The Lords Day

[Standing Up]

The NIV and NLT are two versions that change Mark 15:42 and Matthew 27:57.

None of the five Greek manuscripts that I have checked support that corruption of God's word. In fact, they are all identically worded at those two points. Evening had come.

KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, RSV, ASV, YNG, DBY, WEB, HNV, Mt. 27:57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:

The NIV and NLT change the word of God to fit traditions of men.

Or interpret it properly. Much to your dismay I'm sure.

It is too bad. They have nothing except Traditions of Men upon which to base their change of meaning. Like I said, I am not aware of any Greek manuscript that supports your/their mistranslation.

Again, I find it odd how you are so intent on supporting that which you are so intent on not supporting.

No, actually these verses confirm the Biblical truth and demonstrate you huge error in understanding how days are reconciled in Hebrew.

I don't know why I didn't do this earlier but even the Strong's confirms the meaning and usage of the word "even."

opsios - from oye - opse 3796; late; feminine (as noun) afternoon (early eve) or nightfall (later eve):--even(-ing, (-tide)).

The word doesn't always mean "nighttime" but clearly can be meant to mean "afternoon." Taking into consideration that Jesus died at 3:00pm in the afternoon and was laid in a pre-paid and pre-made tomb of another it only stands to figure Jesus was buried before nightfall.

Yep. Here's Vines:

Even (Noun), Evening, Eventide:
the feminine of the adjective opsios, "late," used as a noun, denoting "evening," with hora, "understood" (see No. 1), is found seven times in Matthew, five in Mark, two in John, and in these places only in the NT (some mss. have it in Mar 11:11, see B). The word really signifies the "late evening," the latter of the two "evenings" as reckoned by the Jews, the first from 3 p.m. to sunset, the latter after sunset; this is the usual meaning. It is used, however, of both, e.g., Mar 1:32 (cp. opsimos, "latter," said of rain, Jam 5:7).

Are you aware of the two Passover custom that has existed from the Assyrian capture through today? "Jews generally observe one or two seders: in Israel, one seder is observed on the first night of Passover; in the Diaspora communities other than Reform and Reconstructionist Jews hold a seder also on the second night." Passover Seder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you knew of this custom, you'd understand from where the idea of redefining evening to also mean 3pm arose, rather than at the Biblical definition of after sunset.

 

[RND]

It is too bad. They have nothing except Traditions of Men upon which to base their change of meaning. Like I said, I am not aware of any Greek manuscript that supports your/their mistranslation.

Again, I find it odd how you are so intent on supporting that which you are so intent on not supporting.

Your whole understanding has to revolve around Jesus being crucified on Thursday and raising on the Sabbath. Neither view is supported by scripture.

Yep. Here's Vines:

Even (Noun), Evening, Eventide:
the feminine of the adjective opsios, "late," used as a noun, denoting "evening," with hora, "understood" (see No. 1), is found seven times in Matthew, five in Mark, two in John, and in these places only in the NT (some mss. have it in Mar 11:11, see B). The word really signifies the "late evening," the latter of the two "evenings" as reckoned by the Jews, the first from 3 p.m. to sunset, the latter after sunset; this is the usual meaning. It is used, however, of both, e.g., Mar 1:32 (cp. opsimos, "latter," said of rain, Jam 5:7).

I noticed you failed to highlight: The word really signifies the "late evening," the latter of the two "evenings" as reckoned by the Jews, the first from 3 p.m. to sunset.....

This is exactly what the Strong's is alluding to.

Are you aware of the two Passover custom that has existed from the Assyrian capture through today? "Jews generally observe one or two seders: in Israel, one seder is observed on the first night of Passover; in the Diaspora communities other than Reform and Reconstructionist Jews hold a seder also on the second night." Passover Seder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's Talmudic and has nothing to do with scripture. The "sedar" meal is a relatively new and non-scriptural meal.

If you knew of this custom, you'd understand from where the idea of redefining evening to also mean 3pm arose, rather than at the Biblical definition of after sunset.

This "custom" as you describe has no bearing on the passover meal that Christ ate. That would be simple speculation. Clearly though both concordances stand on the idea that early evening is from 3PM on.

 

[Standing Up]

Strongs

opsios - from oye - opse 3796; late; feminine (as noun) afternoon (early eve) or nightfall (later eve):--even(-ing, (-tide)).

Vines:

Even (Noun), Evening, Eventide:
the feminine of the adjective opsios, "late," used as a noun, denoting "evening," with hora, "understood" (see No. 1), is found seven times in Matthew, five in Mark, two in John, and in these places only in the NT (some mss. have it in Mar 11:11, see B). The word really signifies the "late evening," the latter of the two "evenings" as reckoned by the Jews, the first from 3 p.m. to sunset, the latter after sunset; this is the usual meaning. It is used, however, of both, e.g., Mar 1:32 (cp. opsimos, "latter," said of rain, Jam 5:7).

They're both saying the same thing.

1) afternoon/3pm to sunset or

2) nightfall/after sunset

2 is the usual meaning.

 

[RND]

Strongs

opsios - from oye - opse 3796; late; feminine (as noun) afternoon (early eve) or nightfall (later eve):--even(-ing, (-tide)).

Vines:

Even (Noun), Evening, Eventide:
the feminine of the adjective opsios, "late," used as a noun, denoting "evening," with hora, "understood" (see No. 1), is found seven times in Matthew, five in Mark, two in John, and in these places only in the NT (some mss. have it in Mar 11:11, see B). The word really signifies the "late evening," the latter of the two "evenings" as reckoned by the Jews, the first from 3 p.m. to sunset, the latter after sunset; this is the usual meaning. It is used, however, of both, e.g., Mar 1:32 (cp. opsimos, "latter," said of rain, Jam 5:7).

They're both saying the same thing.

1) afternoon/3pm to sunset or

2) nightfall/after sunset

2 is the usual meaning.

Exactly.

 

[RND]

2 is the usual meaning.

It is not the only meaning. As such we need to take the context of each passage and chapter into consideration.

Suffice to say Jesus was not buried at night.

 

[Standing Up]

It is not the only meaning. As such we need to take the context of each passage and chapter into consideration.

Suffice to say Jesus was not buried at night.

When did the Egyptians bury their first born?

Assume the type/foreshadow is accurate to the reality, rather than not. Justin Martyr for example used Aaron and Hur holding up Moses' hands as a preamble to the reality of Christ on the cross.

 

[RND]

When did the Egyptians bury their first born?

Was Jesus an Egyptian?

Assume the type/foreshadow is accurate to the reality, rather than not.

What type and shadow?

Justin Martyr for example used Aaron and Hur holding up Moses' hands as a preamble to the reality of Christ on the cross.

I don't necessarily see that as a type but I'm not that big a fan of Justin Martyr either.

 

[archierieus]

The NIV and NLT are two versions that change Mark 15:42 and Matthew 27:57.

None of the five Greek manuscripts that I have checked support that corruption of God's word. In fact, they are all identically worded at those two points. Evening had come.

KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, RSV, ASV, YNG, DBY, WEB, HNV, Mt. 27:57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:

The NIV and NLT change the word of God to fit traditions of men.

'had come'? Pls. parse the Gk. verb. I just now looked, using N-A 27th. Aorist MIDDLE participle. How do you get 'had come' out of that? 'Was coming' would be closer, particularly with the middle IMO. The aorist cannot be defined by aktionsart, plus this is a participle, and it is the genitive. 'had come' would call for the perfect, action started in the past and now completed, or imperfect perhaps. But it is not a perfect or an imperfect.

Dave

 

[BrightCandle]

I am aware of the roots of the seventh day Adventists.

And E. G. White did not originate the Saturday worship, matter of fact most of her writings seem to have been borrowed from others.

But I'm not aware that Sunday worship being the mark of the Beast was taken from Baptists.

So it started in ignorance and was finished by a proclaimed prophet.

Hope that is clearer for you now.

Marv

Let me ask you this question: You are a Lutheran, and yet you do not seem to believe what Martin Luther who founded your denomination believes? He identified the Papacy as the Antichrist in his writings. This same Antichrist is also called the "man of lawlessness" by Paul. Martin Luther and the other Reformers were historicists, and used that method of prophetic interpretation to identify the Papacy as fulfilling the prophetic passages of Daniel and Revelation. SDAs are historicists as well, and have used the same method to interpret what is the mark of the beast. It is in the end time according to Rev. 13 & 14 the deceptive enforcement of a false day of worship by the sea beast and lamb like beast of Rev. 13. And it makes sense since, the fourth commandment is only commandment that an attempted change as made to alter it. Therefore Sunday worship would usurp God's law.
In the end of days, it will all about who you are really worshiping and is it really Jesus that you worshiping. SDAs are taught to study for ourselves and not believe "hook line and sinker" what EG White says, or for that matter what even our SDA theologians say, but to compare their statements to the Bible, and to history. Tradition has no basis as being authoritive for doctrine. While it seems that the Lutherans for the most part are NOT really true Protestants anymore. They surely do not point out that the Papacy still fits the bill as the Antichrist. So, it would seem that you must have to ask yourself this question: Is the modern Lutheran Church really what Martin Luther founded?

 

[Standing Up]

'had come'? Pls. parse the Gk. verb. I just now looked, using N-A 27th. Aorist MIDDLE participle. How do you get 'had come' out of that? 'Was coming' would be closer, particularly with the middle IMO. The aorist cannot be defined by aktionsart, plus this is a participle, and it is the genitive. 'had come' would call for the perfect, action started in the past and now completed, or imperfect perhaps. But it is not a perfect or an imperfect.

Dave

Mark 15:42
Only the NIV and NLT that I'm aware of use the future tense.

NASB When evening had already come
ESV And when evening had come
RSV And when evening had come
YNG And now evening having come
DBY And when it was already evening

The day had changed from Thursday to Friday.

Here's the start of Thursday Mark 14:17. Oddly the NIV and NLT at Mk. 14:17 will translate essentially the same Greek as past tense that they translate as future tense at Mk. 15:42.

YNG And evening having come
NIV When evening came
ESV And when it was evening
NASB When it was evening
DBY And when evening was come

 

[Standing Up]

Was Jesus an Egyptian?



What type and shadow?



I don't necessarily see that as a type but I'm not that big a fan of Justin Martyr either.

On what day did the Israelites leave Egypt?

The reason I bring up Justin Martyr was because he is a witness c150ad to thinking Christ rose on Sunday morning. But to get that he does this:

"For it was not without design that the prophet Moses, when Hur and Aaron upheld his hands, remained in this form until evening. For indeed the Lord remained upon the tree almost until evening, and they buried Him at eventide; then on the third day He rose again."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.xli.html (chapter XCVII, 97, Dialogue with Trypho)

See? If he was taught accurately and stayed with scripture, he would have known what truly happened some 2,000 years ago. Had he agreed with scripture, he would have aligned with the NT. Christ remained on the cross until evening. Evening had come, the day changed from Passover Thursday to preparation day Friday, and Joseph requests the body.

 

[RND]

On what day did the Israelites leave Egypt?

Do you mean what was the first day that the Hebrews began their journey "out" of Egypt or do you mean what day they crossed the Red Sea?

The reason I bring up Justin Martyr was because he is a witness c150ad to thinking Christ rose on Sunday morning. But to get that he does this:

"For it was not without design that the prophet Moses, when Hur and Aaron upheld his hands, remained in this form until evening. For indeed the Lord remained upon the tree almost until evening, and they buried Him at eventide; then on the third day He rose again."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.xli.html (chapter XCVII, 97, Dialogue with Trypho)

See? If he was taught accurately and stayed with scripture, he would have known what truly happened some 2,000 years ago. Had he agreed with scripture, he would have aligned with the NT. Christ remained on the cross until evening.

Exd 17:12 But Moses' hands [were] heavy; and they took a stone, and put [it] under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.

Question: What stone did Jesus sit upon on the cross?

Evening had come, the day changed from Passover Thursday to preparation day Friday, and Joseph requests the body.

So then in order not to violate one passage of scripture in Exodus God God decided to violate another in Deuteronomy? It is evident that Jesus died at 3:00pm - that is when He gave up the ghost. Nowhere in scripture are we instructed that it took 3 hours to put Jesus in the tomb.

I think you are willing at this point to dispel any scriptural logic in order to hold on to this notion of Christ being placed in the tomb at night.

 

[Standing Up]

Do you mean what was the first day that the Hebrews began their journey "out" of Egypt or do you mean what day they crossed the Red Sea?
Exd 17:12 But Moses' hands [were] heavy; and they took a stone, and put [it] under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.

Question: What stone did Jesus sit upon on the cross?

So then in order not to violate one passage of scripture in Exodus God God decided to violate another in Deuteronomy? It is evident that Jesus died at 3:00pm - that is when He gave up the ghost. Nowhere in scripture are we instructed that it took 3 hours to put Jesus in the tomb.

I think you are willing at this point to dispel any scriptural logic in order to hold on to this notion of Christ being placed in the tomb at night.

Jesus is the rock, making the point. On the cross until the going down/in of the sun. Not almost, as in 3pm, but to sunset. You didn't know you believed like Saint Justin Martyr.

Out of Egypt, leaving Rameses. When did they do this?

 

[archierieus]

On the cross until the going down/in of the sun. Not almost, as in 3pm, but to sunset.

Incorrect. Jesus died around the ninth hour, which would be 3 p.m. Here is the passage in Mt. 27:

The Death of Jesus

45From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[c] lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"[d]

47When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."
48Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."
50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
54When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son[e] of God!"
55Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons. The Burial of Jesus

57As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus.

And the Lk. 23 parallel acct:

Jesus' Death

44It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

47The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, "Surely this was a righteous man." 48When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away. 49But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things. Jesus' Burial

50Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, 51who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea and he was waiting for the kingdom of God. 52Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body. 53Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. 54It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.

As for any attempted tie-in with Aaron and Hur holding up Moses' hands, there is absolutely no exegetical warrant for doing so. It is pure, unsupported speculation.

 

[BigNorsk]

Let me ask you this question: You are a Lutheran, and yet you do not seem to believe what Martin Luther who founded your denomination believes? He identified the Papacy as the Antichrist in his writings. This same Antichrist is also called the "man of lawlessness" by Paul. Martin Luther and the other Reformers were historicists, and used that method of prophetic interpretation to identify the Papacy as fulfilling the prophetic passages of Daniel and Revelation. SDAs are historicists as well, and have used the same method to interpret what is the mark of the beast. It is in the end time according to Rev. 13 & 14 the deceptive enforcement of a false day of worship by the sea beast and lamb like beast of Rev. 13. And it makes sense since, the fourth commandment is only commandment that an attempted change as made to alter it. Therefore Sunday worship would usurp God's law.
In the end of days, it will all about who you are really worshiping and is it really Jesus that you worshiping. SDAs are taught to study for ourselves and not believe "hook line and sinker" what EG White says, or for that matter what even our SDA theologians say, but to compare their statements to the Bible, and to history. Tradition has no basis as being authoritive for doctrine. While it seems that the Lutherans for the most part are NOT really true Protestants anymore. They surely do not point out that the Papacy still fits the bill as the Antichrist. So, it would seem that you must have to ask yourself this question: Is the modern Lutheran Church really what Martin Luther founded?

I would suggest that if you are going to base arguements on statement you make that at least you start with some idea of what you are speaking about. In this case, that would be what Lutherans are, teach, and believe. The basic Lutheran Confessions are contained in the Book of Concord. You could read it at www.bookofconcord.org I would suggest using that for an understanding of what is believed and taught and not some conversation with someone who might go to a Lutheran church, but isn't even necessarily Lutheran. The Confessions have a lot more authority than anything they would tell you anyway.

If you are told to study for yourself, why is it so obvious you have never bothered to read the Lutheran writings which directly addressed the errors of Rome?

Next, why do you switch from Sunday worship to the Pope being the AntiChrist, try to focus a bit. The topic is on the Sabbath, not the Pope, though I suppose in your mind they are intertwined so strongly as to not be separated. In any case, the Pope has nothing to do with Sunday worship, it was established long before there was a Pope. In any case, Sunday is not the Sabbath, the rest we receive in Christ is. If we lived in a situation where Tuesday was the day when we could get together, we would have corporate worship on Tuesday. Sunday worship, while traditional, is not a matter of some sort of sabbath observation among Lutherans.

From the Large Catechism:

<H4>78] Thou shalt sanctify the holy day. [Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.]

79] The word holy day (Feiertag) is rendered from the Hebrew word sabbath which properly signifies to rest, that is, to abstain from labor. Hence we are accustomed to say, Feierabend machen [that is, to cease working], or heiligen Abend geben [sanctify the Sabbath]. 80] Now, in the Old Testament, God separated the seventh day, and appointed it for rest, and commanded that it should be regarded as holy above all others. As regards this external observance, this commandment was given to the Jews alone, that they should abstain from toilsome work, and rest, so that both man and beast might recuperate, and not be weakened by unremitting labor. Although they afterwards restricted this too closely, and grossly abused it, so that they traduced and could not endure in Christ those works which they themselves were accustomed to do on that day, as we read in the Gospel; just as though the commandment were fulfilled by doing no external, [manual] work whatever, which, however, was not the meaning, but, as we shall hear, that they sanctify the holy day or day of rest.
82] This commandment, therefore, according to its gross sense, does not concern us Christians; for it is altogether an external matter, like other ordinances of the Old Testament, which were attached to particular customs, persons, times, and places, and now have been made free through Christ.
83] But to grasp a Christian meaning for the simple as to what God requires in this commandment, note that we keep holy days not for the sake of intelligent and learned Christians (for they have no need of it [holy days]), but first of all for bodily causes and necessities, which nature teaches and requires; for the common people, man-servants and maid-servants, who have been attending to their work and trade the whole week, that for a day they may retire in order to rest and be refreshed.
84] Secondly, and most especially, that on such day of rest (since we can get no other opportunity) freedom and time be taken to attend divine service, so that we come together to hear and treat of God's Word, and then to praise God, to sing and pray. 85] However, this, I say, is not so restricted to any time, as with the Jews, that it must be just on this or that day; for in itself no one day is better than another; but this should indeed be done daily; however, since the masses cannot give such attendance, there must be at least one day in the week set apart. But since from of old Sunday [the Lord's Day] has been appointed for this purpose, we also should continue the same, in order that everything be done in harmonious order, and no one create disorder by unnecessary innovation.

</H4>
Marv

 

[lionroar0]

Sunday worship, while traditional, is not a matter of some sort of sabbath observation among Lutherans.

That's probably true for most Christendom.

There are other factors involved.

Such as Christians could not break bread at a synaguoge or read from Christian manuscripts.

 

[BrightCandle]

I would suggest that if you are going to base arguements on statement you make that at least you start with some idea of what you are speaking about. In this case, that would be what Lutherans are, teach, and believe. The basic Lutheran Confessions are contained in the Book of Concord. You could read it at www.bookofconcord.org I would suggest using that for an understanding of what is believed and taught and not some conversation with someone who might go to a Lutheran church, but isn't even necessarily Lutheran. The Confessions have a lot more authority than anything they would tell you anyway.

If you are told to study for yourself, why is it so obvious you have never bothered to read the Lutheran writings which directly addressed the errors of Rome?

Next, why do you switch from Sunday worship to the Pope being the AntiChrist, try to focus a bit. The topic is on the Sabbath, not the Pope, though I suppose in your mind they are intertwined so strongly as to not be separated. In any case, the Pope has nothing to do with Sunday worship, it was established long before there was a Pope. In any case, Sunday is not the Sabbath, the rest we receive in Christ is. If we lived in a situation where Tuesday was the day when we could get together, we would have corporate worship on Tuesday. Sunday worship, while traditional, is not a matter of some sort of sabbath observation among Lutherans.

From the Large Catechism:

</H4>
Marv

Marv: You did a good job of skirting the BIG questions: Namely, do Lutherans believe what their founder believed in that the Papacy was the Antichrist? And if so, that same Antichrist claims to have have changed the Sabbath to Sunday. And why don't we hear the Lutherans proclaiming what Martin Luther proclaimed by voice and in writing, that the Papacy was the Antichrist. BTW, the other Reformers of the 16th century gave the same message. My feeling from talking to many Lutherans and attending a number of Lutheran services (my wife is an organist, so she had played in a number of Lutheran churches), is that they have abandoned their Protestant roots, at least those doctrines that might offend Catholics. I have never seen in all of my travels a prophecy seminar advertised by a Lutheran church.

Sunday worship has its strongest origins with Rome, so the two are connected, especially in light of the last day events which be all about who are you are worshiping, and when how you are worhsiping in the last days.

 

[BigNorsk]

It's really not the question of this thread. This thread is about the Sabbath, if you just want to discuss the Pope, start a different thread. The Catholics are clearly wrong in claiming they have the authority to designate a different sabbath. That doesn't make you right. Just you fell off the path listening to our own authorities. Exchanged one extrabiblical enthusiast for another. Same mistake, different names.

By linking Sunday worship and Rome so strongly you are really doing the same thing higher critics of Christianity do when they say oh look, here's an example of a religion with a Mother and Child. Mary and Jesus must be based on them. And here's a story of someone who was resurrected, so Jesus' resurrection is based on that.

Well those aren't true and it isn't true that we follow the Pope by worshipping on Sunday, however strongly your incorrect references claim that is the reason.

We don't spend a lot of time on prophecy. It's about the least important thing the bible teaches. What we unformly find is that people who make it a major thing are all messed up. They even turn the reassurance Revelation gives into a scarry thing, can you imagine? They seem to think being terrified saves people. They tend to think the Gospel of Jesus is observation of all sorts of laws. They replace the Bible with their unique revelations.

Lutherans, even liberal ones, tend to be sola scriptura. That would be a Protestant root thing. People who hunger after prophecy don't tend to be sola scriptura. If we are going to throw stones about abandoning Protestant roots, I'd say I can't think of a group that has made prophecy a major thing in their teachings who are sola scriptura. They test things not against scripture, but against the claimed revelations of their prophets.

The AntiChrist is not a fundamental Christian Doctrine. Scripture does not link it to salvation. It's strange to say people are abandoning Protestant roots over nonfundamentals. If the Pope as AntiChrist is a fundamental doctrine in your understanding, you better do some work on your understanding.

Marv

 

[Standing Up]

Incorrect. Jesus died around the ninth hour, which would be 3 p.m. Here is the passage in Mt. 27:



And the Lk. 23 parallel acct:

Died at 3pm no problem. But then you use the NIV/NLT that has no support, except traditions of men, to change the Greek wording from evening had come to evening will come. You appear able to look at the Greek. Why not do so?

Do you at least understand, even if you continue to agree with Tradition? As I showed, and to which you never replied, Lk tells us, if translated correctly, He is buried on Preparation Day and it is the feast sabbath. Mt. and Mk. say evening had come to start Passover; they say evening had come to start Preparation Day and the feast Sabbath Friday.

As for any attempted tie-in with Aaron and Hur holding up Moses' hands, there is absolutely no exegetical warrant for doing so. It is pure, unsupported speculation.

Not at all. Paul said it was written for our instruction. God had a plan and foreshadowed it. Moses' hands and the staff of God as a banner are types of it.

 

[Standing Up]

Getting back to the OP question, I think the Lord's day is not a day of the week per se, like Saturday or Sunday, nor is it the day of the Lord, instead it refers to a period of time. John was in day five Lord's day. We are in day six Lord's day. The millenial reign is the Lord's day seven.

Peter explained this 1,000 years as a day concept. And each of those days is the Lord's who created the whole thing.

John was in the spirit on the Lord's day. He heard behind him a voice like a trumpet. Revelation was written circa 90, so he had to turn around to see when the Lord's day began some 60 years earlier.

He then hears the voice again and goes to heaven and sees a vision. Here are the symbols and meanings:

Throne and One sitting

Rainbow around (references Noah)

24 elders (references OT High Priests from Aaron to X? (the last one referenced by Ezra))

7 Spirits of God (later, after the Lamb per se is there, they will be sent (Pentecost))

Sea of glass like crystal (later this will be mingled with blood (of the Lamb), but this first references Adam/Eve)

Four living creatures (Christ Jesus)

So, very roughly speaking, crystal/pristine starting point (Adam/Eve pre fall) to Noah is 1000 years. Noah to Moses/Aaron is 1000 years. Moses/Aaron to Christ is 2000 years. Christ to today is 2000 years.

Thoughts? Comments?