Featured Another Blow to Saturday Resurrection sababatarian theory!

Look at “~(a) Today

(b) Tommorow

(c) Third Day

From the words of our Lord and Savior, THIRD day is the day after tomorrow. Working backwards, from the day after tomorrow, today is the third day.~”


Ever considered the more likely because more ~logical deduction~ . . .

(a) Today

(b) Tommorow

(c) Third Day

‘(c) THIRD Day’ is the day after ‘(b) Tommorow’. Working backwards, from ‘(c) Third Day' after ‘(b) Tommorow’, is ‘(c) Third Day’. RoflmaoLaugh

 

. . . would be "~dead~"?! Not exactly. Because for 3/4 of "the first day they always killed the passover"---no, sorry, for 7/8 of the 24 hours night and day of "the first day they had to kill the passover", Jesus ACTUALLY DIED THE DEATH OF DEATH consciously, and wasn't 'physically' and 'consciously', "~dead~". Therefore one cannot say He was physically and consciously "~dead~" "~THREE NIGHTS~"--- unless He rose from the dead on a fourth and not "on the third day".

 

I’m following you like a boerboel blood-hound, everywhere.

You have made your allegation all along and the last time you made it was on this thread. Place here the reference you say you have made here, and now.

 

Jesus was not “~dead~” for "~three days and three nights~" or for “~a duration of three days~" or for "the third day" only, or for "the third day" fully. He said He would be "in the heart of the earth", which is not "~dead~", “three days and three nights". He said He would be "in the heart of the earth", which is not "~dead~", but would "build the temple" of the killed and raised up again temple of his body and person, "in three days"; He said He would be "in the heart of the earth", which is not "~dead~", but would "rise again on the third day" that He would be and had been “in the heart of the earth”.


It really is hard for me to reason with someone like you; with someone of your class or kind or standing. You are a bigger challenge to anyone’s patience than you are to intelligence, integrity and or debating ethics, combined. I only pray that God help me defend his Word worthily.


Re: Vooks,
“~It matters not what part of the day the Passover is killed,~”

God thought it of importance enough, first, to command the passover “MUST be killed”, “was ALWAYS killed “on the fourteenth day of the First Month”, “the FIRST day they killed the passover”; “the FIRST day you must REMOVE leaven”. In fact on “THE VERY first day / the HEAD first day”. In fact “NOT on the feast (of the passover)”---twice!


And Jesus warned his disciples, “Ye know that after two days is the passover and the Son of Man is betrayed to be crucified!” Prayed Jesus before He went out on the Last Supper, “The hour is come … lest a Corn of Wheat fall into the ground and die.” “O my Father … let this cup pass Me: not as I will but as Thou wilt”. “The Son of Man goeth AS IT IS WRITTEN OF HIM: … Thou shalt kill it between the late watch quarters of days”. And then eventually Jesus DIED precisely to God's will and predestination: “and it was the NINTH hour.”

God Vooks declares, “~a mishmash of nonsense~”.


But “~the third day is anything but the day after tomorrow~” is “~biblical proof~”.

 

It's time I start yelling at you!

What did I write: Do you see I wrote: "~a single visit to the tomb by women where there were no angels~"?!

Or did I write: Q~Angels also have not "on EVERY trip informed them that Jesus was resurrected".~EQ!?

Does the fact Q~Angels also have not "on EVERY trip informed them that Jesus was resurrected"~EQ imply angels were present?

Well, then where is it where I wrote of any visit by women where there were no angel(s) present?!

What shall I call you!!!

God help me . . .

PS
I am not on BaptistBoard to argue my words but to discuss the Word of God. Don't again ask me something about what I had said in the past. I'll as far as possible say everything needed to be said by myself in every post.

 

Visits at the tomb “on the First Day”


1) “Mary sees the stone removed”, “while being early darkness still”, dusk. Then Peter and John go to the tomb to see what Mary has told them. (Jn20:1-10)

No angel; no angels; no telling.


2) “Earliest morning- darkness”, just after midnight, “the two women” (variant – the two Marys), “and certain others with them”, for the first time, “came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices they had prepared”. (Lk24:1) “They returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.”

Two angels telling


3) These women to make sure, a second time came to the tomb “very early before sunrise”. (Mk16:2)

One angel telling

4) Mary from after the others had fled in fear (Mk16:8) “had had stood after without at the grave” (Jn20:11). At the time a gardener should begin work, about sunrise, Jesus “early … first appeared to Mary”. (Mk16:9)

Two angels telling MM sultsch.

5) Soon after – after they a third time have visited the tomb and “the angel explained” to them what had happened during the Resurrection – Jesus appears to the other women “as they went to tell his disciples”. (Mt28:5, 9)

 

It was a chance to redeem yourself which you, Vooks, let slip past you.

But tell me Vooks, after all, what do you want to proof with the proof you have gathered in confirming there every time were angels at each visit the women accomplished at the tomb?

And what would you do if you could ~prove~ GE was wrong or did not agree with Vooks?

What on earth dear Vooks? Because you've got me there for sure!

 

So?

 

Fine. Now it is clear what your intention was with all your bickering about irrelevant meaningless minuscule misinformation. And you illustrated and proved it right here where you have for the first time revealed your covert ideas and ideals.


Therefore, first of, let's get the emphasis right in the above . . .


"~you contend that 'Angels also have not "on EVERY trip informed them that Jesus was resurrected"',~"


"~you contend that angels also have not"on every trip informed them that Jesus was resurrected"',~" --- which remark of mine you, Vooks, intentionally misinterpreted as were I claiming there was at least one visit at the tomb where there were no angels. And you thought the moment I would consent ---to your, instigated blunder---, you could shout hurray and prove me the fool you nevertheless have been calling me all the while without proof. So you searched and prayed and lied and concocted to get me so far as to say, Ok Vooksie, I was wrong and you were right.

But now it’s clear for anyone interested that you have hoped that I would supply evidence for you which you could use against me and make the following claim, “~It follows that on at least one of their three trips the women never met no angels, or they met an angel or angels but they never informed them of Jesus' resurrection~” NB. Negation changed into Affirmation and emphasis adapted by CGE.


Do I now understand what Vooks had in mind with all this? Less than ever! What does Vooks want to prove?!

 

It is either the flesh or spiritual darkness in the heavenly realm or both that is hindering the progress of the discussion in serving Him.

Bowing out. Prayer is needed. Nothing else will help for now.