Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Mark 16:9
12-09-2009, 08:25 AM
Post: #1
Mark 16:9
A poster on another forum, 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, 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?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2009, 08:34 AM
Post: #2
RE: Mark 16:9
(12-09-2009 08:25 AM)rstrats Wrote:  A poster on another forum, 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, 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?

Barnabas (AD 100), Ignatius of Antioch (107), Justin Martyr (145), Bardaisan (154), Irenaeus (178), Tertullian (180), Cyprian (200), Saint Victorinus (280), and Eusebius of Caesarea (324)

Holmes M. The Apostolic Fathers - Greek Texts and English Translations, the section on κυριακήν (ἡμέρα). from the Didache, which dates from about AD 100.

Ignatius of Antioch says in AD 100 --We have seen how former adherents of the ancient customs have since attained to a new hope; so that they have given up keeping the sabbath, and now order their lives by the Lord's Day instead (the day when life first dawned for us, thanks to Him and His death.)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2009, 08:46 AM
Post: #3
RE: Mark 16:9
Clementine,

re: “Ignatius of Antioch says in AD 100 --We have seen how former adherents of the ancient customs have since attained to a new hope; so that they have given up keeping the sabbath, and now order their lives by the Lord's Day instead (the day when life first dawned for us, thanks to Him and His death.)”


I’m afraid I don’t see where Ignatius uses Mark 16:9 to support the idea of a first day of the week resurrection.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2009, 08:58 AM
Post: #4
RE: Mark 16:9
(12-09-2009 08:46 AM)rstrats Wrote:  Clementine,

re: “Ignatius of Antioch says in AD 100 --We have seen how former adherents of the ancient customs have since attained to a new hope; so that they have given up keeping the sabbath, and now order their lives by the Lord's Day instead (the day when life first dawned for us, thanks to Him and His death.)”


I’m afraid I don’t see where Ignatius uses Mark 16:9 to support the idea of a first day of the week resurrection.


Sorry, repeating myself, I wrote a whole paper on the thing at the time, it's n a treatise that alludes to both Mark and Matthew, I'd hunt it up, but I don't have all my books unpacked. However, I hear Matthew 28 used also as evidence for a first day resurrection, which would mean it's backed up elsewhere.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2009, 09:19 AM
Post: #5
RE: Mark 16:9
Clementine,

re: “I hear Matthew 28 used also as evidence for a first day resurrection, which would mean it's backed up elsewhere.”

It’s used incorrectly because Matthew 28 does not mention the day when the resurrection actually took place.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2009, 09:30 AM
Post: #6
RE: Mark 16:9
(12-09-2009 09:19 AM)rstrats Wrote:  Clementine,

re: “I hear Matthew 28 used also as evidence for a first day resurrection, which would mean it's backed up elsewhere.”

It’s used incorrectly because Matthew 28 does not mention the day when the resurrection actually took place.

Depends on what Bible you use. Actually, they say that they went to the tomb on the first day, in the KJV, and found the body missing, so it could be argued, not to mention the Pauline precedent to worship on Sunday in Acts and Corinthians.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2009, 09:56 AM
Post: #7
RE: Mark 16:9
Clementine,

re: “Depends on what Bible you use.”

I’m not aware of any version/translation that has Matthew 28 saying that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week. What do you have in mind?


re: “...not to mention the Pauline precedent to worship on Sunday in Acts and Corinthians. “

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 because Paul happened to be in town and he wanted to talk to them before he had to leave again. 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.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2009, 10:29 AM
Post: #8
RE: Mark 16:9
(12-09-2009 09:56 AM)rstrats Wrote:  Clementine,

re: “Depends on what Bible you use.”

I’m not aware of any version/translation that has Matthew 28 saying that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week. What do you have in mind?


re: “...not to mention the Pauline precedent to worship on Sunday in Acts and Corinthians. “

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 because Paul happened to be in town and he wanted to talk to them before he had to leave again. 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.

Actually, from a historical perspective, it is a matter of debate, especially since Corinthians in many languages states that that was the only time Paul broke bread with them, and the doctrine of first day "Lord's Day" is historically traced to pauline followers.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2009, 12:07 PM
Post: #9
RE: Mark 16:9
You're framing your questions wrong. Worshiping on Sunday rather than the Jewish Sabbath is a specific ritual of the church. Look at other church rituals. Baptism (which is highly ritualized in most churches.) Communion. Look at all the sacraments of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Baptism and Communion at least have some precedent in the Bible, but the specific ritual and order is found nowhere. The Didache actually has specific ritual, which to my knowledge is completely ignored by every major Christian sect.

Why do people worship on Sunday? Because Barnabus, Ignatius, etc., established it as tradition. No other reason. If they are trying to claim their belief comes from the Bible, ask them to prove that. They won't be able to.

Orthodoxy was established by the church fathers. It is not inherently obvious according to the text of the Bible.

I'm back baby! Thanks for everyone who sent me PMs asking what had happened to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2009, 12:23 PM
Post: #10
RE: Mark 16:9
(12-09-2009 12:07 PM)GTseng3 Wrote:  You're framing your questions wrong. Worshiping on Sunday rather than the Jewish Sabbath is a specific ritual of the church. Look at other church rituals. Baptism (which is highly ritualized in most churches.) Communion. Look at all the sacraments of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Baptism and Communion at least have some precedent in the Bible, but the specific ritual and order is found nowhere. The Didache actually has specific ritual, which to my knowledge is completely ignored by every major Christian sect.

Why do people worship on Sunday? Because Barnabus, Ignatius, etc., established it as tradition. No other reason. If they are trying to claim their belief comes from the Bible, ask them to prove that. They won't be able to.

Orthodoxy was established by the church fathers. It is not inherently obvious according to the text of the Bible.

Completely correct. Much of the trappings of Christianity, specific rituals and customs etc., were developed in the post Apostolic era. Sunday worship for example appears to have been a deliberate separation from Jewish practice. The Didache establishes fast days intentionally different from the Jewish custom. The church was inventing itself as an organization with rules and practices. All that was required was that it was in line with or at least did not contradict Apostolic tradition. And that it worked in a practical sense, of course.

The core of canonical literature - the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul - were pretty much universally accepted by the end of the 2nd century. But it was not until the end of the 4th century that there was widespread consensus on the rest of the Bible. The obsession with the Bible as sola scriptura came well over a thousand years later when Luther needed a source of authority after having rejected the centralized authority of Rome. And even then he changed what was the traditional Bible to a very large degree.

It is not surprising that many things that are accepted as part of Christianity are not 'in the Bible'.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Mark of the beast Edb123 1 416 11-25-2013 06:24 PM
Last Post: Visqueen
  True Mark of The Beast Sheila 1 570 10-16-2013 07:02 PM
Last Post: kjw47
Exclamation The Mark of the Beast Identified! alexandriax 3 716 10-20-2010 08:11 AM
Last Post: alexandriax
  Evolution from Mark to John: let us talk about the garden and timing of crucifixion Ahmadi 15 2,866 02-17-2010 11:32 AM
Last Post: Parousia



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)