In Heb. 4, the Sabbath points to rest,

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I dont see the consistent assemblying by Christ with his church beginning on the resurrection first day of the week and repeatedly on the first day of the week to be an accident.

Christ did not assemble with his Church on his Resurrection day. Our High Priest was in the most holy sanctuary of his grave for most of the day He Resurrected from the dead and grave on. The Bible in the New as in the Old Testament is silent on what our High Priest did after he had come out of the Deep until He appeared to some individuals on the First Day of the week after He had resurrected “ON THE SABBATH BEFORE the First Day of the week”—written, in Matthew 28:1-4 and implied everywhere else in Scripture.

All we can be absolutely sure about, is that “God raised Christ from the dead by the Glory of the Father … with the Spirit of Holiness”, ‘IN FULL FELLOWSHIP OF THE TRINITY’ (Klaas Schilder). Time would not bother God after He had raised the Son from the dead and had fulfilled his Promise to and Covenant with his earth and time bound Church, the Body of Christ’s Own, and had finished all his works on the Seventh Day and Rested.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Nor that it is repeated as the day of worship in Acts 20:7 and in Paul's epistles to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 16:1-2)

Acts 20:7 and 1Corinthians 16:2 do not say or repeat that Sunday was ~the day of worship~. On the contrary, BOTH texts imply the Sabbath as the foregoing Day of Worship. See many times discoursed on BB.

or the specific Greek term "kuriakos" used to describe the "Lord's" Supper (1 Cor. 11:20) also used to describe the "Lord's" day in Revelation 1:20 as mere accidents or conincedential. But I see it as a result of a prophetic command in Psalm 118:24 and express teaching in Mark 16:9 and Heb. 4:9-10.

Yes, on one condition, that the Day the LORD has made is the day of the week ~coincedential~ with the day which Jesus is both “Lord of” and had “made”. The First Day never after had been invested with meaning and honour it always before had not been invested with.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Furthermore, the consistent practice from the first to the fourth century is no mere accident. Just as the Old Covenant had a "sign" of the covenant which was the "seventh" day so the sign of the new covenant is the "first" day of the wee and this is made clear in Leviticus where new covenant types are consistently characterized by the first day sabbaths instead of 7th day sabbaths.

Sunday worship was no ~consistent practice from the first to the fourth century~ under Christians. It might to an extent have begun to be such ~practice~ in the third century. Which is worthless old news in any case.

Your welcome to your opinion but you have little to support it. Romans 14-15 deal with things neither right nor wrong in themselves rather than Biblical precepts or practices.

If it’s worthless for the Sabbath what is it worth for Sunday?

Colosians 2;16 deals with the Old Testament Sabbaths. The first day of the week is not part of the Old Covenant legalism that surrounds the seventh day Sabbath. It celebrates the resurrection of Christ and points forward to a new creation which is an eternal eighth day wherein there is no sin.

“12 While dead in your sins God who raised Christ from the dead forgave you all trespasses having quickened you together with Him. Nailing it to the cross and removing it altogether, Christ blotted out the damning law against us; and putting off and ruining the rulers and the authorities [of darkness 1:13], He publicly held them up to shame, triumphing over them in it. [If ye then be raised with Christ 3:1], THEN THEREFORE, don’t you let yourselves be judged and condemned by anyone (of the world 2:8, 20) in your eating and drinking or with regard to your eating and drinking of feast, whether of month’s or of Sabbaths’—all which shadows forth what soon must be, the BODY and SUBSTANCE OF CHRIST!

Let no man not holding to the Head [but] puffed up by his fleshly mind, who conceitedly meddles in what he knows nothing about (the mystery which is Christ 1:28), with his pretentious humility and angelic worship beguile you (with enticing words 2:4) of your reward.

Because holding to the Head nourishment being ministered, all the Body (of Christ’s Own 1:18) by joints and bands [of faith 2:12 Hosea 11:4; peace Ephesians 4:3; and charity Colossians 3:14], and knit together (in love 2:2), will grow with the growth of God.

"Don't you let yourselves be judged by anyone in regard to your eating and drinking of Christ the Substance of Sabbaths' Feast either Lord's Supper of month's or Sabbaths' Feast, which are but the shadow of what imminently must come for you holding to the Head, the Body growing with the growth of God Christ being the Nourishment ministered.”

 

[The Biblicist]

Acts 20:7 and 1Corinthians 16:2 do not say or repeat that Sunday was ~the day of worship~. On the contrary, BOTH texts imply the Sabbath as the foregoing Day of Worship. See many times discoursed on BB.

Both texts clearly and explicitly teach that the first day of the week was the regular day of worship. Yes, I have read your mental gymnastics used to wiggle around the obvious truth and I reject anything about it as scholarship. I have the Ante-Nicene Fathers on my shelf and I have read your mental gymnastics to get around the plethora of evidence for obvious first day of the week worship as the consistent and clear day of worship and I reject your Seventh Day Adventist mentality used to escape the obvious.

 

[The Biblicist]

No church in the New Testament is recorded as worshipping on the Jewish Sabbath. Paul alone is recorded as meeting with lost Jews on the Sabbath in the synogogues for the purpose of evangelization as it was his custom to preach to the Jews first.

The "first day of the week" is the only day that is consistently referenced in the New Testaments with New Testament church worship (Acts 2:1; 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2). Attempts by Saturdarians to escape these clear texts consists of mental gymnastics as do all their manipulations of God's Word.

Matthew 28:1 does not teach Saturn day worship as the Greek term opse is used in the New Testament for a period of time that occurs AFTER the completion of the previous day (Mk. 13:35) and it can be translated perfectly consistent to mean "after the Sabbath was over, and about sunrise" the women went to the tomb on the first day of the week. Gerhard does not like this, but that is tough, because Mark 13:35 clearly proves it can be translated to mean that.

Saturn Day worship is a false day of worship under the New Covenant. With regard to this OP Hebrews 4:9-10 and the pronoun "he" has reference to Jesus Christ in verse 14 and just as God finished creation in Genesis 2:4 with setting apart a day to commemorate the work of creation, Jesus Christ set apart the first day of the week, the day of his resurrection to commemorate the greater finished work of redemption. With regard to Hebrews 4:1-4 the Old Testament saints that did believe in the gospel entered into the rest of Christ by faith and yet that did not cause Sabbath keeping to stop. Even though Joshua led Israel into the land of rest, it did not cause Sabbath keeping to stop. Even though David conquerored the nations around him and gave the Nation of Israel rest, it did not cause sabbath keeping to stop, and even though Jesus (he) completed the greater work of redemption on the cross, it does not stop sabbath day keeping to stop, but a greater sabbath day was established than Saturn day sabbath keeping, the first day of the week was established in keeping with Psalm 118:24 prophecy and this Sabbath day observing will stop only when we enter into that eternal day of rest (Heb. 4:11) yet to come in the future. The Sabbath day observing under the New Covenant is FREE from all the Levitical laws and restrictions of the Saturn Day Sabbath. Instead, this "made" to be observed by God (Psa. 118:24) for rejoicing and gladness over what God did on that day in contrast to what the Jews did to Christ, it commemorates the resurrection hope of the saints, the birthday of Christ from the womb of the grave as firstborn (Col. 2:16) and is the consistent day of worship for new Testament churches sanctified by the Spirit (Acts 2:1) as the day of Pentecost was observed that year according to the interpretation of the Sadducees, who were in authority, which interpreted Leviticus 23 to be the 50th day or day after the 7th regular Sabbath, thus the first day of the week.

The aorist tense verb and aorist tense participle in Mark 16:9 show that the resurrection and the coming of Mary occurred on "the first day of the week."

Gerhard simply manipulates scriptures and the Greek text to support his false Saturn day of worship.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You are doing precisely what all whose error has been exposed. They respond by attempting to muddy the water hoping to escape or turn it around on their opponent. You charge me with things I never said and here is another example of a thing I never said or tried to prove. Opse does not prove opse can be translated "after" and I never said it did. That is your escape muddy the water tactic.

I said, opse is used by Christ for the time period that occurs AFTER the end of the preceding day which was the first watch of the night that occurred between 6-9 p.m. That application of opse to 6-9 pm proves it can be used to mean a period of time "AFTER" the ending of the previous day. If it could not, then Jesus could not have used it to describe 6-9 pm. That simple and that clear.

Q~↑What in the world are you talking about? I never said that opse proves that Christ rose after the "last watch between 3 a.m. to 6 am." I said it proves this use of opse proves that it can be translated "after" the end of the Sabbath - that is all I said. 6.p.m to 9 p.m. is AFTER the Sabbath. The word proee and "dawn" prove it occurred between 3 am to 6 a.m.~EndQ


You said, ↑ <<I never said that opse proves that Christ rose after the "last watch between 3 a.m. to 6 am." I said it [~opse~] proves this use of opse proves that it can be translated "after" the end of the Sabbath - that is all I said. …………….>>


And what is <<this use of opse>>?

~this~—Relative Pronoun, refers back to <<the "last watch between 3 a.m. to 6 am.">> and <<after>> it.

(By the way, after <<3 a.m. to 6 am.">> comes 6 a.m. to 12 a.m., if I’m not mistaken.)

And don’t say, <<that is all I said>> but go on to say, ↑<<………. 6.p.m to 9 p.m. is AFTER the Sabbath.>>

If a=b and b=c then a=c. Therefore <<after the Sabbath>> isn’t <<between 3 am to 6 a.m.>> AND <<between 3 am to 6 a.m.>>. It can’t be both; it must be the one or the other, OR NEITHER.

And where do you see the <<word proee and "dawn">> in Matthew 28:1-4? How can words that don’t even appear anywhere, <<prove it [‘opse’ allegedly meaning ~after~] occurred between 3 am to 6 a.m.>>?!

Speaking of me <<attempting to muddy the water>>!? Outrageous!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Both texts clearly and explicitly teach that the first day of the week was the regular day of worship. Yes, I have read your mental gymnastics used to wiggle around the obvious truth and I reject anything about it as scholarship. I have the Ante-Nicene Fathers on my shelf and I have read your mental gymnastics to get around the plethora of evidence for obvious first day of the week worship as the consistent and clear day of worship and I reject your Seventh Day Adventist mentality used to escape the obvious.

<<Both texts clearly and explicitly teach that the first day of the week was the regular day of worship>> Quote <<clearly and explicitly>> where <<both texts teach that the first day of the week was the regular day of worship>> or save yourself the embarrassment and shut up talking straw briquettes. So, spare yourself the trouble to quote <<the plethora of evidence for obvious first day of the week worship as the consistent and clear day of worship>>, a) in the New Testament, and b) during the first and second century—Justin Martyr of course the only opportunist voice from those two centuries.


Dear Biblicist, please don’t trumpet your total disconnection with reality so loudly. The Seventh-day Adventists don’t differ with you on these two verses; they agree with you in virtually all respects while they could not disagree with ‘my’ interpretation of them more.

Strange coalitions like politics won’t dream of are the norm in Christian dialogue.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

No church in the New Testament is recorded as worshipping on the Jewish Sabbath.

Not even comical or farcical. It's pathetic, for instance for the dull and dumb non-Scriptural non-entity, <<the Jewish Sabbath>>.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

No church in the New Testament is recorded as worshipping on the Jewish Sabbath. Paul alone is recorded as meeting with lost Jews on the Sabbath in the synogogues for the purpose of evangelization as it was his custom to preach to the Jews first.

Now if <<meeting with lost Jews on the Sabbath in the synogogues for the purpose of evangelization as it was his custom to preach to the Jews first>> was not The Church In The New Testament worshipping on the Sabbath and The Church In The New Testament recorded as worshipping on the Sabbath, then what in the New Testament is or was the Church worshipping on the Sabbath or was or is worshipping on the Sabbath recorded, in the New Testament?

But show in The New Testament where for ONCE the Church was thus worshipping on Sunday or has been thus recorded as worshipping on Sunday! ONCE! You can't , Nobody can, because there's nothing like it in the New Testament <recorded> or insinuated or suggested or hinted at or implied.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

No church in the New Testament is recorded as worshipping on the Jewish Sabbath. Paul alone is recorded as meeting with lost Jews on the Sabbath in the synogogues for the purpose of evangelization as it was his custom to preach to the Jews first.

The "first day of the week" is the only day that is consistently referenced in the New Testaments with New Testament church worship (Acts 2:1; 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2). Attempts by Saturdarians to escape these clear texts consists of mental gymnastics as do all their manipulations of God's Word.

Matthew 28:1 does not teach Saturn day worship as the Greek term opse is used in the New Testament for a period of time that occurs AFTER the completion of the previous day (Mk. 13:35) and it can be translated perfectly consistent to mean "after the Sabbath was over, and about sunrise" the women went to the tomb on the first day of the week. Gerhard does not like this, but that is tough, because Mark 13:35 clearly proves it can be translated to mean that.

Saturn Day worship is a false day of worship under the New Covenant. With regard to this OP Hebrews 4:9-10 and the pronoun "he" has reference to Jesus Christ in verse 14 and just as God finished creation in Genesis 2:4 with setting apart a day to commemorate the work of creation, Jesus Christ set apart the first day of the week, the day of his resurrection to commemorate the greater finished work of redemption. With regard to Hebrews 4:1-4 the Old Testament saints that did believe in the gospel entered into the rest of Christ by faith and yet that did not cause Sabbath keeping to stop. Even though Joshua led Israel into the land of rest, it did not cause Sabbath keeping to stop. Even though David conquerored the nations around him and gave the Nation of Israel rest, it did not cause sabbath keeping to stop, and even though Jesus (he) completed the greater work of redemption on the cross, it does not stop sabbath day keeping to stop, but a greater sabbath day was established than Saturn day sabbath keeping, the first day of the week was established in keeping with Psalm 118:24 prophecy and this Sabbath day observing will stop only when we enter into that eternal day of rest (Heb. 4:11) yet to come in the future. The Sabbath day observing under the New Covenant is FREE from all the Levitical laws and restrictions of the Saturn Day Sabbath. Instead, this "made" to be observed by God (Psa. 118:24) for rejoicing and gladness over what God did on that day in contrast to what the Jews did to Christ, it commemorates the resurrection hope of the saints, the birthday of Christ from the womb of the grave as firstborn (Col. 2:16) and is the consistent day of worship for new Testament churches sanctified by the Spirit (Acts 2:1) as the day of Pentecost was observed that year according to the interpretation of the Sadducees, who were in authority, which interpreted Leviticus 23 to be the 50th day or day after the 7th regular Sabbath, thus the first day of the week.

The aorist tense verb and aorist tense participle in Mark 16:9 show that the resurrection and the coming of Mary occurred on "the first day of the week."

Gerhard simply manipulates scriptures and the Greek text to support his false Saturn day of worship.

See what I mean, Biblicist, You have one strong point. It is your consistency in repetition with virtually no inconsistency with yourself.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Biblicist,
<<God finished creation in Genesis 2:4 with setting apart a day to commemorate the work of creation>>.

If you aren't a SDA, Biblicist, you used to be one. Only SDA speak this nonsensical gibberish; it's their trade-mark of a bankrupt brand name. Are you still a SOP man?

Hahahahah

 

[DHK]

But show in The New Testament where for ONCE the Church was thus worshipping on Sunday or has been thus recorded as worshipping on Sunday! ONCE! You can't , Nobody can, because there's nothing like it in the New Testament <recorded> or insinuated or suggested or hinted at or implied.

Perhaps you should show us at least one time where a local church DID come together on the Sabbath Day. I would like to see that evidence.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Perhaps you should show us at least one time where a local church DID come together on the Sabbath Day. I would like to see that evidence.

If you could not find it in the New Testament yourself, DHK, I admit, I won't be able to help you see that evidence.

Another option would be to use old Cruden's and look up the words Sabbath and Sabbaths ... also found under 'day', 'Seventh Day', 'Sabbath Day' and read the context.

Pretending! I dislike drama. Except Shakespeare who calls a spade a spade sometimes.

 

[DHK]

If you could not find it in the New Testament yourself, DHK, I admit, I won't be able to help you see that evidence.

Another option would be to use old Cruden's and look up the words Sabbath and Sabbaths ... also found under 'day', 'Seventh Day', 'Sabbath Day' and read the context.

Pretending! I dislike drama. Except Shakespeare who calls a spade a spade sometimes.

Except for the local church at Jerusalem, which met daily, and by default that would include the Sabbath, there is no church that met on the Sabbath. I don't have to look up any of your suggested words in any recommended concordance. I know what the scriptures say. They met on the first day of the week, which in our modern day language is Sunday.
It is not the Jewish Sabbath.
It is not a good idea to call it the Christian Sabbath, IMO.
It is not a Sabbath at all.

In fact it is a day that most Christians set aside for worship, not rest. The two are different.
Worship for some involves much work. It involves prayer. There are some, in preparation for "their worship" or preaching, may pray through the night, "travail in prayer," which is definitely hard work.
When Jesus prayed "worshiped" what happened?
Luke 22:44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
--This is work, not rest. Yet at the same time it is worship. Worship (that which most Christians do on the first day of the week) is not necessarily rest. Most pastors I know take another day for rest like Monday. The first day of the week is the busiest day, and the day of the week filled with more work than any other day; certainly not a day of rest. Thus it cannot be called a Sabbath.

Neither is the last day a Sabbath for any Gentile Christian. For we are not under law but under grace.

 

[The Biblicist]

Q~↑What in the world are you talking about? I never said that opse proves that Christ rose after the "last watch between 3 a.m. to 6 am." I said it proves this use of opse proves that it can be translated "after" the end of the Sabbath - that is all I said. 6.p.m to 9 p.m. is AFTER the Sabbath. The word proee and "dawn" prove it occurred between 3 am to 6 a.m.~EndQ


You said, ↑ <<I never said that opse proves that Christ rose after the "last watch between 3 a.m. to 6 am." I said it [~opse~] proves this use of opse proves that it can be translated "after" the end of the Sabbath - that is all I said. …………….>>


And what is <<this use of opse>>?

~this~—Relative Pronoun, refers back to <<the "last watch between 3 a.m. to 6 am.">> and <<after>> it.

(By the way, after <<3 a.m. to 6 am.">> comes 6 a.m. to 12 a.m., if I’m not mistaken.)

And don’t say, <<that is all I said>> but go on to say, ↑<<………. 6.p.m to 9 p.m. is AFTER the Sabbath.>>

If a=b and b=c then a=c. Therefore <<after the Sabbath>> isn’t <<between 3 am to 6 a.m.>> AND <<between 3 am to 6 a.m.>>. It can’t be both; it must be the one or the other, OR NEITHER.

And where do you see the <<word proee and "dawn">> in Matthew 28:1-4? How can words that don’t even appear anywhere, <<prove it [‘opse’ allegedly meaning ~after~] occurred between 3 am to 6 a.m.>>?!

Speaking of me <<attempting to muddy the water>>!? Outrageous!

You are the one confused. You are confusing proee with opse. It is proee that is the last watch from 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. whereas opse is used for the first watch between 6 to 9 pm.

The statement in Mark 13:35 is that Jesus may come either at opse which is 6-9 p.m. OR he may come at midnight which is 9-12 p.m OR he may come at cockcrowing which is 12-3 am OR he may come at proee which is 3-6 am.

This is what I have said from the beginning.

 

[The Biblicist]

Now if <<meeting with lost Jews on the Sabbath in the synogogues for the purpose of evangelization as it was his custom to preach to the Jews first>> was not The Church In The New Testament worshipping on the Sabbath and The Church In The New Testament recorded as worshipping on the Sabbath, then what in the New Testament is or was the Church worshipping on the Sabbath or was or is worshipping on the Sabbath recorded, in the New Testament?

But show in The New Testament where for ONCE the Church was thus worshipping on Sunday or has been thus recorded as worshipping on Sunday! ONCE! You can't , Nobody can, because there's nothing like it in the New Testament <recorded> or insinuated or suggested or hinted at or implied.

Your choosing to remain ignorant and that is your choice. There is no Saturday church worship recorded in scripture but there is a multitude of texts in contrast for Sunday church worship (Acts 2:1; 20:7 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Rev. 1:10). These you must EXPLAIN AWAY and any position that has ZERO texts for its own case and must EXPLAIN AWAY texts that do provide a consistent church connection with the first day of the week is the WEAKER position.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Biblicist: <<Matthew 28:1 does not teach … worship as the Greek term opse is used in the New Testament for a period of time that occurs AFTER the completion of the previous day (Mk. 13:35)>>

The instance of ‘opse’ in Matthew 28:1 and context, is another than the instance of ‘opse’ in Mark 13:35 and context, with exactly the same meaning but another application, altogether.

In Matthew 28:1 ‘opse’ means “in the end(ing) of the Sabbath” before sunset, because in the Bible the Sabbath always is from sunset to sunset and ends sunset, e.g., KJV.

In Mark though, ‘opse’ in 13:35 means “in the late of the day” -cycle before sunset as the first halve of the period midday “until the middle-of-night”—‘mesonuktion’… NOT, <<for a period of time that occurs AFTER the completion of the previous day>>.

‘Opse’ never meant <<a period of time that occurs AFTER the completion of the previous>>… never for thousand years BC and never for two thousand years AD., and NEVER, <<MAY>> have been <<translated to mean AFTER the Sabbath>>. Philostratus used ‘opse’ as a Preposition meaning ‘after’ with the Ablative meaning “late-in-the-ending of” things like spring or war. He never used ‘opse’ to mean <<a period of time that occurs AFTER the completion of the previous>> which in any case, would have required an Accusative but never occurred with.

The lie of the claim that ‘opse’ means <<a period of time that occurs AFTER the completion of the previous>> or <<MAY betranslated to mean AFTER the Sabbath>> in Matthew 28:1 or anywhere else is becoming more and more a lie in most unworthy of Christian fashion.

This lie in its superlative, is claiming ‘opse’ <<may be translated "after" … AFTER the previous day …Christ may come … proii - 3-6 a.m. … opse still refers to a time period AFTER the close of the previous day rather than late in that day. …AFTER the Sabbath. The word proee and "dawn" prove it occurred between 3 am to 6 a.m.>> (Bold GE.) Just like Samuele Bacchiocchi.

But you tell me, I am <<confusing proee with opse>>!? Man o man. And look whom you are quoting, mister, the Biblicist, not GE!!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Your choosing to remain ignorant and that is your choice. There is no Saturday church worship recorded in scripture but there is a multitude of texts in contrast for Sunday church worship (Acts 2:1; 20:7 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Rev. 1:10). These you must EXPLAIN AWAY and any position that has ZERO texts for its own case and must EXPLAIN AWAY texts that do provide a consistent church connection with the first day of the week is the WEAKER position.

No comment; your post (echoing DHK’s) speaks for itself. Just remember, God is also a reader of our posts.

 

[The Biblicist]

No comment; your post (echoing DHK’s) speaks for itself. Just remember, God is also a reader of our posts.

Amen!

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist: <<Matthew 28:1 does not teach … worship as the Greek term opse is used in the New Testament for a period of time that occurs AFTER the completion of the previous day (Mk. 13:35)>>

The instance of ‘opse’ in Matthew 28:1 and context, is another than the instance of ‘opse’ in Mark 13:35 and context, with exactly the same meaning but another application, altogether.

In Matthew 28:1 ‘opse’ means “in the end(ing) of the Sabbath” before sunset, because in the Bible the Sabbath always is from sunset to sunset and ends sunset, e.g., KJV.

No it does not mean that here. they came at the first appearing of light not the first disappearing of light on the first day of the week and opse means the very same thing here as in Mark 13:35 which is LATE AFTER the previous day as 6 pm to 9pm cannot be construed in any way shape or form to be inclusive of the Jewish day that began at 6 pm the following evening and terminated at 6 pm that evening.

In Mark though, ‘opse’ in 13:35 means “in the late of the day” -cycle before sunset as the first halve of the period midday “until the middle-of-night”—‘mesonuktion’… NOT, <<for a period of time that occurs AFTER the completion of the previous day>>.

There is absolutely no scholarship to support this vain imagination. The text is clear that Jesus is speaking of FOUR different periods called watches in the night and and to interpret as you have done is inexcusable perversion of God's Word and you know it.

This lie in its superlative

, is claiming ‘opse’ <<may be translated "after" … AFTER the previous day …Christ may come … proii - 3-6 a.m. … opse still refers to a time period AFTER the close of the previous day rather than late in that day. …AFTER the Sabbath. The word proee and "dawn" prove it occurred between 3 am to 6 a.m.>> (Bold GE.) Just like Samuele Bacchiocchi.

The weight of scholarship is against your interpretation of Mark 13:35 and YOU KNOW IT! If you had any scholarship to support your empty and vain perverted interpretation of that text you would be quoting it non-stop! It is obvious from both the English and the Greek that Jesus is referring to the common four watches of the night and you have nothing but your own personal opinion to support your skewed view. That is what you MUST do in order to support your false Jewish Sabbath continuation under the New Covenant.

But you tell me, I am <<confusing proee with opse>>!? Man o man. And look whom you are quoting, mister, the Biblicist, not GE!!

I stand corrected! You are not confused, instead you are intentionally inventing an interpretation of Mark 13;35 out of thin air that the weight of scholarship does not support and YOU KNOW IT!