Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

DaveW,

 

re: "Well, if you don't care enough to help me understand why it is important to you..."

 

If you know of a published author that argues for a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week due to the idea of a first day of the week resurrection, and who supports a first day resurrection with Mark 16:9, I don't see why you need anymore information from me in order to name the author.

 

 

 

re: "I guess I don't care enough to research it and find something for you."

 

I don't intend for anyone to expend any effort in doing any research. I am simply hoping that someone will know of an author off the top of their head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think this is folly 

farouk,   re: "What is your point?"   That you can’t definitively place the resurrection on the first day by using first fruits.

You should tell the guy on the other forum that just because some human wrote it, doesn't make it authoritative. He shouldn't be looking for human confirmation - just sticking to the Bible! :)

DaveW,

 

re: "Well, what is wrong with the book that God wrote? He is a published author."

 

I wonder if you might identify where He argues for a change of observance from His seventh day of the week Sabbath to the first day of the week due to the idea of a first day of the week resurrection?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Dean John Burgon wrote an entire book on the last half of Mark 16. http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/Publications/dbs1139.htm This is probably the best manuscript evidence I have read on the matter of the last 12 verses of Mark.

The question you are asking seems more of a question about the authenticity of the last 12 verses Mark not whether or not a published author uses Mark 16:9 to confirm Jesus rose on the first day of the week, because if you believe that the text is accurate, then it wouldn't make any difference if any "published author" ever used it or not because Mark 16:9 is pretty plain that Jesus rose on the first day of the week and as a Bible believing Christian, I certainly don't need anyone else to confirm that.

So if you don't find this "published author" you are looking for, will that change your opinion of when Jesus rose? Do you actually believe He rose on the first day of the week? and do you  believe Mark 16-ALL of it-is the inspired word of God?

 

If you believe that Mark 16:9 is part of the word of God, then it shouldn't make any difference whether some "scholar" has relied on it to prove that Christ arose on the first day of the week. And there are many more verses that prove this position anyway beyond I Corinthians 16:2, Acts 20:7 and John 20:1, which perhaps I will save for a separate thread.

 

Henry Morris is a published author that has written many books about creation. Here's an article where he uses Mark 16:9

http://www.icr.org/article/5954/

 

I'm sure if you do some footwork, you can find several. Took me @ 30 seconds to find that one.

Edited by DrJamesA
Link to post
Share on other sites

DrJamesA,

 

re: "if you don't find this 'published author' you are looking for, will that change your opinion of when Jesus rose?"

 

No.

 

 

 

re: "Do you actually believe He rose on the first day of the week?"

 

I think that is the most likely case.

 

 

 

re: "... do you believe Mark 16-ALL of it-is the inspired word of God?"

 

I do not have a belief one way or the other about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The OP is from 2009, where you ask for the quote so as to be able to reply to someone on another online forum. In other words you're necroposting in one forum in order to necropost in another!

"Necropost"? Ha ha! Never heard of that term. That will be a new word in my vocabulary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 years later...
  • 1 year later...
  • Moderators
4 hours ago, rstrats said:

Since it's been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in may know of an author. 

It is kind of moot, if I understand properly what you're asking, 'Did Christ, being resurrected the first day, change the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first'? Is that correct?

The sabbath never changed, it Is, and always was, the seventh day. However, it was not always a 'day of worship', as we see them coming together in the synagogues to do. Originally it was set as a day of rest, to stay home and not go ANYWHERE. Apparently that changed, out of necessity, during their time in bondage in Babylon, when the synagogue was invented.

As for why we assemble in the first day of the week, rather than the seventh, it is because that is the day Christ was resurrected. While they may not record that as the reason, (of course, their first church met every day), yet within the next century, Christina writers declared that to be the reason, as a perpetual memorial to His resurrection. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

 "... if I understand properly what you're asking, 'Did Christ, being resurrected the first day, change the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first'? Is that correct?"


No.  I'm looking for an author who uses the idea of a first day of the week resurrection to justify a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first say of the week, and uses Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
53 minutes ago, rstrats said:


No.  I'm looking for an author who uses the idea of a first day of the week resurrection to justify a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first say of the week, and uses Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection. 
 

Is this a specific author you're looking for, or just looking to see if there IS anyone who wrote such? Because if its the latter, you might as well just start buying and reading every book even close to the subject. Myself, I don't know of anyone who has. Maybe the Catholics, because most Baptists don't believe the seventh day was meant to be a day of worship for the church age believers, but I know the Catholics teach a change from 7th day Sabbath to first day Sabbath.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • Members
On 5/27/2020 at 11:23 AM, rstrats said:


No.  I'm looking for an author who uses the idea of a first day of the week resurrection to justify a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first say of the week, and uses Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection. 
 

The Sabbath wasn't changed, it was done away with along with other O.T. holy days and observances. The Jews who insisted these still be observed were called Judaizers. Probably the first heretics.

The early believers met together on the first day of the week to commemorate the resurrection of our Lord which freed them from the law.

It really is amazing that 2,000 years later and this is still an issue among Gentile Christians. Why any Gentile would want to observe a holiday that required the death penalty for even collecting sticks on that day is beyond me. 

So to answer your question about an author who wrote about these things his name would be Paul of Tarsus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SureWord,
re:  "So to answer your question about an author who wrote about these things his name would be Paul of Tarsus."

I don't see where Paul uses the idea of a first day of the week resurrection to justify a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first say of the week, nor uses Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection. 

 

re:  "The early believers met together on the first day of the week to commemorate the resurrection of our Lord..."

As I wrote previously, as far as scripture 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. And it couldn't have been in recognition of the resurrection because at that time they didn't believe that it had taken place. 

The Acts reference has them together because Paul happened to be in town and he apparently wanted to talk to the disciples 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.
 

Edited by rstrats
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 8/18/2020 at 4:36 PM, rstrats said:

As I wrote previously, as far as scripture 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.

The Day of Pentecost was the first day of the week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
  • Members
On 8/18/2020 at 4:36 PM, rstrats said:

SureWord,
re:  "So to answer your question about an author who wrote about these things his name would be Paul of Tarsus."

I don't see where Paul uses the idea of a first day of the week resurrection to justify a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first say of the week, nor uses Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection. 

 

re:  "The early believers met together on the first day of the week to commemorate the resurrection of our Lord..."

As I wrote previously, as far as scripture 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. And it couldn't have been in recognition of the resurrection because at that time they didn't believe that it had taken place. 

The Acts reference has them together because Paul happened to be in town and he apparently wanted to talk to the disciples 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.
 

I need to be more clear about this.

What I'm saying is Paul wrote about the sabbath being done away at the cross. There is nothing being switched from the sabbath or last day of the week to Sunday or the first day of the week because the sabbath was done away with. Period. We meet on Sunday to commemorate our Lord's resurrection but it is not commanded. We can meet any day and really should be gathering together as much as possible (Heb. 10:25) as "the day" gets closer.

So, again, Paul is the author.

Edited by SureWord
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SureWord said:

 

So, again, Paul is the author.


Actually, he isn't.  Paul doesn't use the idea of a first day of the week resurrection to justify a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first say of the week, nor uses Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Mark is, first of all a VERY published author. You must obey the rules of Bible interpretation. (1) The best commentary on the Bible - is the Bible. (2) In this case is context. 

You will have to read from Mark 16:1-9 to understand this author meant the first day of the week.

Now, the three other refernces provided by John81 (Posted August 10, 2011) Matthew 28:1, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1 are also all published authors. There accounts dovetail the first day of the week narrative from Mark 16. 

Here's one...
H.A. Ironside's Expository Notes on the Gospel of Mark, P.243-244 where Ironside not only references the text of Mark 16:9, but teaches the first day resurrection from it.

Edited by 1Timothy115
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Mark is, first of all a VERY published author.


re:  "Mark is, first of all a VERY published author."

I don't see where Mark argues for a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week due to the idea of a first day of the week resurrection.  That is also the case with Matthew 28:1, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1. 

Also, I don't see where Ironside argues for the change either. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
20 hours ago, rstrats said:


re:  "Mark is, first of all a VERY published author."

I don't see where Mark argues for a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week due to the idea of a first day of the week resurrection.  That is also the case with Matthew 28:1, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1. 

Also, I don't see where Ironside argues for the change either. 
 

Ironside lived it, as do the preponderance of all published commentators I've been familiar with... G. Campbell Morgan, Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, and Luke in the book of Acts would seem to bear this out.

Now if you're looking for an answer to the person you originally encountered you have plenty to present from previous person's comments. If they don't care to agree after this why bother with it anyway. [see Romans 14:5-6]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Rstrats..  Why are you looking for a published author that has said such a thing as for which you have sought after? It seems like you would like to argue with them when you find them. 

It seems to be a tradition of man ( we have many, as baptists) that we hold to a sunday meeting. My church also meets on Wednesday. But reading the Bible it would seem that we should be more frequent, and at one point in time many bible practitioners did. 

We have fallen away from this practice, and kept to one or two days ( as a tradition of man, again ). Sunday seems like a good day of any to worship the Lord in fellowship as that was the day the Lord rose again. 

 

Whose to say we should keep sabath? 

Not the bible.

 

Whose to say the day we are required to worship?

Not the Bible.

If sabath was still required, you would think it would be a very big deal to all the doctrine of the early Christians gentiles and jews alike. Yet there is no mention of keeping sabath. This is odd if it was important.

 

Still, I am curious as to why you search for this things? Is it not folly? 

 

Edited by Hugh_Flower
Link to post
Share on other sites

1Timothy115,
re:  "Ironside lived it..."

I don't know what that means. 

 

 

re:  "Now if you're looking for an answer to the person you originally encountered..."

I am.

 

 

re:  "...you have plenty to present from previous person's comments."

If there is, I haven't seen it.  

 

 

re:  "If they don't care to agree after this why bother with it anyway."

So far I haven't seen anything to take back to them.

 

 

re:  "[see Romans 14:5-6]"

I don't understand what that has to do with it. The whole chapter is talking about food practices with regard to eating and not eating. 

Edited by rstrats
Link to post
Share on other sites


Hugh_Flower,
re:  "Why are you looking for a published author..."

See the OP.

 

re: "It seems like you would like to argue with them when you find them."

No, not for the purpose of this topic. 

 

re:  " Sunday seems like a good day of any to worship the Lord in fellowship as that was the day the Lord rose again."

And that was the reason for starting this topic. See the OP.  

 

re:  "Whose to say we should keep sabath?...Whose to say the day we are required to worship?...If sabath was still required, you would think it would be a very big deal to all the doctrine of the early Christians gentiles and jews alike. Yet there is no mention of keeping sabath. This is odd if it was important."

Those are issues for a different topic.  
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 2/18/2021 at 7:52 AM, rstrats said:

1Timothy115,
re:  "[see Romans 14:5-6]"

I don't understand what that has to do with it. The whole chapter is talking about food practices with regard to eating and not eating. 

No, it also has to do with what day you worship the Lord. Go ahead and worship Jesus Christ on Saturday if that's your preference. But, I think we could agree we need to worship Jesus Christ daily. This has gone far beyond any value... see 2 Timothy 2:16.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Timothy115,
re:  "No, it also has to do with what day you worship the Lord."

Again, the context of the whole chapter from start to finish has to do with regard to food practices. "Paul is writing about asceticism. Some in the church at Rome believed Christians should eat only vegetables. Paul calls these people 'weak in the faith' (verses 1-2). The stronger in faith know they could also eat meat. Nothing in God’s law prescribes vegetarianism. The stronger in faith knew they were free from non-biblical asceticism. A part of the controversy that had sprung up between the weak and the strong Christians was the esteeming of days. In Rome some people had the pagan idea that on certain days certain foods should or should not be eaten. In this whole chapter Paul was just showing that others should not be offended, particularly weak members who have not yet learned the truth about the proper Christian diet and that they should not be judged by the stronger in the faith."  Nothing is said with regard to the Sabbath or the first day of the week.  

But even if Paul were to mean for the Sabbath and the first day of the week to be included in his chapter, it doesn't show that he was arguing for a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week because of the resurrection and was using Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.
"We assume, because we have been raised with an anti- Torah bias, that the text must be talking about Sabbath, but that is a pure assumption not required by the text. To say that the verse must mean, that if we are honoring the Sabbath as God commands numerous times and places throughout Scripture (not a gray area), that those who do so are weak in the faith, is an interpretation coming from an anti- Torah bias that has been imposed on the text, but which the text does not require."

A footnote in Calvin'sCommentaries  regarding verses 5-6:  " It has been suggested as a question by some, whether the Christian Sabbath is included here? The very subject in hand proves that it is not."

Expositor's Greek Testament with reagard to verse 5:"It is not probable that there is any reference...to the Jewish Sabbath..." 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 42 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...