Mark 16:9

[rstrats]

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, which is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. As the KJV and similar versions translate 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 frequently 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?
 

Edited September 27, 2021 by rstrats

[Wilchbla]

Paul was bitten by a viper and survived.

It is a difficult passage because believers don't perform the things mentioned in it. Also, the part about being baptized. This is why I think the whole passage falls within the Acts 2 framework and has something to do with the nation of Israel. It may not seem important doctrine now but in THE FUTURE it will be. It's never safe to toss out any of the Bible.

[rstrats]

Wilchbla,

Thanks for the comment, but I'm afraid I don't see how it is responsive to my question.

[Wilchbla]

Sorry, I missed the question at the end. I don't quite understand what you are asking. You are asking for an author who supports a first day observance of the resurrection and uses this passage to support it?

[rstrats]

Wilchbla,

re: �You are asking for an author who supports a first day observance of the resurrection and uses this passage to support it?�

Not exactly. I�m looking for an author who uses the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change from Sabbath observance to the first day of the week, and quotes Mark 16:9 to support a first day resurrection.

Edited August 10, 2011 by rstrats

[rstrats]

Anyone?

[John81]

I'm not sure what it is you are asking. All the Gospels record that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, it's not just Mark.

[rstrats]

John81,

re: "I'm not sure what it is you are asking."
　
I’m looking for a published author and a quote from that author that argues for a change of observance from the seventh day to the first day because - at least in part - due to a first day resurrection and who uses Mark 16:9 to support a first day resurrection.
　
　
re: "All the Gospels record that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, it's not just Mark."
　
I’m not aware of any scriptures - other than Mark 16:9 - which say that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week. What do you have in mind?

Edited September 27, 2021 by rstrats

[John81]

Matthew 28:1
Luke 24:1
John 20:1

Mark 16:9 agrees with these accounts. There are other passages which touch upon this, such as those regarding Jesus being buried and rising after three days, etc.

While the wording may be a bit different, the meaning of the Gospel accounts are the same.

As for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, I believe it to be a part of Scripture.

[rstrats]

　
John81,
　
re: "Matthew 28:1 Luke 24:1 John 20:1"
　
Actually, those verses do not say when the resurrection actually occurred. They only say that the women came to the tomb on the first of the week.
　
　
re: "Mark 16:9 agrees with these accounts."

Actually, it doesn’t. Mark 16:9 says nothing about the women coming to the tomb on the first of the week. It just doesn’t disagree with the Matthew, Luke and John verses you gave.
　
　
re: "There are other passages which touch upon this, such as those regarding Jesus being buried and rising after three days, etc."

The days involved would be dependent on when the crucifixion took place. Assumptions have to be made. If it had been on the 4^th day of the week, the resurrection could have been on the 7^th day.

　
re: "As for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, I believe it to be a part of Scripture."

Maybe and maybe not, but that’s an issue for another topic.

[dantheman2]

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 and similar versions translate 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?

I would not have even thought to use Mark 16:9 to prove that we are to worship upon the 1st day of the week. I would use passages such as Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:1-2 to demonstrate that that is the fact.

[Deb2live4Christ]

Question....what is the question? Are you looking for an author to support Saturday worship in regards to Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.Exodus 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. ?

I know those verses were never mentioned, but there seems to be a deeper question behind the question...is there?

[rstrats]

dantheman2,

re: "I would not have even thought to use Mark 16:9 to prove that we are to worship upon the 1st day of the week."
　
That’s good because that is not what I asked. I asked for the use of Mark 16:9 to prove a first day resurrection, and not to prove first day observance.
　


re: "I would use passages such as Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:1-2 to demonstrate that that is the fact."
　
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.
　
As for 1 Corinthians 1-2, nothing in the verses indicate that Christians observed the first day of the week for their day of rest and worship. They merely say 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 verses say nothing about going to church on the first day or even assembling together on the first day.

[farouk]

As I recall, the Scofield margin has ref. to the substantial manuscript evidence for the end of Mark 16.

(I'm still not quite sure of the original point of the question.)

[rstrats]

Deb2live4Christ,

re: "...what is the question?

OK, let me repeat it: "I’m looking for a published author and a quote from that author that argues for a change of observance from the seventh day to the first day because - at least in part - due to a first day resurrection and who uses Mark 16:9 to support a first day resurrection."
　


re: "Are you looking for an author to support Saturday worship in regards to Exodus 20:8..."

No.
　
　
re: "I know those verses were never mentioned, but there seems to be a deeper question behind the question...is there?"

No, not so far as this topic is concerned.