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?

[Difflugia]

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

The Greek word ἔχιδνα means "viper" (literally "she-viper"), which refers to a specific kind of poisonous snake. It's the same word that Jesus uses in the phrase "brood of vipers".

Even in English, "viper" is sometimes incorrectly used to refer to any snake, though, so I'll say that it isn't out of the question that Luke (or whoever wrote Acts) means a different or unknown kind of snake. I don't think it's quite as ambiguous as you're claiming, however.

[rstrats]

Imprecise Interrupt,
re: "I did not say you asked for it. I said it is what you want."

It's not what I want. I don't want anyone to spend any time looking for it. Either someone knows of an author or they don't.



re: "If you did not want anyone to do that, you would not have pursued this idea for seven years."

I don't see how that follows.




re: "Wrong about anyone claiming such a thing [i.e., that Mark 16:9 is frequently used to support a first day of the week resurrection].

OK, "frequently" may have been an inappropriate choice of word. How about "sometimes" instead. Or are you saying that you know that no one ever uses Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection?

[brianbbs67]

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

The Greek word ἔχιδνα means "viper" (literally "she-viper"), which refers to a specific kind of poisonous snake. It's the same word that Jesus uses in the phrase "brood of vipers".

Even in English, "viper" is sometimes incorrectly used to refer to any snake, though, so I'll say that it isn't out of the question that Luke (or whoever wrote Acts) means a different or unknown kind of snake. I don't think it's quite as ambiguous as you're claiming, however.

Touche! I can accept that. Luke-acts was supposedly written by Peter and Paul's secretary. It was a 2 volume set. There is some thought that it may have been"Mark" also. Either way, 16:9-20 are spurious like many others in the NT. Like Mark 7:19, in which a marginal note by a scribe, "thus purifying all food?" was added to the verse, later with a footnote.

[Checkpoint]

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?

Mark 16:9 does not in fact read as a Sunday resurrection, but only of a number of appearances of the already risen Jesus.

The verse is often mistranslated or has been given misapplied speech marks, which together result in a very misleading rendition.

This may be more accurate:

"Having risen, he first appeared, early on the first day of the week, to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons".

When he rose is not stated.

Grace and peace to all.

[Avoice]

You could say since Mark is the oldest gospel the others must be upheld by it. Not the other way around

[brianbbs67]

Here's some scholarly opinion on Mark 16:9-20

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

[shnarkle]

Timothy Lin, Ph.D., uses John 20:1,19 and John 20:26, to establish the first day of the week, not Mark 16.
http://www.bsmi.org/download/lin/Sabbath.pdf

1 Corinthians 16:1-2
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.

Acts 20:7
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.

Robert Clanton, in The Lord's Day Worship (Sunday) Origins, makes a biblical argument for Sunday observance by Christian without any reference to Mark.

None of these are prescriptive in nature. They simply describe something happening on the first day of the week

[shnarkle]

McCulloch,
re: “Timothy Lin, Ph.D., uses John 20:1,19 and John 20:26, to establish the first day of the week...�

Which he uses incorrectly since those verses do not say when the resurrection actually took place.

[font=Georgia]Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. [/font]

John clearly lays out a time line. Jesus' resurrection must have been before the dawn on the first day of the week. Now the writers of the New Testament repeatedly said that the resurrection would be on the third day (Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, Luke 9:22, 18:33, 24:7, 24:46, Acts 10:40 and 1 Corinthians 15:4 ) so if the resurrection happened on the seventh day, it would have been too early. What other day fits the narrative?

This assumes a Friday burial, but the texts themselves indicate otherwise. One account shows the women resting before the Sabbath, and another one shows them resting afterwards. This spotlights that the assumption that the "high day" of John's account didn't necessarily fall on the weekly Sabbath. If it fell on Thursday, then it would have been three full days between burial and resurrection which fits with 'three days and three nights" as well.

[shnarkle]

It is a fact that special honor is shown to Sunday throughout the New Testament. Christ rose from the dead on Sunday,

Nope. The texts never make that claim. They simply note that when they went to the tomb on Sunday, he "was risen" sometime before that. If they had gone to the tomb on Monday, it wouldn't then follow that he had risen on Monday either.

and he first appeared to his disciples that Easter Sunday evening (Jn 20:19). One week later—and from the context we can see that this meant the following Sunday—Jesus appeared to them again when Thomas was present (John 20:26).

Note that there are no prescriptions to observe Sunday while profaning the Sabbath in any of these accounts. Note also that on both occasions, the disciples were locked in an upper room 'for fear of the Jews'. Note that Christianity doesn't see that as prescriptive either. Why the double standard? The supreme irony here is that Christians do seem to be quite fearful of doing anything that might resemble Jewish custom.

Luke records that Sunday was observed by the Christian community from the very beginning: "On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread" (Acts 20:7). To "break bread" refers to the celebration of the Eucharist (Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22).

It also was and still is a common way to indicate sitting down to have a meal. More importantly, Luke records that Paul kept the Sabbath, and that entire gentile towns would come out to hear him preach on the Sabbath. Paul even keeps the Jewish Feast days and commands that they be kept as well. He plainly states: "Christ is our Passover, therefore let us keep the Feast". The feast he is referring to is the Feast of Unleavened Bread which lasts a whole week.

Paul ordered the Corinthians to gather their offertory collections on Sunday (1 Cor 16:2); that set the scriptural precedent we follow today of gathering our offerings on Sunday during Mass.

Paul ordered the collection to be collected for "the saints in Jerusalem". He set that precedent, but the church doesn't follow that precedent now does it?

John records in Rev. 1:10 that he was granted a vision of heaven’s own worship while he was at worship ("caught up in spirit") on "the Lord’s day." John’s disciple Ignatius of Antioch tells us in his Letter to the Magnesians that "the Lord’s day" is not the ancient Sabbath; therefore, "the Lord’s day" must refer to Sunday.

It's not just ironic, but somewhat disturbing to see someone claiming that the day a vision took place seems to be of importance to the author rather than the content of the vision which just so happens to be "The Day of the Lord" aka "The Lord's Day" Coincidence?

[brianbbs67]

Just to add, the Lord's day is the same one it's always been. God never changed it. Nor, did He change anything else. No authority was given to change our instructions for this world(Torah). Man's traditions changed things, as they did in Jesus' time. This is what Jesus railed about and condemned. Teaching as doctrine the commandments of men."honor your mother and father" but you say it is Corbin, a gift to God." thus you negate the law of God and have a fine way of doing so.