Mark 16:9
- Thread starter rstrats
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
N
Lol no. Sigh. I'll explain it one more time. You're correct that Passover occurs on the 15th of Nissan. Depending on the year, the 15th of Nissan is sometimes a Monday, sometimes a Wednesday, etc. SOMETIMES, Passover occurs on the Sabbath, the seventh day. When this happens, the celebration is special due to the coinciding of these two events, and this is why Scripture calls it a "high Sabbath." All "high Sabbaths" still take place...on the Sabbath. That's the definition of the word. Make sense now?
For the fifteenth time, the phrase is not literal. It's a figure of speech. I'll get around to digging up some scholarly references on this for you, just haven't had time.
For the fifteenth time, the phrase is not literal. It's a figure of speech. I'll get around to digging up some scholarly references on this for you, just haven't had time.
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with you. 
A "high" Sabbath does not have to be a Saturday.
Yes, it's a figure indicating three 24 hour periods. If it was "sloppy" timekeeping, it would say something like "three days". But because Three days and three nights are mentioned, Christ was dead at least 72 hours.
A "high" Sabbath does not have to be a Saturday.Yes, it's a figure indicating three 24 hour periods. If it was "sloppy" timekeeping, it would say something like "three days". But because Three days and three nights are mentioned, Christ was dead at least 72 hours.
N
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with you. A "high" Sabbath does not have to be a Saturday.
A "high" Sabbath does not have to be a Saturday.
Lol no, that wouldn't be a figure of speech. The would be a literal meaning.
As I already pointed out, Scripture DOES say, "in three days" and "after three days" and "on the third day" (no mention of any "nights") in quite a few places referring to the timing of the resurrection. So you have to jive all this Biblical data, not obsess over the fact that one expression mentions nights.
Rachel,,,,,,Luke 22;16,,,,,,Luke 22;18,,,,,,,,,,Luke 24;42,,,john 19:30,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"your mind",,,,,,this is what you need,,,,Christ said he would not "eat",,,,he would dot "drink the fruit of the vine",,,,,,,,,,,look here,,,,,,,,,,,,,"in the kingdom of god",,,,,,,,,,,,"a new",,,,,,,,,,,he said he would not eat it or drink it,,,,,,,,,, and then he did eat it and drink it,,,,,,,,,,,,,see look up those four scriptures,,,,,,,,,,"broiled fish and honey",,,,,,,,,,,"Gaul" the fruit of the vine,,,,,,,,,,,,
go to john 20;27,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"touch me not",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,for Ive not "ascended unto heaven and received power from upon high" ,,,,,,,,,,"touch me and handle me and see that a spirit hath not flesh and bone",,,,,,,,,,,,,,now he said he would not eat or drink until after and then he would in the "kingdom of god",,,,,,,,,,,,and then you see the scriptures where he did,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
who betrayed Christ?,,,,,,,,,,Judas??????,,,,,,or any one who dips the bread in his cup?????????????me?? you????????????peter???????Paul????notice all the others ate at the last supper and not Christ????????????,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the oath of the "Nazarene",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,cannot drink the fruit of the vine,,,,,,,,,,,,,,eat ect.ect.,,,,,,,,,he was fulfilling it.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and then he both ate and drank
go to john 20;27,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"touch me not",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,for Ive not "ascended unto heaven and received power from upon high" ,,,,,,,,,,"touch me and handle me and see that a spirit hath not flesh and bone",,,,,,,,,,,,,,now he said he would not eat or drink until after and then he would in the "kingdom of god",,,,,,,,,,,,and then you see the scriptures where he did,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
who betrayed Christ?,,,,,,,,,,Judas??????,,,,,,or any one who dips the bread in his cup?????????????me?? you????????????peter???????Paul????notice all the others ate at the last supper and not Christ????????????,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the oath of the "Nazarene",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,cannot drink the fruit of the vine,,,,,,,,,,,,,,eat ect.ect.,,,,,,,,,he was fulfilling it.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and then he both ate and drank
look at the old Jewish calenders,,,,,,,,sun.,,,,first day,,,,,,Saturday,,,sabbath,,,, Wednesday,,,,,,,,was also a sabbath,,,,,when he was crucified,and the three days in the grave,,,,,,,,and resurrected on the first day "Sunday",,,,,there are Sabbaths other than "sundown Friday till sundown Saturday" according to feast,,ect.
then follow Mary,Mary and look at the day of the week they "bought",,,and the exact day they went to the tomb of Christ,,,,,,,,,,, they could not "buy",,,,,ect. and so if you notice they went to the "tomb" when it was the "first day" but did not "buy"on the sabbath,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you can follow this to the "upper room",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and it will match all the rest of the "new testament" ,,,,,,,,,,,,,as for where the Sabbaths fall
then follow Mary,Mary and look at the day of the week they "bought",,,and the exact day they went to the tomb of Christ,,,,,,,,,,, they could not "buy",,,,,ect. and so if you notice they went to the "tomb" when it was the "first day" but did not "buy"on the sabbath,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you can follow this to the "upper room",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and it will match all the rest of the "new testament" ,,,,,,,,,,,,,as for where the Sabbaths fall
L
That is true, Jesus died on Friday Rested on the grave on sabbath and rose on Sunday, so even in His death Jesus kept the sabbath
Luke 23:54-56
(54) And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
(55) And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
(56) And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
Luke 23:54-56
(54) And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
(55) And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
(56) And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
NickInCali,
　
re: " While John's visions are ABOUT the end times, yes, what is said in Rev. 1:10 is that John was in the Spirit ON the Lord's Day."
　
Even if Revelation 1:10 is referring to a specific day of the week, that day would more likely be the seventh day Sabbath. It was the Lord who made the Sabbath at creation and is the reason for His claim to be Lord of the Sabbath day (Mark 2:28). If the Messiah is the Lord of the Sabbath day, then the Sabbath is the Lord’s Day.
　
　
　
re: Unless you would like to claim that everything mentioned in that passage of Isaiah [2:6-22] was actually happening around John as he had his vision, you're really stretching that application.
　
That’s exactly what I’m suggesting was taking place in John’s vision.
　
　
　
　
　
re: "I'm curious, why do you suppose they'd want to change it?"
Most likely because of anti-Jewish sentiments (to differentiate between Judaism and Christianity) and to expedite the coming over to Christianity by the pagans who were already observing the day of the sun.
　
　
re: "You say this while completely ignoring all the proof texts the citation mentioned..."
Where did I ignore them? I specifically said that they didn’t document a first century usage of the phrase: "3 days and 3 nights" to mean anything other than at least parts of 3 days and at least parts of 3 nights. If you think that they do, how about pointing it out?
　
re: "Unless you believe the Bible contradicts itself (do you?)... "
It certainly seems to at times.
　
　
re: "...then "three days and three nights" has to mean the same thing as ‘on the third day’ and ‘after three days’ and ‘in three days,’..."
I have no problem with that as long as at least parts of three light periods and at least parts of three dark periods are involved. Although, on the third day and after 3 days is a little iffy.
　
　
re: " When you don't actually interact with the argument being made..."
Which argument might that be?
　
　
re: "The beginning of the chapter indicates that the events happened on ‘the third day’ since David had begun his trek back to the land of the Philistines."
Actually, the word: "since" is not used. If it had been used, 4 calendar days would have been involved.
　
　
re: "So his eating there, after victory, doesn't necessitate a third night to have transpired..."
But it doesn’t prove that a third night wasn’t involved. You need to come up with something that absolutely shows that the phrase "three days and three nights" was used to define a period of time that didn’t include at least parts of 3 days and at least parts of 3 nights.
　
　
re: "Yes, but I didn't say the "first day from" whenever, because the "from" is unnecessary."
How come it’s ok for you to say "the third day from" but not ok to say "the first day from"?
　
　
re: "Again, this is simply inaccurate. Jesus was crucified on Preparation Day, which is by definition, Friday..."
This has already been addressed by others.
　
　
re: "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. Romans 14:5-6, cf. Colossians 2:16-17"
The specific reason that Paul wrote the chapter is summed up in verse 20: "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food". The subject of the chapter from start to finish has to do with what people eat. Paul is writing about asceticism. Some in the church at Rome believed Christians should eat only vegetables. Paul calls these people "weak in the faith" (verses 1-2). The stronger in faith know they could also eat meat. Nothing in God’s law prescribes vegetarianism. The stronger in faith knew they were free from non-biblical asceticism. A part of the controversy that had sprung up between the weak and the strong Christians was the esteeming of days. In Rome some people had the pagan idea that on certain days certain foods should or should not be eaten. In this whole chapter Paul was just showing that others should not be offended, particularly weak members who have not yet learned the truth about the proper Christian diet and that they should not be judged by the stronger in the faith. This passage has nothing to do with the Sabbath.
As for Colossians 2:16-17, how have you been able to rule out that Paul wasn’t simply telling the Colossians that they should not let anyone - other than the body of Christ, which is the church - criticize them for HOW they were observing the things mentioned in verse 16?
Paul does NOT say "the substance belongs to Christ". That is a poor translation. Paul wrote "but the body of Christ" meaning the church. That is, the church is to be doing the judging not the outside critics who were trying to force their ascetic values onto the church.
Paul was telling the body of believer's not to let anyone judge them because they (the believer's) chose to be obedient by eating what is commanded (not eating swine etc.), and they observed the Scriptural Feasts as commanded (not the pagan ones), and they observed the seventh day Sabbath (not the pagan sun-worship day) as commanded.
　
re: "OK, so do you believe in God?"
I do not currently have a belief in a supreme being.
　
re: " While John's visions are ABOUT the end times, yes, what is said in Rev. 1:10 is that John was in the Spirit ON the Lord's Day."
　
Even if Revelation 1:10 is referring to a specific day of the week, that day would more likely be the seventh day Sabbath. It was the Lord who made the Sabbath at creation and is the reason for His claim to be Lord of the Sabbath day (Mark 2:28). If the Messiah is the Lord of the Sabbath day, then the Sabbath is the Lord’s Day.
　
　
　
re: Unless you would like to claim that everything mentioned in that passage of Isaiah [2:6-22] was actually happening around John as he had his vision, you're really stretching that application.
　
That’s exactly what I’m suggesting was taking place in John’s vision.
　
　
　
　
　
re: "I'm curious, why do you suppose they'd want to change it?"
Most likely because of anti-Jewish sentiments (to differentiate between Judaism and Christianity) and to expedite the coming over to Christianity by the pagans who were already observing the day of the sun.
　
　
re: "You say this while completely ignoring all the proof texts the citation mentioned..."
Where did I ignore them? I specifically said that they didn’t document a first century usage of the phrase: "3 days and 3 nights" to mean anything other than at least parts of 3 days and at least parts of 3 nights. If you think that they do, how about pointing it out?
　
re: "Unless you believe the Bible contradicts itself (do you?)... "
It certainly seems to at times.
　
　
re: "...then "three days and three nights" has to mean the same thing as ‘on the third day’ and ‘after three days’ and ‘in three days,’..."
I have no problem with that as long as at least parts of three light periods and at least parts of three dark periods are involved. Although, on the third day and after 3 days is a little iffy.
　
　
re: " When you don't actually interact with the argument being made..."
Which argument might that be?
　
　
re: "The beginning of the chapter indicates that the events happened on ‘the third day’ since David had begun his trek back to the land of the Philistines."
Actually, the word: "since" is not used. If it had been used, 4 calendar days would have been involved.
　
　
re: "So his eating there, after victory, doesn't necessitate a third night to have transpired..."
But it doesn’t prove that a third night wasn’t involved. You need to come up with something that absolutely shows that the phrase "three days and three nights" was used to define a period of time that didn’t include at least parts of 3 days and at least parts of 3 nights.
　
　
re: "Yes, but I didn't say the "first day from" whenever, because the "from" is unnecessary."
How come it’s ok for you to say "the third day from" but not ok to say "the first day from"?
　
　
re: "Again, this is simply inaccurate. Jesus was crucified on Preparation Day, which is by definition, Friday..."
This has already been addressed by others.
　
　
re: "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. Romans 14:5-6, cf. Colossians 2:16-17"
The specific reason that Paul wrote the chapter is summed up in verse 20: "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food". The subject of the chapter from start to finish has to do with what people eat. Paul is writing about asceticism. Some in the church at Rome believed Christians should eat only vegetables. Paul calls these people "weak in the faith" (verses 1-2). The stronger in faith know they could also eat meat. Nothing in God’s law prescribes vegetarianism. The stronger in faith knew they were free from non-biblical asceticism. A part of the controversy that had sprung up between the weak and the strong Christians was the esteeming of days. In Rome some people had the pagan idea that on certain days certain foods should or should not be eaten. In this whole chapter Paul was just showing that others should not be offended, particularly weak members who have not yet learned the truth about the proper Christian diet and that they should not be judged by the stronger in the faith. This passage has nothing to do with the Sabbath.
As for Colossians 2:16-17, how have you been able to rule out that Paul wasn’t simply telling the Colossians that they should not let anyone - other than the body of Christ, which is the church - criticize them for HOW they were observing the things mentioned in verse 16?
Paul does NOT say "the substance belongs to Christ". That is a poor translation. Paul wrote "but the body of Christ" meaning the church. That is, the church is to be doing the judging not the outside critics who were trying to force their ascetic values onto the church.
Paul was telling the body of believer's not to let anyone judge them because they (the believer's) chose to be obedient by eating what is commanded (not eating swine etc.), and they observed the Scriptural Feasts as commanded (not the pagan ones), and they observed the seventh day Sabbath (not the pagan sun-worship day) as commanded.
　
re: "OK, so do you believe in God?"
I do not currently have a belief in a supreme being.
A
Ok according to Matthew 27. It was dark from the 6th hour to the 9th, Jesus died the 9th and that evening Joseph took the body and placed it in a tomb.
then we have the priest talking on the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation (which is the day Jesus died)..
62 On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, 63 saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ 64 Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night[m] and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first.”
after that we have Mary at the tomb after the Sabbath on the first day of the week.
IF the day of Preparation is the day before the Sabbath and the first day of the week we have as follows...
Day 1. Friday/ day of Preparation
Day 2: Sat/ Jewish sabbath
Day 3: Sunday/ first day of week
and there you go three days.
then we have the priest talking on the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation (which is the day Jesus died)..
62 On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, 63 saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ 64 Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night[m] and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first.”
after that we have Mary at the tomb after the Sabbath on the first day of the week.
IF the day of Preparation is the day before the Sabbath and the first day of the week we have as follows...
Day 1. Friday/ day of Preparation
Day 2: Sat/ Jewish sabbath
Day 3: Sunday/ first day of week
and there you go three days.
I made a post in this thread before this showing how there was also a Sabbath Year and, I believe, other days besides the weekly Sabbath that were called Sabbaths or "Sabbath days of rest". So the "Sabbath day of rest" does not automatically equate to the weekly Sabbath.
I like where your heart is. The main problem I have with the Wednesday preparation day theory is this:
1. Christ's body is lain in the tomb on Wednesday night
2. Thursday is observed as the high Sabbath
3. Friday comes around and the women don't go to the tomb for some odd reason??
4. Saturday is observed as the weekly Sabbath
5. Sunday dawns and the women come to the empty tomb for the first time in spite of having a chance previously on Friday which they didn't take.
I can try to read those articles you listed, but I'd also be grateful if you could condense and explain.
I like where your heart is. The main problem I have with the Wednesday preparation day theory is this:
1. Christ's body is lain in the tomb on Wednesday night
2. Thursday is observed as the high Sabbath
3. Friday comes around and the women don't go to the tomb for some odd reason??
4. Saturday is observed as the weekly Sabbath
5. Sunday dawns and the women come to the empty tomb for the first time in spite of having a chance previously on Friday which they didn't take.
I can try to read those articles you listed, but I'd also be grateful if you could condense and explain.
There's this:
A study of all the verses related to this subject shows that the women saw that Joseph did not embalm Jesus (on Wednesday), so they went home to prepare the proper spices to do so, which they could not do on Thursday (the High Sabbath) or Saturday (the weekly Sabbath). They believed that Jesus should have a proper burial, but the Sanhedrin had made sure that the tomb was sealed and guarded for three days (Matt. 27:63-66). That meant that the earliest they could get into the tomb was Sunday morning. As would be expected given their close relationships with Jesus, they were there as early as possible.
From here:
Truth Or Tradition - Bible Study: Burial of Jesus Christ. Joseph of Arimathea who bought the tomb
God bless.
A study of all the verses related to this subject shows that the women saw that Joseph did not embalm Jesus (on Wednesday), so they went home to prepare the proper spices to do so, which they could not do on Thursday (the High Sabbath) or Saturday (the weekly Sabbath). They believed that Jesus should have a proper burial, but the Sanhedrin had made sure that the tomb was sealed and guarded for three days (Matt. 27:63-66). That meant that the earliest they could get into the tomb was Sunday morning. As would be expected given their close relationships with Jesus, they were there as early as possible.
From here:
Truth Or Tradition - Bible Study: Burial of Jesus Christ. Joseph of Arimathea who bought the tomb
God bless.
Ok. I just checked into the Wednesday Preparation Day side of the argument a little further. Here's what I found: The Last Days of Jesus Timeline
Read Mark 16:1-2 and Luke 23:55-24:1 very carefully. The argument goes that the two Mary's were busy preparing spices in between the high Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath.
Mark 16:1-2 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb
Here the Sabbath that had come and gone was the high Sabbath. The reading is: first the high Sabbath passes, then the two Mary's buy and prepare spices, then the weekly Sabbath comes (which is not mentioned in this passage) and finally on the first day of the week they set out for the tomb. Here, one can interpret "very early on the first day of the week" to be either repetitious of "when the Sabbath was over" or one could interpret it as a further passage of time. The argument goes that the further passage of time here is the weekly Sabbath.
Luke 23:55-24:1 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.
Here the argument goes that "they returned, and prepared spices and ointments" means that they first returned to Galilee, then rested on the high Sabbath in Galilee (this is the part that isn't mentioned in this passage), then bought and prepared spices and then rested on the weekly Sabbath in Galilee (the Sabbath that is mentioned here), then finally on the first day of the week going to the tomb. Otherwise you have the two Mary's in Mark 16:1 buying and preparing spices after the weekly Sabbath, whereas in Luke 23:55-24:1 you'd have them buying and preparing spices before the weekly Sabbath. So as far as I can tell there can be read into here two Sabbath days of rest.
P.S. shroom2, you're awesome. Very interesting stuff.
Read Mark 16:1-2 and Luke 23:55-24:1 very carefully. The argument goes that the two Mary's were busy preparing spices in between the high Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath.
Mark 16:1-2 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb
Here the Sabbath that had come and gone was the high Sabbath. The reading is: first the high Sabbath passes, then the two Mary's buy and prepare spices, then the weekly Sabbath comes (which is not mentioned in this passage) and finally on the first day of the week they set out for the tomb. Here, one can interpret "very early on the first day of the week" to be either repetitious of "when the Sabbath was over" or one could interpret it as a further passage of time. The argument goes that the further passage of time here is the weekly Sabbath.
Luke 23:55-24:1 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.
Here the argument goes that "they returned, and prepared spices and ointments" means that they first returned to Galilee, then rested on the high Sabbath in Galilee (this is the part that isn't mentioned in this passage), then bought and prepared spices and then rested on the weekly Sabbath in Galilee (the Sabbath that is mentioned here), then finally on the first day of the week going to the tomb. Otherwise you have the two Mary's in Mark 16:1 buying and preparing spices after the weekly Sabbath, whereas in Luke 23:55-24:1 you'd have them buying and preparing spices before the weekly Sabbath. So as far as I can tell there can be read into here two Sabbath days of rest.
P.S. shroom2, you're awesome. Very interesting stuff.
Last edited:
N
Technically God made EVERY day and is Lord of EVERY day, so what you say here could be said about any day. Again, the interpretation you're suggesting flies in the face of all the data of the time which we know about the day that early, first century Christians called, "the Lord's Day," which is the first day of the week.
　
　
　
re: Unless you would like to claim that everything mentioned in that passage of Isaiah [2:6-22] was actually happening around John as he had his vision, you're really stretching that application.
　
No, no, I didn't say IN John's vision, I said AROUND John at the time historically when he had his vision. John makes the comment about it being the Lords Day as a preface to his vision, not as part of its content. Notice that he mentions his physical location on Patmos right there in verse 9. He is telling us the physical time and place in which he had his vision.
　
　
　
　
Early Christianity, even in observing the Lord's Day, were not "anti-Jewish." If they were anti-Jewish, Sabbath observance would have been forbidden, for example, and Christian theology wouldn't be so intentionally framed by the Apostles (who were Jews) in Old Testament paradigms. Christians worshipping on Sundays also has nothing to do with paganism.
You haven't provided any evidence that the phrase has to mean at least part of three daytimes and part of three nighttimes. You've just assumed it from square one.
I agree it often SEEMS to, but does it actually? 　
"a little iffy," ie they don't fit well with your literalistic reading of the text, which has been my point this whole time.
Oh sheesh, give me a break. The last verse of chapter 29 says David left to return to the land of the Philistines. Verse 1 of chapter 30 says, "Now it happened, when David and his men came to Ziklag, on the third day..." The OBVIOUS meaning is that this is the third day OF HIS TRIP or SINCE HE LEFT. I really don't know why you want to labor over these minutiae.
Um, no, actually I don't. It's you who's arguing against 2,000 years of Church history here. YOU need to provide the evidence for YOUR position, and why that phrase has to mean exactly what YOU think it means.
Because in the context of what we're talking about, "first day from" doesn't make sense. The first day is just the first day. Again, I don't know why you're trying so hard to labor over this. 　
　
　
re: "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. Romans 14:5-6, cf. Colossians 2:16-17"
Not quite. One of Pauls primary groups of theological opponents were the Judaizers, folks who believed that Christians should follow all the Mosaic Law just as in the Old Covenant, including the keeping of Jewish dietary laws and the Jewish calendar. He also, as you allude to, was battling against Gnostic ascetics who were going to extremes in not eating meat, etc. His discourse in Romans 14 applies equally well to either set of errors. Esteeming one day above another is exactly what the Judaizers were doing in insisting adherence to the Sabbath and other Jewish festivals. Paul rightly says that ones conscience should be clear regardless of whether one chooses to engage in these things or not. Paul also knocks out two birds with one stone in Colossians 2, critiquing both the Gnostic and Judaizing views with the same set of principles.
If you look at verse 14 it says that Christ, "wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." That kind of language doesnt lend itself well to the interpretation you're suggesting for the passage. Paul isnt just saying that there's leeway in "how" we observe the Sabbath and other Jewish laws. The requirements of the Law have been wiped out. They're dead. They are no longer binding on us.
Secondly, it's ironic that you admit that the Church, the Body of Christ, has the authority to regulate observance of these things according to the text. The whole point Ive been making is that the Church HAS made declarations on these things, starting right in Acts 15 and continuing in the early centuries of the Church. The declarations are been definitely that Christians are NOT required to keep these ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law.
I'm fine with that, see my previous paragraph. You still have to address the fact that Paul calls those things "shadows," as well...not exactly glowing terminology.
I agree. And believers are ALSO not to be judged, according to Paul, if they chose NOT to do those things, because they are a mere, "shadow of things to come." Notice, in regard to dietary laws, that Paul in Romans 14 does not say that the one strong in the faith is the one who keeps kosher, but rather is one who, "believes he may eat ALL THINGS," and the Apostle was, "convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is NOTHING unclean of itself." (verses 2, 14).
I'm sorry to hear that. I'll pray for you.
　
　
　
re: Unless you would like to claim that everything mentioned in that passage of Isaiah [2:6-22] was actually happening around John as he had his vision, you're really stretching that application.
　
No, no, I didn't say IN John's vision, I said AROUND John at the time historically when he had his vision. John makes the comment about it being the Lords Day as a preface to his vision, not as part of its content. Notice that he mentions his physical location on Patmos right there in verse 9. He is telling us the physical time and place in which he had his vision.
　
　
　
　
Early Christianity, even in observing the Lord's Day, were not "anti-Jewish." If they were anti-Jewish, Sabbath observance would have been forbidden, for example, and Christian theology wouldn't be so intentionally framed by the Apostles (who were Jews) in Old Testament paradigms. Christians worshipping on Sundays also has nothing to do with paganism.
You haven't provided any evidence that the phrase has to mean at least part of three daytimes and part of three nighttimes. You've just assumed it from square one.
I agree it often SEEMS to, but does it actually? 　
"a little iffy," ie they don't fit well with your literalistic reading of the text, which has been my point this whole time.
Oh sheesh, give me a break. The last verse of chapter 29 says David left to return to the land of the Philistines. Verse 1 of chapter 30 says, "Now it happened, when David and his men came to Ziklag, on the third day..." The OBVIOUS meaning is that this is the third day OF HIS TRIP or SINCE HE LEFT. I really don't know why you want to labor over these minutiae.
Um, no, actually I don't. It's you who's arguing against 2,000 years of Church history here. YOU need to provide the evidence for YOUR position, and why that phrase has to mean exactly what YOU think it means.
Because in the context of what we're talking about, "first day from" doesn't make sense. The first day is just the first day. Again, I don't know why you're trying so hard to labor over this. 　
　
　
re: "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. Romans 14:5-6, cf. Colossians 2:16-17"
Not quite. One of Pauls primary groups of theological opponents were the Judaizers, folks who believed that Christians should follow all the Mosaic Law just as in the Old Covenant, including the keeping of Jewish dietary laws and the Jewish calendar. He also, as you allude to, was battling against Gnostic ascetics who were going to extremes in not eating meat, etc. His discourse in Romans 14 applies equally well to either set of errors. Esteeming one day above another is exactly what the Judaizers were doing in insisting adherence to the Sabbath and other Jewish festivals. Paul rightly says that ones conscience should be clear regardless of whether one chooses to engage in these things or not. Paul also knocks out two birds with one stone in Colossians 2, critiquing both the Gnostic and Judaizing views with the same set of principles.
If you look at verse 14 it says that Christ, "wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." That kind of language doesnt lend itself well to the interpretation you're suggesting for the passage. Paul isnt just saying that there's leeway in "how" we observe the Sabbath and other Jewish laws. The requirements of the Law have been wiped out. They're dead. They are no longer binding on us.
Secondly, it's ironic that you admit that the Church, the Body of Christ, has the authority to regulate observance of these things according to the text. The whole point Ive been making is that the Church HAS made declarations on these things, starting right in Acts 15 and continuing in the early centuries of the Church. The declarations are been definitely that Christians are NOT required to keep these ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law.
I'm fine with that, see my previous paragraph. You still have to address the fact that Paul calls those things "shadows," as well...not exactly glowing terminology.
I agree. And believers are ALSO not to be judged, according to Paul, if they chose NOT to do those things, because they are a mere, "shadow of things to come." Notice, in regard to dietary laws, that Paul in Romans 14 does not say that the one strong in the faith is the one who keeps kosher, but rather is one who, "believes he may eat ALL THINGS," and the Apostle was, "convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is NOTHING unclean of itself." (verses 2, 14).
I'm sorry to hear that. I'll pray for you.
Last edited:
N
[
Which is cool, but it pretty obviously does not apply to the passage(s) in this thread.
The only other verse you cited was Lev. 23, which is about Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) which occurs at a completely different time of the year than Passover. Second, it's clear even just by reading the rest of Lev. 23 that the description of Yom Kippur as "a sabbath of rest" is a general description of it (because it resembles THE Sabbath in terms of being a day of rest), and not an official title that would be interchangeable with the Sabbath (this is why our English translations make it so obvious, as well, by calling it "a sabbath" not "the Sabbath.") In Lev. 23 alone there's probably over a dozen other references to the Sabbath, all of them referring to the seventh day of the week (verse 3 makes this totally explicit, actually). So this is clearly not how one regularly refers to Yom Kippur. It's also telling that no one who's advocating for this interpretation of "the Sabbath" in Mark is pointing out anywhere else in Mark or the other Gospels where this use of "the Sabbath" means something other than the seventh day of the week (and there's not exactly a lack of examples). So it smacks of special pleading to claim that this one place in Mark "the Sabbath" means something other than what it means everywhere else...it comes off as a desperate attempt to re-arrange the events of the Resurrection to fit a timetable that's more pleasing to sabbatarian ears.
The only other verse you cited was Lev. 23, which is about Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) which occurs at a completely different time of the year than Passover. Second, it's clear even just by reading the rest of Lev. 23 that the description of Yom Kippur as "a sabbath of rest" is a general description of it (because it resembles THE Sabbath in terms of being a day of rest), and not an official title that would be interchangeable with the Sabbath (this is why our English translations make it so obvious, as well, by calling it "a sabbath" not "the Sabbath.") In Lev. 23 alone there's probably over a dozen other references to the Sabbath, all of them referring to the seventh day of the week (verse 3 makes this totally explicit, actually). So this is clearly not how one regularly refers to Yom Kippur. It's also telling that no one who's advocating for this interpretation of "the Sabbath" in Mark is pointing out anywhere else in Mark or the other Gospels where this use of "the Sabbath" means something other than the seventh day of the week (and there's not exactly a lack of examples). So it smacks of special pleading to claim that this one place in Mark "the Sabbath" means something other than what it means everywhere else...it comes off as a desperate attempt to re-arrange the events of the Resurrection to fit a timetable that's more pleasing to sabbatarian ears.
Last edited:
N
Whereas you insistence that "three days and three nights" is a figure meaning any part of three days comes off as a desperate attempt to force the bible to fit Christian tradition.
...just sayin'
...just sayin'
Y
I understand that all Sabbaths and the calendar came under the law of moons which ruled over darkness. The high Sabbaths were on the days of a full moon. This is written in the Old testament, that the moon was given to rule over darkness. Those who did the law could not see where the law was leading them. In creation language, it means to live in darkness.
The law of calendar moons is also spoken of in a vision, concerning the red (blood covered) moon. The law of calendar moons required a sequence of event which are holy and pertaining to the path that eventually leads (present tense) to Jesus and the work He did with His life. All these events come to the point of testifying of blood the law required; the same blood that covered all the laws of the calendar moon.