The Law is not compassionate GE; but grace is. The law condemns. The Sabbath is under the law, not under grace. Nowhere under grace is one commanded to keep the Sabbath. It was under the law, and the law condemns. You are condemned under the law. You would have been stoned for keeping the Sabbath in the way you do. I don't condemn you; the law does. You put yourself under the law not me. You are not consistent in your theology. If you say you keep the Sabbath, then why don't you. You act like a hypocrite.Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
-
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!
Protestants still follow the pope
- Thread starter Gerhard Ebersoehn
- Start date
DHK:
"Scripture after Scripture tells us that Christ was raised on the first day of the week--Sunday"
GE:
Scripture after Scripture ....
I could point out a single Scripture that directly implies Jesus' resurrection, quote, "In the Sabbath", and from the whole of the rest of the Scriptures many Scriptures that indicated His resurrection "In the Sabbath's fulness of daylight being".
You cannot show me one directly or indirectly -- not even from quite a number of GOOD translations. Then you may be able to pull out one single corruption from MANY POOR 'versions' that will imply His resurrection, quote, "AFTER the Sabbath, ON the First Day". Not more than this one - there are no more, not even in your corrupted sources.
"Scripture after Scripture tells us that Christ was raised on the first day of the week--Sunday"
GE:
Scripture after Scripture ....
I could point out a single Scripture that directly implies Jesus' resurrection, quote, "In the Sabbath", and from the whole of the rest of the Scriptures many Scriptures that indicated His resurrection "In the Sabbath's fulness of daylight being".
You cannot show me one directly or indirectly -- not even from quite a number of GOOD translations. Then you may be able to pull out one single corruption from MANY POOR 'versions' that will imply His resurrection, quote, "AFTER the Sabbath, ON the First Day". Not more than this one - there are no more, not even in your corrupted sources.
DHK said:
GE:
So the adulteror is under grace but the Sabbath keeper is under the curse . . .
Adultery is condemned under the law; adulterers were stoned. What has it got to do with the dispensation of grace? Sabbath breaking is condemned under the law; Sabbath breakers were stoned under the law. What has it, to do with the dispensation of grace?
You say I am not consistent!
You say I am not consistent!
Let's just look at Mark 16:2 as it has already been discussed.Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
A.T. Robertson is a renowned Greek Scholar:
There is no way that Jesus could be crucified on Friday and raised again on Saturday--the Sabbath. That is just absurd, and goes contrary to the Scripture.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered 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:
You do not go according to the Scriptures do you?
What is your point? Do you condone adultery? In some countries they still stone adulterers. If you want to move to a nation that does to be consistent you can do that. But for now you must follow the laws of the nation that you live in. We don't live in a Jewish theocracy. Thus we are not under the Jewish law, and are not required to keep the Sabbath. Adultery is a moral law, and against the law in many nations.Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
DHK:
"You put yourself under the law"
GE:
If I could, I would have put myself under Christ and grace; but I am not able because it isn't up to me -- I'm under grace. Jesus put me, IN HIM, through grace; He had given me, rest. I say not I entered the rest - it is all of God -- I'm under grace. God witnesses with my conscience; I know in whom I believe, like old Job, even though his friends told him he didn't stand a chance. So DHK, God left me as He left for His People, a keeping of the Sabbath Day, to feast His mercies and to feed on them, eating and drinking of Jesus Christ, Triumphator. What can a man do to me?
"You put yourself under the law"
GE:
If I could, I would have put myself under Christ and grace; but I am not able because it isn't up to me -- I'm under grace. Jesus put me, IN HIM, through grace; He had given me, rest. I say not I entered the rest - it is all of God -- I'm under grace. God witnesses with my conscience; I know in whom I believe, like old Job, even though his friends told him he didn't stand a chance. So DHK, God left me as He left for His People, a keeping of the Sabbath Day, to feast His mercies and to feed on them, eating and drinking of Jesus Christ, Triumphator. What can a man do to me?
DHK:
"What is your point? Do you condone adultery?"
GE:
You ask me? You was it who said the adulterer in the act is saved -- not me!
"What is your point? Do you condone adultery?"
GE:
You ask me? You was it who said the adulterer in the act is saved -- not me!
DHK:
"Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun."
GE:
No word of the resurrection!
DHK:
A.T. Robertson is a renowned Greek Scholar:
[/font]
There is no way that Jesus could be crucified on Friday and raised again on Saturday--the Sabbath. That is just absurd, and goes contrary to the Scripture.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered 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:
You do not go according to the Scriptures do you?
[/quote]
GE:
AT Robertson is here not only contrary the Scriptures, but contrary himself!
See my reference of earlier - you'll find AT Robertson there saying the opposite of what he here so passionately claims unfounded - respected scholar or not.
I'm VERY tired now, please excuse me for leaving at this point, tomorrow is going to be a very demanding day for me.
"Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun."
GE:
No word of the resurrection!
DHK:
A.T. Robertson is a renowned Greek Scholar:
[/font]
There is no way that Jesus could be crucified on Friday and raised again on Saturday--the Sabbath. That is just absurd, and goes contrary to the Scripture.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered 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:
You do not go according to the Scriptures do you?
[/quote]
GE:
AT Robertson is here not only contrary the Scriptures, but contrary himself!
See my reference of earlier - you'll find AT Robertson there saying the opposite of what he here so passionately claims unfounded - respected scholar or not.
I'm VERY tired now, please excuse me for leaving at this point, tomorrow is going to be a very demanding day for me.
God left the Sabbath to the Jews, not the Gentiles. Check out Exodus 31 and it makes it very plain that it is a sign to the Jews and their generations forever. Never in the Bible do you find any command for the Gentiles to keep the Sabbath--never. So why do you do it? It was given to the Jews and for their generations forever. Now I fiind out that you don't even keep the Sabbath. You profane it, and would be stoned under the law by it. You are inconsistent. Either you keep the Sabbath or you don't. Don't say you keep the Sabbath when you don't. Don't be a hypocrite. Either keep it or don't. Go back to the OT, find out what the laws are in keeping the Sabbath, apply them to our society today, and religiously keep the Sabbath. You will find out that you won't be able to do it. What you do is profane the Sabbath, not keep it. That is hypocrisy. You make it just like any other day. You don't keep it at all. Why do you say you do? Why are you trying to put up these vain arguments when you don't keep the Sabbath holy anyway?Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Note to Grahame -
Here is where the sticky details of scripture come in --
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=950232&postcount=63
Here is where the sticky details of scripture come in --
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=950232&postcount=63
A.T. Robertson is a renowned Greek Scholar:
Quote:
Mar 16:2 -
When the sun was risen ([FONT="]anateilantos tou hēliou[/FONT]). Genitive absolute, aorist participle, though some manuscripts read [FONT="]anatellontos[/FONT], present participle. Luk_24:1 has it “at early dawn” ([FONT="]orthrou batheos[/FONT]) and Joh_20:1 “while it was yet dark.” It was some two miles from Bethany to the tomb. Mark himself gives both notes of time, “very early” ([FONT="]lian prōi[/FONT]), “when the sun was risen.” Probably they started while it was still dark and the sun was coming up when they arrived at the tomb. All three mention that it was on the first day of the week, our Sunday morning when the women arrive. The body of Jesus was buried late on Friday before the sabbath (our Saturday) which began at sunset. This is made clear as a bell by Luk_23:54 “and the sabbath drew on.” The women rested on the sabbath (Luk_23:56). This visit of the women was in the early morning of our Sunday, the first day of the week. Some people are greatly disturbed over the fact that Jesus did not remain in the grave full seventy-two hours. But he repeatedly said that he would rise on the third day and that is precisely what happened. He was buried on Friday afternoon. He was risen on Sunday morning. If he had really remained in the tomb full three days and then had risen after that, it would have been on the fourth day, not on the third day. The occasional phrase “after three days” is merely a vernacular idiom common in all languages and not meant to be exact and precise like “on the third day.” We can readily understand “after three days” in the sense of “on the third day.” It is impossible to understand “on the third day” to be “on the fourth day.” See my Harmony of the Gospels, pp. 289-91.
There is no way that Jesus could be crucified on Friday and raised again on Saturday--the Sabbath. That is just absurd, and goes contrary to the Scripture.
GE:
You are quite right, DHK, There is no way that Jesus could be crucified on Friday and raised again on Saturday--the Sabbath. That is just absurd, and goes contrary to the Scripture. I maintain the exact same objection to the notion!
You cannot show or blame me to holding such a view.
For proper clarification of Robertson's statement here quoted, I would require the reference -- you realise his Harmony of the Gospels, pp. 289-91, is not the actual source of your quote. It will be helpfull and appreciated if you could forward the original source.
But let's have a quick look at Robertson's viewpoint here. Says he, "When the sun was risen (anateilantos tou hēliou). Genitive absolute, aorist participle, though some manuscripts read anatellontos, present participle. Luk_24:1 has it “at early dawn” (orthrou batheos) and Joh_20:1 “while it was yet dark.” It was some two miles from Bethany to the tomb. Mark himself gives both notes of time, “very early” (lian prōi), “when the sun was risen.” Probably they started while it was still dark and the sun was coming up when they arrived at the tomb. All three mention that it was on the first day of the week, our Sunday morning when the women arrive. The body of Jesus was buried late on Friday before the sabbath (our Saturday) which began at sunset. This is made clear as a bell by Luk_23:54 “and the sabbath drew on.” The women rested on the sabbath (Luk_23:56). This visit of the women was in the early morning of our Sunday, the first day of the week. "
You will find I am in agreement 100% so far. Refer http://www.biblestudents.co.za, books 1, and 2, 'Crucifixion' and 'Burial'.
Then Robertson says here, "Some people are greatly disturbed over the fact that Jesus did not remain in the grave full seventy-two hours. But he repeatedly said that he would rise on the third day and that is precisely what happened. He was buried on Friday afternoon. . . . The occasional phrase “after three days” is merely a vernacular idiom common in all languages and not meant to be exact and precise like “on the third day.” We can readily understand “after three days” in the sense of “on the third day.” It is impossible to understand “on the third day” to be “on the fourth day. . . . If he had really remained in the tomb full three days and then had risen after that, it would have been on the fourth day, not on the third day. ” "
Again, I am in agreement with Robertson, fully, and spend many pages to answer virtually every aspect of the issue in proof of this very standpoint !
But, Robertson in this place, inserts as unobtrusively as possible, this totally irrelevant and unsubstantiated little clause of great and unwarranted effect, "He was risen on Sunday morning".
I ask you one fair, honest and and unprejudiced question: ON WHAT GROUNDS? BECAUSE OF WHICH WORD OR WORDS FROM THE TEXT, HE, refers to?
It is non-existent, and in his own indoctrinated mind; he is not even aware of it!
Fact remains, undisturbed and unmoveable, what AT Robertson has noted and confirmed himself, when he deals on Mt28:1 -- the ONLY verse of the NT that in so many words defines the day and time of day of Jesus' resurrection (by implication) -- that it is, quote, "Saturday" thus indicated.
Something else must, also be kept in mind, that Robertson correctly rejects the idea of "seventy two hours", but mistakenly does not pay attention to what Jesus had actually said in Mt12:40, and which He had meant for literal, that the "three days" of His tasting of death, would consist of "three days (light-halves) and three nights (dark halves)". This was no, "common" expression, but a unique instance of the words used. It means just what it indicates -- and that, is irreconcileable with a Friday CRUCIFIXION, and Sunday resurrection.
Quote:
Mar 16:2 -
When the sun was risen ([FONT="]anateilantos tou hēliou[/FONT]). Genitive absolute, aorist participle, though some manuscripts read [FONT="]anatellontos[/FONT], present participle. Luk_24:1 has it “at early dawn” ([FONT="]orthrou batheos[/FONT]) and Joh_20:1 “while it was yet dark.” It was some two miles from Bethany to the tomb. Mark himself gives both notes of time, “very early” ([FONT="]lian prōi[/FONT]), “when the sun was risen.” Probably they started while it was still dark and the sun was coming up when they arrived at the tomb. All three mention that it was on the first day of the week, our Sunday morning when the women arrive. The body of Jesus was buried late on Friday before the sabbath (our Saturday) which began at sunset. This is made clear as a bell by Luk_23:54 “and the sabbath drew on.” The women rested on the sabbath (Luk_23:56). This visit of the women was in the early morning of our Sunday, the first day of the week. Some people are greatly disturbed over the fact that Jesus did not remain in the grave full seventy-two hours. But he repeatedly said that he would rise on the third day and that is precisely what happened. He was buried on Friday afternoon. He was risen on Sunday morning. If he had really remained in the tomb full three days and then had risen after that, it would have been on the fourth day, not on the third day. The occasional phrase “after three days” is merely a vernacular idiom common in all languages and not meant to be exact and precise like “on the third day.” We can readily understand “after three days” in the sense of “on the third day.” It is impossible to understand “on the third day” to be “on the fourth day.” See my Harmony of the Gospels, pp. 289-91.
There is no way that Jesus could be crucified on Friday and raised again on Saturday--the Sabbath. That is just absurd, and goes contrary to the Scripture.
GE:
You are quite right, DHK, There is no way that Jesus could be crucified on Friday and raised again on Saturday--the Sabbath. That is just absurd, and goes contrary to the Scripture. I maintain the exact same objection to the notion!
You cannot show or blame me to holding such a view.
For proper clarification of Robertson's statement here quoted, I would require the reference -- you realise his Harmony of the Gospels, pp. 289-91, is not the actual source of your quote. It will be helpfull and appreciated if you could forward the original source.
But let's have a quick look at Robertson's viewpoint here. Says he, "When the sun was risen (anateilantos tou hēliou). Genitive absolute, aorist participle, though some manuscripts read anatellontos, present participle. Luk_24:1 has it “at early dawn” (orthrou batheos) and Joh_20:1 “while it was yet dark.” It was some two miles from Bethany to the tomb. Mark himself gives both notes of time, “very early” (lian prōi), “when the sun was risen.” Probably they started while it was still dark and the sun was coming up when they arrived at the tomb. All three mention that it was on the first day of the week, our Sunday morning when the women arrive. The body of Jesus was buried late on Friday before the sabbath (our Saturday) which began at sunset. This is made clear as a bell by Luk_23:54 “and the sabbath drew on.” The women rested on the sabbath (Luk_23:56). This visit of the women was in the early morning of our Sunday, the first day of the week. "
You will find I am in agreement 100% so far. Refer http://www.biblestudents.co.za, books 1, and 2, 'Crucifixion' and 'Burial'.
Then Robertson says here, "Some people are greatly disturbed over the fact that Jesus did not remain in the grave full seventy-two hours. But he repeatedly said that he would rise on the third day and that is precisely what happened. He was buried on Friday afternoon. . . . The occasional phrase “after three days” is merely a vernacular idiom common in all languages and not meant to be exact and precise like “on the third day.” We can readily understand “after three days” in the sense of “on the third day.” It is impossible to understand “on the third day” to be “on the fourth day. . . . If he had really remained in the tomb full three days and then had risen after that, it would have been on the fourth day, not on the third day. ” "
Again, I am in agreement with Robertson, fully, and spend many pages to answer virtually every aspect of the issue in proof of this very standpoint !
But, Robertson in this place, inserts as unobtrusively as possible, this totally irrelevant and unsubstantiated little clause of great and unwarranted effect, "He was risen on Sunday morning".
I ask you one fair, honest and and unprejudiced question: ON WHAT GROUNDS? BECAUSE OF WHICH WORD OR WORDS FROM THE TEXT, HE, refers to?
It is non-existent, and in his own indoctrinated mind; he is not even aware of it!
Fact remains, undisturbed and unmoveable, what AT Robertson has noted and confirmed himself, when he deals on Mt28:1 -- the ONLY verse of the NT that in so many words defines the day and time of day of Jesus' resurrection (by implication) -- that it is, quote, "Saturday" thus indicated.
Something else must, also be kept in mind, that Robertson correctly rejects the idea of "seventy two hours", but mistakenly does not pay attention to what Jesus had actually said in Mt12:40, and which He had meant for literal, that the "three days" of His tasting of death, would consist of "three days (light-halves) and three nights (dark halves)". This was no, "common" expression, but a unique instance of the words used. It means just what it indicates -- and that, is irreconcileable with a Friday CRUCIFIXION, and Sunday resurrection.
DHK:
"Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first "
GE:
It says NOT: "... when Jesus was RAISED early the first day of the week, he appeared first ....";
it says, "when Jesus was RISEN early the first day of the week, he APPEARED, first . . "
"was irsen" is not a VERB - it's a Participle (Aorist). It explains circumstance and mode of noun - in other words, is more adectival than adverbial. The Verb is, "He appeared". What happened on Sunday morning, was that Jesus appeared to Mary first of all (as John described). He appeared in the STATE OF BEING RISEN. He could have -- and indeed had had -- been raised "In the Sabbath" before, according to Mt.28:1.
Robertson obviously hadn't given thought to it.
"Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first "
GE:
It says NOT: "... when Jesus was RAISED early the first day of the week, he appeared first ....";
it says, "when Jesus was RISEN early the first day of the week, he APPEARED, first . . "
"was irsen" is not a VERB - it's a Participle (Aorist). It explains circumstance and mode of noun - in other words, is more adectival than adverbial. The Verb is, "He appeared". What happened on Sunday morning, was that Jesus appeared to Mary first of all (as John described). He appeared in the STATE OF BEING RISEN. He could have -- and indeed had had -- been raised "In the Sabbath" before, according to Mt.28:1.
Robertson obviously hadn't given thought to it.
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Comm...rdPictures/rwp.cgi?book=mr&chapter=16&verse=2Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I am not sure the debate between raised on first day vs at the very tail end of the Sabbath is getting us anywhere SINCE it is clearly observed that ALL of the appearances of Christ are on the FIRST day of the week so that IF a church tradition were to start up around the FIRST appearances of Christ vs the exact second of His resurrection it matters not - for it is STILL a TRADITION!
Everyone agrees that this is "mandate-via tradition" to start with and the AUTHORITY of man-made tradition is STILL "man". Let's say for the sake of argument that ALL week-day one services start the very last hour of real Sabbath (1 hour before sunset on Saturday -- vespers for example) and then for 4 hours on week-day one (Saturday night) or 4 hours on week-day one after sunrise (Sunay morning) -- it matters not to this topic!
I happen to agree with DHK that in the Gospels ALL the focus IS on week-day one when it comes to the resurrection encounters with Christ and the focus that the NT authors GIVE to that significant event...
It is only by the tiniest straining of the gnat - that one may get even a sliver of the quotes from the NT to reference the Sabbath for resurrection. But that only makes it worse since IF the intent was to give all the focus to a Sabbath resurrection EVENT - then spending all that time on Week-day-one APPEARANCES was not the way to do it...
Trying get that week-day one focus to be a "hidden way to say Sabbath is the big deal at the resurrection" - is like announcing that week-day one is the Lord's day WITHOUT ever saying it - just imagine it.
The bottom line is ALL already AGREE that the week-day one worship practice is PURELY man-made tradition and all CAN clearly see that the week-day ONE resurrection APPEARANCES are all clearly stated in scripture. Why not focus on the part we all DO agree with and go from there?
In Christ,
Bob
Everyone agrees that this is "mandate-via tradition" to start with and the AUTHORITY of man-made tradition is STILL "man". Let's say for the sake of argument that ALL week-day one services start the very last hour of real Sabbath (1 hour before sunset on Saturday -- vespers for example) and then for 4 hours on week-day one (Saturday night) or 4 hours on week-day one after sunrise (Sunay morning) -- it matters not to this topic!
I happen to agree with DHK that in the Gospels ALL the focus IS on week-day one when it comes to the resurrection encounters with Christ and the focus that the NT authors GIVE to that significant event...
It is only by the tiniest straining of the gnat - that one may get even a sliver of the quotes from the NT to reference the Sabbath for resurrection. But that only makes it worse since IF the intent was to give all the focus to a Sabbath resurrection EVENT - then spending all that time on Week-day-one APPEARANCES was not the way to do it...
Trying get that week-day one focus to be a "hidden way to say Sabbath is the big deal at the resurrection" - is like announcing that week-day one is the Lord's day WITHOUT ever saying it - just imagine it.
The bottom line is ALL already AGREE that the week-day one worship practice is PURELY man-made tradition and all CAN clearly see that the week-day ONE resurrection APPEARANCES are all clearly stated in scripture. Why not focus on the part we all DO agree with and go from there?
In Christ,
Bob
BR:
"I am not sure the debate between raised on first day vs at the very tail end of the Sabbath is getting us anywhere SINCE it is clearly observed that ALL of the appearances of Christ are on the FIRST day of the week so that IF a church tradition were to start up around the FIRST appearances of Christ vs the exact second of His resurrection it matters not - for it is STILL a TRADITION!"
GE:
BR, "...raised on first day vs at the very tail end of the Sabbath ..."
GE, it may get us somewhere if you pay attention to the time of day and the day, as explained in Mt28:1. I never talked about "the very tail end of the Sabbath", because I have always stuck to the literal Greek, which says and means, "In Sabbath's fulness of daylight" (opse de sabbatohn epi-fohs-k-ousehi).
The importance of keeping reckoning with the reality and truth of these words, bocomes aparent if you take into consideration the influence and effect the FALSE rendering DID HAVE, in that, from it, had sprung "a church tradition" - and a totally groundless one at that - it had NO roots from the Old Testament - its very beginning can only and must only be ascribed to worldly compromise by the gone-astray Church of Christ.
That is where this debate is getting us -- if we are prepared to succumb to indoctrination - I dare say - of a wicked and vicious world, and, church.
"I am not sure the debate between raised on first day vs at the very tail end of the Sabbath is getting us anywhere SINCE it is clearly observed that ALL of the appearances of Christ are on the FIRST day of the week so that IF a church tradition were to start up around the FIRST appearances of Christ vs the exact second of His resurrection it matters not - for it is STILL a TRADITION!"
GE:
BR, "...raised on first day vs at the very tail end of the Sabbath ..."
GE, it may get us somewhere if you pay attention to the time of day and the day, as explained in Mt28:1. I never talked about "the very tail end of the Sabbath", because I have always stuck to the literal Greek, which says and means, "In Sabbath's fulness of daylight" (opse de sabbatohn epi-fohs-k-ousehi).
The importance of keeping reckoning with the reality and truth of these words, bocomes aparent if you take into consideration the influence and effect the FALSE rendering DID HAVE, in that, from it, had sprung "a church tradition" - and a totally groundless one at that - it had NO roots from the Old Testament - its very beginning can only and must only be ascribed to worldly compromise by the gone-astray Church of Christ.
That is where this debate is getting us -- if we are prepared to succumb to indoctrination - I dare say - of a wicked and vicious world, and, church.
BR:
"I happen to agree with DHK that in the Gospels ALL the focus IS on week-day one when it comes to the resurrection encounters with Christ and the focus that the NT authors GIVE to that significant event..."
GE:
Just read yourself again, please. It shows you how mesmerised you already are by this 'tradition'. Just read yourself : THERE IS NOT ONE "resurrection encounters with Christ . . . on weekday one" -- NOT ONE - it's all in your 'tradition'! There are appearance-encounters on the First Day, naturally : it was the first day after Jesus had risen; simple as that.
Then what 'tradition' have we got since Jesus died and rose and appeared again? A 'cross-tradition' for sure; a 'resurrection-tradition', especially! But NO, 'appearance-tradition'; not in the New Testament, not even in Church-tradition. Of so much importance is the day and the time of day jesus rose from the dead on.
"I happen to agree with DHK that in the Gospels ALL the focus IS on week-day one when it comes to the resurrection encounters with Christ and the focus that the NT authors GIVE to that significant event..."
GE:
Just read yourself again, please. It shows you how mesmerised you already are by this 'tradition'. Just read yourself : THERE IS NOT ONE "resurrection encounters with Christ . . . on weekday one" -- NOT ONE - it's all in your 'tradition'! There are appearance-encounters on the First Day, naturally : it was the first day after Jesus had risen; simple as that.
Then what 'tradition' have we got since Jesus died and rose and appeared again? A 'cross-tradition' for sure; a 'resurrection-tradition', especially! But NO, 'appearance-tradition'; not in the New Testament, not even in Church-tradition. Of so much importance is the day and the time of day jesus rose from the dead on.
BR:
"It is only by the tiniest straining of the gnat - that one may get even a sliver of the quotes from the NT to reference the Sabbath for resurrection. But that only makes it worse since IF the intent was to give all the focus to a Sabbath resurrection EVENT - then spending all that time on Week-day-one APPEARANCES was not the way to do it..."
GE:
Let's first forget about your last words, "spending all that time on Week-day-one APPEARANCES" because I have answered you on that above.
"... by the tiniest straining of the gnat ..." which in Paul's estimation was the "energising ... of the exceeding greatness of His power which He worked when He (God) raised Christ from the dead.
Will you admit "... by the tiniest straining of the gnat ..." when you have to deal with Gn2:2-3? By a much larger margin you should if you were to be consistent.
But there are several direct and also several indirect Scriptures of the New Testament - not to mention the many eschatological OT references of bearing on and importance to this matter.
Then allow me to mention another factor no one seems to have given thought before, the historic sequence of the New Testament documents. What would that have to do with the day and the time of the day upon which Jesus had risen from the dead? An absolutely pertinent question is it! The fact the Gospels came after the Letters show the Gospels are more doctrinal than historical; it makes of the Gospels somehow a commentary on the Letters - and not as usually thought the other way around! If you take the Gospels then for being the exposition of the Christ-event He being "THE RISEN ONE", all and every Sabbath-anecdote becomes so much more of deeper meaning -- meaning that also makes the Sabbath as such of so much more significance. Then we have a New Testament of overwhelmingly many references and applications of the Sabbath being the D ay of Christ the Lord; The Seventh Day the Sabbath of the LORD your God, become: "The Lord's Day" "a keeping (of which) remains valid for the People of God.
I know I don't reason with imbiciles, but with men of inteligence, even of spiritual discernment. It stays hard work. It's not for the lazy; even less for the lazy than for the dumb.
"It is only by the tiniest straining of the gnat - that one may get even a sliver of the quotes from the NT to reference the Sabbath for resurrection. But that only makes it worse since IF the intent was to give all the focus to a Sabbath resurrection EVENT - then spending all that time on Week-day-one APPEARANCES was not the way to do it..."
GE:
Let's first forget about your last words, "spending all that time on Week-day-one APPEARANCES" because I have answered you on that above.
"... by the tiniest straining of the gnat ..." which in Paul's estimation was the "energising ... of the exceeding greatness of His power which He worked when He (God) raised Christ from the dead.
Will you admit "... by the tiniest straining of the gnat ..." when you have to deal with Gn2:2-3? By a much larger margin you should if you were to be consistent.
But there are several direct and also several indirect Scriptures of the New Testament - not to mention the many eschatological OT references of bearing on and importance to this matter.
Then allow me to mention another factor no one seems to have given thought before, the historic sequence of the New Testament documents. What would that have to do with the day and the time of the day upon which Jesus had risen from the dead? An absolutely pertinent question is it! The fact the Gospels came after the Letters show the Gospels are more doctrinal than historical; it makes of the Gospels somehow a commentary on the Letters - and not as usually thought the other way around! If you take the Gospels then for being the exposition of the Christ-event He being "THE RISEN ONE", all and every Sabbath-anecdote becomes so much more of deeper meaning -- meaning that also makes the Sabbath as such of so much more significance. Then we have a New Testament of overwhelmingly many references and applications of the Sabbath being the D ay of Christ the Lord; The Seventh Day the Sabbath of the LORD your God, become: "The Lord's Day" "a keeping (of which) remains valid for the People of God.
I know I don't reason with imbiciles, but with men of inteligence, even of spiritual discernment. It stays hard work. It's not for the lazy; even less for the lazy than for the dumb.