Mat 28:1 teaches Shabbat Resurrection

[ananda]

Well, Daaa! We all know that.
So who else on this thread besides you believes that Aviv 14 occurred on the Third Day instead of the Fourth Day as most believe. I should say that I am certainly open to that "theory" but scripture seems to imply otherwise regarding the resurrection as taking place on the First Day (Sunday to western religion).

I am not aware of anyone else who believes that, on this thread.

It's possible that the Catholic Church SO INFLUENCED protestants that all of the translations could be skewed toward the First Day when in fact the Resurrection could have occurred on the Seventh Day. What Say? ...Yes, almost impossible to believe that all of the translations could be in error regarding the First Day (Sunday(Sonday) to us) being Resurrection Day with Yeshua HaMashiach as the first fruit of the New Covenant Wine.

I suppose the establishment (RCC or otherwise) could indeed have engaged in such influence.

I suggest that most mainstream translators translated the phrase as "first day of the week aka Sunday" because many centuries of church tradition demands it. It's much easier to go with the "herd", obviously. Few would dare to rock the big boat called Christianity in such a dramatic way, and fewer would willingly place their personal academic careers in danger, in releasing a translation significantly different than most others and thus forcing billions to reexamine their fundamental beliefs about Sunday vs. the Sabbath. Lastly, I'm sure they also have translation sales and profits to think about, and corporate sponsors to answer to.

There are a few translations out there that does translate "mia ton Sabbaton" as "one of the Sabbaths", and I stand by them. So far, I've only found a handful of translations which translates these verses as referencing Sabbath instead of "first day of the week aka Sunday". This includes the Coverdale Bible, the Concordant Literal Version, the Julia Smith Translation, Jonathan Mitchell's NT, and, surprisingly, the Bishops' Bible. Young's Literal also largely translates them as "Sabbath", but it reverts to "first day of the week" in one instance - Acts 20:7.

 

[ananda]

netzarim ... implied Yeshua was resurrected after exactly 72 hours. Well, if that was the case then Yeshua was resurrected on the Sixth Day just three hours before the beginning of the Seventh Day Sabbath ... assuming He died at 3pm and sundown was at 6pm.

Why is it so impossible to believe?

If Messiah did resurrect on the end of the Sixth Day, it would perfectly foreshadow our own resurrection & judgment before we enter into the rest of the eternal Sabbath.

 

[WOFFED]

Why is it so impossible to believe?

If Messiah did resurrect on the end of the Sixth Day, it would perfectly foreshadow our own resurrection & judgment before we enter into the rest of the eternal Sabbath.

That’s a big IF.

Out of all the members replying to this thread and the vast majority of Christendom you actually believe Yeshua's resurrection occurred approximately three hours before the beginning of the Seventh Day. It’s your assumption that 3 days and 3 nights (exactly 72 hours) had elapsed from his death on the cross to his resurrection.

So, you believe the earthquake occurred at 3pm on the Third Day assuming 72 hours had elapsed between His death on the cross and his resurrection at 3pm on the Sixth Day.

Wouldn’t it make more sense for Yeshua to be resurrected before dawn and then have the entire day to enjoy.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

“Later” is an adverb. Tell me how an adverb is followed by a genitive, will you? Nonsense.

And here it is not: "The later date will be fine"

Your premise is false, therefore all that depends on it is false.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

Exactly. John's gospel has the anointing of the body (embalming, hardly!!!) done by these two. The other gospels doesn't mention this. In the Synoptics, the women are coming to do it. I've written about this before, but I cannot argue about it here.

You cannot argue about it because I presume you would say the accounts contradict.

 

[yedida]

You cannot argue about it because I presume you would say the accounts contradict.

He cannot argue it because he is not a christian, nor is he a Yeshua-believing member of this forum so it would be against CF rules for him to argue it.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

I did not explain the grammar of "later of the Sabbaths" in my OP. Now I will:

[FONT=&quot]● In the phrase “later of the Shabba̱t̑s” (Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτω&#957, the word “later” (Ὀψ&#8050 is used as an adjectival substantive filling the head noun slot of a partitive genitive (cf. Wallace, Syntax, pg 84). Compare Rom. 15:26, “the poor of the holy ones”, where the poor is the part of the whole, “the holy ones.” “the late” or “the later” is the part of the whole, “the Sabbaths”, thus “the late [one] of the Sabbaths”; the same word sometimes sees use as both an adverb and an adjective, i.e. “The man was running late (adv)”; “Her late husband had three brothers” (adjective use). Ὀψὲ may also be used as a comparative adjective this way, “the later [one] of the Sabbaths”; also “later/late in the day” = “the later/late [part] of the day” (partititve use of the genitive).

[/FONT]

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.

Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) is puzzling. Can you guys make sense of it ? It does seem as if the translators are trying to appease both sides of the coin (Seventh Day Resurrection vs First Day Resurrection). Or is it possible that this Passover resulted in 2 or 3 Sabbaths during this most Holy moed.

These translations as well as others seem to be in agreement that Yeshua’s resurrection occurred on the First Day. How can one interpret any differently unless they stubbornly believe the Messiah had to be resurrected on the Seventh Day.

EDIT: I'll take that back. It does appear as if the ASV translation may be the only translation that implies the ressurection took place on the Sabbath, but then that means that Aviv 14 was on the Third Day.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

So, how many others besides you and Daniel believe the ASV is one of the better translations with Aviv 14 occurring on the Third Day and not the Fourth Day as many believe.

"Late" is correct, but the ASV has the wrong interpretation of the genitive.. See my previous post.

Correction: I hold the 14th of Aviv was on the 4th day of the week.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

First fruits is on the day after the annual Sabbath, Aviv 16. That year it was Friday daybreak to Sabbath daybreak, as the day for offerings is from daybreak to daybreak (cf. Lev. 6:9; 7:15, etc).

Yes, it is amazing, but the Karaite view of Shavuot is contradicted by the "first of the Sabbaths".

Isn't it amazing.. God knowing how the annual feasts float around the week tied First Fruits and Pentecost to the first of the week.. and then made sure that the year that Yeshua did it would be three days and three nights... from Passover to the Time when the wave sheaf would be gathered in for the First Fruits celebration the next morning.... He is so smart.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

So the translators that don't agree with the tradition are not translators? Sounds like convienient exlusion to me.

Yes, almost impossible to believe that all of the translations could be in error regarding the First Day (Sunday(Sonday) to us) being Resurrection Day with Yeshua HaMashiach as the first fruit of the New Covenant Wine.

So any way netzarim didn't reply so I take it he is the only one in this thread that believes Aviv 14 occurred on the Third Day instead of the Fourth Day as most everyone believes. At one time he implied Yeshua was resurrected after exactly 72 hours. Well, if that was the case then Yeshua was resurrected on the Sixth Day just three hours before the beginning of the Seventh Day Sabbath ... assuming He died at 3pm and sundown was at 6pm.

Any way it really got me to thinking and as usual I got confused in the forest for all the trees making it more difficult to find my way.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

Those "had" translations are inaccurate, and the contrast "had" forces into the text has no basis in the Greek. There are two aorists that carry the narrative in sequential order.

Matthew 28:2 (NASB)

And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it.​

Mattityahu 28:2 Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
And hinei! a great earthquake had occurred, for a malach Adonoi (an angel of Hashem) descended from Shomayim and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it.​

The earthquake occurred previous to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arriving at the tomb. Agreed that whether it happened one hour or two hours earlier is speculative. It also says as it began to dawn so they arrived before sunrise. That time of the year there is enough light to see where you're going even one hour before sunrise. Apparently the soldiers stationed to guard the tomb were long gone by the time Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrived.​

Dawn = The first appearance of light in the sky before sunrise: "the rose-pink light of dawn"​

Matthew 28:1 (KJV)
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Matthew 28:1 (NASB)
Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.




​

 

[ananda]

Wouldn’t it make more sense for Yeshua to be resurrected before dawn and then have the entire day to enjoy.

If He resurrected on Saturday just before dawn, then it would make it longer than 72 hours.

 

[WOFFED]

Those "had" translations are inaccurate, and the contrast "had" forces into the text has no basis in the Greek. There are two aorists that carry the narrative in sequential order.

Now I am beginning to see why you aggravate others with your know-it-all replies.​

You certainly don't believe (or I guess you do) that the earthquake happened just as they were nearing the tomb? That means they probably saw the Romam soldiers in a state of confusion just before they high-tailed it out of there to tell their superiors and/or political/religious elite.

The earthquake had happened sometime before Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrived at the tomb. OK, maybe it was only 15 minutes, but one gets the impression that the Roman guard was no longer anywhere to be seen as the two women approached the site of the tomb.

The point is that the earthquake did not occurr as they approached the tomb. The earthquake had already occurred.

So, where is your proof from some ancient primary source or reliable secondary source material that the earthquake hadn't already occurred, but instead occurred as they came within sight of the tomb.

Just because an angel was sitting on the stone is no proof that the earthquake occurred just as they werre approaching the tomb. It is more likely that the earthquake had already occurred and that the Roman Guards had already left.

 

[WOFFED]

If He resurrected on Saturday just before dawn, then it would make it longer than 72 hours.

Herbert W. Armstrong, leader of the Radio Church of God pro­gram broadcast from Pasadena, California, affirms: (1) that "Jesus was crucified on Wednesday," (2) that "Jesus was exactly three days and three nights—three full twenty-four-hour days—seventy-two hours in the grave," and (3) that "the resurrec­tion of Christ occurred late Saturday after­noon." 1 Two or three other small religious groups in the United States likewise advo­cate this theory concerning Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.

The proponents of that doctrine base it primarily on two statements found in the Gospel of Matthew, which are the follow­ing:

1. "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." 2 On the basis of that statement by Christ rests the conjec­ture that He stayed in the tomb exactly seventy-two hours.

2. "In the end of the sabbath, as it be­gan to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. . . . And the an­gel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said." 3 On the premise of this statement by Matthew, rests the assumption that Christ rose from the grave late on Sat­urday afternoon. Its advocates simply reckon back seventy-two full hours from that time to late Wednesday afternoon and then allege that this was the day of the week on which Christ died and received burial.

 

[ananda]

Herbert W. Armstrong, leader of the Radio Church of God pro[bless and do not curse]gram broadcast from Pasadena, California, affirms: (1) that "Jesus was crucified on Wednesday," ... The proponents of that doctrine base it primarily on two statements found in the Gospel of Matthew, which are the follow[bless and do not curse]ing: ... 2. "In the end of the sabbath, as it be[bless and do not curse]gan to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. . . . And the an[bless and do not curse]gel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said." 3 On the premise of this statement by Matthew, rests the assumption that Christ rose from the grave late on Sat[bless and do not curse]urday afternoon. Its advocates simply reckon back seventy-two full hours from that time to late Wednesday afternoon and then allege that this was the day of the week on which Christ died and received burial.

This theory rests on the accuracy of the translation "In the end of the sabbath, as it be[bless and do not curse]gan to dawn toward the first day of the week".

 

[yonah_mishael]

And here it is not: "The later date will be fine"

Your premise is false, therefore all that depends on it is false.

Actually, the word you've used there should be latter (an adjective). It's a problem of American usage that latter has converged with later.

We're talking about the Greek ὀψέ, though. It is an adverb, but later became used as a preposition (much like κατά [opposite of ἀνά] and several other adverbs turned prepositions). As a preposition, it governs the genitive. Adverbs do not govern cases of nouns.

 

[yonah_mishael]

You cannot argue about it because I presume you would say the accounts contradict.

You assume correctly. John places the crucifixion at the end of Nisan 14, when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered. The Synoptics have it on Nisan 15, which allows Jesus to eat the Passover with his disciples before he is crucified. I would certainly argue a contradiction.

 

[yonah_mishael]

I did not explain the grammar of "later of the Sabbaths" in my OP. Now I will:

[FONT=&quot]● In the phrase “later of the Shabba̱t̑s” (Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτω&#957, the word “later” (Ὀψ&#8050 is used as an adjectival substantive filling the head noun slot of a partitive genitive (cf. Wallace, Syntax, pg 84). Compare Rom. 15:26, “the poor of the holy ones”, where the poor is the part of the whole, “the holy ones.” “the late” or “the later” is the part of the whole, “the Sabbaths”, thus “the late [one] of the Sabbaths”; the same word sometimes sees use as both an adverb and an adjective, i.e. “The man was running late (adv)”; “Her late husband had three brothers” (adjective use). Ὀψὲ may also be used as a comparative adjective this way, “the later [one] of the Sabbaths”; also “later/late in the day” = “the later/late [part] of the day” (partititve use of the genitive).

[/FONT]

One problem - ὀψέ is not an adjective, whereas πτωχός (in Romans 15) is. Could you demonstrate the forms of ὀψέ as an adjective? How can I write "a late supper" (with δεῖπνο&#957 using ὀψέ as an adjective? How about "the late hour" (with ὥρ&#945? If it is an adjective, it needs to have declinable distinction between at least some forms to agree in case, number and gender with a head noun in regular use. Can you give one single example of ὀψέ as an adjective in any Greek text?

On the contrary, as I stated, ὀψέ is an adverb, and while adjectives can be used as adverbs (take the neuter πρῶτον "first" as a case in point), as can nouns (such as τέλος for "at last"), we do not find adverbs just waltzing in and becoming undeclinable adjectives at will. They do, however, over time become prepositions that can govern nouns. That's something we see a lot of.

 

[yedida]

You assume correctly. John places the crucifixion at the end of Nisan 14, when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered. The Synoptics have it on Nisan 15, which allows Jesus to eat the Passover with his disciples before he is crucified. I would certainly argue a contradiction.

Yep the contradiction is certainly there and cannot be denied. And according to John the four days of inspection would end on the day of crucifixion, the fourth day of the week - Weds.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

Your reasoning is insufficient to overturn Matthews order of events. I leave it to you to spot your own mistakes.

Now I am beginning to see why you aggravate others with your know-it-all replies.​

You certainly don't believe (or I guess you do) that the earthquake happened just as they were nearing the tomb? That means they probably saw the Romam soldiers in a state of confusion just before they high-tailed it out of there to tell their superiors and/or political/religious elite.

The earthquake had happened sometime before Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrived at the tomb. OK, maybe it was only 15 minutes, but one gets the impression that the Roman guard was no longer anywhere to be seen as the two women approached the site of the tomb.

The point is that the earthquake did not occurr as they approached the tomb. The earthquake had already occurred.

So, where is your proof from some ancient primary source or reliable secondary source material that the earthquake hadn't already occurred, but instead occurred as they came within sight of the tomb.

Just because an angel was sitting on the stone is no proof that the earthquake occurred just as they werre approaching the tomb. It is more likely that the earthquake had already occurred and that the Roman Guards had already left.