Featured Did Jesus Rise from the Grave in Matthew 28:2-4?

Gerhard:

Matthew 28:1-4 What Happened?
Did Jesus rise from the dead when the angel opened the grave?
Have Christians believed so?
Have any Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead not then?
Other Scriptures mentioning time and place of Jesus’ resurrection?
Other sources than the Gospels?
OT Prophecies indicating place and time of Resurrection?
Has Matthew 28:1-4 been consistently translated through the ages?
WHY was Matthew 28:1-4 changed (again) only recently?
HOW did Christ Resurrect?
WHAT does Christ’s Resurrection Mean for “The Lord’s Day”?
These are some question that might be asked to answer before one even touched on the TEXTUAL and CONTEXTUAL, Grammatical and Syntactical, and Etymological and Critical factors and aspect in, of, and about the passage.
Please add questions you might think ought to be asked about the historical events mentioned in Matthew 28:2-4, in order to decide if those events had to do with Christ’s Resurrection?
Notice that I said, ‘historical events’. If you do not believe Matthew 28:28:1-4 and context are about real events and things but about for example myth and figurative metaphor merely, I politely request that you refrain from tabling such issues here because this study is undertaken from a believers’ stance.

It was Justin Martyr who for compromise and political gain for the Christians, first manipulated the text of Matthew 28:1-4 into "after the day called Saturn ... on the day of the Sun."
The question of the true words and their true meaning in Matthew 28:1-4 thus became the question of the traditions and commandments of men in place of God's Word INTACT "according to the Scriptures".
Justin’ letter betrays the reason for which he corrupted Matthew 28:1-4. Matthew 28:1-4 as it is in the original Greek text implies Christ resurrected on the Sabbath Day—Justin wanted it to say Christ rose from the grave on the First Day of the week, the pagan “Sunday” of his letter to the emperor.
Justin could not use any other Scripture for his evil design BECAUSE THERE IS NTHER SCRIPTURE which tells of the circumstances and events around Jesus’ Resurrection or of the day and time of day on which it happened. Justin had ONLY Matthew 28:1-4 for his premeditated and clearly motivated corruption.
Were it not Matthew 28:1-4 alludes to Jesus’ Resurrection, Justin would not have changed and corrupted the text so that it would mean Jesus resurrected on Sunday.
The many mystics and apologists, theologians, linguists and translators who without exception through the following centuries have made the same of Matthew 28:1-4 as did Justin Martyr, did so because it is the only referable passage in New Testament Scripture which related natural and super-natural events and circumstances, and human argument and planning, and dialogue with and witness of an angel, to the RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ from the realm of the dead and from the grave— indirectly as well as directly.
The specific day and time mentioned in the passage
Matthew 28:1-4 cannot be duly considered without bringing the bigger CONTEXT into account --- What have the FOUR Gospels to say concerning Jesus’ Resurrection : FROM : the GRAVE : as : in TIME : WHEN?
After which enquiry has been done, the bigger context must be FURTHER researched as to the context concerning Christ’s Resurrection IN MATTHEW— the last two chapters specifically, distinctly and uniquely.
This factor plays as importance a role as any other. The question whether or not Jesus’ RESURRECTION is the CONTENT and is of the ESSENCE in Matthew 28:1-4, cannot be answered or in the first place even be asked while not taking into proper consideration the WHOLE of chapters 27 and 28 of the Gospel of Matthew.

 

Samie:

Sadly, there is NOTHING in Matthew 28 that tells us WHEN the Lord resurrected. The WHEN is only ASSUMED. And the given reason is the earthquake. But Matthew himself tells us the reason for the earthquake is the descent of an angel from heaven, NOT necessarily the resurrection of the Lord:
Matthew 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
When the women arrived, the tomb was already empty, indicating the Lord Jesus had risen. But when?
Only Mark 16:9 (Greek) EXPLICITLY tells us the WHEN of Christ's resurrection: on "proi prote sabbatou". "sabbatou" refers to "sabbath" but it was made to refer to "week" instead, perhaps in an attempt to give a semblance of Scriptural authority to Sunday-keeping by translators who were themselves Sunday-keepers.
The Greek word for "week" is "hebdomas" and had Mark really meant "week" he should have used the genitive "hebdomados" instead of "sabbatou"!

Gerhard:

I beg to differ.
By the way, what is <<sad>> about Matthew 28:1-4?
According to Scripture then, “as it began to dawn towards the First Day of the week”, literally “Late on the Sabbath being in the mid-inclining daylight of the Sabbath”, and “the First Day was drawing near … there was a great earthquake” as Christ INSIDE THE GRAVE RESURRECTED FROM THE DEAD and <<exited the sepulchre, having been resurrected>>.
That is good yes, that is how the Scriptures tell us it happened really.

LHC:

Why, is that important?

Gerhard:

Right now because it is an exercise for me in peace and patience and better human relations.
You ask why it is important.
How could it be important to or for you if you haven't noticed it -- the day and time <<WHEN the Lord resurrected>> -- in Matthew 24:1-4?
THAT -- the day and time <<WHEN the Lord resurrected>> -- exactly IT, was WHY it was so important that everybody since Justin Martyr applied the Resurrection to the Christians' observance of Sunday.
Jesus' Resurrection would justify Sunday sacredness which is why Matthew 28:1-4 has always been so important and the ONLY supposed 'Scriptural reference' FOR THAT IMPORTANCE Christians attach to Sunday and attempt to invest with.

LHC:

There is only one day in the Word indicating the Lord's
day, and it isn't Sunday.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.Genesis 1:31 KJV
"And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because it was the day when he rested from all his work of creation."Genesis 2:3 KJV
"And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."Isaiah 58:12-14
The conclusion we come to comes from whether one wishes to take the Word as God gave it, seriously, or take directions from some other source as supreme.

 

Gerhard:

When I was still a kid, the SDA church taught me something, There are eight instances in the New Testament referring to the First Day of the week.
Either you, Samie, or, your church, the SDA church, does not know what it or you, are saying.
Which is it?
By the way, "sabbatou" in 1Corinthians 16:2.
So, according to you, the believers in Corinth had to save their charity not “on the First Day of the week”, but on the <first sabbath>. Not on the next and the next Sabbaths until
Paul would arrive?
First exception to Samie’s rule without exception!
Then why were 3 <different occurrences of “sabbatou> no longer <translated into “sabbath”?>
Which were those three instances, Samie? Please inform us on it?
I think, maybe Luke 13:16 where one would have to fast two weeks in one sabbath if ‘sabbatou’ must mean only ‘sabbath’.
Two exceptions to Samie’s without exception rule!
I wonder what that other <occurrence> was?
Let Samie tell us. I’m not going to do all his work for him.
There is EVERYTHING REQUIRED in Matthew 28:1 and context of the specific day and time of day, which <<tell us WHEN>> happened whatever happened.
THAT Matthew 28:1-4 <tells us> THAT the Lord then RESURRECTED, is what you, Samie, is denying and what all Christians of all times have always taken for granted as implied in Matthew 28:1-4.
Was everyone merely assuming without Scriptural basis that Matthew 28:1-4 IS ABOUT Jesus’ Resurrection?
My standpoint is NO --- opposite yours. Matthew chapters 27 and 28 in whole and 28:1-4 in particular REQUIRE AND DEMAND that Jesus’ Resurrection IS, implied in it.
You do not contend against <<WHEN>>—against the fact a day and time of day are delineated in Matthew 28:1-4 and are valid. Your highlighting above is misleading and you obviously intended it to be misleading.
<<<The WHEN>>> is NOT <<<only ASSUMED>>>.
<<The WHEN>> is the first GIVEN as clear and simple
and unambiguous as at least four perspectives projected and focussed on the day and the time of the day in Matthew 28:1-4 can make it.
You DENY the real reason implied for the given of the day and time of the day—Jesus’ Resurrection FROM THE GRAVE. Instead you ALLEGE <<<the given reason>>> for the given day and time of the day <<<is the earthquake>>>. Then you try to smooth-talk your false reason of the earthquake, saying, <<<But Matthew himself tells us the reason for the earthquake is the descent of an angel from heaven, NOT necessarily the resurrection of the Lord:>>>
NECESSARILY the Resurrection say I in chorus with all Christians of all ages.
NOT <<necessarily the resurrection>> say you, Samie; or rather, <necessarily not, the resurrection>>.
Here lies the crux —forget Samie now—, Because the incontrovertible day and time of day is unequivocally STATED in Matthew 28:1-4, but has never been or meant Sunday but the Sabbath, Justin first CHANGED the language in Matthew 28:1 and forced it into the literally opposite and opposing day and time of the day on SUNDAY. And followed suit [almost] all Christians after him.
WHY?
Because THEY ALL – including the few who did not follow suit – saw Jesus’ RESURRECTION in the passage and wider context of Matthew 28:1-4.

Samie:

Where in Matthew 28:1-4 does it say that Jesus resurrected when the earthquake occurred? NOTHING there. Only ASSUMPTION. Here are those verses:
KJV Matthew 28:
1 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. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
If we are to base what we preach on mere ASSUMPTION, then we can preach white is actually black.

Gerhard:

That is what I am doing; I am showing it not merely is assumption, but that EVERY ASPECT AND FACTOR AND FACT in Matthew chapters 27 and 28 INVOLVED, proves Christ’ RESURRECTION implied in 28:1-4.
I have referred to Christianity which as one body has ALWAYS agreed the Lord’s Resurrection is THE PRESUPPOSED TRUTH PRESENT behind, underneath, around, over, and permeating the whole passage and everything mentioned by word in it.
Samie says all Christianity has always assumed the non-existent.
But Christ’s Resurrection ONLY IS OF SIGNIFICANCE and therefore is the only assumable, presumable, expectable, probable, and possible TRUE AND REAL EVENT which set in motion and coordinated all the interacting supernatural powers and events and realities RECORDED in Matthew 28:1-4.
The earthquake marked Jesus’ RESURRECTION— or it was of no meaning or impact worth mentioning or remembering. So did the angel’s descent and brilliance ‘throw LIGHT’ upon Jesus’ RESURRECTION or in itself it was but an aimless and incidental lightning bolt that struck and stultified a dismal guard for no good.
Sure it is undeniable one must assume; but it is more inevitable that one must assume and imagine because that is the best a human being can do. He MUST BELIEVE or be oblivious to the “ALL-EXCEEDING GREATNESS OF GOD’S POWER TO US-WARD WHO BELIEVE, ACCORDING TO THE WORKING OF HIS MIGHTY STRENGTH WHICH HE WROUGHT, AVAILED AND TRIUMPHED IN WHEN HE RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD.”
Samie, your ‘view’ is BEREFT of “THE GLORY OF THE FATHER BY WHICH GOD RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD”.

Samie:

The resurrection of our Lord is NOT an ASSUMPTION. It is a fact.
It is the ASSUMPTION that the earthquake mentioned in Matt 28:1-4 signaled the resurrection of our Lord that is a MYTH. Why? Because there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from Scriptures that proves it. In those four verses themselves is stated the reason for the earthquake: it was the descent of an angel from heaven, NOT necessarily the resurrection of our Lord:
Matthew 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

Krause:

From the CJB: Mark 16:9
When Yeshua rose early Sunday, he appeared first to Miryam of Magdala, from whom he had expelled seven demons.
Translated by a Jewish scholar.

Samie:

I prefer to believe the 70 Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into the Septuagint.
Consistently, the 70 scholars translated "sabbatou" from
the Hebrew "shabbath" and NEVER from "shabua" which is Hebrew for "week". Whenever "shabua" occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures, the 70 scholars had it translated into "hebdomas",
Greek for "week". see Gen 29:27, 28; Dan 9:27
Had Mark really intended "week" instead of "sabbath" why did he not use the genitive "hebdomados", instead of "sabbatou"?

 

Gerhard:

Samie, what for, do you differ with Krause?!
He says JUST what you say --- which Mark, NEVER—despite all the learning of all Jews and Sunday-Christians through the ages jointly—have said.
GREEK --- literal, correct, GREEK of Mark 16:9 brings to NAUGHT all mighty Jews in CAHOOTS with Sunday-Christians' scheming and LYING against unequivocal WRITTEN TEXT from the pre-Sunday era, of PURE, SCRIPTURE.
Both Krause's quote and your renderings of Mark 16:9 are FRAUDULENT UNGODLY AND UN-CHRISTIAN FAKE!
We have been over Mark 16:9 many times. It is not here the subject of enquiry.
You are forced to immediately try to divert the discussion to your OLD FRAUD because you have nothing else to find a foot-hold on.
You do not allow to let the discussion take its disciplined course which I spelled out from the start— that MATTHEW must be the expositor of MATTHEW.
We haven't properly begun to study MATTHEW or you resorted to your over-familiar nonsensical arrogant extra- and anti-Scriptural 'helps'.
Before we go back to Matthew, let it be made clear, that Mark 16:9 says “(Christ-)The-Risen appeared”; IT DOES NOT SAY “Christ rose”. I will NOT sit in the circle of LIARS who corrupt GOD’S, Written Word and thereby corrupt the Cause of Jesus Christ which is the Cause of TRUTH and not of the father of lies the murderer from the beginning the devil,
satan.
CHOOSE YOU THIS DAY WHOM YOU WILL SERVE! I, will NOT serve the LIE! So help me God.
Now back to MATTHEW!!

Samie:

You have such a FOUL MOUTH, Gerhard, that it is close to IMPOSSIBLE to have an intelligent discussion with you.
You pretend to be such an intelligent person who knows everything, and ARROGANTLY parades in this forum that the EARTHQUAKE in Matt 28:2 signaled the resurrection of the Lord and yet CONTINUALLY & MISERABLY fails to show the biblical basis for your CONCOCTED MYTH.
Now show me where in Matthew does it say that the earthquake signaled Jesus' resurrection, or be found a LYING IGNORANT PRETENDER!
Sorry for my words, but I think you need a bump to awaken you out of your hallucination.

Gerhard:

Just as a point of interest,
The Catholic Church have mostly held to Matthew’s ‘primacy’.
Only after the Reformation voices began to be heard championing the ‘primacy of Mark’.
Personally I believe in the ‘primacy of Mark’.
But not wholly.
Because it is a known fact Mark’s ending from 16:9 was a ‘late addition’ to the body of Mark’s ‘original text’. That does not—in my opinion—mean the said ‘ending’ is not authentic and authoritative.
I believe it is because Mark 16:9 makes perfect sense in the position it was added on.
Thus CHRONOLOGICALLY Jesus already must have
been “RISEN” because the grave was confirmed open, empty and deserted in Mark 16:2-8 already.
And so, “early on the First Day of the week”—Mark 16:9, maybe a little while after sunrise when one might expect a “GARDENER” to have arrived in his “GARDEN” to work, John 19:11-17, “(Jesus) as the Risen One APPEARED to Mary Magdalene early on the First Day of the week.”
Now what is ambiguous or difficult to understand in that? There is nothing one cannot EASILY understand about it!
But have the Resurrection IMPLIED AND FINISHED AND PAST ALREADY “When the Sabbath had passed” in Mark 16:1, and … again have stated and CONFIRMED the grave was empty and “HE IS NOT HERE BUT IS RISEN” in Mark 16:2-8, and … one has to AGAIN read in verse 9, “Jesus ROSE”?!
It simply won’t make sense and would appear to be a complete overkill. One would immediately realise there is fault with the language used. Which in fact, “Jesus ROSE”, is—a deliberated corruption to favour Sunday-sacredness by reason of Jesus' resurrection SUPPOSEDLY on it.
Now it is the VERY SAME ASSUMPTION Samie is taking advantage of and has added an extra twist to.
But as I said … just as a point of interest …
So let us return to our study of Matthew, DV.

Samie:

Still no biblical proof for your earthquake-based-resurrection MYTH in Matthew, Gerhard? I'm beginning to get bored waiting.

Gerhard:

I have no answer for the <<<earthquake-based-resurrection MYTH in Matthew>>>; I told you from my first post I believe it was a real Divine event.

Samie:

Then your belief is based on what the Bible does not say.
As to your CORRUPTION of Mark's "sabbatou" into "week", have you found Scriptural basis for it?
Again, the 70 scholars consistently translated "sabbatou" from the Hebrew "shabbath" and NEVER from "shabua" which is Hebrew for "week". Whenever "shabua" occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures, the 70 scholars had it translated into "hebdomas", Greek for "week". see Gen 29:27, 28; Dan 9:27
Had Mark really intended "week" instead of "sabbath" why did he not use the genitive "hebdomados", instead of "sabbatou"?
Any ace up your sleeves, Gerhard?

 

Gerhard:

My <<CORRUPTION>>? What do you mean, mine? And what do you mean <<Mark's "sabbatou" into "week">>, is a corruption if it is <Mark’s>?
And what if for nearly 2000 years now Mark’s ‘sabbatou’ in its context in 16:9 has been “week” for every Christian in those 2000 years? (And again, why would it be my, <corruption>?) But the actual ‘question’ here, is, Why would <<Mark’s ‘sabbatou’ into “week”>> be a corruption?
Because Mark’s, isn’t the LXX’s of 300 years before Mark's?
New Testament Hellenistic Greek is not the “old Greek” of the Septuagint. There are many, many, and great, differences. You do not know them.

Samie:

Since you know them, what is the difference between the "sabbatou" of what you call "New Testament Hellenistic Greek" from the "sabbatou" of the old Greek of the Septuagint, and cite your basis, NOT just your own, because we both were not yet born that time.

Gerhard:

One of the differences appears in the different words used for the concept of the seven days cycle in human history which is determined by the Seventh Day of the week Sabbath of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures.

Samie:
So, from "sabbatou" = "sabbath" in the "old Greek" of the Septuagint, are you now saying "sabbatou" = "week" in your "New Testament Hellenistic Greek"?

Gerhard:

Definitely not!
THAT exactly is what YOU claiming, is a liar for! THIS exposes YOUR fraud and proves my honesty.
“Believe me, I speak as my understanding instructs me and as mine honesty puts it to utterance.” Archidamus.
Your dishonesty prevents you from putting to utterance ‘sabbatou’ in its contextual PHRASING and so restricts its meaning to your schemed fraud, making ‘sabbatou’ mean exclusively ‘sabbath’ and under no circumstance, ‘week’.
How many times now have I dared you to at least QUOTE ‘sabbatou’ in Mark 16:9 IN CONTEXT.

Samie:

If you are not LYING, can you explain why in the 13 different occurrences of "sabbatou" in the New Testament, 10 of them were still translated into "sabbath"?

Gerhard:

I am telling you AGAIN, your allegation that <<Whenever "shabua" occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures, the 70 scholars had it … consistently … translated into "hebdomas">> is faulty. I gave you two exceptions. You pretend you didn’t see it. So now your allegation no longer is a
mistake merely; it has become a wilful, LIE.

Samie:

Ohh, have you really already told me? Can you show me those two EXCEPTIONS again? If none, then you are the LIAR. I will wait.
I was responding to pkrause, Gerhard, relative to Mark 16:9. You jumped in onboard our discussion and then
complain why you are aboard. You can get off, if you want.
I went back to your issue of earthquake-based-resurrection in Matthew, but you threw in the towel even before the first round is over. Should I continually hit a fallen opponent?
From Hebrew to Greek to English, the Septuagint has everything to do with Mark in the translation of "sabbatou" into "week" and into "Sunday". If there is one authoritative document that can guide us now whether a word borrowed by the Greeks from the Hebrews is correctly translated into English or into any other language, it is the Septuagint.
The Septuagint or the Greek OT, is the work of the 70 Jewish scholars, a direct translation from Hebrew into Koine Greek, the language in the New Testament time. "sabbatou" from "sabbaton" is adapted by the Greeks from the Hebrew "shabbath". In the Septuagint, all occurrences of "sabbatou" were from "shabbath" (see 2 Chr 23:8; Neh 10:32; 13:15, 17, 19, 22; 2 Macc 5:25; 8:26; Ps 37:1; 47:1; 91:1; Isa 66:23; Lam 2:6 and NOT for once from "shabua", Hebrew for week. Also, all occurrences of "hebdomas" - Greek for "week" - in the Septuagint were from "shabua" and NOT for once from "shabbath". These occurrences of "hebdomas" were translated into "week" in our English Bibles (see Gen 29:27,28; Dan 9:27).
Thus, this tells us that translating "sabbatou" in Mark 16:9 into "week" is inconsistent with the original meaning of the Hebrew word from which the Greek "sabbatou" was derived. In the New Testament, there are TEN (10) other occurrences of "sabbatou" which were translated into "sabbath" (see Matt 12:8; Mark 2:28; 6:2; 16:1; Luke 6:5; 13:14, 16; 14:5; John 19:31; Acts 1:12).
Again, had Mark really meant "week" instead of "sabbath" why did he not use the genitive "hebdomados", but instead used "sabbatou"?
Now where are the 2 EXCEPTIONS you said you gave
me regarding the Hebrew "shabua": Are you now trying to evade this issue? I am still waiting, so you won't be found LYING.

 

Gerhard:

Ezekiel 45:21, “have the passover a feast of ‘SHABUA’” : LXX, ‘heorteh: HEPTA HEHMERA adzuma esesthe’.

Samie:

"HEPTA HEHMERA" is "Seven days" and that is a "week". There are 79 other verses more of this kind. But where is "shabua" translated into "sabbaton" in the LXX, to justify translating "sabbatou" in Mark 16:9 into "week"? NONE!

Gerhard:

Quoting Samie: <<<Consistently, … Whenever "shabua" occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures, the 70 scholars had it … consistently … translated into "hebdomas".>>>
Quoting Samie: <<<Again, … Whenever "shabua" occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures, the 70 scholars had it
translated into "hebdomas".>>>

Samie:

But where is "shabua" translated into "sabbaton" in the LXX?

Gerhard:

Exodus 31:15 ‘hebdomos’ for ‘sabbaton’ for the Seventh Day Sabbath;
Exodus 31:15 ‘sabbaton’ for ‘hebdomos’ for the Seventh Day Sabbath;
1Kings 8:2 ‘sabbaton’ for ‘hebdomos’ for “the Seventh Month”;
1Kings 16:10,15 ‘sabbaton’ for ‘hebdomos’ for “seventh year”.
See 1Chronicles 26:5 ‘hepta’ for ‘hebdomos’ for “seven”.
It seems ‘exceptions’ have the tendency to increase.
What PUZZLES me most, is that you, Samie, allege that <<<the 70 scholars consistently translated "sabbatou" from the Hebrew "shabbath" and NEVER from "shabua" which is Hebrew for "week">>>, and that <<<Whenever "shabua" occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures, the 70 scholars had it translated into "hebdomas", Greek for "week"…>>> OK?
Now then, for what I pray you DO YOU ARGUE THIS POINT while it <consistently> is your purpose to translate ‘SABBATH’ / ‘CHIEF SABBATH’ from Greek ‘sabbatou’ <<<from the Hebrew "shabbath">>> which almost without exception in the LXX is "SABBATH" and not ‘hebdomos’?
I submit THAT, I cannot understand IT IS SO IRRELEVANT AND CONFUSING.

LHC:

I can only suggest that if I obey the desires of our Lord, I would find this post above and immediate preceding ones, extremely difficult in finding the Way, the Truth and the Life.
"Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein."Mark 10:15 KJV
"“No, we don’t know, Lord,” Thomas said. “We have no idea where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is. From now on, you do know him and have seen him!”"John 14:5-7 NLT
God cares! Jesus saves!

Gerhard:

I do not believe you, LHC; you did not find my post <extremely difficult>.
You found it extremely CONVENIENT not to address the issue involved which made it even easier for you to weave in condemning innuendos directed at me, personally, and indirectly against the TRUTH of the matter which I am the only one to defend while all the SDAs SEEING the Truth which YOU say yourself you believe, being attacked, distorted and corrupted by Samie.
I say here before God and before you and every Seventh-day Adventist reading these pages, I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, and I will say this today and here, THROUGH THE GRACE OF GOD, I have fought the Good Fight for the Truth of the Good News of Salvation "ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES".
So help me God

LHC:

Sorry you believe that way.
"Love bears up under anything and everything that comes, is ever ready to believe the best of every person, its hopes are fadeless under all circumstances, and it endures everything [without weakening]."1 Cor 13:7 AMP
brackets theirs' LHC
Taking the above into consideration, I'm sure you have your reasons.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
John 3:16-18 KJV

 

Joe:

I'm reading through this thread; and I just don't get why people are so up in arms. If being saved requires the infinite research into the minutia that you all are doing, I'm a lost soul. Unless the gospel is easy enough for the average guy to grasp, it ain't the gospel.
Not trying to be crass, but why should I care what specific day of the week that Christ rose (or what day of the week He died on, for that matter)? The important thing is that He rose from the dead - which is the Father's sign that Jesus' sacrifice was acceptable. If you want to be technical, Jesus rose 2 or 3 days after Passover, regardless of what day of the week that was. Jesus came to fulfill what Passover means, not to certify Saturday or Sunday worship. Sunday keepers can say that Jesus rising on Sunday is the reason they worship on Sunday (not withstanding that there is nothing in scripture that backs Sunday keepers up). Sabbath keepers can say "Jesus rested in the tomb on the 7th day, showing he rested after both creation and redemption". Both statements pale in importance (at least to me) when considering the fact that He rose from the dead - PERIOD - no matter what day of the week He did it on.

LHC:

If the particular day was of no significance, would this below have been written for our guidance?
"And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. "Matthew 24:20-21 NKJV
"For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.
And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord."Isaiah 66:22-23 KJV
God cares! Jesus saves!

Joe:

I fail to see what the scriptures you quoted have to do with what day Jesus rose from the dead.

Gerhard:

Joe, you implicate a myriad of DOCTRINES with this denial of yours of the SIMPLE reading of what “IS WRITTEN”, trying your best to stay with the basics --- while ignoring the basics which is “IT IS WRITTEN”.
The ostrich proverbially sticks his head in under the sand as if there nowhere is the lion stalking in on him.
Notice YOUR DOCTRINE in this statement:
<<<Jesus rested in the tomb on the 7th day, showing he rested after both creation and redemption.>>>
Do you know just HOW MUCH ‘DOCTRINE’ you just ‘say’ as if there is no doctrine in it?
But state the TRUE doctrine, USING SCRIPTURE, namely, Jesus rested in having RAISED from the tomb “on the Sabbath Day” showing “God the Seventh Day rested” after both creation and redemption— and it is <<crass>>, <<of no significance>>, and has nothing to do <<with what day Jesus rose from the dead>>. In other words, It is a LIE!
Only state a doctrine you are not familiar with, and you
bring it down with all the force you can muster. You, decided:
<<<the particular day was of no significance>>>. The LAW is YOU!
But I tell you, the MERE FACT IT IS WRITTEN, makes it what Paul said it was: “THE MOST IMPORTANT”!
Which importance of it being “WRITTEN”, fades against the importance and significance in that “GOD the Seventh Day REVIVED”—“revived”: IN CHRIST; and in Christ having “revived”, “RESTED”—“rested” IN CHRIST, and in Christ having “rested”, “IN THE SEVENTH DAY FINISHED”.
Ag, blah blah blah … I hear you say in your hearts. It’s him again, the poor man. Meanwhile it is you who is missing out on the “Sabbaths’ Feast of CHRIST THE SUBSTANCE”.
If it were of no importance or significance which day Christ rose from the dead on, the Sabbath would be of no importance or significance. The Scriptures would be crap. And no attempt to rot a hole through the crap would be attempted so that the Sabbath’s Divine belonging to the Lord of it COULD BE STOLEN FOR THE DAY OF THE LORD SUN.
And “the Son of Man, LORD of the Sabbath” would appear helpless to “KEEP the Sabbath”, “the Holy Day of the LORD” “from polluting, and done evil” to.

Samie:

But where is "shabua" translated into "sabbaton" in the LXX, to justify translating "sabbatou" in Mark 16:9 into
"week"?

Gerhard:

That the LXX translated Hebrew ‘shabua’ with ‘hebdomos’ FOR “WEEK”— no one questions; but it also DOES NOT <justify> OR disqualify translating "sabbatou" in Mark 16:9 into "week". The Gospel writers knew ‘hebdomos’ stood for “the week”. THEY CHOSE NOT TO USE ‘hebdomos’ BUT PREFERRED THE WORD ‘SABBATH’ WHICH THEY KNEW DETERMINED THE WEEK.

 

Samie:

"Sabbath" refers to a SINGLE day. "Week" refers to 7 days. The Gospel writers were NOT inspired to write ABSURD ideas like writing "Sabbath" when they meant "week". Your last sentence made the Gospel writers look like writers of ABSURDITY.

Gerhard:

No; it is you again multiplying your absurdities.
I just hope that you will LEARN from your absurdity this time. Because you are RIGHT this time.
Here you must be able to see for yourself, ‘sabbatou’ when a single word will naturally mean <<a single day>>—naturally a single ‘sabbath’: ‘of (a) sabbath’ (Genitive).
But in Mark 16:9 ‘sabbatou’ is but one of three words in a single PHRASE THAT CHANGES the meaning from ‘of a sabbath’ into “of the week”—in this case “on the First- (Day-) of the WEEK”.
So the Gospel writers chose not to use ‘hebdomos’ but preferred the word ‘sabbath’ which they knew determined the week. Therefore the requirement that the LXX must have translated “SABBATH” into “week” or the Gospel writers had no right to do it, is an irrelevant, artful and ridiculous condition.
The New Testament uses its OWN Greek and created its OWN terminology and phraseology to serve the Gospel as fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
Although the Seventy were scholars in Hebrew and Greek, it does not mean they knew the Gospel like the Evangelists did who again did not know Hebrew like the 70 did. The probability is great the Gospel-writers did not know how to write or even speak Hebrew! But they were Sabbath-believers and –keepers who THEREFORE translated “week” as coming from the ACTUAL “day The Seventh Day Sabbath OF THE LORD GOD” THEY BELIEVED IN.

Samie:

I prefer to believe the 70 Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into the Septuagint.

Krause:

What does the Septuagint have to do with Mark????? The Septuagint is the OT.

Gerhard:

Exactly, Krause, short and sweet!

Samie:

From Hebrew to Greek to English, the Septuagint has everything to do with Mark in the translation of "sabbatou" into "week" and into "Sunday". If there is one AUTHORITATIVE document that can guide us now whether a word borrowed by the Greeks from the Hebrews is correctly translated into English or into any other language, it is the Septuagint.
The Septuagint or the Greek OT, is the work of the 70 Jewish scholars, a direct translation from Hebrew into Koine Greek, the language in the New Testament time. "sabbatou" from "sabbaton" is adapted by the Greeks from the Hebrew "shabbath". In the Septuagint, all occurrences of "sabbatou" were from "shabbath" (see 2 Chr 23:8; Neh 10:32; 13:15, 17, 19, 22; 2 Macc 5:25; 8:26; Ps 37:1; 47:1; 91:1; Isa 66:23; Lam 2:6 and NOT for once from "shabua", Hebrew for week. Also, all occurrences of "hebdomas" - Greek for "week" - in the Septuagint were from "shabua" and NOT for once from "shabbath". These occurrences of "hebdomas" were translated into "week" in our English Bibles (see Gen 29:27,28; Dan
9:27).
Thus, this tells us that translating "sabbatou" in Mark 16:9 into "week" is inconsistent with the original meaning of the Hebrew word from which the Greek "sabbatou" was derived. In the New Testament, there are TEN (10) other occurrences of "sabbatou" which were translated into "sabbath" (see Matt 12:8; Mark 2:28; 6:2; 16:1; Luke 6:5; 13:14, 16; 14:5; John 19:31; Acts 1:12).
Again, had Mark really meant "week" instead of "sabbath" why did he not use the genitive "hebdomados", but instead used "sabbatou"?

Gerhard:

Samie, you have won the battle to DERAIL the topic. All honour due for that, is yours, Samie.
Therefore, while we now ARE off topic, for the umpteenth time, the issue in Mark 16:9 is not about whether or not 'sabbatou' is the Greek for 'sabbath' Singular, Genitive.
I have brought this under your attention how many times, but you are trying very hard to make it seem I did not. Or you are trying hard to make it seem you deny or reject what I tell you. But you won’t say it hard enough—some one might hear you. So just pretend I never told you.
You say it openly, or I, WILL!
I tell you here again, NNE has any argument with the term 'sabbatou' or its meaning. You can blow it up the size of the universe, its all your own recycled breath.
First find out ... no don't find out because you already know ... first BRING the real subject-MATTER IN Mark 16:9 … about which specifically the controversy involving the term ‘sabbatou’ is going … ON THE TABLE : EXPOSE IT, so that the debate can go on.
Or am I forced to do it for you? Just tell me, and I'll save face on your behalf.

 

Samie:

In the New Testament, there are TEN (10) other occurrences of "sabbatou" which were translated into "sabbath" (see Matt 12:8; Mark 2:28; 6:2; 16:1; Luke 6:5; 13:14, 16; 14:5; John 19:31; Acts 1:12).

Gerhard:

So what?
“The day of the Sabbath” or “on the day of the Sabbath” it’s the Sabbath Day itself / as such / per se / of course.
But, if this <<occurrence of "sabbatou" … translated into "sabbath" … see Mark 16:1>> is not a blunder, it must be a lie.
Because “on the first day of the Sabbath” is nonsense; but “on the First Day of the week” is perfect sense.

Samie:

Mark 16:1 does not talk of any first day. It's you who BLUNDERED and must be LYING and talking NONSENSE because Mark 16:1 does not talk of any first day.

Gerhard:

And if this, <<occurrence of "sabbatou" … translated into "sabbath" … see John 19:31>> is not a blunder, it must be a lie.
Because “since it was The Preparation that day [‘Friday’, “which is the Fore-Sabbath”], that day was great-day-sabbath” of passover and not the Sabbath which is the Seventh Day of the week.

Samie:

What is the difference between the "sabbatou" of what
you call "New Testament Hellenistic Greek" from the "sabbatou" of the old Greek of the Septuagint, and cite your basis, NOT just your own, because we both were not yet born
that time.

Gerhard:

There – per se – is no <<difference between the "sabbatou" of "New Testament Hellenistic Greek">>, and <<the "sabbatou" of the old Greek of the Septuagint>>.
The difference(s) that incurred with the beginning of the Gospel-era all received the GOSPEL of Christ for and as <<basis>>.
But also ordinary linguistic factors like CONTEXT, Grammar and Idiom play a role in determining what meaning of words and phrases should apply.
Each incidence must be studied individually to see if a general or specific meaning applies.
But Samie is so well versed in both Hebrew and Greek that he can make random and sweeping generalisations IGNORING everything except dictionary definitions as long as they suit himself, his shrewd schemes, and his inspired dreams.

Samie:

The Septuagint or the Greek OT, is the work of the 70 Jewish scholars, a direct translation from Hebrew into Koine Greek, the language in the New Testament time.

Gerhard:

"The terminus a quo for the Septuagint is 250 BC."
Cover note. The New Testament was written plus minus from 50 to 100 AD.
300 years separate the LXX and the NT.
Samie says <<<The Septuagint or the Greek OT, is ... a
direct translation from Hebrew into Koine Greek, the language in the New Testament time.>>>
That's nonsense of course.
But besides the TIME-factor and other factors e.g.,
demographic, geographical, cultural, political --the list is unending-- which caused differences between and changes in the Greek of around 250 BC and 80 AD, the SUBJECT-MATTER of the LXX and NT was the great cause and most basic <<basis>> of ESSENTIAL differences found in or between the LXX and the NT.
To claim <<<The Septuagint or the Greek OT, is … a … translation … into Koine Greek, the language in the New Testament time>>> is most absurd.

Samie:

In the Septuagint, all occurrences of "sabbatou" were from "shabbath" (see 2 Chr 23:8; Neh 10:32; 13:15, 17, 19, 22; 2 Macc 5:25; 8:26; Ps 37:1; 47:1; 91:1; Isa 66:23; Lam 2:6 and NOT for once from "shabua", Hebrew for week. Also, all occurrences of "hebdomas" - Greek for "week" - in the Septuagint were from "shabua" and NOT for once from "shabbath". These occurrences of "hebdomas" were translated into "week" in our English Bibles (see Gen 29:27,28; Dan 9:27).

 

Gerhard:

Samie’s main argument must be clearest where he uses expressions like <<all>> and <<NOT for once>>, like here,
<<<__all__ occurrences of "hebdomas" - Greek for "week" - in the Septuagint were from "shabua" and __NOT for once__ from "shabbath". These occurrences of "hebdomas" were translated into "week" in our English Bibles…>>>—Old Testament no need to say.
May I summarise Samie’s MAIN ARGUMENT and say how I understand it.
What Samie means, is that, in the New Testament and especially in Mark 16:9 the Greek word ‘sabbatou’ cannot mean ‘the week’ but must mean ‘the Sabbath’—exactly—<<the FIRST Sabbath>> … in his words own words, <<Chief
Sabbath>>.
Samie’s reason for this?
That if Mark wanted to say “the First Day of the week” in 16:9, the Greek word which he used in 16:9, ‘sabbatou’, would in the LXX be used to express the concept of ‘the week’.
But since, according to Samie, the Hebrew word ‘shabbath’ is <not once> found in the LXX translated with the word ‘hebdomos’ and the word ‘hebdomos’ in the LXX according to Samie is found <not once> used for the Sabbath, the word ‘sabbatou’ in Mark 16:9 cannot be interpreted, “of the week”!
NOW BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT IS IRRELEVANT.
The legitimate ‘NEW Testament question’ would be if ‘hebdomos’ is found in the New Testament being used for the week?
And the answer is NO!
The legitimate ‘NEW Testament question’ would then further be, to ask if the SABBATH is found in the New Testament being indicated with the word ‘hebdomos’?
And the answer is, YES!

Samie:

That's according to you and the Sunday-keeping translators who wanted the Sunday Resurrection lie propagated.
But the Septuagint, the only available authoritative document we have to ascertain whether a Greek word borrowed from the Hebrew language is correctly translated into another language, helps us to EXPOSE the lie.

Gerhard:

Thank you very much Samie. You settled the whole issue once for all.
THANK YOU!
Now I hope we may IN PEACE proceed further with our quest into the most inspiring TRUTH of all time and of "ALL THE WORKS OF GOD" revealed in the Gospel of Matthew chapters 27 and 28— for which wonderful Good News of the Salvation brought nigh unto us through Jesus Christ, we may worship and praise and thank the Creator of all things good, great, and, small.
If Jesus failed to "keep the Sabbath" AND TO FULFIL IT IN EVERY RESPECT, Christianity would have been without the Sabbath. Matthew is the outstanding Gospel in describing AND “EXPLAINING” – 28:5a – the importance and significance Jesus’ RESURRECTION: “ON THE SABBATH”, had, and forever would have, and, TODAY, in fact, has.

LHC:

The day Jesus rose from the dead is supported by the fact that the followers of Jesus refused to apply the normal protocol to the burial of Jesus as a result of the Seventh Day Sabbath, making the next day, the first day of the week obvious (Sunday) as the resurrection day.

Gerhard:

The first Scripture you quote contradicts your statement!
“Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.” John 19:40b.
“the ETHIC of the Jews” is the Jews’ LAW, the Torah, here, specifically the passover-LAW, Exodus 12-14 and Leviticus 23 “TO BURY” “that which remained”—“the body of Jesus”, “THAT DAY”, “the first night”, “to be solemnly
observed”.
THE LAW! The Law AGAINST your false allegation <<the followers of Jesus __refused__ to apply the normal protocol to the burial>>!
“You SHALL EAT [which is to BURY]. You shall NOT leave over but following day SHALL what remained, burn with fire”—which is to BURY as to return to dust of the earth.
The Scripture you quote next, CONTRADICTS your false claim—
“Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid … there laid they Jesus, by the time of the Jews’ preparations HAVING BEGUN” on “THAT [SELFSAME] DAY The Preparation, the Sabbath drawing near, for the tomb was prepared and readily at hand." John 19:40-42
There was no such falsity <<<the followers of Jesus refused to apply the normal protocol to the burial of Jesus as a result of the Seventh Day Sabbath>>>—what <fact>—!
The next Scripture which you quote, CONTRADICTS your FALSITY <<<the first day of the week [is] obvious (Sunday) as the resurrection day>>>; << the first day of the week>> …
"Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”
<< OBVIOUSLY>> the women discovered the tomb was EMPTY—OBVIOUSLY AFTER the Resurrection!
And the next Scripture which you quote,
“Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb. So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed. For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. John 20:1-9,
… CONFIRMS JESUS HAD RESURRECTED BEFORE EVEN “DUSK BEING EARLY OF DARK STILL on the First Day of the week”!
God cares about the TRUTH! And Jesus OBEYED the TRUTH!
What do you obey? Your own fancies and fantasies.

 

Joe:

. . . why should I care . . .

Gregory:

JoeMo: You ask a valid question.
In general terms, there are primarily two people who are posting to t his thread and have placed the majority of the posts. They are both alike in many ways and yet differ in some.
One of the persons, is much more correct than the other, but is incorrect in major ways.
Both make a poor use of Scripture.
Both reflect what is either an ignorance of the issues or an unwillingness for address them. If it is the latter, they fail to recognize that to win an argument one must often address the rationale behind the belief that is held. If it is the former, they fail to understand that one must know the subject matter in order to debate it.
One person has stated that he likes to argue. Well, some Christians who will discuss different understandings of religious belief are turned off by people who come across as simply wanting to argue, which is how this person presents himself.
Both present themselves as failing to understand that
some doctrines are more important than other doctrines.
Both present themselves as rigid, locked into their stated beliefs and unable to change regardless of what is said to them.
In following them on the Internet and in reading their posts on other websites, it appears that one of them has had these same issues in other places.
In short, they both present themselves in a manner that causes people to think that it is a waste of time and effort to respond to them. Frankly, in my thinking the best reaction to them is to ignore what they post. Just do not respond. If they want to continue, let them talk to each other. Why should anyone else listen to that conversation?

Joe:

Good advice, Gregory; I think I'll take it.

Krause:

You make some valid points JoeMo. The only thing I disagree with, is that the day Jesus rose or rested on had no direct meaning to the whole thing of dying, resting and than being resurrected. Also am in pretty much agreement with Gregory's post.

Gerhard:

Do what you like doing ever with NO SCRIPTURE . . . why should I care . . .
It seems my opposition has succeeded in their aim, which solely was to frustrate me, in my aim. It never got to Matthew.
And it is confirmed Jesus’ Resurrection pretty much means nothing for Seventh-day Adventists or the Sabbath according to them.
Your loss … I did gain—much!
Thank you all.

 

I like that song very much as goes something like .... "I feel good ...".

Shucks, I heard --- HOPE IT IS NOT TRUE --- the guy who composed and or sang it, committed suicide. It really shocked me; until now I just cannot believe it someone who could sing such a perfectly happy and free song could go so far.

No! Forget it, let's hear that song again! "I feel GOOD!"

 

Confession of Faith
I believe in God, the Almighty, Father, Creator
of heavens and earth,
and in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son, our Lord,
conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary,
who under Pontius Pilate suffered and was crucified,
who descended into hell, died and was buried
and on the third day according to the Scriptures rose
from the dead,
who ascended to heaven and sits on the right hand of
the power of God,
hence He shall come to judge the living and the dead,
I believe in the Holy Spirit;
I believe one Christian Church of the elect,
the holy communion of believers,
the forgiveness of sin, the everlasting life and the resurrection,
in the glorified body of flesh.

I believe the Scriptures, the true, only and closed canon
of authority for and in the faith, doctrine and living.
God speaks in the Scriptures
through his Spirit in the Congregation
of the Son in Whom we have life.

The Election of God :
The reconciliation and justification in Jesus Christ of those
according to God’s Eternal Predestination and Purpose
in Covenant of Grace elected and
in the Baptism of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit
sealed and attested in regeneration and sanctification
of repentance and conversion, of redemption from sin, and
of growth and perseverance in faith.

The Lord’s Supper of bread, wine and the washing of feet,
as through faith partaking
of Jesus Christ, of his body and of his blood,
his Salvation proclaiming and Return expecting.

The Lord’s Day
the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,
for God concerning the Seventh Day thus spoke,
and God on the Seventh Day from all his works rested
according to the working of the exceeding greatness
of his mighty power which He wrought in Christ
when He raised Him from the dead
and finished all his works He had made
to reign, the King, for ever and ever.


Sabbaths’ Feast of Christ Home Assemblies (Reformed Protestant Faith)

To joy in the Fellowship of Christians persuaded by God of the sanctity of the Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD your God for to be the Lord Jesus’ Day of Worship-Rest.
The urgency of Sabbaths’ celebration for the Christian Faith and Church, springs from the knowledge of the energy of God’s operation in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Ephesians 1:17-23.

The Sabbath, its engagement and enjoyment, are grounded in Divine Election and Predestination and realised in the “Gospel of God concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord”, whom God the Father “Declared the Son of God with Power according to the Spirit of Holiness by resurrection from the dead:— by Whom we have received Grace for the obedience of the Faith for His Name among all nations, among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ, to the end ye may be established and comforted by the mutual faith in the Gospel of His Son.” Romans 1:1...12.

Therefore we remember and celebrate “The Lord’s Day”, Sabbaths’ Eating and Drinking of the Lord’s Feast, holding to the Head nourishment being ministered, growing with the growth of God, proclaiming Jesus Christ Risen from the dead. (Col2:12-19)



“Where two or three are gathered together
in My Name, there I am in the midst of them.”
We are not a ‘Church’ – new, or, another!
We do not take money or favours!
We don’t have nor desire an ‘earthly tabernacle’ to worship!
We do not want ‘growth’ in numbers!
We do not ‘count the nation’ or record attendance!
We do not baptise!
We do not convert!
We are few, and will stay few.
We believe because God had given us faith first.
We love because God first loved us.
We love the Fellowship of Christ, and in Christ.
We love the Name of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
We love the fear of God and His Word Proclaimed.
We love the pure Gospel of God’s free Grace.
We love the knowledge and increase in the knowledge of Christ.
We are not ashamed of, nor let ourselves be judged with regard to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (Ro1:16, Col2:16)
Therefore we remember and celebrate “The Lord’s Day” Sabbaths’ Eating and Drinking of the Lord’s Feast, holding to the Head nourishment being ministered, growing with the growth of God, proclaiming Jesus Christ Risen from the dead. (Col2:12-19)
“For this cause we do not cease to pray that ye might be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding.” (Col1:9)
‘Singing in our heart to the Lord’, we ‘sing with the spirit and with understanding’, ‘speaking to ourselves in Psalms’. (Col3:16, 1Cor14:15, Eph5:9,19)
We abhor self-righteousness or ‘legalism’.
We abhor self-satisfaction or complacency.
We abhor boasting or distinction of men.
In case you would like to join in Sabbath’s Celebration and Fellowship through the study and proclamation of the Word ‘according to the Scriptures’,

 

The <WHOLE MEANING> of the Apostolicum is the Confession of the Christian of The God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

WHERE has the above <<verse>> or ‘version’ <<change(d) the whole meaning>>?

You are making a false and un-Christian claim and accusation. The <Credo> above is the Credo of “REFORMED PROTESTANT FAITH”.

I challenge you in the Name of God and Christ prove it not!

 

... cannot understand a word you're saying ... or what it has to do with the subject of the discourse.