-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The disputed ending of Mark 16.
- Thread starter rstrats
- Start date
- Status
Someone mentioned a passage in Hebrews and apparently quoted from a version which seemd to support sabbath keeping.
No one changed the sabbath. It is still the seventh day of the week.
The Covenant changed from Old to New.
Matthew 11
No one changed the sabbath. It is still the seventh day of the week.
The Covenant changed from Old to New.
Hebrews 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
"rest" is sabbatismos
Literally given in the ASV as:
ASV Hebrews 4:9 There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God.
Literally given in the ASV as:
ASV Hebrews 4:9 There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God.
In the context it is given
Hebrews 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day.
Hebrews 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day.
The sabbatismos of the new Covenant is another day (of another kind).
Once entering into this rest we remain there and we cease from works (or fall in unbelief).
When the temple vail was rent the Old Covenant had given way to the New. The Lord of the New Covenant had publicly conquered sin and death.
On the First day of the week as Christ emerged from the tomb, the first day of the New Covenant dawned. We entered into that Covenant (although the Book of Acts showed that national Israel rejected the Covenant as they had rejected Christ).
Jesus Christ is now the 24/7 sabbath rest of the people of God (Jew and Gentile believers together).
Matthew 11
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Hebrews 4
10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
I have an hasidic friend. There are hundreds of sabbath keeping laws he must observe.
Jesus' sabbath has only one.
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
HankD
Jesus' sabbath has only one.
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
HankD
Last edited:
GE:
"Hebrews 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
"rest" is sabbatismos
Literally given in the ASV as:
ASV Hebrews 4:9 There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God."
Literally given in the ASV as:
ASV Hebrews 4:9 There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God."
Correct!
"In the context it is given
Hebrews 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day."
Hebrews 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day."
FALSE!
It is written:
Hebrews 4:8,
"For if JESUS had given them rest [KATAPAUSIS], he [God] would not have spoken afterward of another day ['allehs hehmeras']-OF-SALVATION", the OPPORTUNITY of salvation through JESUS.
The 'sabbatismos' of the new Covenant is NOT 'another day',
but it is
"a KEEPING OF the Sabbath DAY REMAINING VALID for the People of God _HE_ [JESUS] having had entered into His Own Rest ['katapausis' - through Resurrection from the dead] as God-in-His-Own."
Once we entered into GOD'S rest in JESUS, we remain there and we cease from our own works unto self-earned righteousness like inventing Sunday-worship.
When the temple veil was rent the Old DISPENSATION or SERVICE had given way to the New. The Lord of the New and ETERNAL Covenant of GRACE had conquered sin and death and "IN IT TRIUMPHED". Athaliah, “that wicked woman” and symbol of "the last Enemy Death", had been slain and "the Son of the King CROWNED ... and the City RESTED ... on the SABBATH DAY" as it is WRITTEN as Christ ROSE FROM THE DEAD in the grave, not afterwards.
Jesus Christ now – AS ALWAYS – has been GOD’S ‘Rest’ ‘katapausis’— GOD’S ‘Rest’ for all the people of God, Jew and Gentile believers together, JUST AS Hebrews 4:2 says,
“For unto us was the Gospel preached, AS WELL AS UNTO THEM.”
“THAT IS WHY” – says the word ‘ara’ that begins the ninth verse of chapter 4 – “BECAUSE OF”, “GOD’S REST” by “the Power of Christ’s Resurrection”, “IS THE REASON, a keeping of the Sabbath DAY remains the duty of the People of God”, Jew or Gentile.
Last edited by a moderator:
GE:
Indeed you confirm here even a Scripture like 1Corinthians 15:4 has been CORRUPTED unscrupulously for GAIN for the LIE of a Sunday-resurrection of Jesus!
It is a SCANDAL!
EVERY possible and impossible Scripture in the New Testament on the time and day (and date) of Jesus' Resurrection, has been MUTILATED. Like you are doing right here with 1Corinthians 16:4,5.
I SAY IT AGAIN!
Thank God I picked this one up; I shall not let you get away with your fraud, so help me God!
THIS, is your offence, your CRIME and delict against the Word of God,
"Simply, in I Co it says that Christ rose on the third day and appeared."
Loathsome!
Despicable!
I cannot believe my eyes!
How do you get along with your self and your conscience?!
GE:
The KJAV does NOT "say" it!
You READ it so as to say it!
The KJV translates the single PARTICIPLE - not the Predicate or Verb - of the simple sentence, with THESE words, "Now when Jesus was risen". He "was RISEN" -- not 'raised'!
That means, “When Jesus was risen, early on the First Day of the week He APPEARED”.
It does NOT say or mean what YOU say, “He rose on Sunday”!
It is a LIE to say it; nothing short of a CORRUPTION of the Scripture-Word-of-God!
The Sentence has but one Verb, “He appeared”.
HOW did Jesus APPEAR?
He appeared “resurrected / the Risen / as the Risen One”.
That is ALL and everything this text – the Greek – declares and states as fact. NOT that Jesus rose on the First Day of the week.
The English can or may and does change according to the awareness and cautiousness of the Sunday-resurrection BIASED quasi translators; but the GREEK stands written unalterable for the Word of God Himself.
The greatest fraud of all times and history of mankind is the Sunday-resurrection FAKE for Jesus’ true Resurrection “SABBATH’S” Matthew 28:1.
GE:
Matthew 28:1, "IN the end OF THE SABBATH"; not of the First Day!
Luke 14:1, John 20:1 .... please quote the Resurrection in them, let's see!
You think my thoughts are a scandal, but your writing and thesis on my error seemed very unclear. What is it what I said that is a scandal? I was supporting I Co.
Thus, could you precisely relate your charge in a well formed thesis?
Thank You.
GE:
Matthew 28:1 does imply Jesus' Resurrection "WHEN SUDDENLY ON SABBATH'S DAY ... THERE WAS a great earthquake and the angel of the Lord descended from heaven and hurled the stone away from the tomb .."
Last edited by a moderator:
GE:
I don't see where Matthew 28:1 says "that the women came to the tomb on the first of the week";
not even that it says "the women came to the tomb".
Do you see it --- in ANY English Bible of before the twentieth century?
And why do think you do see it in almost every English Bible of since the twentieth century?
GE:
Yes, look at the context!
The context includes Matthew 27:62 already …
… where the Sabbath Day is being implied as "the morning after the Preparation Day of the Jews" …
… and the Jews requested from Pilate to have the grave sealed and a guard set “for the third day” or “until the third day is / will be over”.
They speak of “the morning after the Preparation” (‘Friday’) as “THE THIRD DAY” which Jesus Himself prophesied!.
So they sealed and guarded the tomb “in the morning …
… BUT NOTWITHSTANDING [‘de’] “Late ON THE SABBATH DAY MID-AFTERNOON [by now] … there suddenly was a great earthquake”!
The context indicates He rose “ON THE SABBATH’S DAY” …
… exactly as …
“… the ANGEL EXPLAINED / ANSWERED / INFORMED the women and told them …”
… next morning on the First day of the week— not mentioned though, but only alluded to by the angel as he “explained to the women” what “On the Sabbath Day” before, had happened.
Last edited by a moderator:
freeatlast
New Member
This is what really happened;
http://www.gerald285.com/index.php?p=1_29_Crucifixion-Week-1
http://www.gerald285.com/index.php?p=1_30_Crucifixion-Week-2
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you know what "opseh" means in Greek? That word in Greek makes a tremendous difference and would be useless/meaningless if it did not accentuate the resurrection of Jesus on Sunday. I think the word makes it clear but the parenthesis of the next phrase even further clarifies the context. You have to do a lot of linguistic gymnastics if you are saying Jesus rose on the Sabbath.
You are probably borrowing from A.T. Robertson's mistaken understanding of on the Resurrection. I disagree with A.T. Robertson, as do most Greek Scholars, despite Robertson being a premiere scholar. Part of the reason is Opeh, another part is the context itself and the paranethesis, and then the context seems to indicate this was a morning resurrection (the accusation of some coming by night to steal the body, and Luke 24 mentions mia sabbatwv, which indicates Sunday). The context there is early dawn.
Yet, what most concerns me is that you will attribute the following words to those who disagree with you on this minor issue, "loathsome", "despicable", and "scandal".
I find your statements extremely immature both in Biblical Scholarship over an issue where you are in the vast minority among Greek Scholars and immature socially. If you are right, and I do not believe you are, the issue is not of extreme import to warrant such language.
I love you brother, but you need some help and better Biblical perspective.
Quote:
“On the morrow after the sabbath,” viz. of the Paschal week, the sheaf of the firstfruits was waved before the Lord (vers. 10, 11). This was a type of Christ in his resurrection as the Firstfruits of the great harvest (see 1 Cor. 15:20–23). But when Christ died, the sabbath of the Paschal week happened upon the day in which he lay in the tomb (comp. John 19:31; Luke 6:1). Thus the morrow after this sabbath was precisely that first day of the week on which our Lord arose (Mark 16:9). How strengthening to faith are all these correspondences!—J. A. M.
The Pulpit Commentary: Leviticus, ed. H. D. M. Spence-Jones. 357. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004.
GE:
“The sabbath” in Leviticus 23:11,15 is the passover’s ‘sabbath’— “the sabbath” IN CONTEXT! The context being that of the prescriptions for the annual or “feasts” “according to their SEASONS” …
… IN DISTINCTION to “_MY_ Sabbaths” in verse 3, determined by the WILL OF GOD irrespective of nature’s “seasons”, and for the “HOME” and not for the “great days of sabbaths” of the great assemblies.
“On the morrow after the sabbath,” viz. of the Paschal week, the sheaf of the firstfruits was waved before the Lord (vers. 10, 11). This was a type of Christ in his resurrection as the Firstfruits of the great harvest (see 1 Cor. 15:20–23). But when Christ died, the sabbath of the Paschal week happened upon the day in which he lay in the tomb (comp. John 19:31; Luke 6:1). Thus the morrow after this sabbath was precisely that first day of the week on which our Lord arose (Mark 16:9). How strengthening to faith are all these correspondences!—J. A. M.
The Pulpit Commentary: Leviticus, ed. H. D. M. Spence-Jones. 357. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004.
GE:
“The sabbath” in Leviticus 23:11,15 is the passover’s ‘sabbath’— “the sabbath” IN CONTEXT! The context being that of the prescriptions for the annual or “feasts” “according to their SEASONS” …
… IN DISTINCTION to “_MY_ Sabbaths” in verse 3, determined by the WILL OF GOD irrespective of nature’s “seasons”, and for the “HOME” and not for the “great days of sabbaths” of the great assemblies.
Last edited by a moderator:
GE:
You can be sure the whole old bunch of them, do argue for a First Day Resurrection in order to justify THEIR worship on the First Day rather Sunday.
GE:
I won't say I love you that much ... it's not what the issue is about after all.
But before you start to worry about the meaning of 'opse', rather begin to understand what the plainest word of them all means, the word 'sabbatohn' which is Genitive of POSSESSION or sort or quality :
"It was Sabbath Day's-TIME"; in other words, "ON the Sabbath's Day" and "IN the Sabbath's Day" without even having looked at the meaning of 'opse'.
And by the buy, ah, forget it ... but I like this ... enjoy it tremen, dously!
Last edited by a moderator:
Ruiz, may I ask how old you are?
GE:
Ahhh! another of THOUSANDS more!
Quote me what the BIBLE recorded "really happened".
Again, you translate the word within context, and the parenthesis demands that word's translation to be the next day, and this is a most common translation of that word.
I understand the genitive, which has little bearing in the discussion but mia in Luke is the driving force.
However, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I would love to argue Greek with you, but the issue is that you are arguing against most Greek Scholars in all of history but you seem to use hostile language against those who disagree. Being in the minority, I would suggest you use more grace. I have five post-graduate Greek courses under my belt. Yet, I would not call myself a scholar and would consider the vast majority of conservative scholars' disagreement with me on an issue noteworthy. You can still disagree (as I do in various places in the Greek), but in those areas, I respectfully disagree with such scholars understanding that my 5 Greek classes and the few scholars I can find who agree are in the minority of all scholars in history. Thus, it is my belief but I hold it loosely.
GE:
_WE_ were talking about Matthew 28:1; not about Mark 16:9.
You may try to start all over again.
And I am a plumber --- God's called plumber to pour molten lead down the Eustachian tubes of the sleeping watchmen on the walls of the Holy City.
- Status