The Pope Says Don't Do THIS on Sundays

Actually the KJV translates: "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week"

"In the end of the Sabbath" - another way of saying after Sabbath was completed (logically it would have had to been because the women were now working - a no-no on the Sabbath).

Have you read AT Robertson on this one? I can quote you GREAT men of God who all admit and insist the Greek here means on the sabbath day before the First Day, and in the very fulness of the sabbath indeed. That, SIMPLY, is what the Greek, EXACTLY, says, and, means!
But the CONTINGENCY existed since the creation for the fulfilment - for the coming true - of the Sabbath's eschatological significance. (Read Jonathan Edwards' Sermons on 1Cor.16:2.) That gives you an even weightier reason to so insist on the correct meaning of Mt.28:1. (Hb4:4-5 and 8-10 boil down to the same.)
The "three days"-phrase is a reference to this eschatological, 'Passover'-essence of Jesus' resurrection "on the third day" - it doesn't have any bearing on Tuesday or on the length of time per se Jesus would be in the state of death's agony. They point to the specific fulfilment of all prophecy and law in Christ in resurrection from the dead.

"dawn toward the first day" - considering that Jews measure their days from sunset to sunset this would make the time frame about half way through the first day of the week.

Therefore I still see no support for the resurrection happening on the Sabbath as there was plenty of time for the event to have happened on the third day but before the women got there. As you say this is the only text that refers to the time of the resurrection I fail to see your rational for insisting otherwise. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

My answer on the last did not get through, sorry!

 

I quote DietofWorms who wrote: QB. "dawn toward the first day" - considering that Jews measure their days from sunset to sunset this would make the time frame about half way through the first day of the week."

Let us see how you translate the almost precise same word 'translated' here "dawn toward ..." in Luke 23:54 ... "Dawn on Sabbath morning ..."? Then the women (verse 56) rested the Sabbath after the Sabbath had ended!
Read many references to the use of this word epiphohskoh / Intensive: epiphohskoushi in www.biblestudents.co.za.

 

Would that be the same AT Robertson that attempts to seperate Maranatha from Anathema. Is that the same AT Robertson who is therefore in direct contention with Wesley, Strong's concordance. I hope you can do better than this.

Feel free.

Completely irrelevant attempt to cloud the issue. Nobody is saying that the Sabbath concept is not important to our understanding of eschatology. What were saying is that Jesus didn't raise from the dead on it.

I am insisting on the correct meaning. And all I read from Hebrews 4 is that Jesus is our Sabbath or "rest".

Well unless Jesus was in the grave for 3 days it wouldn't have fulfilled the prophecy, so I fail to see your point.

 

I'm out-a-here

Someone else take it for a while.

 

Jesus rose from the dead "On the Sabbath" for two main reasons:
One: The Prophetic Reason or Reason of Contingency: It is according to God's Word - the whole of Scriptures, especially the OT. The Belgic Confession (one of the "Three Formulae of Concorde") which I confess with God's Church, says that had the NT and the Apostles not spoken according to the Old Testament or Law, they should not be believed! The Sabbath above all was God's "APPOINTED DAY" for His Eternal Purpose; therefore Jesus had to have risen "On the Sabbath Day".
Reason Two: The Historical Reason or Reason of Existentiality: Jesus rose from the dead "IN SABBTH'S-TIME" - Mt.28:1 truly and really. Then His Church the Body of Christ's Own -Col.2:12-19 carried on celebrating her Sabbaths after its Full Reason founded upon Jesus Christ in resurrection from the dead.
That is my reason for believing and for celebrating God's Holy Sabbath Day, the Lord's Day, were I the only. Thanks to God I am not the only - we are a few.

 

DietofWorms, quote: Would that be the same AT Robertson that attempts to seperate Maranatha from Anathema. Is that the same AT Robertson who is therefore in direct contention with Wesley, Strong's concordance. I hope you can do better than this.EQ
I know there is an AT R of before the nineteenth c. who was involved in some or other Church politics - I cannot now remember so well. But it's not him if he's your guy. I have the greatest of Greek scholars in mind and so recognised by friend and for what I know of no foe! As for myself I wouldn't go to Wesley for authority, and Strong's is not always so strong!

 

Quote: Well unless Jesus was in the grave for 3 days it wouldn't have fulfilled the prophecy, so I fail to see your point. EQ

Please! I don't deny? Here is what I mean:
Day one: Day of Sacrifice - 14 Nisan - first first day of Passover-Season - Day of Crucifixion and Dying
Day two: Day of Passover Meal Eaten - 15 Nisan - first day of seven days of Unleavened Bread - Day of Burial
Day Three: First Day of fifty days to Pentecost - Day of First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD - Day of Resurrection!
Simple! 'Evangelical' - no strange nonsense!

 

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you (Acts 13!) which also you have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain,
For I deliver unto you first of all that which I also received,
How that Christ died for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES;
And that He was buried,
And that He rose again THE THIRD DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES ...

 

So then we "agree" that we are NOT saved by Loving our neighbor as ourselves and we are NOT saved by Loving God with all of our heart.

These are "REAL" commands but we are not our own savior - simply because we are not choosing to rebel against the Word of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Good! Glad we got that tough problem out of the way.

Now back to the point. We remain obligated to obedience rather than rebellion against God as Paul states in Romans 6 and 8. In fact IF our habbit is to choose rebellion - we are not listening to the Holy Spirit that seals us.

The Law defines what is right and in so doing it defines what is SIN.

Doing what is WRONG does not "get you saved" but it DOES incur debt for which Christ must die - or you must die. Only Christ can save.

Yes and in that SAME chapter HE says "IF you Love Me KEEP My commandments". -- He does not say "If you love me ABOLISH My Word".

There are those who would love nothing better - but they are not in Christ.

OK - then we agree that the saints of Heb 11 -- (even Enoch - translated before the flood as Elijah was after the flood) are all born-again people of God saved by Grace through faith - because there is in fact - no other way.

Paul was not "asking what gentiles would need to do" rather Paul was debating against Jews who insisted that IN ORDER to be saved a Gentile must BECOME a JEW! Recall that in Ephesians 2 Paul states clearly that the implication (the full meaning) behind the term circumsion is becoming a full cultural Jew NOT simply worshipping the one true God as He dictates.

The Jerusalem council DID NOT ask the Gentiles to "Love God with all their heart" -- but James does in James 2. The edict handed out at the council ONLY dealt with the circumcision issue regarding the requirement to "become a Jew" in all respects.

As we see in Acts 13 - the Gentiles that chose to worship the one true God were already worshipping in the synagogues on Sabbath.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You are not listening. We are free to go to church on Tuesday Wednesday Sunday or Thursday. Doing that does not violate Christ the Creator's Sabbath Commandment given as a memorial of HIS creative act in making ALL of life on planet earth as HE describes it in Gen 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11.

Attend church as often as you like on any day you like --- but ALSO you are obligated to follow Christ the Creator's instruction about HIS Holy Day JUST as you remain obligated to follow HIS command in Deut 6:5 to Love God with all your heart.

The New Covenant says clearly that the LAW of Christ is to be written on the heart -- rather than "The Law of Christ is banished from the heart".

You argue that if we are not free to engage in rebellion against Christ the Creator's Holy memorial (The memorial of His act in Creating life on earth) - then Christ died for nothing.

Your logic is flawed.

You argue that it is OK if we must obey Christ's Word in Deut 6:5 BUT NOT if we must also obey His word in Gen 2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11.

Your reasoning is not holding up, except to show that you will allow some of Christ's Word -- but not if it includes His own memorial of creation.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quote from whomsoever, it doesn't matter, it illustrates a great truth: QB: The Law shows us our sin and our inability to "work" our way to God. That is why Christ said "I am the way..." Jn 14:6 QE
"That is why" ... and the reference is made to? ... Jesus Christ, not to the Law! So, if the Law shows us our sin and our inability to "work" our way to God, but Christ said "I am the way...", then HE to us IS the Law. It is Christ who makes our sins clear to us and shows us we cannot "work" our way to God - HE DOES IT! For the Christian there's need for NOTHING besides to learn this and NOTHING besides to obey!
Why are you - people like Bob - always so afraid this would mean the Sabbath is abrogated? For it means the exact opposite, that now in Jesus Christ, the Sabbath has for the first time received its reason d-etre!

 

Christ the only Way!
QB: You argue that it is OK if we must obey Christ's Word in Deut 6:5 BUT NOT if we must also obey His word in Gen 2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11.QE
The surely, to argue that it is OK if we must obey Christ's Word in Deut 6:5, IT IS CHRIST we must obey in Gen 2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11!

 

Hi Bob,
In a previous discussion of ours you used the same argument as in: I quote, QB, You argue that if we are not free to engage in rebellion against Christ the Creator's Holy memorial (The memorial of His act in Creating life on earth) - then Christ died for nothing.QE.
I then pointed out you omitted God RESTED the Seventh Day, THEREFORE He sanctified (it) the Sabbath Day. God never "rested" but in and through and because of Jesus Christ and His FINISHED WORKS in Him. The Sabbath is NOT to be remembered because of the creation in the first place, but because of Jesus' having made entrance into God's Rest of Finished and Perfected WORK through resurrection from the dead.

 

Quoting Acts17_11, QB, If the Sabbath was so needed in the salvation message, then why did Christ die? (Rhetorical question) QE

Your phrasing is good: "If the Sabbath was so needed in the salvation message ..."
Here is the essence of the issue! Why? Exactly for "the salvation message" - to have it sent to all people in order to reach God's People! "It is a sign between Me and you, that I_AM (is) your God!" The Sabbath is the banner which the 'evangelists' or Christian Community bears - it reads: "of things a-coming, in fact the Body of Christ's Elect ... increasing with the vitality of God! (Col.2:17, 19).
No Church, no message carriers, no Sabbath Day. Will God rest? No, He will be vexed. "Remeber the Sabbath Day that in it God RESTED" - God won't rest if Christ is not proclaimed - by a People for that end; by a Day for that end.
He is Creator of all - therefore he has a claim on all - except on this His Holy Day we dare say, how audacious! Nay worse, Your Own Day won't do, Lord: We tell you it will be Sunday!

 

The Pope Says, Do This On Sundays!

 

DietofWorms quote CGE: I can bring you the witness of SUNDAY-keeping Christian scholars by the score to underwrite this translation. Crux of the matter is, the disciples DID NOT COME TOGETHER ON THE FIRST DAY at all, but logically on the day before,
DietofWorms:
Bring 'em on. Show me a single scholar that would argue that this verse means that "when the disciples came together to break bread" actually means it was celebrated the day before.

CGE answers:
Just clearly understand I meant “this (MY own) translation” – not theirs.
First to understand how I meant “Christian scholars … underwrite this translation” of mine, there are the Greek grammarians who maintain that “(the) basal significance (of the Perfect ‘Tense’) is the progress of an act or state to a point of culmination [[or stopping]] and the existence of its finished results. … It implies a process as having reached its consummation and [[then as to continue]] existing in a finished state. The point of completion is always antecedent to the time implied or stated in connection with the use of the Perfect. It may be graphically represented thus: ___ . -----”. (Dana and Mantey, 182) “Gildersleeve”, say these, “significantly remarks that it “looks at both ends of the action” ”.
183. “In the indicative the perfect signifies action as complete from the point of view of present time. Its exact meaning is often difficult to render, because of a blending of the sense with the English simple past. ... the confusion arises from the effort to explain the Greek in terms of our own idiom. It is best to assume there is a reason for the perfect wherever it occurs ...
i. The fundamental difference between the perfect (more restricted in use than the parallel English tense) and aorist (much wider in range than the English simple past) is vividly illustrated in Col.1:16. We have first the statement, en autohi ektistheh ta panta, “all things were created by Him”, which simply notes the fact that Christ was the active agent in creation, while the last clause, ta panta di’ autou kai eis auton ektistai, “all things through Him and unto Him have been created”, views the universe as a result of Christ’s creative activity – it is a ‘Christ-created universe’.”
184. The significance of the perfect tense in presenting action as having reached its termination and existing in its finished results lies at the basis of its use.”
Bring 'em on. Show me a single scholar that would disagree.

Second, to understand how I meant “Christian scholars … underwrite this translation” of mine, there are the Greek grammarians who maintain a Participle is not an Indicative, finite Verb. “The term ‘Participle’ … includes nearly all parts of speech EXCEPT VERBS …” D&M 224.
(Emphasis CGE!)
The ‘translation’ presented by yourself renders the participle synehgmenohn as if it were an active verb. Fact is, the disciples did NOT “assemble” for Holy Communion. The fact they did, is IMPLIED – not stated! And because implied through a Participle of the Perfect Aspect of Action (a ‘tense’ is something quite different), the implication is the disciples did not congregate at the time of their still having been together on the First Day of the week. They therefore had to have assembled on the day before – which happens to be the Sabbath Day – always.

I shall close with mentioning just one ‘scholar’ of the ‘scores of scholars’ I had in mind when I said they underwrite my version of the facts and events implied in Acts 20:7, and that man is John Calvin! Read my articles on this subject from www.biblestudents.co.za.

 

Quoting Johnv, "what the Pope said in this matter is good advice." QE
Not if you're a Protestant. If you are a Protestant you would protest the abominable idolatry of "holy Mass"!

 

On any day - not just "THIS on Sundays"!

 

non member posting under members name.

[ January 08, 2005, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]