Mat 28:1 teaches Shabbat Resurrection

[ContraMundum]

The basics: Sabbaton = Sabbaths

The lie: Sabbath = Sunday.

We all know that. I thought that was clear.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

We all know that. I thought that was clear.

To further show us you are on the level ContraMundum, please apply your Greek expertise to these questions:

1. It is possible that σαββάτων = Sabbaths? Yes or No.
2. Is it possible that μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων = first day of the Sabbaths = first Sabbath day? Yes/No.
3. Does “day of the Sabbaths”, τὴν ἡμέραν τῶν σαββάτων, or τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων mean “the Sabbath day”, i.e. “the day for the Sabbaths”? Yes or No.
4. Does the insertion of “first” μιᾷ, into the standard Greek phrase for the Sabbath day change the lexical meaning of σαββάτων because there is some grammatical rule that says the meaning must change? (τῇ μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτω&#957 Yes or No? Or does it simply make it “the first Sabbath day”? Yes or No?
5. Should the deletion of the word ἡμέρᾳ alter the meaning of the phrase, “first day of the Sabbaths” to “first of the Sabbaths” on grammatical grounds? Yes or No.

6. If the answer is yes on question 4 or 5, then is the answer also yes on Mark 14:12 to Matthew 26:17, that “the first day of the unleavens” requires a lexical change of meaning in the word “unleavens” on grammatical grounds in Matthew: “first of the unleavens” Τῇ δὲ πρώτῃ τῶν ἀζύμων, where “day” has been dropped. Yes or No.

7. Is it possible that on the basis of Lev. 23:15 there was an annual counting of seven Sabbaths after Passover? Yes or No.
8. May it be that the reason the phrase “first of the Sabbaths” only occurs in contexts after Passover that it is counting the first of these seven Sabbaths? Yes or No.
9. Is it possible that the reason there is no contemporary usage of the phrase outside of SEVEN usages in the NT showing a meaning of “first day of the week” that the reasoning that it means “first day of the week” is purely circular? Yes or No.
10. Is it possible that without prior indoctrination from tradition that someone fluent in Koine Greek would come up with “first Sabbath day” from the phrase? Yes or No.

 

[Avodat]

Who is 'us'?

 

[Daniel Gregg]

Who is 'us'?

Anyone with common sense. Now answer the questions if you can:

1. It is possible that σαββάτων = Sabbaths? Yes or No.
2. Is it possible that μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων = first day of the Sabbaths = first Sabbath day? Yes/No.
3. Does “day of the Sabbaths”, τὴν ἡμέραν τῶν σαββάτων, or τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων mean “the Sabbath day”, i.e. “the day for the Sabbaths”? Yes or No.
4. Does the insertion of “first” μιᾷ, into the standard Greek phrase for the Sabbath day change the lexical meaning of σαββάτων because there is some grammatical rule that says the meaning must change? (τῇ μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτω&#957 Yes or No? Or does it simply make it “the first Sabbath day”? Yes or No?
5. Should the deletion of the word ἡμέρᾳ alter the meaning of the phrase, “first day of the Sabbaths” to “first of the week” on grammatical grounds? Yes or No.

6. If the answer is yes on question 4 or 5, then is the answer also yes on Mark 14:12 to Matthew 26:17, that “the first day of the unleavens” requires a lexical change of meaning in the word “unleavens” on grammatical grounds in Matthew: “first of the unleavens” Τῇ δὲ πρώτῃ τῶν ἀζύμων, where “day” has been dropped. Yes or No.

7. Is it possible that on the basis of Lev. 23:15 there was an annual counting of seven Sabbaths after Passover? Yes or No.
8. May it be that the reason the phrase “first of the Sabbaths” only occurs in contexts after Passover that it is counting the first of these seven Sabbaths? Yes or No.
9. Is it possible that the reason there is no contemporary usage of the phrase outside of SEVEN usages in the NT showing a meaning of “first day of the week” that the reasoning that it means “first day of the week” is purely circular? Yes or No.
10. Is it possible that without prior indoctrination from tradition that someone fluent in Koine Greek would come up with “first Sabbath day” from the phrase? Yes or No.

 

[Avodat]

Anyone with common sense. Now answer the questions if you can:

1. It is possible that σαββάτων = Sabbaths? Yes or No.
2. Is it possible that μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων = first day of the Sabbaths = first Sabbath day? Yes/No.
3. Does “day of the Sabbaths”, τὴν ἡμέραν τῶν σαββάτων, or τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων mean “the Sabbath day”, i.e. “the day for the Sabbaths”? Yes or No.
4. Does the insertion of “first” μιᾷ, into the standard Greek phrase for the Sabbath day change the lexical meaning of σαββάτων because there is some grammatical rule that says the meaning must change? (τῇ μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτω&#957 Yes or No? Or does it simply make it “the first Sabbath day”? Yes or No?
5. Should the deletion of the word ἡμέρᾳ alter the meaning of the phrase, “first day of the Sabbaths” to “first of the Sabbaths” on grammatical grounds? Yes or No.

6. If the answer is yes on question 4 or 5, then is the answer also yes on Mark 14:12 to Matthew 26:17, that “the first day of the unleavens” requires a lexical change of meaning in the word “unleavens” on grammatical grounds in Matthew: “first of the unleavens” Τῇ δὲ πρώτῃ τῶν ἀζύμων, where “day” has been dropped. Yes or No.

7. Is it possible that on the basis of Lev. 23:15 there was an annual counting of seven Sabbaths after Passover? Yes or No.
8. May it be that the reason the phrase “first of the Sabbaths” only occurs in contexts after Passover that it is counting the first of these seven Sabbaths? Yes or No.
9. Is it possible that the reason there is no contemporary usage of the phrase outside of SEVEN usages in the NT showing a meaning of “first day of the week” that the reasoning that it means “first day of the week” is purely circular? Yes or No.
10. Is it possible that without prior indoctrination from tradition that someone fluent in Koine Greek would come up with “first Sabbath day” from the phrase? Yes or No.

No. You addressed those questions to another poster, not me. I have no wish to respond to your questions until and unless you sensibly answer those I have already asked you.

 

[anisavta]

Oh for Pete's sake Daniel, you're not in Jr. High anymore.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

No. You addressed those questions to another poster, not me.

Now they are addressed to you and anyone else who claims my Greek is no good. So answer the questions.

1. It is possible that σαββάτων = Sabbaths? Yes or No.
2. Is it possible that μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων = first day of the Sabbaths = first Sabbath day? Yes/No.
3. Does “day of the Sabbaths”, τὴν ἡμέραν τῶν σαββάτων, or τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων mean “the Sabbath day”, i.e. “the day for the Sabbaths”? Yes or No.
4. Does the insertion of “first” μιᾷ, into the standard Greek phrase for the Sabbath day change the lexical meaning of σαββάτων because there is some grammatical rule that says the meaning must change? (τῇ μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτω&#957 Yes or No? Or does it simply make it “the first Sabbath day”? Yes or No?
5. Should the deletion of the word ἡμέρᾳ alter the meaning of the phrase, “first day of the Sabbaths” to “first of the Sabbaths” on grammatical grounds? Yes or No.

6. If the answer is yes on question 4 or 5, then is the answer also yes on Mark 14:12 to Matthew 26:17, that “the first day of the unleavens” requires a lexical change of meaning in the word “unleavens” on grammatical grounds in Matthew: “first of the unleavens” Τῇ δὲ πρώτῃ τῶν ἀζύμων, where “day” has been dropped. Yes or No.

7. Is it possible that on the basis of Lev. 23:15 there was an annual counting of seven Sabbaths after Passover? Yes or No.
8. May it be that the reason the phrase “first of the Sabbaths” only occurs in contexts after Passover that it is counting the first of these seven Sabbaths? Yes or No.
9. Is it possible that the reason there is no contemporary usage of the phrase outside of SEVEN usages in the NT showing a meaning of “first day of the week” that the reasoning that it means “first day of the week” is purely circular? Yes or No.
10. Is it possible that without prior indoctrination from tradition that someone fluent in Koine Greek would come up with “first Sabbath day” from the phrase? Yes or No.

 

[Avodat]

My answer remains the same.

BTW I haven't questioned your Greek, or your Hebrew - just your English grammar.

 

[ContraMundum]

To further show us you are on the level ContraMundum, please apply your Greek expertise to these questions:

1. It is possible that σαββάτων = Sabbaths? Yes or No.
2. Is it possible that μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων = first day of the Sabbaths = first Sabbath day? Yes/No.
3. Does “day of the Sabbaths”, τὴν ἡμέραν τῶν σαββάτων, or τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων mean “the Sabbath day”, i.e. “the day for the Sabbaths”? Yes or No.
4. Does the insertion of “first” μιᾷ, into the standard Greek phrase for the Sabbath day change the lexical meaning of σαββάτων because there is some grammatical rule that says the meaning must change? (τῇ μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτω&#957 Yes or No? Or does it simply make it “the first Sabbath day”? Yes or No?
5. Should the deletion of the word ἡμέρᾳ alter the meaning of the phrase, “first day of the Sabbaths” to “first of the Sabbaths” on grammatical grounds? Yes or No.

6. If the answer is yes on question 4 or 5, then is the answer also yes on Mark 14:12 to Matthew 26:17, that “the first day of the unleavens” requires a lexical change of meaning in the word “unleavens” on grammatical grounds in Matthew: “first of the unleavens” Τῇ δὲ πρώτῃ τῶν ἀζύμων, where “day” has been dropped. Yes or No.

7. Is it possible that on the basis of Lev. 23:15 there was an annual counting of seven Sabbaths after Passover? Yes or No.
8. May it be that the reason the phrase “first of the Sabbaths” only occurs in contexts after Passover that it is counting the first of these seven Sabbaths? Yes or No.
9. Is it possible that the reason there is no contemporary usage of the phrase outside of SEVEN usages in the NT showing a meaning of “first day of the week” that the reasoning that it means “first day of the week” is purely circular? Yes or No.
10. Is it possible that without prior indoctrination from tradition that someone fluent in Koine Greek would come up with “first Sabbath day” from the phrase? Yes or No.

Wow...I am in an intertesting dilemma...do I waste my time or not? Getting a Greek test from a complete stranger who's authority I utterly reject and all that with no diploma for reward at the end!?

I look at my wall. I see the degree hanging there in its frame. I see the piles of books on my desk. I see the pile of paperwork. I see the list of people needing my attention today.

Then I turn my attention to CF. In my user CP I see a bunch of threads that I have commented on and they are active. Some are really interesting and profitable. Then I come here. Is it interesting? Is it profitable? Is this guy just wanting to argue or does he have any interest in real discussion? Does he really think 2000+ years of Greek, the meanings given and handed down through the centuries and with unanimous consent is completely wrong? Do I take the time to get immersed in this iconoclastic world of academic anarchy and sacrifice the really interesting conversations I am having right now?

Sadly, the answer has to be no.

Daniel, the whole Greek world is in disagreement with you. On here some if us have already given answers to you. I have already pointed out in very simple terms how your translations cannot work. You are re-writing the text books, and I am rejecting that. If the whole academic world cannot change you, how can a simple pastor with a Bth, or a Greek scholar (Yonah) or a Messianic theologian (Avodat) ever possibly hope to convince you that the rules of grammar are doing just fine without you? We can't. Know this- I will always go with academic consensus. I am on that side, you aren't. I'm a conservative man and that's not going to change.

If I do not think you will ever recant, why would I bother? You should rest in your confidence that I will never accept your premises, translations or possibly your theology, and really don't want to sacrifice productive time on CF trying to convince you. Even this took 10 mins out of my life that I'm not going to get back.

 

[Avodat]

Wow...I am in an intertesting dilemma...do I waste my time or not? Getting a Greek test from a complete stranger who's authority I utterly reject and all that with no diploma for reward at the end!?

I look at my wall. I see the degree hanging there in its frame. I see the piles of books on my desk. I see the pile of paperwork. I see the list of people needing my attention today.

Then I turn my attention to CF. In my user CP I see a bunch of threads that I have commented on and they are active. Some are really interesting and profitable. Then I come here. Is it interesting? Is it profitable? Is this guy just wanting to argue or does he have any interest in real discussion? Does he really think 2000+ years of Greek, the meanings given and handed down through the centuries and with unanimous consent is completely wrong? Do I take the time to get immersed in this iconoclastic world of academic anarchy and sacrifice the really interesting conversations I am having right now?

Sadly, the answer has to be no.

Daniel, the whole Greek world is in disagreement with you. On here some if us have already given answers to you. I have already pointed out in very simple terms how your translations cannot work. You are re-writing the text books, and I am rejecting that. If the whole academic world cannot change you, how can a simple pastor with a Bth, or a Greek scholar (Yonah) or a Messianic theologian (Avodat) ever possibly hope to convince you that the rules of grammar are doing just fine without you? We can't. Know this- I will always go with academic consensus. I am on that side, you aren't. I'm a conservative man and that's not going to change.

If I do not think you will ever recant, why would I bother? You should rest in your confidence that I will never accept your premises, translations or possibly your theology, and really don't want to sacrifice productive time on CF trying to convince you. Even this took 10 mins out of my life that I'm not going to get back.

Exactly - that is why I haven't bothered to comment on some doubtful theology consequential to his proposed changes to The Book. He seems to be imposing on us, via his threads, material used for books he claims to have written. It is a subtle form of advertising.

If I wanted to know what he thinks, I'd buy his books. However, material written by a non-academic that has not been submitted to peer review is not what I would choose to spend my book grant on when there is so much other material that disagrees with him on my bookshelf.

 

[ContraMundum]

Exactly - that is why I haven't bothered to comment on some doubtful theology consequential to his proposed changes to The Book. He seems to be imposing on us, via his threads, material used for books he claims to have written. It is a subtle form of advertising.

If I wanted to know what he thinks, I'd buy his books. However, material written by a non-academic that has not been submitted to peer review is not what I would choose to spend my book grant on when there is so much other material that disagrees with him on my bookshelf.

Exactly...peer review is everything in academia..and yes, consensus has far better checks and balances.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Wow...I am in an intertesting dilemma...do I waste my time or not? Getting a Greek test from a complete stranger who's authority I utterly reject and all that with no diploma for reward at the end!?

I look at my wall. I see the degree hanging there in its frame. I see the piles of books on my desk. I see the pile of paperwork. I see the list of people needing my attention today.

Then I turn my attention to CF. In my user CP I see a bunch of threads that I have commented on and they are active. Some are really interesting and profitable. Then I come here. Is it interesting? Is it profitable? Is this guy just wanting to argue or does he have any interest in real discussion? Does he really think 2000+ years of Greek, the meanings given and handed down through the centuries and with unanimous consent is completely wrong? Do I take the time to get immersed in this iconoclastic world of academic anarchy and sacrifice the really interesting conversations I am having right now?

Sadly, the answer has to be no.

Daniel, the whole Greek world is in disagreement with you. On here some if us have already given answers to you. I have already pointed out in very simple terms how your translations cannot work. You are re-writing the text books, and I am rejecting that. If the whole academic world cannot change you, how can a simple pastor with a Bth, or a Greek scholar (Yonah) or a Messianic theologian (Avodat) ever possibly hope to convince you that the rules of grammar are doing just fine without you? We can't. Know this- I will always go with academic consensus. I am on that side, you aren't. I'm a conservative man and that's not going to change.

If I do not think you will ever recant, why would I bother? You should rest in your confidence that I will never accept your premises, translations or possibly your theology, and really don't want to sacrifice productive time on CF trying to convince you. Even this took 10 mins out of my life that I'm not going to get back.

Wow. Very very clear and convincing.

 

[yonah_mishael]

By the way, what does “the later of the Shabbats, at the dawning on the first of the Shabbats” even mean? Was it later or the first of the Sabbaths? It doesn’t even make sense! While ὀψέ as an adverb does mean “later,” it is used as a preposition in Matthew 28:1. The genitive follows this preposition in the same way that it follows the prepositions ἐκ and ἀπό. In Life of Apollonius of Tyana (as cited in LSJ) we find ὀψὼ τούτων meaning “after these things.” The phrase ὀψὲ σαββάτων means “after the Sabbath.”

So, I don’t understand how “after the Sabbath” teaches a Sabbath resurrection.

Matthew 28:1:
ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.​

This means Now after the Sabbath, at dawn unto the first of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the tomb.

This verse certainly does not support the claim of the OP.

 

[macher]

By the way, what does “the later of the Shabbats, at the dawning on the first of the Shabbats” even mean? Was it later or the first of the Sabbaths? It doesn’t even make sense! While ὀψέ as an adverb does mean “later,” it is used as a preposition in Matthew 28:1. The genitive follows this preposition in the same way that it follows the prepositions ἐκ and ἀπό. In Life of Apollonius of Tyana (as cited in LSJ) we find ὀψὼ τούτων meaning “after these things.” The phrase ὀψὲ σαββάτων means “after the Sabbath.”

So, I don’t understand how “after the Sabbath” teaches a Sabbath resurrection.

Matthew 28:1:
ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.​

This means Now after the Sabbath, at dawn unto the first of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the tomb.

This verse certainly does not support the claim of the OP.

Most not all messianic Jews like myself in general believe in a Sunday resurrection, First Fruits fulfillment.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Mark 16 states also that Sabbath had passed:

Καὶ διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη ἠγόρασαν ἀρώματα ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν.

The phrase διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου is a genitive absolute meaning “the Sabbath having past.” It also contradicts the claim of this thread.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Luke 23:56 says that the women prepared spices before Sabbath and rested on the Sabbath. Then it states that they came on the first day of the week (using the phrase being unsuccessfully contended here) to anoint the body.

Everything agrees. Jesus was killed on the preparation day, the spices were prepared by the women to anoint his body, Jesus was laid to rest, the Sabbath past and they rested and did not attend to the anointing, then on Sunday morning (after Sabbath) they came to the tomb to anoint the body and the tomb was empty.

 

[WOFFED]

Matthew 28:1 (YLT)

And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre,

Matthew 28:1 (ASV)
Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

The early translators had a challenge between Jewish reckoning and Roman reckoning. Also it is no secret that the Catholic Church wanted to believe the resurrection took place on Sunday ... they also believed the world was flat.

It’s obvious from reading different translations that Yeshua’s resurrection took place midway through the Seventh Day. For the sake of this example lets say it was about 12 hours into the Seventh Day; which began at sundown (on Friday of western week reckoning) continuing until just before sundown (on Saturday of western week).

The only way to account for a cumulative 3 days and 3 nights (72 hours) having elapsed from the time Yeshua gave up his spirit to his resurrection was if Yeshua gave up his spirit on noon of the Fourth Day.

Luke 23:44-48 (CJB)
44 It was now about noon, and darkness covered the whole Land until three o’clock in the afternoon;
45 the sun did not shine. Also the parokhet in the Temple was split down the middle.
46 Crying out with a loud voice, Yeshua said, “Father! Into your hands I commit my spirit.” With these words he gave up his spirit.
47 When the Roman officer saw what had happened, he began to praise God and said, “Surely this man was innocent!”
48 And when all the crowds that had gathered to watch the spectacle saw the things that had occurred, they returned home beating their breasts.

As we found out from Vis ( http://www.christianforums.com/t7721810/ ) that Luke did not always record events chronologically, but he did record them in an 'orderly manner.' So, it's possible that it was noon when the parokhet was split down the middle and Yeshua committed his spirit into the hands of his father.

Edit Clarification: Opps! 72 hours counting from noon on Passover (the Fourth Day) would take us to noon of the Seventh Day. If Yeshua committed his spirit into the hands of his father at 3pm then 72 hours later would be 3pm on the Sabbath Seventh Day or about 3 hours before sundown before Yeshua Hamashiach was resurrected, assuming 72 hours had to transpire. That leads one to ponder if Nissan 14 actually occured on the Third Day and not the Fourth Day.

 

[visionary]

Exactly...peer review is everything in academia..and yes, consensus has far better checks and balances.

or propaganda mills... tradition held by concensus... that is why established religious organizations do not upgrade with new light... aka fall feasts and the second coming.

 

[WOFFED]

or propaganda mills... tradition held by concensus... that is why established religious organizations do not upgrade with new light... aka fall feasts and the second coming.

The only way Yeshua's resurrection could have occured on the Sabbath, 7th Day (which I believe) is if Passover, Nissan 14 actually occured on the Third Day assuming 3 days and 3 nights (72 hours) had to have elapsed before the resurrection; which we all seem to agree happened sometime before early Saturday morning when Mary Magdalene arrived at the tomb with Mary.


"Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre." (Matt 28:1 ASV)


Or as implied in Young's Literal Translation was Sunday, the First Day following Passover also considered a Sabbath Day.

 

[ananda]

Most not all messianic Jews like myself in general believe in a Sunday resurrection, First Fruits fulfillment.

or propaganda mills... tradition held by concensus... that is why established religious organizations do not upgrade with new light... aka fall feasts and the second coming.

Amein.