* *
448 Guests, 0 Users

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - rstrats

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
Religion & Theology / Three Days and Three Nights
« on: November 15, 2012, 12:31:18 PM »

Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion” with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently suggest that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutely doesn't/can't include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?

Ask Your Bible Questions Here!!! / Re: Mark 16:9
« on: September 03, 2012, 11:22:19 AM »

re: “See the following for that proof: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/

Sorry, but none of the scriptures in the link - except for Mark 16:9 -  say that the resurrection took place on the first of the week.

Ask Your Bible Questions Here!!! / Re: Mark 16:9
« on: August 31, 2012, 05:56:17 PM »
Since it's been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of a author.

Ask Your Bible Questions Here!!! / Re: 10 Commandments
« on: August 31, 2012, 05:52:02 PM »

re: “I am out of time for tonight. I will look forward to coming back to this and continuing in a day or 2.”

OK, will await your continuing discussion. 

Ask Your Bible Questions Here!!! / Re: 10 Commandments
« on: August 31, 2012, 05:47:45 PM »
me again,

re: “ The original sabbath command was for the Jews to stay in their tents on the Saturday sabbath and not to congregate at a central location, so to obey the strict letter of the law, Saturday sabbath keepers must stay in their homes instead of traveling to a central location for worship.”

If that was the original intention, it had changed by Leviticus 23:2 and 3.   

Leviticus 23:2 and 3 call the Sabbath a “holy convocation”.   And what is a convocation?  Webster’s calls it “a group of people called together by summons”. So the Sabbath is not just a day to cease one’s regular work but is also to be a day to gather together in a holy assembly.   

Ask Your Bible Questions Here!!! / Re: Mark 16:9
« on: February 15, 2012, 08:18:07 AM »

re: “I was not disagreeing with you at all...”

Sorry; when you referenced First Fruits and John 20:1, I thought - incorrectly it appears - that you were using them to disagree with my assertion that Mark 16:9 is the only scripture that places the resurrection on the first of the week.

re: “A similar rendition of it [Mt.28:1] is found in Lk.24:1-7, also in the NIV.  So I find no reason to believe Marks account of Jesus being resurrected on the first day of the week as being exclusive at all.”

OK, now I’m pretty sure you’re disagreeing with my assertion with regard to Mark 16:9. However, neither of those two scriptures say when the resurrection actually took place. Only Mark 16:9 does.

Ask Your Bible Questions Here!!! / Re: Mark 16:9
« on: February 14, 2012, 07:24:46 PM »

I assume that your reply #4 is meant to disagree with my assertion that Mark 16:9 (as it is in the KJV) is the only scripture that definitively places the resurrection on the first day of the week.  If so, I have to disagree with your disagreement. 

re: “The Feast of Firstfruits [vs 10].  This festival represents the resurrection...”

But the only reference of the first day of the week with regard to Firstfruits is to say when it is to be waved/presented to the Lord.  The Messiah did indeed became the antitype when He  resurrected, but the “first day” requirement  was only fulfilled when He presented himself to the Father.  Nothing with regard to the actual timing of the resurrection can be definitively determined from what is said about Firstfruits. 

re: “Reference is made by Paul in Acts 20:7 as to the beginning of the Gentile churches coming together to worship the Lord on the first day of the week...”

Actually, as far as the Bible is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody getting together on the first (day) of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7.   There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first.   The John reference has them together in a closed room after the crucifixion because they were afraid of their fellow Jews.  Nothing is said about a celebration, worship service or day of rest.  The Acts reference has them together with Paul who wanted to talk to them before he had to leave again the next day.  The breaking of bread mentioned (even if it were referring to the Lord’s Supper) had nothing to do with placing a special emphasis on the first (day) because Acts 2:46 says that they broke bread every day.

re: “In 1 Cor.16:2, Paul again infers as to the church worshipping the Lord on the first day of the week...”

The text  merely says that everyone should “lay by him in store” on the first day of the week. The Darby Translation reads: “On the first of the week let each of you put by at home, laying up in whatever degree he may have prospered, that there may be no collections when I come.”. The New Swedish and Norwegian Bibles read: “At home by himself.” The Lamsa Translation reads: “Let each of you put aside and keep in his house”. The Wemouth reads: “Let each of you put on one side and store up at his home”. Ballantine’s Translation reads: “Let each of you lay up at home”. The Syriac, on this passage reads: “Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at  home”.  And the New Catholic Edition of the Bible reads: “.......let each one of you put aside at home and lay up whatever he has a mind to”.  This verse  says nothing about going to church on the first day or even assembling together on the first day.

re: “It is a clear sign, the reason for the Church establishing the worship of the Lord Jesus on the first day of the week was in reverent remembrance of His resurrection which took place of the first day of the week, as recorded in Jn.20:1.”

John 20:1 does not say when the resurrection actually occurred.  It only says that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb on the first day and saw that the stone had been removed sometime earlier.

Ask Your Bible Questions Here!!! / Re: Mark 16:9
« on: February 13, 2012, 01:50:01 PM »
For some reason the OP didn't get included.  It's there now - I think.

Ask Your Bible Questions Here!!! / Re: Mark 16:9
« on: January 12, 2012, 06:58:48 AM »

Ask Your Bible Questions Here!!! / Mark 16:9
« on: September 27, 2011, 11:21:15 AM »
A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn�t really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.

I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: �Quote a published author who has done that.� - I have not yet been able to come up with one.  Does anyone here know of one?


re: “What makes you think that she did not go twice each writer telling a different account.”

So you’re saying that Matthew 28:1-10 is referring to a subsequent visit by Mary M. after an earlier visit to the tomb - a visit that John 20:1 is writing about?

me again,

re:  "It sounds like a simple semantic issue. She didn't know where he was, although she had seen him. She only knew that he would be going to Galilee. I see no confusion in this. Am I missing it?"

It would seem so.  In John she says:  "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him."

This doesn't sound like she knew that he had risen and was alive.   


I'm afraid I don't see how your comments are applicable to the OP.  I wonder if you might explain?

Ask Your Bible Questions Here!!! / Matthew 28:1-10 versus John 20:1 and 2
« on: November 27, 2010, 10:04:20 AM »
Matthew 28:1-10 says that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

However, John 20:1 and 2  say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.

 How can this be reconciled?

me again,’

re: “They will be be cast into the Lake of Fire where "the worm dieth not.’”

OK, so we have immortal worms.  But where does it say that man is inherently immortal?

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]




Last 5 Shouts:


me again

October 09, 2014, 02:15:06 PM
Religious Lie: "God only paid for sins until the next time you sin."
Forgiveness is available until we get to eternity and then our eternal fate is sealed. Right now, people are free to sin and repent; but there is no forgiveness of sin for the damned in hell.


October 05, 2014, 10:24:53 AM
"If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?"


May 03, 2014, 01:12:35 PM
Lots of visitors..  easy to join,  easy to post...  come make some friends..  Play nice with others.

The Crusader

February 26, 2014, 04:30:18 PM
Religious Lie: "God only paid for sins until the next time you sin."

The Crusader

December 23, 2013, 09:38:53 AM
JUST A THINK ABOUT IT: Will you embrace the full meaning of Christmas? Jesus didn't die just so you could go to heaven. He came to give you life - His life; an abundant life free from guilt, condemnation, and slavery to both sins and religion. He came to bring a grace revolution to the world and tha

Show 50 latest

Our Amazon Store

Unique visitors since Dec 1, 2012

Flag Counter