:26 am116 Marc Taylor
Rogcat,
The Old Covenant has been abrogated (Hebrews 8:13) and whereas every one of the other 9 Commandments from the Decalogue are repeated in the New Covenant the Sabbath Command is not.

on 05 Oct 2010 at 5:59 pm117 robert
Marc
The Sabbath command is held up all through the NT.
Jesus Himself upholds its throughout the first 4 books of the NT,Acts completely upholds it,Paul and all the Apostles completely upholds it.
They never once commanded a Israelite or a gentile to forsake it, they only fought against the extra 1500 laws that the oral laws had on respect of the Sabbath,New moons and Holy days.
When the gentiles wanted to hear more on the next Sabbath Paul never once said HEY, We can do this on any day but preached to them the next Sabbath.
When Paul preach to the other apostles and disciples in Acts 20:7 it was the Sabbath he chose to start this sermon.

In Acts 20:7 “mia ton sabbaton ” should be translated as one day of the sabbaths or one of the sabbath days?

So you see Marc the Sabbath command was mentioned more times in the NT than any other command , It was just mentioned by showing ALL THE NT WRITERS HAD RESPECT FOR IT AND IS UPHELD BY EXAMPLE.
But it and all the other commands are not what Salvation is based on, the commands are for those who want to enter God’s REST.

Hebrews 8 deals with the sacraficial system and priesthood which is the only thing that changed for those who wanted to enter Gods Rest through the OLD COVENANT which the only way to enter it is thru the Commandments of God and the use of the sacraficial system which Jesus became the sacrafice and the High priest

on 05 Oct 2010 at 7:00 pm118 Marc Taylor
RogCat,
Jesus was born under the Law (Galatians 4:4) so of course he would uphold it.
In Hebrews 9:4 the tables of the covenant are included as to the Old Covennat that has been abrogated (Hebrews 8:13).
In Colossians 2:16 the Sabbath is associated with the new moons and festivals. Every time it is associated like this it always refers to the Seventh day Sabbath (1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 8:13; 31:3; Nehemiah 10:33; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11).
1. NIDNTT: On Colossians 2:16, Here Paul argues that the Jewish law (the legal demands) were cancelled in the death of Christ (v. 14), and therefore the Jewish food regulations and religious calendar are not binding on the Christian. Included in this ritual was the Jewish sabbath observance. These observances, Paul claims, pointed to a spiritual reality fulfilled in Christ (3:410, Sabbath – W. Stott).
2. EDNT: Questions concerning the Sabbath also play a role in the religious disputes in the church at Colossae (Col 2:16). Like festivals and new moons sabbath observance is only a shadow of what is to come (2:17; cf. the similar argument in Gal 4:9f) (EDNT 3:222, sabbaton – W. Beilner).
Again 9 of the Commandments are cited under the New Covenant but the Sabbath is not.

on 05 Oct 2010 at 7:11 pm119 robert
“Again 9 of the Commandments are cited under the New Covenant but the Sabbath is not.”

Marc
I showed you How and where the Sabbath was unheld and Gave you a proper translation of several verses.
In return the best you can give me is a MAN’S Opinion who has an agenda to unhold.
Have you read the bible,researched the translations and done historical research of the !st century jew or do you just read opinions that back your belief?

on 05 Oct 2010 at 8:27 pm120 Marc Taylor
Robert,
You did not show me a New Covenant command of the Sabbath. The best you can give me is a MAN’s opinion (your own) who has an agenda to uphold.
Zero passages cited from the Old Covenant while I supplied these….1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 8:13; 31:3; Nehemiah 10:33; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11.
Keep up your academic pursuits.

BTW you never told us when the Sabbath is to bo observed. Some say evening to evening, others from 6pm to 6pm etc.

on 05 Oct 2010 at 8:54 pm121 robert
“Robert,
You did not show me a New Covenant command of the Sabbath.”

Marc
You are absolutely correct I didnt show you a New Covenant command of the Sabbath but i will get right to that.

Hebrews 4
9 There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For he who has entered into his rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from his.

Now what you have confused was the promise of Grace with the New Covenant in which contains the promise of Grace also.
Hebrews brings in a New Covenant with Israel and those joined by bringing in a New sacraficial system,a new High priest and a temple not built with hands. These are the only changes to the Old Coventant but because there was changes which we find were needed because Jesus was the fulfillment of the sacrafice and High priest This IS CALLED A NEW COVENANT AND HAD TO BE SANCTIFIED AGAIN. this does not change the wording of the Old covenant its just changing the players and field.
Paul says we dont make void the law we establish it using the changes mentioned in hebrews.

Here is a great article on the actual greek where you have read in english translation the first day of week

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1952159/posts

“BTW you never told us when the Sabbath is to bo observed. Some say evening to evening, others from 6pm to 6pm etc.”

Marc
If you took the time to read thru this blog you would find everyone knows the sabbath begins at sunset on the day known as friday and ends at sunset on the day known as saturday. so whats your point of the BTW?

on 05 Oct 2010 at 11:20 pm122 Karl
Hello Robert,

Here is a great article on the actual greek where you have read in english translation the first day of week

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1952159/posts

The article that you linked to is not an accurate article. The view that “mia twn sabbatwn” does not mean “first of the week” but “one of the sabbaths” is not correct. This view is espoused by people who do not know greek, rabbinic literature, nor extra-biblical greek literature. The following quote from the didache disproves this entire teaching:

VIII
1. Αἱ δὲ νηστεῖαι ὑμῶν μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν. νηστεύουσι γὰρ δευτέρα σαββάτων καὶ πέμπτῃ· ὑμεῖς δὲ νηστεύσατε τετράδα καὶ παρασκευήν.

Do not let you fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth of the week, but you fast on the fourth and the preparation.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 12:14 am123 Marc Taylor
Hebrews 4:9 – The sabbath rest Hebrews 4:9 speaks of does not refer to the seventh day of the week sabbath of the Old Covenant but to the Christian’s eternal salvation.

1. NIDNTT: Commenting on Hebrews 4:9, Here the rest typified by the sabbath is seen as the rest of heart, provided in Christ (cf. Matt. 11:28) to be realized partially now and fully in the life to come (3:411, Sabbath – W. Stott).
2. EDNT: …the author of Hebrews understands by sabbatismos the eternal sabbath celebration of salvation, i.e., the perfected community’s worship before God’s throne (EDNT 3:219, sabbatismos – O. Hofius)
3. TDNT: Commenting on Hebrews 4:9, The rest of which Hb. speaks is related, however, neither to possession of the land nor to the Sabbath of the OT and Jewish Law. It is a purely heavenly blessing towards which the pilgrim people of God moves (7:34, sabbaton – Lohse).
4. Thayer: The blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians: Heb. 4:9 (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, sabbatismos, page 565).
6. Vine: On Hebrews 4:9, Here the sabbath-keeping is the perpetual sabbath rest to be enjoyed interruptedly by believers in their fellowship with the Father and the Son, in contrast to the weekly Sabbath under the Law (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Rest, page 960).
—————
The Sabbath is to be observed “sunset to sunset”? OK then this proves that it is not meant for those not under the Old Covenant because for people living in such places as Barrow, Alaska there is no sun at all (thus no sunset) for about 9 weeks of the year.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 12:19 am124 robert
Karl
I am sorry but this doesnt prove anything because we dont know if its translated correctly itself.
Plus there is good reasons this writing is not recognized as inspired.
But I will do some more research to how this is to be translated just to prove and reprove even though We really have very little witnessed quotes from this writing.

You brought no proof with this claim just someones translation of it

on 06 Oct 2010 at 12:36 am125 robert
Marc let me now bring into the context that not observing this Sabbath Rest is a matter of disobeience. How can this be refering to a future context.
For there to be disobedience there has to be a command.
There you go to opinions of people with an agenda to prove , not the context of the passage.
Common sense goes along way when you use some, this is my advice to you!!!

NET © Thus we must make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by following the same pattern of disobedience.

NIV ©

biblegateway Heb 4:11
Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no-one will fall by following their example of disobedience.

NASB ©

biblegateway Heb 4:11
Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.

NLT ©

biblegateway Heb 4:11
Let us do our best to enter that place of rest. For anyone who disobeys God, as the people of Israel did, will fall.

MSG ©

biblegateway Heb 4:11
So let’s keep at it and eventually arrive at the place of rest, not drop out through some sort of disobedience.

BBE ©

SABDAweb Heb 4:11
Because of this, let us have a strong desire to come into that rest, and let no one go after the example of those who went against God’s orders.

NRSV ©

bibleoremusHeb 4:11
Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs.

NKJV ©

biblegateway Heb 4:11
Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 1:42 am126 RogCat
Wow Marc,
I wasn’t expecting you to attack me on my belief of the Sabbath. I thought that everyone knew that the “Ten Commandments” were written by the finger of God – - – represting HIS everlasting WILL for how we were to live our lives.

Jesus and his disciples always kept the Seventh-Day Sabbath, even after the death of Jesus – - – and the followers of Jesus kept it for the next several hundred years. I am pretty sure that you must know that it was Emperor Constantine who changed the day of worship to Sunday. That was to appease and to entice pagans to join the newly forming Roman Catholic Church.

Robert is correct that – not keeping this Seventh-Day Sabbath, may not keep you out of the Kingdom of Heaven – - – BUT it will prevent those who do not keep it from entering into God’s Seventh-Day Rest – - – which is still to come.

Do as you please. I am happy doing what I KNOW God desires – - – and that is keeping those Sabbath Days that HE has declared for us.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 4:49 am127 Marc Taylor
Robert,
My advice to you is to not make up your own word defintions…..these are called opinions.
———————————–

No response to how those are to obey the Sabbath (sunset to sunset) in places like Barrow, Alaska.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 5:03 am128 Mark C.
I am pretty sure that you must know that it was Emperor Constantine who changed the day of worship to Sunday. That was to appease and to entice pagans to join the newly forming Roman Catholic Church.

This is not historically true. The following is from Anthony Buzzard’s book, The Law, The Sabbath, and New Covenant Christianity. It can be read online here.

The notion that Sunday became important to believers
only after Constantine declared it an official day in the
Roman Empire is untrue to the facts of history. We have
very early evidence (other than Acts 20:7; cp. I Cor. 16:2)
that Christians met on Sunday for worship. This was not as
a practice enjoined by any law, but as appropriate to the
great event of the Resurrection. It is apostolic custom, not
a transference of the Sabbath to Sunday.

As one historian writes: “The Savior and the Apostles
did not make fixed rules as to the observance of days…nor
do the Gospels and Apostles threaten us with any penalty,
punishment or curse for the neglect of them [fixed days],
as the Mosaic law does the Jews…The aim of the Apostles
was not to appoint festival days, but to teach a righteous
life and piety.”[13]

The observance of Sunday as the day of the
Resurrection is powerful confirmation of the New
Testament evidence. In the early second century Barnabas
(15:9) writes: “We keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the
which Jesus also rose from the dead, and having been
manifested, ascended into the heavens.” He also speaks of
the eighth day as “the beginning of another world.” This is
fully in keeping with Jesus being the firstfruit of the
harvest, and we should not forget that the firstfruit was
offered on Sunday (Lev. 23:11) as a type of Jesus’
Resurrection on that day. According to I Corinthians 15:23
Christ became the firstfruit through his Resurrection. How
appropriate that this Resurrection occurred on the day
(Sunday) typified by the Old Testament shadow — the
Sunday on which the “wavesheaf” was offered. The one
Sunday prescribed by the law as a “shadow” or “type” has
now been superseded, since Christ’s Resurrection has now
happened.

Ignatius in the early second century speaks of believers
no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives
after the Lord’s Day.[14] Justin Martyr (ca. 150 AD)
describes Christian meetings on “the day called Sunday”
for the observance of the Lord’s Supper by “all who live in
cities or in the country.”[15]

This early practice does not of course validate
everything which was taught by Christians in the centuries
after Christ, nor does it mean that there was not a gradual
— and early — paganization of the faith, from the second
century, culminating in a fuller apostasy under
Constantine. But it cannot be said that Constantine is
responsible for Sunday observance. Sabbath-keepers
should not be shy of examining Luke’s reference to a
Sunday meeting in Acts 20:7 nor the New Testament
practice of saving money for a collection “every Sunday”
(I Cor. 16:2). There is no biblical text which reports that
the church (as distinct from the synagogue) met on
Saturday for worship. Acts 20:7 testifies to a Sunday
church meeting, and it is remarkable that Paul was in
Troas for seven days, but waited until Sunday before
meeting with the believers (Acts 20:6, 7). Why was there
no church service on the Sabbath?

I Corinthians 16:2 may well be a reference to a regular
first-day meeting. As the NIV Study Bible notes,
contributions were “probably collected at the worship
service,” not at home, as implied by some translations.

________
13 Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, Vol. 5, 22, cited in the Dictionary
of Christ and the Gospels, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1917,
Vol. I, p. 252.
14 Letter to the Magnesians, section 9.
15 Apology 1, section 67.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 6:06 am129 David
It’s good to knowhat there is trustworthy information (Sir Anthony’s scholarship) which actually says that Constantine did not make it happen. It now appears to me to be nothing more than the emergence of a new tradition based upon the Resurrection.

I will still always celebrate Shabbat on the 7th. The 7th day is the type/shadow for the world to come. The biblical proof of “moving” the Shabbat to Sunday is about as weighty as the evidence the Trinitarians claim to have on proving the Trinity.

1. It’s not explicitly defined in scripture.
2. The idea is arrived at by stringing together by a few ambiguous passages which random meetings.
3. It’s out of line with the rest of scripture.
4. It doesn’t fit the historical or cultural backdrop.
5. It can be explained away. (Maybe they met on Sunday because some believers still attended synagogue services.)
6. It has always been the type/shadow for the completion of Creation (God’s Kingdom on Earth) which is the final promise.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 7:54 am130 Marc Taylor
It doesn’t matter what day of the week. I prefer the mid-week service on Wednesday.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 8:15 am131 robert
“No response to how those are to obey the Sabbath (sunset to sunset) in places like Barrow, Alaska. ”

Marc
I am sure that God instilled common sense so men could figure out things like this, If there was someone there seeking God’s rest I am sure they figure out when the Sabbath started and ended the same way they know what day it is.
Again I am not claiming this is binding on a gentile who were just giving the promise of Grace but there is no command to keep them from resting on the Sabbath if they want to.
The Sabbath command that Heb 4 upholds was only for Israel and those joined to Israel who seek entering God’s Rest which comes 1000 years before the promise of salvation to enter the New Heaven and Earth.

—————————————————–

“It’s good to knowhat there is trustworthy information (Sir Anthony’s scholarship) which actually says that Constantine did not make it happen.”

David
I dont think this was when christianity started sunday worship. My guess this could be very early in christianity because the Pagans worship their gods on sunday and we find that while the apostles were alive there were already false prophets and false doctrines.

Constantine just legalized sunday worship with penalties like death for not observing it and observing the Sabbath instead
_———————————————————-
“Acts 20:7 testifies to a Sunday
church meeting, and it is remarkable that Paul was in
Troas for seven days, but waited until Sunday before
meeting with the believers (Acts 20:6, 7). Why was there
no church service on the Sabbath?”

Mark
I provided an article which totally shows the greek of
Acts 20:7 doesnt support the reading of the “first day of week”
Because there is in greek proper words to express this which none of them is used in this verse.
Only someone who doesnt know greek or follows the deception of tradition of the church would ever claim the greek in this verse references sunday.
But then i have seen worst done by tradition.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 9:15 am132 Mark C.

I provided an article which totally shows the greek of
Acts 20:7 doesnt support the reading of the “first day of week”
Because there is in greek proper words to express this which none of them is used in this verse.
Only someone who doesnt know greek or follows the deception of tradition of the church would ever claim the greek in this verse references sunday.

I would consider the writers of Strong’s Concordance to “know Greek.” Here is what they say about these words:

3391. mia mee’-ah; irregular feminine of 1520; one or first:— a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.

4521. sabbaton sab’-bat-on; of Hebrew origin [07676]; the Sabbath (i.e. Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension, a se’nnight, i.e. the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications:— sabbath (day), week.

Here is an article that responds to the claim that mia ton sabbaton should be translated “one of the Sabbaths.”

http://www.lookingtojesus.com/resources/Mia+Ton+Sabbbaton+1.pdf

You may claim that the author (or Strong’s) just has an agenda, but one could say the same about the author of the article you posted, and we are left with nothing. What authority for Greek would you trust?

BTW, not only can mia mean first, but Mark 16:9 actually uses the word protos, which even your article admits means “first.”

Mr 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first [protos] day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

The fact that both mia and protos are used interchangeably in this case further proves that mia ton sabbaton can and does mean “first day of the week.”

on 06 Oct 2010 at 2:35 pm133 robert
Mark
I have seen just how Strongs has butchered the greek translations and by no means do ithink it is bias.
Within Strongs when Stauros is mentioned He actually claims it meant the cross of christ when it was used. He added this definition because of his beliefs therefore removing all creditabilty in my eyes. I now have to cross check everything within Strongs.

I thing the article addressed proto which means first as the first weekly Sabbath in the count to pentecost.
The word for day in greek is not used nor is the word for week in any of the accounts of the resurrection when all of the writers used them to describe days and weeks elsewhere. there is no way all of them decided to go against proper greek to describe the day of the resurrection.
Other than a questionable writing (didache ) which is probably a gross mistranslation anyway. i think I read a greek scholar address the passage in the didache “as fast on the second and fifth to the Sabbath, but you fast on the fourth and the preparation to the Sabbath.” but havent found that article yet.
Plus there is a very good reason Barnabas is not considered an inspired or authenic writing.
The 8th day mentioned is probably the resurrection of the Lamb(those in christ only)(the redeemed from outside Israel) which happens at the very end of God’s 1000 year Sabbath rest which was corrupted to support sunday as the 8th day when it doesnt exist yet. The 8th day is the last day with no other days following it.
I dont care what you believe yourself but do care what you preach to others because your confusion may cause them not to enter God’s rest.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 3:07 pm134 robert
Mark
Just read the article you suggested ,All i see is someone making an opinion on “mia ton sabbaton” but admitting it is not at all proper greek to describe the first day of week.
As far as the references to christians meeting on sunday I have no doubt that shortly after the war between the jews and gentiles in 130 AD christians hated anything jewish so they invented there own sabbath and holy days But it could of been started even earlier because we are warned in the apostles time that false doctrines already were forming.
I think i will stay with the actual words of the NT writers over any of these later writings as most were pagan converts who before they turned to christianity worshiped the Sun God on the first day of the week.
But what you are still confused about is the gentiles were never commanded any day of worship but if they wanted to enter God’s rest along with Israel the Sabbath rest still remained for the children of God(Israel) and not observing it was considered disobedience(Heb 4)

on 06 Oct 2010 at 6:23 pm135 Karl
Hello Robert,

Karl
I am sorry but this doesnt prove anything because we dont know if its translated correctly itself.

Well I know that it is translated correctly because I translated it. If you think it is not correct, why don’t you show me the correct translation?

Plus there is good reasons this writing is not recognized as inspired.

Irrelevant. 1) I never claimed this writing was inspired. 2) One doesn’t have to consult only inspired works to discover the meaning of words, idioms and phrases. The reason I quote the passage from the didache is to show you that a number like “1″ or “5″ in the feminine followed by “sabbaths” in the genitive case refers to a day of the week.

You brought no proof with this claim just someones translation of it

Again, I translated it and understand what it means. It is proof for my position because it proves that “mia twn sabbatwn” does not mean “one of the sabbaths.” Why does the article you linked to not even address that fact that “mia” from the phrase “mia twn sabbatwn” is in the feminine case? I’ll repeat this again: those who espouse your view do not know greek. Not to mention any of the other historical facts relevant to this study. I engaged in a long e-mail debate with someone in the past over this issue, they don’t know greek. The extent of their greek is usually a Strong’s concordance. Their real drive for this teaching is to teach that the sabbath is still valid (a view which I am sympathetic towards), not to discover the meaning of 1st century koine greek.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 6:35 pm136 Marc Taylor
Robert,
One can’t observe a “sunset to sunset” command if there is not sunset.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 6:55 pm137 robert
Karl
I am sorry but if you translated it yourself you need to go back to a school that can teach you how to really translate. I dare to say that most greek students could translate this properly as proper greek.
the jewish week started with the 6th to the sabbath not 1st from the sabbath.

and i did give you a literal translation

“as fast on the second(thurs) and fifth(mon) to the Sabbath, but you fast on the fourth(Tues) and the preparation(FRI) to the Sabbath.”

Also any reference that uses the sabbath is showing admiration to the Sabbath.
the proper greek to say the first day of week did not need to reference the Sabbath.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 7:05 pm138 robert
Marc
I guess that if you live in Barrow, Alaska and you cant figure out what day it is and what time it is then you are just too stupid to enter God’s rest anyway

on 06 Oct 2010 at 7:39 pm139 Marc Taylor
Robert,

Too stupid to enter God’s rest…so says Robert.
For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh…..so says God.

We are not talking about the day but “sunset to sunset”. So nice to see how you spelled out how one can observe something that doesn’t exist.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 7:55 pm140 robert
Marc
God instilled common sense into humans so that thet could figure things. I bet you dont know Jesus says there are 12 hours and the day making the night 12 hours. The earth turns on it axis causing the sky appear to move. if you know what day it is at any point which would be the same way they know what day it is all over the world, its called a calendar you then could determine what day of the week it is and using a division of 24 equal parts of the position of the stars you could determine by the words of Jesus when would be sunset.
I think a better question is how would an ancient Israelite who is blind determine when the Sabbath begins and ends.
I probably should of just ignored your question because it was meaningless but I was tempted to show you just how meaningless it was.

Rogcat
I meant to say hi and ask you how you are doing but keep forgetting. glad to hear from you

on 06 Oct 2010 at 9:08 pm141 Marc Taylor
Robert,
The Sabbath is to be observed from sunset to sunset. There is not sunset. Thus there is not Sabbath observe.
Keep up your pitiful academic pursuits.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 9:12 pm142 Sean
Marc Taylor,

Please do not use language which denigrates others pursuits.

Thank you.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 10:27 pm143 Karl
Hello Robert,

Karl
I am sorry but if you translated it yourself you need to go back to a school that can teach you how to really translate.

Are you serious? Maybe you can translate this for me then:

ἀλλ᾽ ὃν ἰδεῖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἀπὸ χθονὸς οὐδὲ μετρῆσαι
ὄμμασιν ἐν θνητοῖς, οὐ πλασθέντα χερὶ θνητῇ·
ὃς καθορῶν ἅμα πάντας ὑπ᾽ οὐδενὸς αὐτὸς ὁρᾶται

I dare to say that most greek students could translate this properly as proper greek.

You are correct, but the problem is that your translation is not proper Greek and no Greek student would translate it that way.

the jewish week started with the 6th to the sabbath not 1st from the sabbath.

Really? Where did you learn that?

and i did give you a literal translation

“as fast on the second(thurs) and fifth(mon) to the Sabbath, but you fast on the fourth(Tues) and the preparation(FRI) to the Sabbath.”

1) what words in here mean “as a fast”?
Αἱ δὲ νηστεῖαι ὑμῶν μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν. νηστεύουσι γὰρ δευτέρα σαββάτων καὶ πέμπτῃ· ὑμεῖς δὲ νηστεύσατε τετράδα καὶ παρασκευήν.

2) What case is σαββάτων and how do you justify translating it as “to the sabbath”?

3) So according to your “6th to the sabbath” theory “mia twn sabbatwn” would mean “one to the sabbath.” Therefore the early Christians gathered together on Friday, not on Saturday or Sunday. Is that what you are trying to prove?

the proper greek to say the first day of week did not need to reference the Sabbath.

Need not? OK, tell me how to say “first of the week” in koine greek. And then show me some examples from ancient jewish writings that use the phrase that you think means “first day of the week.”

The fact remains that in the first century the week is referred to as “sabbatwn” by the Jews as is clearly seen in the NT, in the didache and in other jewish writings. If you don’t like that, then you have the problem. The is no problem with the greek or the way the scholars and translators have understood it. If you wish to prove the sabbath (something I am not opposed to) then do so with real evidence. Don’t resort to bad greek grammar and misrepresentation to do so.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 10:40 pm144 robert
Karl
I stand by everything i wrote and to show your failed logic i will point out that sabbatwn is plural which would render the translation as one to the SABBATHS, that would be one to the count of the seven to pentecost. Your failed logic that it would mean Friday really makes me wonder

on 06 Oct 2010 at 11:15 pm145 Karl
Hello Robert,

I stand by everything i wrote and to show your failed logic i will point out that sabbatwn is plural which would render the translation as one to the SABBATHS, that would be one to the count of the seven to pentecost.

Come on man, you’re just joking around right? You didn’t even try to answer any of my points.

Ok so you think sabbatwn is plural and you think it makes a difference. Is sabbath plural in this?:
Αἱ δὲ νηστεῖαι ὑμῶν μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν. νηστεύουσι γὰρ δευτέρα σαββάτων καὶ πέμπτῃ· ὑμεῖς δὲ νηστεύσατε τετράδα καὶ παρασκευήν.

that would be one to the count of the seven to pentecost.

What does this even mean? Is it English? Where did you get this from? Who told you this? Where did you read this? You just made that up right?

Your failed logic that it would mean Friday really makes me wonder

You are right, your “6th to the sabbath” belief is illogical. Your belief that “mia twn sabbatwn” means Friday should make you wonder. It certainly makes me wonder.

Go read my post, don’t just blabber some garbled nonsense off without thinking about it. If you really believe this nonsense respond to my points. Don’t pretend to be a greek expert and not even be able to answer simple questions about case and gender.

on 06 Oct 2010 at 11:41 pm146 robert
Karl
I read your post and still stand by everything I said.
Your failed logic is something your not willing to see, the article I posted deals with everything that pertains to the correct translation of the resurrection account.
You havent impressed me with your failed logic or your so call authority to translate greek to any language.
I think most people who read the article if they are searching for the truth will see the logic and those with sacred cows will continue in their belief even if God himself told them it was built on a lie.

on 07 Oct 2010 at 12:13 am147 Karl
Hello Robert,

I read your post and still stand by everything I said.

Those with sacred cows will continue in their belief even if God himself told them it was built on a lie. I agree, you will stand by your sacred cows no matter what the evidence is.

Your failed logic is something your not willing to see, the article I posted deals with everything that pertains to the correct translation of the resurrection account.

How can it be correct? Your view says that “mia twn sabbatwn” means Friday, does the article say that?

You havent impressed me with your failed logic or your so call authority to translate greek to any language.

OK, then then show me how great an authority you are by answering my questions and translating the passage I posted? Yet you refuse to do that. I can only conclude a couple of things:

1) You don’t understand my questions.

2) You know you don’t have a response so you refuse to respond.

So why won’t you answer?

Again, why don’t you think about your responses instead of just saying some nonsense to get the “last word.” Getting the “last word” doesn’t make you right.

I think most people who read the article if they are searching for the truth will see the logic.

Well I can’t speak for most people, but I spent a lot of time search for the truth on this subject and found the correct interpretation. Give up your sacred cows my friend. You shouldn’t need to resort to this nonsense to prove the sabbath.

on 07 Oct 2010 at 1:19 am148 RogCat
Mark C.

There are so many posts here, and I come to this site so infrequently, that I don’t know exactly how to respond to you. Let me provide this short response. I didn’t know that you were going to discuss this along with the debate on the Trinity.

As for your assertation that Constantine didn’t invent the Sunday Worship, you are right. Sunday worship did exist before the 325 AD decree by Constantine – - – that “Sunday” was to be the official day of Worship to God. (And that anyone found keeping the Saturday Sabbath was to be detained, imprisioned and sometimes killed.)

The early Church (RCC) maintained that this had NOTHING to do with the Saturday Sabbath. The RCC just wanted to distance themselves as far from the Jewish practices as possible. It was only a couple of years ago that the Pope made the proclamation that, NOW, Sunday Worship should be considered as keeping the Weekly Sabbath.

Regarding the Apostles getting together on the first day of the week – - – I thought that I already explained that in this group. ???

The situation is simple to understand. Every Seventh-Day Sabbath, the Apostles preached to the Jews in their synagogues or held their own private day of prayer. AFTER the Sabbath ended, it was their custom to join with others of like belief to share a meal and to discuss the Word of the Lord. Of course, after the Sabbaths ended, it was a new day — the first day of the week. So it was that the story begins with the Apostles getting together on the first day of the week.

As for Jesus resurrecting on Sunday – - – NO WAY! Jesus died on Wednesday and after three nights and three days he arose from the dead ON HIS DAY: The Seventh-Day Sabbath. Jesus, as he said, is LORD of that Sabbath.

Our Seventh-Day Sabbath IS a shadow of what is to come. It represents the day to come when God WILL enter HIS Day of Rest. Right now, God is still working in His Sixth-Day of the Creation. But we know that God WILL enter His Day of Rest on His Seventh Day, because God always tells us the OUTCOME of His decrees from the time that HE issues them. God says that His rest was good. I believe that it WILL BE.

Those who do not keep OUR Seventh-Day Sabbath, as God commanded us to do by way of HIS Ten Commandments – will NOT be prevented from entering the Kingdom of Heaven on that basis. BUT, they will sleep for billions of years, during God’s Seventh-Day of Rest. After that, they will join their brothers. I, for one, prefer to wake up earlier. LOL
Grow With God — RogCat

on 07 Oct 2010 at 7:58 am149 robert
“Those with sacred cows will continue in their belief even if God himself told them it was built on a lie. I agree, you will stand by your sacred cows no matter what the evidence is.”

Karl
I came to this conclusion after enormous research in the last 2 years. I slayed my sacred cow after 46 years of living a lie

“How can it be correct? Your view says that “mia twn sabbatwn” means Friday, does the article say that?”

Karl
It was your failed logic that claimed “mia twn sabbatwn” meant friday which made me wonder about you.
I said “mia twn sabbatwn” Means “one of the SABBATHS” and if it had a “to” it wouldnt change the Meaning because the reading would then be “one to the SABBATHS”. This phrase is describing the First Sabbath in the count of seven to pentecost and also happens to be the day of the resurrection which we see by Acts 20 was celebrated on the first weekly Sabbath in that count.

“OK, then then show me how great an authority you are by answering my questions and translating the passage I posted? Yet you refuse to do that. I can only conclude a couple of things:

1) You don’t understand my questions.

2) You know you don’t have a response so you refuse to respond.

So why won’t you answer?

Again, why don’t you think about your responses instead of just saying some nonsense to get the “last word.” Getting the “last word” doesn’t make you right.”

Karl
I am no authority on translating Greek but can translate, But then again I see your in the same boat.

The article sums up everything but it is not my only authority on the subject. there are a multitude of Greek scholars that back this reading.

This is where i am leaving it at and if you have a problem with the article the discuss it with the man that wrote it. heres the address again.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1952159/posts

on 07 Oct 2010 at 8:52 am150 Ray
There seems to be so much about days that I have so much trouble with around the time of the cross of Jesus and his resurrection.

There’s a third day made mention of in John 2 and Jesus and his mother were there.

I’ve heard it said that God created something in Mary which was the beginning of Jesus, and from a scientific or biological point of view I suppose it can look like that, but here in John 2 I learn of something that existed that wasn’t created. At least that ’s what it looks like to me.

on 07 Oct 2010 at 9:16 am151 Mark C.
RogCat,

I agree with you that Sunday worship existed before Constantine, and that the early Church (even before it was the RCC) did not consider it to be a replacement for the Jewish Sabbath. I was responding to your statement, “I am pretty sure that you must know that it was Emperor Constantine who changed the day of worship to Sunday.”

As for Jesus resurrecting on Sunday – - – NO WAY! Jesus died on Wednesday and after three nights and three days he arose from the dead ON HIS DAY: The Seventh-Day Sabbath. Jesus, as he said, is LORD of that Sabbath.

This is dealt with at length in the articles I referenced in comment #101. Have you read them? Also, we had that long debate that Robert linked to. It wasn’t my intention to sidetrack this thread with that issue.

on 07 Oct 2010 at 9:39 am152 Karl
Hello Robert,

Thank you for engaging with my points with some thoughtful responses instead of giving me a knee-jerk response.

I came to this conclusion after enormous research in the last 2 years. I slayed my sacred cow after 46 years of living a lie

I suppose you are talking about sabbath observance instead of sunday observance. I’ll repeat it again, I am not trying to disprove the sabbath. All I am saying is that you should not resort to butchering the greek of the New Testament to prove the sabbath. I’m saying present good arguments in favor of the sabbath. The argument regarding “mia twn sabbatwn” is not a good argument.

It was your failed logic that claimed “mia twn sabbatwn” meant friday which made me wonder about you.

You translated δευτέρα σαββάτων from the didache as “second to the sabbath. “Mia twn sabbatwn” is the same grammatical construction in greek. So why don’t you translate it as “one to the sabbath.” You are the one with the failed logic and inconsistent translations. Instead of just declaring “you have failed logic” why don’t you show me why my logic is “failed.”

I said “mia twn sabbatwn” Means “one of the SABBATHS” and if it had a “to” it wouldnt change the Meaning because the reading would then be “one to the SABBATHS”.

It is grammatically impossible that it means “one of the sabbaths.” That is why I correctly conclude that those who espouse your view do not know greek. What case is the word “mia” and what case is the word “sabbatwn?” Find the answer to this and you will understand why I say this.

You seem to be emphasizing again the fact that “sabbaths” is plural and you think it makes a difference. Is sabbath plural in this?:
Αἱ δὲ νηστεῖαι ὑμῶν μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν. νηστεύουσι γὰρ δευτέρα σαββάτων καὶ πέμπτῃ· ὑμεῖς δὲ νηστεύσατε τετράδα καὶ παρασκευήν.

This phrase is describing the First Sabbath in the count of seven to pentecost and also happens to be the day of the resurrection which we see by Acts 20 was celebrated on the first weekly Sabbath in that count.

Again, who told you this? Does it mean “one” or “first”? Where do you get Pentecost from that phrase.?

Let me “invent” another explanation. Let say it means “one of the sabbaths” like “a sabbath.” For example “one of the cars” means “a car” in english. So it just means on “a sabbath.” That is just as good as your explanation. But both interpretations are incorrect because they are ungrammati
on 12 Oct 2010 at 6:07 pm15 robert

Some reason it didn’t post all of it, so here is the rest

Mark or Sean thank you for the opportunity

on 07 Oct 2010 at 9:43 am153 Karl
Hello Robert,

Thank you for engaging with my points with some thoughtful responses instead of giving me a knee-jerk response.

I came to this conclusion after enormous research in the last 2 years. I slayed my sacred cow after 46 years of living a lie

I suppose you are talking about sabbath observance instead of sunday observance. I’ll repeat it again, I am not trying to disprove the sabbath. All I am saying is that you should not resort to butchering the greek of the New Testament to prove the sabbath. I’m saying present good arguments in favor of the sabbath. The argument regarding “mia twn sabbatwn” is not a good argument.

It was your failed logic that claimed “mia twn sabbatwn” meant friday which made me wonder about you.

You translated δευτέρα σαββάτων from the didache as “second to the sabbath. “Mia twn sabbatwn” is the same grammatical construction in greek. So why don’t you translate it as “one to the sabbath.” You are the one with the failed logic and inconsistent translations. Instead of just declaring “you have failed logic” why don’t you show me why my logic is “failed.”

I said “mia twn sabbatwn” Means “one of the SABBATHS” and if it had a “to” it wouldnt change the Meaning because the reading would then be “one to the SABBATHS”.

It is grammatically impossible that it means “one of the sabbaths.” That is why I correctly conclude that those who espouse your view do not know greek. What case is the word “mia” and what case is the word “sabbatwn?” Find the answer to this and you will understand why I say this.

This phrase is describing the First Sabbath in the count of seven to pentecost and also happens to be the day of the resurrection which we see by Acts 20 was celebrated on the first weekly Sabbath in that count.

Again, who told you this? Does it mean “one” or “first”? Where do you get Pentecost from that phrase.?

Let me “invent” another explanation. Let say it means “one of the sabbaths” like “a sabbath.” For example “one of the cars” means “a car” in english. So it just means on “a sabbath.” That is just as good as your explanation. But both interpretations are incorrect because they are ungrammatical and ignore the historical usage of that phrase.

I am no authority on translating Greek but can translate, But then again I see your in the same boat.

Then why don’t you translate the passages that I posted for you above? I would never claim to be an authority on Greek but you have no idea how much greek I know. Don’t assume anything about me, I could be a professor of Greek at University and have a PhD in classical greek for all you know.

The article sums up everything but it is not my only authority on the subject. there are a multitude of Greek scholars that back this reading.

I have not read ONE scholar supporting this position. Show me some scholars, not just some guy on a website who looked up a couple of words in strong’s concordance and think he has discovered some secret meaning that has been purposely hidden for 2000 years.

This is where i am leaving it at and if you have a problem with the article the discuss it with the man that wrote it.

I’ve already tried that and it is pointless. As I said, I spent many hours discussing this issue with a man who wrote a similar article on his website. People who espouse this view: 1) don’t know greek, so any discussion of the grammar and historical usage involved is pointless. 2) They have a hidden agenda that guides this whole discussion. Their agenda is to prove that the sabbath is valid and that sunday worship is a lie, so they will twist any text to prove their point. Robert, let me repeat this again: I’m not trying to get you to give up the sabbath. I’m trying to get you to give up this incorrect proof for the sabbath.

on 07 Oct 2010 at 10:21 am154 Sean
Gentlemen,

Let’s keep the discussion respectful. This is just as important as what we say.

Karl this is inappropriate (from comment #145):

Go read my post, don’t just blabber some garbled nonsense off without thinking about it.

Robert this is inappropriate (from comment #138):

I guess that if you live in Barrow, Alaska and you cant figure out what day it is and what time it is then you are just too stupid to enter God’s rest anyway

We need to disagree with each other, but in such a way that does not put people down. Persuasive arguments using evidence is the way to go. If someone says something that you think is absurd you can just say, “Well, I find that reasoning utterly unconvincing because…” Feel free to attack the argument not the person.

on 07 Oct 2010 at 8:37 pm155 robert
Karl
We have both presented our case and there is noway either of us will accept the others opinion on this. So let those who are interested make their own minds up.

BTW
If you live in Barrow, Alaska then let me apologize for the statement, I thought you were just using it as an example.

on 07 Oct 2010 at 9:23 pm156 Doubting Thomas
I don’t speak any Greek at all. Like the old saying goes, “It’s all Greek to me.” Personally what convinces me, about why I should keep the tradition of honoring the Sabbath, is that it just seems to make sense. If Peter and the Apostles had spoken against the Ten Commandments, and said the Sabbath was just another ordinary day to do one’s work in, then “The Way”, as the early Christians were called, would never have been accepted as a Jewish sect.

The Pharisees and Sadducees hated the early Christians and would have been looking for the slightest excuse to excommunicate them from the Jewish faith. The fact that Peter and Apostles were able to go into the temple every Sabbath to preach the good news about the coming kingdom of God and about Christ and his teachings. And the fact that these early Christians were welcome and accepted in every Jewish Synagogue throughout the empire as one of the many Jewish sects of the time, is proof enough for me…

on 07 Oct 2010 at 9:56 pm157 robert
Sorry
the BTW was meant for Marc.

Karl
You asked for Greek scholars that support my view. plus i will bring to your attention that the Latin translation also supports it.
Have a great night

Here are a list of resources that admit that the original Greek ” μια των σαββατων ” meant “one of the sabbaths”

The Concordant Greek Text
The Concordant Literal New Testament
Robert Young’s Literal Translation
Some of John Calvin’s Commentaries
The Companion Bible
The Interlinear Bible by J.P. Green, 2nd Edition, Vol. IV
The Coverdale Quarto Bible, 1537
Some of Wycliffe’s Translations
Some of Tyndale’s Translations
The Rheims version, 1582
The Bishop’s Bible, 1568
The Latin Vulgate
The Old Latin
All Greek Texts
The Syriac Peshitta

on 08 Oct 2010 at 12:56 am158 Karl
Hi Sean,

Sorry about that, thanks for pointing it out.

Hi Robert,

Sorry if I came off harsh in some of my comments, I did not mean anything to be a personal attack against you.

You asked for Greek scholars that support my view. plus i will bring to your attention that the Latin translation also supports it.
Have a great night

Here are a list of resources that admit that the original Greek ” μια των σαββατων ” meant “one of the sabbaths”

It’s not a question of admission. You make it sound there is some sort of conspiracy to hide the meaning of this phrase. Their is no conspiracy. The fellow who wrote that article didn’t stumble upon some hidden truth, he simply misunderstood the greek. But if there is a conspiracy it is with those who write such articles, they will do anything to try to prove this point.

Of course “mia twn sabbatwn” can be literally translated as “one of the sabbaths.” But that’s not the point. For example the phrase “raining cats and dogs” in english should not be taken literally. It does not mean that dogs and cats were falling out the sky. “Raining cats and dogs” is an idiomatic expression that does not literally mean what the definitions of the words are. Similarly with “mia twn sabbatwn,” it is an idiomatic expression referring to a day in the week, as can be seen by close examination of that grammatical structure and its usage in early christian and jewish texts. That is why the scholars universally understand the phrase as “first of the week.” There are plenty of liberal scholars would don’t care about the whole sabbath/sunday debate who agree with this. They aren’t part of some great conspiracy to hide the sabbath from people.

Now you list some translations that literally translated the greek. But I asked for a scholar that says that it should be translated and understood the way you say it should.

on 08 Oct 2010 at 12:59 am159 Karl
Hello Thomas,

Personally what convinces me, about why I should keep the tradition of honoring the Sabbath, is that it just seems to make sense.

That’s fine with me, I actually have a lot of respect for your position. Notice how I didn’t get involved in the whole debate about whether the sabbath or sunday is correct. I just got involved when I saw the article that clearly mistranslates and twists scripture.

on 08 Oct 2010 at 3:18 am160 Mark C.
Karl,

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that those who translate it as “one of the Sabbaths” don’t understand Hebraic idioms, even though they understand the Greek from a literal standpoint. This is a frequent cause of misunderstanding in Biblical studies.

However, you did say that in addition to its usage in early Christian and Jewish texts, the idiom can be seen by close examination of that grammatical structure. Could you elaborate on that? It sounds interesting.

on 08 Oct 2010 at 7:39 am161 robert
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that those who translate it as “one of the Sabbaths” don’t understand Hebraic idioms,

Mark ,Karl
No that we havent gotten the fact that the literal translation is “one of the Sabbaths” we can now more on the address your next fail logic that it should be read first day of week because it is an idiom.I understand Idioms very well and the fact is your right its an idiom but it hasnt to do with days of the week its has to do with Sabbaths in the cout to pentecost.
You will notice the only time that Idiom is used is right after passover.
in greek at the time the NT was written there was ways to say days of week and it involed using the greek word for day and its number.
Its is you that claim an idiom that didnt exist when the true idiom refering to the count to pentecost has a strong hebrew background from the beginning of the book of Law.

on 08 Oct 2010 at 7:51 am162 Karl
Hello Robert,

No that we havent gotten the fact that the literal translation is “one of the Sabbaths” we can now more on the address your next fail logic that it should be read first day of week because it is an idiom.

Why is that “fail logic?” Because you declare it? Why don’t you explain yourself instead of making uninformed declarations?

I understand Idioms very well and the fact is your right its an idiom but it hasnt to do with days of the week its has to do with Sabbaths in the cout to pentecost.

Where did you learn this? Who says it has anything to do with pentecost?

You will notice the only time that Idiom is used is right after passover.

Wrong again. I showed you the same idiom being used in the didache, and that passage has nothing to do with pentecost.

in greek at the time the NT was written there was ways to say days of week and it involed using the greek word for day and its number.

Show me the “right” way to say days of the week in NT greek, and then show me some examples of your way being used in greek of that time period.

Its is you that claim an idiom that didnt exist

It does exist as I have proven with the quote from the didache.

when the true idiom refering to the count to pentecost has a strong hebrew background from the beginning of the book of Law.

Again, where did you learn this “true” idiom? Did you make it up yourself?

on 08 Oct 2010 at 8:18 am163 robert
“Wrong again. I showed you the same idiom being used in the didache, and that passage has nothing to do with pentecost.”

I am sorry but since that passage uses the preparation to the Sabbath it shows that if this is refering to days of the week that it was a count TO the sabbath not from making the NT refernce mean friday. but this is not my claim. It just shows it can not be used. Besides that we have no idea just .who and when this passage was wrote and if its is authenic.

the fact its uses the same wording just means this is referencing the coming of a sabbath that is also a sabbath in the count to pentecost.
the jews never fasted twice unless it was during a feast week

on 08 Oct 2010 at 8:46 am164 Karl
Hello Robert,

I notice that you continue to ignore many of my points and tend to just pick out one item to write about. Can you answer this: Show me the “right” way to say days of the week in NT greek, and then show me some examples of your way being used in greek of that time period.

I am sorry but since that passage uses the preparation to the Sabbath it shows that if this is refering to days of the week that it was a count TO the sabbath not from making the NT refernce mean friday.

Then “mia twn sabbatwn” means “one to the sabbath” i.e. Friday. Be consistent!

but this is not my claim.

So far, this is only your claim. Show me a reputable scholar who claims this.

It just shows it can not be used. Besides that we have no idea just .who and when this passage was wrote and if its is authenic.

It is irrelevant whether the apostles wrote it or not. The work shows how the language is used.

the fact its uses the same wording just means this is referencing the coming of a sabbath that is also a sabbath in the count to pentecost.

Where did you learn this? Did you make it up?

the jews never fasted twice unless it was during a feast week

Where did you learn this? Did you make it up?

on 08 Oct 2010 at 9:33 am165 Mark C.
In addition to the Didache, the idiom of using sabbaton to refer to a week can be seen even in other passages of Scripture.

Consider Luke 18:12, a parable in which a Pharisee said, “I fast twice a week…” The italicized phrase is derived from the Greek dis tou sabbatou. Jesus was not saying that the Pharisee fasted twice on the Sabbath day, but that he fasted twice a week.

on 08 Oct 2010 at 11:31 am166 Karl
Good point Mark,

Actually this tradition of fasting twice a week is what is being referred in the didache as well. This tradition is well attested:

“The following days have been quite widely observed by the pious up to the last generation: Monday, Thursday, Monday after Sukkoth and Passover, for fear lest a sin have been committed; in leap year (occurring seven times in the 19-year cycle) Monday and Thursday of every winter week; Monday and Thursday of every week; the Intermittent Fast, consisting of three days’ fasting followed by one of release (Sabbaths not to be counted in) throughout the year-only for the pious.”

Footnote 56 from “Ascetic Strains in Early Judaism” by James A. Montgomer. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 51, No. 3 (Sep., 1932), pp. 183-213

“Based on ancient customs, it introduced fasting on the ‘Small Day of Atonement’ and on the eve of New-Moon, early-morning devotions, regular societies which held meetings for prayer and fasting on Mondays and Thursdays, and others which assembled nightly to lament over the Exile, and the like. . . .”

From:
(http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=475&letter=L#ixzz11mLtimUf) accessed October 8th 2010.

on 08 Oct 2010 at 5:18 pm167 robert
Mark,Karl
I fast twice on the Sabbath can be understood 2 ways
1. A day is divided into 2 parts Day and Night. therefore if you fast the day that is once and if you fast the night that is twice
NRSV ©

bibleoremusEst 4:16
“Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will also fast as you do. After that I will go to the king, though it is against the law; and if I perish, I perish.”

NKJV ©

biblegateway Est 4:16
“Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!”

2. Is that during the the Days of unleaven week which is also called a sabbath they fasted on 2 of those days.

Claiming this is an idiom is just as much failed logic as claim 3rd day is one. 3rd day is the defining factor for 2 idioms in hebrew
1. to-day
2. to-morrow
Without the defining words third day there would be no way to understand 1. and 2.

Karl first you say that “It is grammatically impossible that it means “one of the sabbaths.” ” then you flip flop to say yes it is the literal translation.

I have had this type of a discussion before and quite frankly it never accomplishes a single thing. you ignore the true idiom which makes sense then make it into a false idiom which doesnt makes sense because there a correct words used by the same writer to refer to “day and week”
I am so glad this isnt a salvation issue because when i thought it was it really bothered me that lies were going to keep people from salvation.

on 08 Oct 2010 at 8:24 pm168 RogCat
Marc C.

Yes, I read parts of the articles that you referenced back in an earlier post regarding the day that Jesus died. I disagree with them. They make some basic errors – so they are not worth reading all the way through.

For one thing: The days counted for Jesus WERE parts of one day and parts of another — but they still equaled three full days and three full nights.

Besides, there is NO proof that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday. Mary simply found the tomb empty on Sunday.

Since you-all have already discussed this, I will just file those articles for future reference. I will stick with what makes the most sense.

on 08 Oct 2010 at 10:52 pm169 Karl
Hi Robert,

I fast twice on the Sabbath can be understood 2 ways
1. A day is divided into 2 parts Day and Night. therefore if you fast the day that is once and if you fast the night that is twice

No, you have only done one fast. You didn’t fast twice. Show me an example of fast being used in such a way. You just made that up.

Maybe you would have a point if that passage from esther said: ““Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold six fasts on my behalf, neither eating nor drinking for three days, night or day.” But it doesn’t say that.

Admit it my friend, the jews had a tradition of fasting twice a week.

“Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, …
Without the defining words third day there would be no way to understand 1. and 2.

This is all irrelevant. I never said that one shouldn’t understand the meaning of words. I just said that one cannot limit the meaning of phrases to their dictionary definitions. One must understand idioms in their literary and historical context as well.

Karl first you say that “It is grammatically impossible that it means “one of the sabbaths.” ” then you flip flop to say yes it is the literal translation.

But if it was meant to be understood as “one of the sabbaths” in would say “hen twn sabbatwn” not “mia twn sabbtwn.” “Mia twn sabbatwn” (or any feminine number (2-5) followed by sabbatwn in the genitive) always refers to a day of the week. (This was the grammatical construction I was referring to earlier Mark) You have given no evidence that it does not.

Besides, it should be translated as “one to the sabbath” according to you anyways. Therefore “mia twn sabbatwn” would mean “friday.”

I have had this type of a discussion before and quite frankly it never accomplishes a single thing. you ignore the true idiom which makes sense then make it into a false idiom which doesnt makes sense

It only doesn’t make sense to you because you refuse to admit that you are wrong. You twist the meaning of the idiom to mean something it doesn’t to support your presupposition that the apostles could not have ever met on a sunday. If you want to prove the sabbath, use real evidence and good arguments, but don’t misinterpret the greek.

because there a correct words used by the same writer to refer to “day and week”

I’ll try again: “Show me the “right” way to say days of the week in NT greek, and then show me some examples of your way being used in greek of that time period.”

on 08 Oct 2010 at 11:34 pm170 robert
“I’ll try again: “Show me the “right” way to say days of the week in NT greek, and then show me some examples of your way being used in greek of that time period.” ”

Karl
Mark shows the proper greek to express the first day

Mark 14:12
kai

CONJth

T-DSFprwth

A-DSFhmera

N-DSFtwn

Matthew 26:17
th

T-DSFde

CONJprwth

A-DSFtwn

T-GPN

And the LXX shows that there is a proper greek word to denote week.

so the proper greek would read something like this if it meant on (KIA)the(th) first(protos) day(hemera) of(twn) week(hebdomadas)

But then again maybe Mark was butchering the greek

“Maybe you would have a point if that passage from esther said: ““Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold six fasts on my behalf, neither eating nor drinking for three days, night or day.” But it doesn’t say that.”

Karl that is pure failed logic, there is no need to mention “night or Day” if fasting couldnt be done twice in a day considering fasting is missing a meal on either night or day.

I am sorry but I cant back your failed logic!!!

Hepta hebdomadas is used in last part of Lev. 23: 15 for the seven weeks you are to number to get to the 50th day, called Pentecost. Until the morrow after the last week (eschatees hebdomados) shall you number 50 days.

Deut. 16:9–Hepta hebdomadas exarithmateis (seven weeks shall you number), and you shall keep the feast of weeks (heopteen hebdomadon).

The seventy weeks prophecy of Dan. 9 also uses this word hebdomadas a number of times.

on 09 Oct 2010 at 12:09 am171 Karl
Hi Robert,

Those verses from Matthew, Mark and Leviticus don’t refer to the days of the week. But since you like protos what about this one from mark 16:9?

Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου

Your references to hebdomas is good and close to the modern greek idiom, but do you have any examples of it being used that way in the biblical period?

Karl that is pure failed logic, there is no need to mention “night or Day” if fasting couldnt be done twice in a day considering fasting is missing a meal on either night or day.

Yes, but it isn’t two fasts. Of course it is considering fasting if one misses a meal during the night, but it is not considered an additional fast just because a fast passes over more than one meal.

What you are saying is like this: “I like to eat multiple snacks throughout the day, so for every snack I miss I should count it as a fast. Wow I missed 20 snacks so I fasted 20 times in one day” Pretty impressive huh?

Or how about this: “The day can be divided into 24 parts called hours, so if I fast one day I have really fasted 24 times” Even more impressive huh?

Besides the Jews (especially pious one) generally don’t fast on sabbath:

While in general no fast is permitted on Sabbaths or holidays, the Talmud permitted one to be undertaken even on these days, provided it be complemented later by another fast (Ber. 31b). There are, however, various opinions among the later authorities regarding such a fast. Some think that it may be observed on a Sabbath only after an evil dream has occurred three times, while others are of the opinion that it is not possible to distinguish at present between good and evil dreams, and that therefore one should not fast at all on the Sabbath.

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=59&letter=F#ixzz11pbD2v7K

You are making no sense here. Admit it, the jews fasted twice in a week. Why won’t you admit you were wrong? Do you need to resort to such reasoning to hold on to the sabbath? I think you better give up the sabbath then.

on 09 Oct 2010 at 10:54 am172 robert
“Your references to hebdomas is good and close to the modern greek idiom, but do you have any examples of it being used that way in the biblical period?”

Karl
Yes did you not read the LXX uses it to refer to week

Hepta hebdomadas is used in last part of Lev. 23: 15 for the seven weeks you are to number to get to the 50th day, called Pentecost. Until the morrow after the last week (eschatees hebdomados) shall you number 50 days.

Deut. 16:9–Hepta hebdomadas exarithmateis (seven weeks shall you number), and you shall keep the feast of weeks (heopteen hebdomadon).

The seventy weeks prophecy of Dan. 9 also uses this word hebdomadas a number of times.

“You are making no sense here. Admit it, the jews fasted twice in a week.”

Karl
In Luke 18:12 if Luke was saying Week it would read this way.

nhsteuw div tou hebdomas

This statement is coming from a Pharisee boasting that his is not like other men. all the man had to do was think in Est 4:16 that day or night refered to fasting twice then he could boast. the other thing is the statement includes tithes which was giving when one went to the hear the law and prophets read on the Sabbath.

There is no clear cut evidence that shows Israelites fasted twice a week and what you find in the oral traditions may or maynot have existed at the time Luke wrote this.

There are way to many factors in believing that sabbaton could possibly mean week to the writers of the NT.

Sorry but i cant follow your view

on 09 Oct 2010 at 12:50 pm173 robert
But since you like protos what about this one from mark 16:9?

Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου

Karl
this is the most powerful reference to which Sabbath Jesus was resurrected on.

It literally reads that early on the First Sabbath which provides context to usage of “mia twn sabbatwn” as “one of the sabbaths” one being the first in the count of seven to pentecost.
We know the weekly sabbath after Jesus died was the first in the count and we know that in Acts 20 that this is probably the same first Sabbath in that count. this is a very important Sabbath to christians because this is the memorial of the Sabbath Jesus was resurrected on.

Common sense prevents me from holding your view.

BTW
everyone haved a blessed and inspiring Sabbath

on 09 Oct 2010 at 3:17 pm174 Doubting Thomas
Karl (msg. #159)
I had said, “Personally what convinces me, about why I should keep the tradition of honoring the Sabbath, is that it just seems to make sense.”

You said, “That’s fine with me, I actually have a lot of respect for your position.”

I just want you to know that I also have a lot of respect for Sunday keepers, because I know that in their heart they believe they are honoring Yeshua/Jesus. God knows the intentions of our hearts. I’d even go so far as to say that our intentions may even be more important than our actions.

For example, if we intended to hurt someone, but accidentally ended up helping them, then I don’t think God would be proud of our behavior, even if in the end result was a good one. At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…

on 09 Oct 2010 at 4:10 pm175 robert
Thomas
I agree that the intentions of sunday keepers are honorable, I would like to add that anyone who honors a Supreme Being that created all this we see in the physical world has also good intentions, this includes all religions.
But the Sabbath command was giving to those of a particular promise made to Abraham and deals with entering God’s 1000 year rest in which the Fathers of Israel will finally receive the promise giving to them for following all the Commandments giving to them by God whether or not there was ever a command for the Fathers of Israel to rest on the Sabbath which I believe there was by the historical evidence of the Sabbath for the seventh day in pre-Israel times.
I do not believe that the gentiles of christianity were giving a command, but were shown by example of what the blessing of the Sabbath could mean to a gentile if they take hold of it and the other signs and laws giving to Israel.

on 09 Oct 2010 at 11:53 pm176 Karl
Hi Robert,

this is the most powerful reference to which Sabbath Jesus was resurrected on.
It literally reads that early on the First Sabbath…

Early on the first sabbath? So Jesus was raised Saturday morning?

which provides context to usage of “mia twn sabbatwn” as “one of the sabbaths” one being the first in the count of seven to pentecost.

We know the weekly sabbath after Jesus died was the first in the count and we know that in Acts 20 that this is probably the same first Sabbath in that count. this is a very important Sabbath to christians because this is the memorial of the Sabbath Jesus was resurrected on.

Jesus wasn’t raised on the first sabbath counting to pentecost. The counting of the weeks began “on the day after the sabbath.” Read Leviticus again. If Jesus was raised on the first sabbath counting to Pentcost he would’ve been in the grave over a week. So your interpretation of Mark 16:9 is incorrect.

This statement is coming from a Pharisee boasting that his is not like other men. all the man had to do was think in Est 4:16 that day or night refered to fasting twice then he could boast.

Esther doesn’t say they fasted twice. You can’t fast twice in one day, it doesn’t make any sense.

There is no clear cut evidence that shows Israelites fasted twice a week and what you find in the oral traditions may or maynot have existed at the time Luke wrote this.

The didache, Luke, rabbinic documents and Jewish tradition are clear. I gave you good quotes from jewish sources, not “sunday-keeping” sources. If you can’t see it, it is not because of lack of evidence it is because of your presuppositions.

Yes did you not read the LXX uses it to refer to week…

yes, that’s not what I was asking. I apologize if I wasn’t clear. I meant show some examples of “mia tou hebdoma.” I want to see that phrase in use to mean “first day of the week.” Even if you could find some, it still wouldn’t change the fact that mia twn sabbatwn refers to the first day of the week as is shown by the didache, jewish usage, etc…

on 10 Oct 2010 at 12:17 am177 robert
Early on the first sabbath? So Jesus was raised Saturday morning?

Karl
that is exactly what the bible states

“Jesus wasn’t raised on the first sabbath counting to pentecost. The counting of the weeks began “on the day after the sabbath.” Read Leviticus again. If Jesus was raised on the first sabbath counting to Pentcost he would’ve been in the grave over a week. So your interpretation of Mark 16:9 is incorrect.”

Karl
I dealt with this in the “what day did Jesus die”thread in this blog. all the facts are there if you or anyone want to read it.

At this point we can only agree to disagree because i am not willing to waste my time dealing with it again.
It isnt a salvation issue so the only thing your risking is entering God’s rest which requires true doctrine.

Good night

on 10 Oct 2010 at 2:46 am178 Karl
Hi Robert,

I dealt with this in the “what day did Jesus die” thread in this blog. all the facts are there if you or anyone want to read it.

The first sabbath that is counted to Pentecost occurs at least 7 days after passover since the counting begins on the day after the sabbath, not on the sabbath. Are you suggesting that Christ was raised over 7 days after passover?

It isnt a salvation issue so the only thing your risking is entering God’s rest which requires true doctrine.

Really? Did I ever deny the sabbath? Am I a “sunday-keeper”? How do you know I don’t keep the sabbath? Like I said multiple times, my points have nothing to do whatsoever with the validity of the sabbath. My point is that people shouldn’t mistranslate the bible because of their presuppositions.

on 10 Oct 2010 at 10:19 am179 robert
“The first sabbath that is counted to Pentecost occurs at least 7 days after passover since the counting begins on the day after the sabbath, not on the sabbath. Are you suggesting that Christ was raised over 7 days after passover?”

Karl
You dont seem to have a clue about the count to pentecost and how it comes on dates fixed depending on the Hebrew months. This is because the Passover starts on a fixed date not on a fixed day of the week.
From Joshua 5:11 we find the Sabbath mentioned in Lev. 23:11 is not the weekly Sabbath it is a High Sabbath(HIGH DAY OF REST) in which the Passover is eaten.
But then again this is dealt with in other thread.

———————————————————-
It isnt a salvation issue so the only thing your risking is entering God’s rest which requires true doctrine.

“Really? Did I ever deny the sabbath? Am I a “sunday-keeper”? ”

Karl
There is more to entering God’s rest then just keeping the Sabbath . Observing God’s holy days at the correct times, following the Laws that identify those of the promise and knowing how to use Yahshua in the new sacraficial system and priesthood that Yahshua fulfilled are all important to entering this rest which Hebrews was written for this purpose.
I do not claim myself to have the right to enter God’s rest because the word of God has been so corrupted I am not sure if enough truth remains.
I feel that I will probably be raised by Yahshua when he returns at the end of God’s rest as one of the dead in christ.
But I will still continue to seek God’s rest with the hope of entering it but would be greatly surprised if I did.
So you see I understand your a Sabbath keeper but thats not enough to enter God’s rest.

on 10 Oct 2010 at 1:18 pm180 Karl
Hello Robert,

You dont seem to have a clue about the count to pentecost and how it comes on dates fixed depending on the Hebrew months. This is because the Passover starts on a fixed date not on a fixed day of the week.
From Joshua 5:11 we find the Sabbath mentioned in Lev. 23:11 is not the weekly Sabbath it is a High Sabbath(HIGH DAY OF REST) in which the Passover is eaten.

Ok let me get this straight. If Passover was a Wednesday then counting to Pentecost would have started the next day, Thursday, the 5th day of the week. Then we count to the “day after the 7th sabbath Lev. (23:16)” so that should give us 50 days. The days of the week are enumerated below as 1234567:

567(the supposed mia twn sabbatwn)
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567, the next day should be pentecost, but its not fifty days. It’s only 46.

Mia twn sabbatwn is a Hebrew idiom for 1st of the week, as all the sources and scholars show. If you don’t like the term “week” think of it as “1st day from the sabbath.” There is no evidence that the phrase was used with reference to the counting of Pentecost. It is a modern reconstruction that ignores all the extra-biblical sources.

Hepta hebdomadas is used in last part of Lev. 23: 15 for the seven weeks you are to number to get to the 50th day, called Pentecost. Until the morrow after the last week (eschatees hebdomados) shall you number 50 days.

I didn’t realize this before, but as I was looking up references in the Hebrew and LXX for my last point I realized that you gave me more evidence that “sabbath” can mean “week.” The term “hepta hebdomas” is indeed found in LXX of Levitucus 23:15, but the hebrew text says “seven sabbaths” not “seven weeks” or “seven sevens.” The LXX translator clearly thought “sabbath” could be translated as “week.” So the references to LXX Lev. 23 actually support my position.

on 10 Oct 2010 at 6:41 pm181 robert
Karl
Not only does this match all the resurrection accounts but it matches the 6th of Sivan that the 1st century jews observed.
I had a full chart made of when pentecost was depending on passover but it was deleted over in the other thread.

The days of the week are enumerated below as 1234567:

4 (3pm death,passover lamb killed) 5(high Sabbath,Passover) 6( Morrow after ,count to 50 starts) 7(mia twn sabbatwn,one of the sabbaths, first sabbath)
1234567 (two of the Sabbaths)
1234567(three)
1234567(four)
1234567(five)
1234567(six)
1234567(seven)
12345 + 1 = 50
makes a friday pentecost which agrees with 6th of Sivan as the first century jews observed

5 (3pm death,passover lamb killed) 6(high Sabbath,Passover) 7( Morrow after ,count to 50 starts,mia twn sabbatwn,one of the sabbaths, first sabbath
1234567 (two of the Sabbaths)
1234567(three)
1234567(four)1234567(seven)
1234567(five)
1234567(six)
123456 + 1( pentecost starts at the beginning of the Sabbath, not a complete Sabbath = 50
therefore making pentecost start at the beginning of the Sabbath

7 (high Sabbath,Passover,weekly sabbath) 1( Morrow after ,count to 50 starts)
234567 ,mia twn sabbatwn,one of the sabbaths, first sabbath
1234567(two of the Sabbaths)
1234567(three)
1234567(four)
1234567(five)
1234567(six)
1234567(seven)
+ 1 makes a sunday pentecost

on 10 Oct 2010 at 11:17 pm robert

On another note
Karl (and if Jaco reads this) could you please provide me with a translation from the LXX of Lev. 23: 4-11 into english. I would be very interested in this because there is something in verse 11 that seems to completely backs my view.
I trust Jaco completely to give me the proper tanslation

on 11 Oct 2010 at 1:14 am184 Karl
Hi Robert,

Ok, I’m looking at the charts you provided. You appear to list three possibilities as to when Pentecost was. However only the third chart has Pentecost on the day after the sabbath as the Hebrew says. Is that the one you think is correct?

Not only does this match all the resurrection accounts but it matches the 6th of Sivan that the 1st century jews observed.

“Mia twn sabbatwn” as “first day of the week” matches all the resurrection accounts.

Did 1st century Jews celebrate Pentecost on the 6th of Sivan? That is part of the rabbinic tradition which you claim is too late to tell us anything about the 1st century. Besides the Saducees managed all temple services, not the pharisees (from whom the rabbis were descended). According to what I’ve read the Saducees did not date Pentecost as the Pharisees do. The saducees, samaritans and christians always dated Pentecost on the first day of the week, regardless of the day of the month.

Here is my translation

4 Αὗται αἱ ἑορταὶ τῷ κυρίῳ, κληταὶ ἅγιαι, ἃς καλέσετε αὐτὰς ἐν τοῖς καιροῖς αὐτῶν.

These are the feasts to the Lord, Holy callings, which you shall keep (them) in their times.

5 ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ μηνὶ ἐν τῇ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ μηνὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ἑσπερινῶν πάσχα τῷ κυρίῳ.

In the first month, on the 14th day of the month, between the evenings (is the) passover to the Lord.

6 καὶ ἐν τῇ πεντεκαιδεκάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ μηνὸς τούτου ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων τῷ κυρίῳ· ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας ἄζυμα ἔδεσθε.

And in the 15th day of this month (is the) feast of unleavened bread to the Lord, 7 days you shall eat unleavened bread.

7 καὶ ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ πρώτη κλητὴ ἁγία ἔσται ὑμῖν, πᾶν ἔργον λατρευτὸν οὐ ποιήσετε·

And on the first day shall be a holy calling for you, you shall not do any service work.

8 καὶ προσάξετε ὁλοκαυτώματα τῷ κυρίῳ ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας· καὶ ἡ ἑβδόμη ἡμέρα κλητὴ ἁγία ἔσται ὑμῖν, πᾶν ἔργον λατρευτὸν οὐ ποιήσετε.

And you shall offer burnt offerings to the Lord 7 days, and the 7th day shall be a holy calling for you, you shall not do any service work.

9 Καὶ ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων

And the Lord spoke to moses saying:

10 Εἰπὸν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ καὶ ἐρεῖς πρὸς αὐτούς ῞Οταν εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἣν ἐγὼ δίδωμι ὑμῖν, καὶ θερίζητε τὸν θερισμὸν αὐτῆς, καὶ οἴσετε δράγμα ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ θερισμοῦ ὑμῶν πρὸς τὸν ἱερέα·

Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, “When you come into the land, which I and giving to you, and harvest its harvest, and you shall bring the first-fruit handful of the harvest to the priest.

11 καὶ ἀνοίσει τὸ δράγμα ἔναντι κυρίου δεκτὸν ὑμῖν, τῇ ἐπαύριον τῆς πρώτης ἀνοίσει αὐτὸ ὁ ἱερεύς.

And he shall bring up the handful before the Lord, acceptable for you, on the morrow of the first the priest shall bring it up.

on 11 Oct 2010 at 7:38 am185 robert
“Ok, I’m looking at the charts you provided. You appear to list three possibilities as to when Pentecost was. However only the third chart has Pentecost on the day after the sabbath as the Hebrew says.”

Karl
first thin is the hebrew doesnt state anywhere the pentecost is the day after the Sabbath. it says to continue to count to 50 to the day even after the 7th sabbath.
No Karl the first chart matches all the accounts of there being a High sabbath, then a non sabbath where spices could be bought and prepared.

“And he shall bring up the handful before the Lord, acceptable for you, on the morrow of the first the priest shall bring it up.”

This is the same as what i was reading and verse 7 seems to say what first that was. it wasnt the weekly Sabbath ,it was the first day of UB which was a yearly Sabbath,A HIGH SABBATH.
so there is no way pentecost falls upon sunday every year and the 3 charts shows this.

on 11 Oct 2010 at 8:48 am186 Karl
Hi Robert,

first thin is the hebrew doesnt state anywhere the pentecost is the day after the Sabbath.

Well you may not like it, but it clearly does say that:

Lev. 23:16 ‘You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh sabbath; then you shall present a new grain offering to the LORD

This is the same as what i was reading and verse 7 seems to say what first that was. it wasnt the weekly Sabbath ,it was the first day of UB which was a yearly Sabbath,A HIGH SABBATH.

I agree with you that the translator of the LXX supports your dating of Pentecost. But if you wish to rely on the LXX you must agree that sabbath means week. Look how the LXX translates Lev. 23:16:

16 ἕως τῆς ἐπαύριον τῆς ἐσχάτης ἑβδομάδος ἀριθμήσετε πεντήκοντα ἡμέρας καὶ προσοίσετε θυσίαν νέαν τῷ κυρίῳ.

“Until the morrow of the last week you shall count 50 days and bring a new sacrifice to the Lord.”

“The day after the seventh sabbath” in Hebrew is replace by “the morrow of the last week” in Greek. You have presented good evidence that sabbath can mean week.

so there is no way pentecost falls upon sunday every year and the 3 charts shows this.

Those charts don’t prove that pentecost doesn’t fall on Sunday every year. They just present some possibilities as to when Pentecost could have fallen.

on 11 Oct 2010 at 9:21 am187 robert
Karl

Lev. 23:16 ‘You shall count fifty days “to the day after” the seventh sabbath; then you shall present a new grain offering to the LORD

The phrase “to the day after” can mean exactly what is says by understanding that this day will come in the following days after.

Not only does the LXX support it but Joshua 5 in the hebrew does too.

Now give me the translation of verse 15-16.

After this understand that Josephus state that the jews of his day figured pentecost the same way they have the last 2000 years.
Using the LXX to understand the hebrew text as saying to continue the count to the days after the seventh sabbath provides witness to the fact of how the jews count and also shows that the phrase seventh sabbath set the context for the first sabbath AKA “one of the SABBATHS”.
BTW the LXX has an earlier date then the Hebrew text with the last copy being about the 6th century but if you read it properly than you can understand why the jews count different than the christians

on 11 Oct 2010 at 10:59 am188 Karl
Hi Robert,

The phrase “to the day after” can mean exactly what is says by understanding that this day will come in the following days after.

“the day after” is not the “following days after.” The day after means exactly “the next day.” Not the next few days.

But if you want to change the meaning of “the day after” why don’t you change it here as well:

11 And he shall bring up the handful before the Lord, acceptable for you, on the morrow of the first the priest shall bring it up.

So maybe he means one of the days following the first day of unleavened bread, not on the very next day. So we can (according to your reasoning) understand the the counting as beginning on the first sunday after Passover, whether it was the very next day or not.

Using the LXX to understand the hebrew text as saying to continue the count to the days after the seventh sabbath provides witness to the fact of how the jews count and also shows that the phrase seventh sabbath set the context for the first sabbath AKA “one of the SABBATHS”.

Using the LXX to understand Hebrew means that sabbath can mean week, because the LXX translates “sabbath” with “week.”

After this understand that Josephus state that the jews of his day figured pentecost the same way they have the last 2000 years

I don’t doubt that he says this because Josephus is a pharisee, but where does he say that?

15 Καὶ ἀριθμήσετε ὑμεῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπαύριον τῶν σαββάτων, ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας, ἧς ἂν προσενέγκητε τὸ δράγμα τοῦ ἐπιθέματος, ἑπτὰ ἑβδομάδας ὁλοκλήρους· 16 ἕως τῆς ἐπαύριον τῆς ἐσχάτης ἑβδομάδος ἀριθμήσετε πεντήκοντα ἡμέρας καὶ προσοίσετε θυσίαν νέαν τῷ κυρίῳ.

And you shall count from the day after the sabbaths, from the day which you brought forth the handful of the covering, seven complete weeks. Until the next day of the last seven you shall count 50 days and bring a new sacrifice to the Lord.

on 11 Oct 2010 at 5:19 pm189 robert
“Using the LXX to understand Hebrew means that sabbath can mean week, because the LXX translates “sabbath” with “week.” ”

Karl
there were translation problems from hebrew to greek when the 5 books of the LXX were translated when dealing with words from hebrew to greek. I am not even sure the greeks had a seven day week so this may have been done to represent the only way possible of descibing a seven day week to the person that authorized the translation. the biggest problem I have is it use in plural, Is this a royal plural to denote a special sabbath or does this mean WEEKS which makes no sense.
But then again it probably isnt relevent to the passages we are discussing.
The seventh sabbath set the context for the Phrase “first Sabbath” which sets all the others context of “one of the Sabbaths”
It might be just be descibing the time between Sabbaths but it numbers these periods starting with the count to the first Sabbath.
then again this also make perfect sense cosidering the word for day isnt there or needed unless your belief demands it.

Lev. 23:16 ‘You shall count (fifty days) (after )(the seventh sabbath); then you shall present a new grain offering to the LORD

But if we use the LXX to help ,we find the word used is “FROM” not “TO” which BTW isnt in the hebrew text of this verse anyway
Lev. 23:16 ‘You shall count fifty days(FROM) the day after the seventh sabbath; then you shall present a new grain offering to the LORD.

There are so many ways this can be read that makes better sense than the traditional reading of later christianity

on 11 Oct 2010 at 6:17 pm190 robert
“the day after” is not the “following days after.” The day after means exactly “the next day.” Not the next few days.
————————————————————
“But if you want to change the meaning of “the day after” why don’t you change it here as well:

11 And he shall bring up the handful before the Lord, acceptable for you, on the morrow of the first the priest shall bring it up.

So maybe he means one of the days following the first day of unleavened bread, not on the very next day. So we can (according to your reasoning) understand the the counting as beginning on the first sunday after Passover, whether it was the very next day or not.”

Karl does this verse demand a count to fifty?NO
Even if i did it wouldnt change it because there is no context to take it beyond the next day.the context of the other verse is to fifty which comes after the seventh sabbath or seventh week neither identifying a certain day other than 50th day. In the LXX it is impossible to always be sunday and in the hebrew it still can mean what the LXX says and if you remove Day after to use After which is SUPPORTED it becomes one with the LXX

on 11 Oct 2010 at 8:02 pm191 Karl
Hi Robert,

The seventh sabbath set the context for the Phrase “first Sabbath” which sets all the others context of “one of the Sabbaths”

yes but it doesn’t say “first sabbath.” It says mia twn sabbatwn, “one of the sabbaths.” If you want to set the context we would have to see “seventh of the sabbaths,” which we do not see. That is because “mia twn sabbatwn” is an expression that refers to the first day of the week, as is recognized by all lexicons, scholars and translators. They come to this conclusion based on the historical use the idiom.

the word for day isnt there or needed unless your belief demands it.

The grammar demands that “day” is needed.

the context of the other verse is to fifty which comes after the seventh sabbath or seventh week neither identifying a certain day other than 50th day

No, it says the 50th day comes on the day after the seventh sabbath.

In the LXX it is impossible to always be sunday…

I never said it had to be Sunday every year. But we know that it was on a Sunday at least one year, the year Christ died.

in the hebrew it still can mean what the LXX says and if you remove Day after to use After which is SUPPORTED it becomes one with the LXX

The only way the Hebrew becomes one with the LXX is if sabbath means week, because the translator substituted week for sabbath. However, for some reason you don’t want to address this issue.

If you want to start removing phrases like “day after” why don’t you remove it from verse 11?

But then again it probably isnt relevent to the passages we are discussing.

Most of this discussion on Pentecost isn’t relevant for the discussion about mia twn sabbatwn. I could grant you that the rabbinic counting of Pentecost was the one in place in the 1st century for the sake of argument. It still wouldn’t change the fact that mia twn sabbatwn is a reference to the first day of the week. All it would mean is that the Rabbinic counting of Pentecost began on Sunday the year Christ died.

on 11 Oct 2010 at 8:33 pm192 robert
The seventh sabbath set the context for the Phrase “first Sabbath” which sets all the others context of “one of the Sabbaths”
———————————————————-
“yes but it doesn’t say “first sabbath.” It says mia twn sabbatwn, “one of the sabbaths.” If you want to set the context we would have to see “seventh of the sabbaths,” which we do not see. That is because “mia twn sabbatwn” is an expression that refers to the first day of the week, as is recognized by all lexicons, scholars and translators. They come to this conclusion based on the historical use the idiom.”

Karl
Mark 16:9 set this context when it states early on the FIRST SABBATH

—————————————————–
“the word for day isnt there or needed unless your belief demands it.”

“The grammar demands that “day” is needed.”

Karl no it doesnt, beliefs demands it

———————————————————

“The only way the Hebrew becomes one with the LXX is if sabbath means week, because the translator substituted week for sabbath. However, for some reason you don’t want to address this issue. ”

Karl
A completed seven day cycle is a week and Is not still the sabbath after it is completed only the sabbath till it is completed.
But the context of both is how to count to 50 in which A completed week or a completed Sabbath acheive the same but dont mean the same. A completed week has a sabbath in it but a completed sabbath has 24 hours and after the last second of it has past does a completed week come into existance. when one ends the other finally exist. a complte sabbath just identifies when a complete week ends

————————————————

“Most of this discussion on Pentecost isn’t relevant for the discussion about mia twn sabbatwn. I could grant you that the rabbinic counting of Pentecost was the one in place in the 1st century for the sake of argument. It still wouldn’t change the fact that mia twn sabbatwn is a reference to the first day of the week. All it would mean is that the Rabbinic counting of Pentecost began on Sunday the year Christ died.”

Karl sorry that is just not true

on 11 Oct 2010 at 9:35 pm193 Karl
Hi Robert,

Mark 16:9 set this context when it states early on the FIRST SABBATH

no, mark says first of the sabbath, not “first sabbath.” The context for “mia twn sabbatwn” (and first of sabbat) is the Jewish expression “echad b’shabbat” which means first day of the week. There is no context in Leviticus because the greek does not say “seventh of the sabbath.”

Karl no it doesnt, beliefs demands it

If you would have answered a grammatical question that I asked earlier you would know why your statement nonsense. In “mia twn sabbatwn” what gender is “mia” and what gender is “sabbatwn?” If you can get this you should be able to see why you need “day” in the phrase. If you don’t understand the grammar, don’t pretend you know what the grammar necessitates.

A completed seven day cycle is a week and Is not still the sabbath after it is completed only the sabbath till it is completed.
But the context of both is how to count to 50 in which A completed week or a completed Sabbath acheive the same but dont mean the same. A completed week has a sabbath in it but a completed sabbath has 24 hours and after the last second of it has past does a completed week come into existance. when one ends the other finally exist. a complte sabbath just identifies when a complete week ends

I really don’t understand what you are getting at. The Hebrew says that the 50th day is the day after the sabbath. The LXX translator translates “sabbath” with “week” proving that sabbath can mean week. But again, none of these verses actually help your case, so I’m not sure why we are still in Leviticus.

Karl sorry that is just not true

It is true because of the meaning of mia twn sabbatwn, which is a reference to the first day of the week. This is the way the phrase is used in historical documents. You have shown no evidence otherwise. Your whole argument appears to be based on a confusing explanation of Pentecost that doesn’t prove anything. As I said before, even if your view of Pentecost is correct, it would not change the meaning of mia twn sabbatwn. It would only mean that Pentecost was counted from a sunday the year Christ died.

on 11 Oct 2010 at 9:56 pm194 robert
“There is no context in Leviticus because the greek does not say “seventh of the sabbath.””

It it would be seven of the sabbath and your right it does say that.
But it DOES SAY FIRST SABBATH in Mark16;9 and the Seventh Sabbath set the context

“If you would have answered a grammatical question that I asked earlier you would know why your statement nonsense. In “mia twn sabbatwn” what gender is “mia” and what gender is “sabbatwn?” If you can get this you should be able to see why you need “day” in the phrase. If you don’t understand the grammar, don’t pretend you know what the grammar necessitates.”

Karl
You are not a scholar which is positively evident . the reference to the translations was a reference to scholars that state it doesnt mean first day of week. you are not qualified to do anything but follow scholars that need this translation to keep their belief, Almost all of the reference i provided made an oath to provide the best translation even if it was against their belief which you will find that none of them were sabbath keepers.

“That is because “mia twn sabbatwn” is an expression that refers to the first day of the week, as is recognized by all lexicons, scholars and translators. They come to this conclusion based on the historical use the idiom.”

Karl
So you purchased a greek translation program and downloaded some corrupt lexicon but you forgot that to properly use them you need to use something that can not be found online.

We need to agree to disagree and i know you will have to have last post so let me say i wont discuss this with you till you throw away your failed logic and resort to real logic.
Good night and have many inspired sabbaths because you need them

on 11 Oct 2010 at 11:05pm Karl

Hi Robert,

It it would be seven of the sabbath and your right it does say that.
But it DOES SAY FIRST SABBATH in Mark16;9 and the Seventh Sabbath set the context”

No, Leviticus says “seventh sabbath” and Mark says “first of the sabbath.” There is a different grammatical structure in use in these phrases. If you answered my question earlier about cases you would see what I mean.

You are not a scholar which is positively evident… So you purchased a greek translation program and downloaded some corrupt lexicon but you forgot that to properly use them you need to use something that can not be found online.

Like I said before you have know idea if I am a scholar or not. You don’t have the wherewithal to even judge the level of my greek. I have not bought nor do I use any translation program. The lexicon I generally use is the Liddel-Scott classical greek lexicon which is hardly corrupt.

May God bless your future sabbaths as well.
on 13 Oct 2010 at 4:45 pm16 robert

Mark
Thank you

Karl
I am not prolonging our discussion but i have to add a little more.
In Luke 6:1 these MSS (A C D Θ Ψ [Ë13] Ï lat) read ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ (en sabbatw deuteroprwtw) which translates second Sabbath after the first. From the Context of the passage we know it was positively a Sabbath and was while grain was in the field. The harvest started after the First Fruits and ended after pentecost. In the LXX it shows the count started after the first sabbath of Passover/Days of unleaven and seven complete weeks which we know a complete week ended with a completed Sabbath marking the time frame called week. So anytime we read a complete Sabbath we know it means the end of a seven day week not just seven days in a row. Consider that in Hebrew thought it applies any part of a day as a day and any part of a night as a night then it goes without saying that any part of a week is a week. So it doesnt matter in the count if it was only 2 days till a complete Sabbath that could be worded as a complete week. The only time a few days can not be a week is if a Sabbath was not completed at the end of a time frame.
The phrase en sabbatw deuteroprwtw can only mean the second Sabbath in the count from the after first day when the count started. It can not be refeing to the first weekly sabbath because the word second allready defines there was a first Sabbath of the same kind, so the first referenced must be of another kind.

Karl please include your explanation to complete this discussion
on 14 Oct 2010 at 5:03 am17 Karl

Hello Robert,

I am not prolonging our discussion but i have to add a little more.
In Luke 6:1 these MSS (A C D Θ Ψ [Ë13] Ï lat) read ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ (en sabbatw deuteroprwtw) which translates second Sabbath after the first. From the Context of the passage we know it was positively a Sabbath and was while grain was in the field. The harvest started after the First Fruits and ended after pentecost.

Unlike “mia twn sabbatwn” the meaning of “second sabbath” is actually disputed by scholars and many different theories of its meaning have been proposed. However, I agree that it may refer to the second sabbath after the counting towards Pentcost. But this point regarding the phrase ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ only further shows that “mia twn sabbatwn” has no reference to Pentecost. If ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ is used with reference to Pentecost then we would expect to find phrase ἐν σαββάτῳ πρώτῳ “the first sabbath” to refer to the first sabbath in the counting to Pentecost. However we do not find that, instead we find a different grammatical construction: “mia twn sabbatwn” which refers to the first day of the week.

In the LXX it shows the count started after the first sabbath of Passover/Days of unleaven and seven complete weeks which we know a complete week ended with a completed Sabbath marking the time frame called week. So anytime we read a complete Sabbath we know it means the end of a seven day week not just seven days in a row. Consider that in Hebrew thought it applies any part of a day as a day and any part of a night as a night then it goes without saying that any part of a week is a week. So it doesnt matter in the count if it was only 2 days till a complete Sabbath that could be worded as a complete week. The only time a few days can not be a week is if a Sabbath was not completed at the end of a time frame.

My point regarding Pentecost was that it occurred on the 50th day which was the day after the sabbath. All the references to weeks in your statements above only further prove the fact that “sabbath” can mean “week.” The word “week” is not even in the Hebrew text of Lev. 23. Because the LXX translator substituted “week” for “sabbath” we know that sabbath can mean week.
on 14 Oct 2010 at 8:16 am18 robert

“My point regarding Pentecost was that it occurred on the 50th day which was the day after the sabbath.”

Karl
In which neither the hebrew or the greek states, both just state AFTER, Day After is not what it says but the context demands a ending point sometime after the seventh Sabbath which has to be a day. so by putting day in this confuses the meaning

the use of week in the LXX is because it marks a particular time which the hebrew says is a completed Sabbath.

Thank you for great discussion
on 14 Oct 2010 at 9:37 am19 Karl

Hi Robert,

In which neither the hebrew or the greek states, both just state AFTER, Day After is not what it says but the context demands a ending point sometime after the seventh Sabbath which has to be a day. so by putting day in this confuses the meaning

It does not just say “after,” it says “on the morrow” which refers the morning of the next day.

the use of week in the LXX is because it marks a particular time which the hebrew says is a completed Sabbath.

Exactly, a completed sabbath (including the previous 6 days) means week. Therefore sabbath can mean week. This is why the Jews associated the word sabbath with week in the LXX and in the phrase “mia twn sabbatwn.”

You are welcome and have a great week
on 17 Oct 2010 at 11:43 am20 robert

Karl
I noticed that you feel the scribes and the Pharisees had nothing right and were not followers of God’s laws.
This is where you are totally wrong because it was the oral laws of the scribes and the Pharisees that was the traditions of men which added burdens to the Jews.
The fact that Yahshua/Yeshua/Jesus clearly states that according to the Law of Moses the scribes and the Pharisees
were completely right but their extra burdens(oral laws) were falsely added.
I think this bias has led you not to accept historical evidence.
KJV
Matthew 23
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

RSV
1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. 4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.
on 22 Oct 2010 at 4:59 pm21 robert

Karl
After careful study of all the facts I am going to have to Agree that “One of the Sabbaths” is not refering to weekly Sabbaths being counted. It is refering to Lunar Sabbaths that God appointed to set the date for Feast and holy days.
Twice in Leviticus 23 God gives us the means to determine the feast days. One from the start of the 1st month and the other from the 7th month.
Leviticus 23 1-22 are all refering to the first month which verses 1-3 sets the context of how the lunar sabbaths are to be determined. We find that the 15th and 22nd are high sabbaths with the 22nd being the 1st lunar sabbath in the count to 7 making it the end of “One of the Sabbaths”. This High Sabbath is a feast day as verses 1-3 defines and is exactly 1 week into the count because verses 1-3 shows these Sabbaths come the last day of a 7 day period which could be refered to as a week. From there if we follow this pattern there are 6 more weeks(7 day periods) that ends with an appointed Sabbath. These lunar Sabbaths are not set to certain days and can fall upon any day of the week.

Leviticus 23 22-43 the lunar Sabbaths are appointed by God on the 1st,10th ,15th and 22nd and need no explaination like is given in verses 1-3 because God gave clear instructions for these Sabbaths. The only thing verses1-3 set the context for that is relevent to verses 22-43 is that all High Sabbaths are feast

Therfore when this phrase”One of the Sabbaths” is used it is not meaning the day, it just refers to which 7 day period it was in.
In Luke 6:1 the second after the first is refering to which 7 day period it was in the count but in the following verses we find it was either a weekly sabbath during that 7 day period or a lunar Sabbath at the end of the 7 day period.
In Acts 20:7 the phrase “One of the Sabbaths” is refering to just which 7 day period in the count it was , but since they were possibly gathered for a feast it just might of been the 7th day of that 7 day period which was a High Sabbath.
In Acts 20:6 we find that the english translation has they sailed after the days of ULB but it would be better translated “during” and abode seven days could also be translated till the 7th day in which would of been the last day of the first 7 day period called the “One of the Sabbaths”

I do not believe that the weekly Sabbaths are determined by the moon but do now see that there are High Sabbaths determined by the moon.
on 11 Mar 2011 at 8:42 pm22 Doubting Thomas

Everyone,
With Easter approaching fast Robert sent me an email saying since he doesn’t celebrate Easter, he will be celebrating Passover, which according to his calculations will be the evening of the Sabbath Friday March 18th. He said all you need to do to celebrate the Passover is to eat some flat bread and some grape juice at supper.

I have never celebrated Passover before, but I thought I would join him. I just bought some flat bread today. Actually the only thing I could find was Pita bread, which I hope is the same thing. I will drink some wine and eat the Pita bread on the evening of Friday the 18th. I will of course say a few prayers and I think I might also sing a few hymns before praying. I find singing hymns before I pray gets me in the right state of mind, making me feel closer to our Father and His son Y’shua.

I also intend to celebrate Easter at the end of April as well…
on 12 Mar 2011 at 3:08 am23 Mark C.

I don’t know what “calculations” Robert is using, but according to the Jewish calendar which all Jews are currently using, Passover begins this year on Tuesday, the 19th of April and will continue for 7 days until Monday, the 25th of April.

http://www.when-is.com/passover-2011.asp

(From the above site: “Note that in the Jewish calander, a holiday begins on the sunset of the previous day, so observing Jews will celebrate Passover on the sunset of Monday, the 18th of April.”)

Furthermore, there is a lot more to observing Passover than just eating flat bread and drinking wine (not grape juice) according to the Old Covenant; whereas under the New Covenant, there IS NO Passover, but rather the Communion celebration which is not called a Passover in the New Testament.

I suggest picking one Covenant or the other, as a mixing of the two is nowhere supported in the Bible.

However, there’s nothing wrong with doing a Passover celebration if you want to learn about the elements of it and see how it foreshadowed the sacrifice of Jesus. If that is your goal, you should look into it on the internet, or perhaps find someone who knows about it, since there’s much more to it than the bread and wine.
on 12 Mar 2011 at 11:04 am24 Doubting Thomas

Mark C.
In Matthew 26:26-30 it says, “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” (27) And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, (28) for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (29) I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

If this is how Y’shua and his beloved disciples celebrated the last Passover, then I don’t see anything wrong with Robert and I trying to do the same thing. Robert has sent me several emails over the last several months outlining the intense research he has done investigating the Sabbath cycle and the Jubilee cycle, etc… He used data from NASA that tells us about the moon cycles going all the way to before the time of Y’shua.

Knowing the correct date is very important to him. This is why he spends so much of his time researching these things. To be quite honest most of what he said in those emails was above my humble ability to understand. I just think that since Robert is a very good friend of mine, and a fellow brother in Christ, that I should support him. Even if he and I are the only 2 people on the planet celebrating Passover on that day.

Robert sent me the following email last night. “Tom, I want to warn you that nobody is going to understand my calculation for the Passover when it goes against the Jewish reconning of the next full moon. So get ready for a few to correct you. I am pretty sure on my date, but still might do it again in April which the Law allows us to celebrate with those that couldn’t make in the first month. Have a blessed and inspiring Sabbath.”

I believe that our loving Father is more interested in our intentions then anything else. For example – If you intended to hurt someone, but mistakenly ended up helping them somehow, then I don’t think God would be pleased with your behavior. Even if there was a good result in the end. I don’t believe our loving Father will be angry at Robert or I for trying our best to follow the example of his beloved son Y’shua. Even if we make mistakes.

At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…
on 12 Mar 2011 at 11:22 am25 Doubting Thomas

Mark C.
Robert just sent me another email that says, “This is about How Y’shua instructed us to use His death as our Passover Sacrifice. His death not only gave us a way for Atonement it also perfected the sacrifices made from Adam till Y’shua’s death. This Passover meal was performed by Christians, even in Rome, till 325AD when it was declared a death penalty, and was performed by other groups outside of the Roman church from the Apostle’s time right up till even now, within a few groups.”

I really don’t see anything wrong with what Robert and I are doing…
on 12 Mar 2011 at 5:56 pm26 Mark C.

If this is how Y’shua and his beloved disciples celebrated the last Passover, then I don’t see anything wrong with Robert and I trying to do the same thing.

There is certainly nothing wrong with following Our Lord’s instructions in observing the remembrance of what he did – quite the opposite. We are told to do it. But what I am saying is that the Communion service is not the Passover service. In fact it has replaced the Passover in the New Covenant.

Robert has sent me several emails over the last several months outlining the intense research he has done investigating the Sabbath cycle and the Jubilee cycle, etc… He used data from NASA that tells us about the moon cycles going all the way to before the time of Y’shua.

We went around in circles on this before. Robert’s “research” fails to take into account some very basic facts, which he refused to acknowledge when they were pointed out to him. I cover them in this article:
http://www.godskingdomfirst.org/JesusPassover.htm

Robert just sent me another email that says, “This is about How Y’shua instructed us to use His death as our Passover Sacrifice. His death not only gave us a way for Atonement it also perfected the sacrifices made from Adam till Y’shua’s death. This Passover meal was performed by Christians, even in Rome, till 325AD when it was declared a death penalty, and was performed by other groups outside of the Roman church from the Apostle’s time right up till even now, within a few groups.”

I really don’t see anything wrong with what Robert and I are doing…

Like I said, there is nothing wrong with remembering Jesus’ death with the Communion service. But it was not called a Passover in the New Testament.
on 12 Mar 2011 at 7:31 pm27 Doubting Thomas

Mark C.
I tried your link and as usual I got the “Content Encoding Error – The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an invalid or unsupported form of compression.” For some reason I can’t seem to get anything from your site. It seems like my computer doesn’t like your computer, or something…

You are correct that the proper name of what we’re doing is called the communion service, but we are doing it on what we believe (at least hope) is Passover. We are doing it on the date of Passover instead of Easter to honor what Y’shua went through and to celebrate our Lord and Savior’s death and resurrection.

1st. Peter 1:3, says “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.”

Of course I realize what we are doing (on Passover) is not something that most Christians do. But like I said, I don’t see anything wrong with what Robert and I are doing. At least from my point of view anywaze. You might be right that I shouldn’t say we are celebrating Passover, but we are trying to do it on Passover…
on 12 Mar 2011 at 8:28 pm28 Mark C.

Thomas,

Didn’t you say a while back that your son had figured out what the problem was with your computer not accessing my site? Also at one point you were able to access it when I added “www” to the link, which I have done now. Try it again, and if you still can’t get there from the link, just go to the site directly, by typing “www.godskingdomfirst.org” into your browser’s address bar (without the quotes). From the main page of my site, go to the Etcetera page, and select the link to the article “Jesus and the Passover.”

It’s a wonderful idea to have a Communion service on Passover, and many Christians in fact do so, since it was at Passover that Jesus instituted Communion. But if you want to do this, why insist that the “real” Passover is not the same day that everyone in the world knows it to be? This makes no sense to me. Passover clearly begins on the 14th of Nissan in the Hebrew calendar, which this year coincides with April 18.

But if you want to have a Communion service on some other date, there is nothing wrong with that, since Communion was not intended to be only once a year like Passover. Jesus said to do it “as often as you eat/drink it.” So enjoy it and focus on what Jesus did for us, which is the point of Communion, not on the fact that some kind of research has given you special knowledge of when Passover “really” is. (Not saying you’re doing that, just that we want to avoid that kind of thinking.)
on 12 Mar 2011 at 11:10 pm29 Doubting Thomas

Mark C.
My son did correct some problems I was having, but I still seem to have problems with your site. I typed “www.godskingdomfirst.org” into the address bar and it worked. I did get to your site, but I could only read the first part of the “Jesus and the Passover” article though. When I tried clicking on the “Read More”, I got the same “Content Encoding Message” that I got before. I’ve always found computers very frustrating…

You said, “It’s a wonderful idea to have a Communion service on Passover, and many Christians in fact do so, since it was at Passover that Jesus instituted Communion.”

I had no idea that there were many Christians that did this.

You also said, “So enjoy it and focus on what Jesus did for us, which is the point of Communion, not on the fact that some kind of research has given you special knowledge of when Passover ‘really’ is.”

Robert has always been supportive of me. Right from the time I first came on to the site. He didn’t (and still doesn’t) agree with some of my unusual and controversial beliefs, but he respects my “doubting nature”, and respects my right to have my own unique beliefs. It sometimes felt like he was the only one on the site that would talk with me.

Because of his loyalty towards me, I feel I owe him the same respect for his most unusual and controversial beliefs. I don’t agree with all of his beliefs, but in this case (of when Passover is) I think God will look at our intentions, and forgive us if we might make any mistakes.

You also said, “But if you want to have a Communion service on some other date, there is nothing wrong with that, since Communion was not intended to be only once a year like Passover.”

That’s what I believe also. That’s why I don’t think there is anything wrong with what Robert and I are doing. BTW – I didn’t mean to come across that I thought I had some special knowledge that you and others didn’t have. If I did come across like that I apologize…
on 18 Mar 2011 at 9:57 am30 Doubting Thomas

Robert asked me to post the following about “What day did Jesus Die?”

Below is the contents of a letter found in Quaestiones ad Stephanum et
Marinum wrote by Eusebius of Caesarea( ref at bottom of page).
This subject which has been obscured by translator is how does Matthew’s
statement have Y’shua appearing late on the Sabbath when Mark’s has him
appearing early on mia ton Sabbaton(One of the Sabbaths) not be a
contradiction.
This is a very important letter in the fact that Eusebius uses clear
language that Matthew’s account has Y’shua already risen late on the Sabbath
when he appeared and makes the phrase “first day of the week” an impossible
translation..
Through my recent studies I have come to the conclusion that mia ton
sabbaton is not referencing a day at all but only the first week in the
count towards Pentecost which allows the 3rd day to harmonize with 3 days 3
nights as it should. I now only see one Sabbath Day that came between
Y’shua’s
death and resurrection and that was the High Sabbath of the Passover and
the next ending this 7 day week then the next at end of Two of the
Sabbaths.
I know there are several translations that have it “After the Sabbath” to
try to harmonize but literal would not be “After” it would be “Late” or
possibly “Later”. But if it was “After” it would make this letter not make
any sense at all because After the Sabbath in no way would contradict Early
on first day of the week.
I would be very interested in everyones thoughts on this letter written
around 300 AD in which the author knows nothing about a sunday resurrection.

Eusebius of Caesarea (early century IV) answers in a letter some probing
questions from a fellow named Marinus, one of which concerns the
harmonization of the resurrection accounts of Matthew and Mark. The question
in the letter, To Marinus, runs as follows:

Πως παρα μεν τω Ματθαιω οψε σαββατων φαινεται εγηγερμενος ο σωτηρ, παρα δε
τω Μαρκω πρωι τη μια των σαββατων;

How is it that in Matthew the savior appears late on the sabbath after he
has been raised, but in Mark it is early on the first day of the week?

To this (very good) question Eusebius gives two different answers. The first
answer is text-critical:

Τουτου διττη αν ειη η λυσις· ο μεν γαρ το κεφαλαιον αυτο την τουτο
φασκουσαν περικοπην αθετων, ειποι αν μη εν απασιν αυτην φερεσθαι τοις
αντιγραφοις του κατα Μαρκου ευαγγελιου· τα γουν ακριβη των αντιγραφων το
τελος περιγραφει της κατα τον Μαρκον ιστοριας εν τοις λογοις του οφθεντος
νεανισκου ταις γυναιξι και ειρηκοτος αυταις· Μη φοβεισθε· Ιησουν ζητειτε τον
Ναζαρηνον, και τοις εξης, οις επιλεγει· Και ακουσασαι εφυγον, και ουδενι
ουδεν ειπον, εφοβουντο γαρ.

The solution of this might be twofold. For the one who sets aside the
passage itself, the pericope that says this, might say that it is not extant
in all the copies of the gospel according to Mark. The accurate ones of the
copies, at least, circumscribe the end of the history according to Mark in
the words of the young man seen by the women, who said to them: Do not fear.
You seek Jesus the Nazarene, and those that follow, to which it further
says: And having heard they fled, and said nothing to anyone, for they were
afraid.

Εν τουτω γαρ σχεδον εν απασι τοις αντιγραφοις του κατα Μαρκον ευαγγελιου
περιγεγραπται το τελος· τα δε εξης σπανιως εν τισιν αλλ ουκ εν πασι φερομενα
περιττα αν ειη, και μαλιστα ειπερ εχοιεν αντιλογιαν τη των λοεπων
ευαγγελιστων μαρτυρια· ταυτα μεν ουν ειποι αν τις παραιτουμενος και παντη
αναιρων περιττον ερωτημα.

For in this [manner] the ending of the gospel according to Mark is
circumscribed almost in all the copies. The things that seldom follow, which
are extant in some but not in all, may be superfluous, and especially if
indeed it holds a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the
evangelists. These things therefore someone might say in avoiding and in all
ways doing away with a superfluous question.

This assessment of the manuscript evidence is part, of course, of a
potential apologetical answer, but we have no reason to think that Eusebius
is pawning off a lie. Furthermore, while both the opening and closing lines
of this first answer are in the optative mood, as expressing what an
apologist might say (ειποι), the actual manuscript statements are in the
indicative mood, as expressing the raw data upon which this hypothetical
apologetic answer would be based. As far as Eusebius is aware, then, the
following statements are both true:

1.. The majority (σχεδον εν απασι) of the copies of Mark end at 16.8.
2.. The accurate (ακριβη) copies of Mark end at 16.8.
The accurate copies, in other words, are a subset of the majority, and lack
any ending beyond 16.8.

The second answer is harmonistic:

Αλλος δε τις ουδ οτιουν τολμων αθετειν των οπωσουν εν τη των ευαγγελιων
γραφη φερομενων, διπλην ειναι φησι την αναγνωσιν, ως και εν ετεροις πολλοις,
εκατεραν τε παραδεκτεαν υπαρχειν, τω μη μαλλον ταυτην εκεινης, η εκεινην
ταυτης, παρα τοις πιστοις και ευλαβεσιν εγκρινεσθαι.

But someone else, [someone] who dares to set aside nothing at all in any
way of the things that are extant in the writing of the gospels, says that
the reading is double, as also in many other [passages], and each is to be
accepted, not this rather than that, or that than this, as the
classification of the faithful and the reverent.

Και δη τουδε του μερους συγχωρουμενου ειναι αληθους, προσηκει τον νουν
διερμηνευειν του αναγνωσματος· ει γουν διελοιμην την του λογου διανοιαν, ουκ
αν ευροιμεν αυτην εναντιαν τοις παρα του Ματθαιου· Οψε σαββατων εγηγερθαι
τον σωτηρα, λελεγμενοις· το γαρ· Αναστας δε πρωι τη μια του σαββατου, κατα
τον Μαρκον, μετα διαστολης αναγνωσομεθα· και μετα το· Αναστας δε,
υποστιξομεν· και την διανοιαν αφορισομεν των εξης επιλεγομενων· ειτα το μεν·
Αναστας, αν, επι την παρα τω Ματθαιω· Οψε σαββατων· τοτε γαρ εγηγερτο. το δε
εξης ετερας ον διανοιας υποστατικον συναψωμεν τοις επιλεγομενοις· πρωι γαρ
τη μια του σαββατου εφανη Μαρια τη Μαγδαληνη.

And indeed, this part granted to be true, it is fitting to interpret the
mind of the reading. If I at least grasp the meaning of the word, we should
not find that it is opposite to the things said by Matthew: Late on the
sabbath the savior was raised. For the [statement]: And having risen up
early on the first day of the week, according to Mark, we will read with a
pause. And after the [statement]: And having risen up, we will place a
comma. And we will divide the meaning of those things that are said
following. Then, on the one hand, the [statement]: Having risen up, might be
upon that of Matthew: Late on the sabbath, for then he was raised. On the
other hand, that which follows we might join together with the things said
after that, which gives rise to other meanings: For early on the one of the
sabbath he appeared to Mary Magdalene

Reference:
Exegetical and miscellaneous works
All of the exegetical works of Eusebius have suffered damage in
transmission. The majority of them are known to us only from long portions
quoted in Byzantine catena-commentaries. However these portions are very
extensive. Extant are:

An enormous Commentary on the Psalms.
A commentary on Isaiah, discovered more or less complete in a manuscript in
Florence early in the 20th century and published 50 years later.
Small fragments of commentaries on Romans and 1 Corinthians.

Eusebius also wrote a work Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum, “On the
Differences of the Gospels” (including solutions). This was written for the
purpose of harmonizing the contradictions in the reports of the different
Evangelists. The work existed in the 16th century, but has since been lost.
However a long epitome was discovered in the 19th century, and there are
also long quotations in the Catena on Luke of Nicetas. The original work was
also translated into Syriac, and lengthy quotations exist in a catena in
that language, and also in Coptic and Arabic catenas.

promoting the gospel of the kingdom and the creed of Jesus

What Day Did Jesus Die?

30 Responses to “What Day Did Jesus Die?”

Leave a Reply

Resources

Pages

Tags