Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts


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 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 by rstrats
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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! :)

Don't know of an author. The entire question posted in the OP is completely irrelevant. The implication seems to be from your opponent that since nobody quotes Mark 16:9 to defend a change from Satu

  • Advanced Member

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by rstrats
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

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 scripture - other than Mark 16:9 - that say that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week. What do you have in mind?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 
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 4th day of the week, the resurrection could have been on the 7th 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

farouk,
 
re: "The resurrection of the Lord Jesus corresponded with the feast of firstfruits."
 
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

farouk,
 
re: "The resurrection of the Lord Jesus corresponded with the feast of firstfruits."
 
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.


What is your point?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

For what reason are you looking? Are you doing some sort of research?

What saith the Scripture? Isn't that the most important as the human authors are subject to error where the Author of the Book of books the Word of God does not and we have the Spirit of the Author that leads us into truth sometimes even contrary to human authors...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Deb2live4Christ,
 
re: "For what reason are you looking? "
 
I state the reason in the OP.


But since you also set aside the matter of Christ embodying the Feast of Firstfruits, to which the day of resurrection corresponds, I'm not sure that your OP alone explains your apparent aim.
Link to post
Share on other sites

farouk,
 
re: "But since you also set aside the matter of Christ embodying the Feast of Firstfruits..."

I didn’t do that. I agreed that the Messiah did became the antitype of first fruits when He resurrected. What I disagreed with was the use of first fruits to definitively place the day of the resurrection. The only requirement with regard to the first day was the waving of the sheaf before the Lord, which corresponds with the Messiah presenting Himself to the Father. This occurred sometime after the resurrection.
 
 
re: "... I'm not sure that your OP alone explains your apparent aim."

My only apparent and actual aim as stated in the OP is to identify 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.

Edited by rstrats
Link to post
Share on other sites

farouk,
 
re: "But since you also set aside the matter of Christ embodying the Feast of Firstfruits..."

I didn’t do that. I agreed that the Messiah did became the antitype of first fruits when He resurrected. What I disagreed with was the use of first fruits to definitively place the day of the resurrection. The only requirement with regard to the first day was the waving of the sheaf before the Lord, which corresponds with the Messiah presenting Himself to the Father. This occurred sometime after the resurrection.
 
 
re: "... I'm not sure that your OP alone explains your apparent aim."

My only apparent and actual aim as stated in the OP is to identify 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.


While clever politicians and lawyers issue what are sometimes known as non-denial denials, I guess yours would be described as a denying non-denial. Essentially you are saying that the timetable of the Lord's resurrection after the Cross has nothing to do with the timing of the Feast of Firstfruits, but instead, there are moral and spiritual lessons to it which, however, supposedly do not involve its timescale. Whereas the timing was indeed important: he is the 'firstfruits of them that slept'; others, too, rose from the dead after the Lord Jesus did; if their rising from the dead was supposedly not linked particularly to the the Lord Jesus being the 'firstfruits of them that slept', then what does this say about the Lord Jesus being the heir of all things and the believer's head and Lord?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Actually, Mark 16:9 doesn't say he rose on the first day, it says: 9 ¶ Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. That is He was risen, and early on the first day of the week he appeared to Mary M.

It is quite plain from other scriptures that Jesus died on the Wednesday and was put in the tomb as the Sabbath (the high day) was beginning. He rose on the 7th/1st day just as the normal Sabbath was beginning, or dawning, three days and three nights later. Mt 12:40 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.

Edited by Invicta
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, 37 Guests (See full list)


×
×
  • Create New...