Disputed Ending of Mark 16.

[rstrats]

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, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, 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?

[rstrats]

JehovahsWitness,
re: "I simlly responded to your request for published information."

I don't know why you responded since your response didn't identify an author.

[Imprecise Interrupt]

Imprecise Interrupt,
re: "Irrelevant to what you wanted to find scholarly support for."

I agree. So why did you post what you did in your post #26?

To point out that you were never going to get an answer to your original question because no genuine scholar would ever say such a thing,

[rstrats]

Imprecise Interrupt,
re: "To point out that you were never going to get an answer to your original question because no genuine scholar would ever say such a thing,"

That 7th day observance was changed to 1st day observance in honor of the resurrection? Or that Mark 16:9 was used as support for a 1st day of the week resurrection?

[JehovahsWitness]

JehovahsWitness,
re: "I simlly responded to your request for published information."

I don't know why you responded since your response didn't identify an author.

I responded because I presumed that the content of the published information was more important than the name of the individual writer. As it the Watchtower articles are the result of a collaboration of authors who wish to remain anonymous so that that calibre of their work can stand on content alone.


Feel free to ignore,

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[Imprecise Interrupt]

Imprecise Interrupt,
re: "To point out that you were never going to get an answer to your original question because no genuine scholar would ever say such a thing,"

That 7th day observance was changed to 1st day observance in honor of the resurrection? Or that Mark 16:9 was used as support for a 1st day of the week resurrection?

Your original question, found in the OP at the top of every page was:

"I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, 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?"

You want some one to find a published author who quotes Mark 16:9 to justify changing observance from seventh day to first day. After seven years, no one has done this and due to the availability of similar quotes elsewhere in all four gospels, not in text whose original status has been questioned, it is highly unlikely that any published author would make such a claim using Mark 16:9.

Maybe, just maybe, you were wrong?

[rstrats]

Imprecise Interrupt,
re: "You want some one to find a published author..."

I haven't asked anyone to do that.



re: "...who quotes Mark 16:9 to justify changing observance from seventh day to first day."

I haven't asked that. I've asked if anyone knows of an author who has used Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection and uses the idea of a first day of the week resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week.



re: "Maybe, just maybe, you were wrong?"

Wrong about what?

[Imprecise Interrupt]

Imprecise Interrupt,
re: "You want some one to find a published author..."

I haven't asked anyone to do that.

re: "...who quotes Mark 16:9 to justify changing observance from seventh day to first day."

I haven't asked that. I've asked if anyone knows of an author who has used Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection and uses the idea of a first day of the week resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week.

I did not say you asked for it. I said it is what you want. If you did not want anyone to do that, you would not have pursued this idea for seven years.

re: "Maybe, just maybe, you were wrong?"

Wrong about what?

Wrong about anyone claiming such a thing, much less a published author. Unless of course you can come up with some instances supporting your claim that "it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9". Since it was, as you claim, a frequent thing, it should not be too difficult to come up with one or two instances. Otherwise, maybe, just maybe, you were wrong about anyone claiming this.

[brianbbs67]

The oldest and most reliable manuscript do not contain 9-20. Where is venomous snake handling and poison drinking in the rest of scripture ? Wonder how many have died because of that. I disregard those verses and any other added ones.

[Tcg]

Where is venomous snake handling and poison drinking in the rest of scripture ?

In Acts 28 we find a claim that Paul was bitten by a viper and yet suffered no ill effects.

• 3 Paul gathered a pile of brushwood and, as he put it on the fire, a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, “This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, the goddess Justice has not allowed him to live.â€� 5 But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects.

This claim, at least as far as snakes are concerned, is not unique to these verses in Mark.



Tcg

[brianbbs67]

Where is venomous snake handling and poison drinking in the rest of scripture ?

In Acts 28 we find a claim that Paul was bitten by a viper and yet suffered no ill effects.

• 3 Paul gathered a pile of brushwood and, as he put it on the fire, a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, “This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, the goddess Justice has not allowed him to live.â€� 5 But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects.

This claim, at least as far as snakes are concerned, is not unique to these verses in Mark.



Tcg

Not quite an adder or pit viper. In other words, no one knows if it was poisonous or not.

This next is to the rest of the early posts:

Jesus was raised at twilight on the conjunction between the 7th day and the 1st. There were 2 holy days that week(passover and sabbath). Only way to get 3 days and 3 nights. And it matches with the calendar.