Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-16-2018 4:55 AM
252 online now:
Pressie, Tangle, vimesey (3 members, 249 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 842,039 Year: 16,862/29,783 Month: 850/1,956 Week: 353/331 Day: 12/69 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Mark 16:9
rstrats
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 114
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 1 of 18 (355269)
10-08-2006 6:43 PM


"Does anyone know of a published author who has used Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection which in turn they used - at least in part - to justify the establishment of the first day of the week as a special day for rest and worship?
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 10-08-2006 6:55 PM rstrats has responded
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 10-09-2006 2:37 AM rstrats has responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 18 (355271)
10-08-2006 6:52 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 3 of 18 (355273)
10-08-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by rstrats
10-08-2006 6:43 PM


No.
But I wonder how someone could get that out of Mark 16:9 anyway.

9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.

Of course there is a qustion whether Mark 16:9-20 were actually part of the original or just added later anyway.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by rstrats, posted 10-08-2006 6:43 PM rstrats has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by rstrats, posted 10-08-2006 7:06 PM jar has responded

  
rstrats
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 114
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 4 of 18 (355274)
10-08-2006 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
10-08-2006 6:55 PM


Re: No.
jar,

re: “No. But I wonder how someone could get that out of Mark 16:9 anyway.”

I’m afraid I don’t understand. The KJV specifically states that the resurrection occurred on the first day of the week. How could someone not get that out of the verse?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 10-08-2006 6:55 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 10-08-2006 7:11 PM rstrats has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 5 of 18 (355275)
10-08-2006 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by rstrats
10-08-2006 7:06 PM


Re: No.
The area I can't understand was your point in

which in turn they used - at least in part - to justify the establishment of the first day of the week as a special day for rest and worship?

I don't see how that would be related at all. The day of rest and worship was designated in Genesis 1 as the last day of the week.

I just don't see how anyone would make a connection to anything in Mark 16:9.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by rstrats, posted 10-08-2006 7:06 PM rstrats has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by rstrats, posted 10-08-2006 7:22 PM jar has responded

  
rstrats
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 114
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 6 of 18 (355276)
10-08-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
10-08-2006 7:11 PM


Re: No.
jar,

My experience has been that whenever a first day of the week observer is asked about the reason for their observance, their reply usually includes a first day of the week resurrection. Then when asked about their reason for thinking that the resurrection occurred on the first day of the week, they usually include a reference to Mark 16:9.

Edited by rstrats, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 10-08-2006 7:11 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 10-08-2006 7:32 PM rstrats has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 7 of 18 (355277)
10-08-2006 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by rstrats
10-08-2006 7:22 PM


Re: No.
Okay, but what does that have to do with what you asked in the initial post?

You asked:

"Does anyone know of a published author who has used Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection which in turn they used - at least in part - to justify the establishment of the first day of the week as a special day for rest and worship?

I replied that I did not know of such and author, that the content of Mark 16:9 seems to have nothing to do with a day of rest and that even the validity of Mark 16:9-20 is in question.

My experience has been that whenever a first day of the week observer is asked about the reason for their observance, their reply usually includes a first day of the week resurrection. Then when asked about their reason for thinking that the resurrection occurred on the first day of the week, they usually include a reference to Mark 16:9.

Okay. Then I think you have the answer. They are using Mark 16:9. Fine. It's not like anyone has a clue what the first or last day of the week was, or that it makes any difference.

If they are happy, why would anyone else care?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by rstrats, posted 10-08-2006 7:22 PM rstrats has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by rstrats, posted 10-08-2006 7:50 PM jar has responded
 Message 9 by rstrats, posted 10-08-2006 7:55 PM jar has not yet responded

  
rstrats
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 114
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 8 of 18 (355281)
10-08-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
10-08-2006 7:32 PM


Re: No.
jar,

re: “Okay, but what does that have to do with what you asked in the initial post?”

I don’t understand your comment. It is the OP in different words.

re: “Okay. Then I think you have the answer.”

No I don’t. I still don’t have the name of an author.

re: “Fine. It's not like anyone has a clue what the first or last day of the week was...”

Again, I don’t understand. On what do you base that statement?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 10-08-2006 7:32 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 10-08-2006 7:57 PM rstrats has responded

  
rstrats
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 114
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 9 of 18 (355283)
10-08-2006 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
10-08-2006 7:32 PM


Re: No.
jar,

re: “If they are happy, why would anyone else care?”

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 has 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, 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, hence my query.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 10-08-2006 7:32 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2006 9:59 PM rstrats has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 10 of 18 (355284)
10-08-2006 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by rstrats
10-08-2006 7:50 PM


Re: No.
jar writes:

Fine. It's not like anyone has a clue what the first or last day of the week was...

to which rstrats replied:

quote:
Again, I don’t understand. On what do you base that statement?

Over the time that mankind has had a concept of weeks there have been many changes so that any idea that today is "the first day of the week" only applies to some current calendar.

Sorry, can't help you with an author.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by rstrats, posted 10-08-2006 7:50 PM rstrats has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by rstrats, posted 10-08-2006 8:18 PM jar has responded

  
rstrats
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 114
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 11 of 18 (355288)
10-08-2006 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
10-08-2006 7:57 PM


Re: No.
jar,

re: “Over the time that mankind has had a concept of weeks there have been many changes so that any idea that today is "the first day of the week" only applies to some current calendar.”

The Sabbath that the Messiah honored was the Sabbath that his fellow countrymen used. They had honored it for centuries. If He had been honoring it on the incorrect day, then He would have been in violation of the Commandment and therefore not sinless. The “Catholic Encyclopedia”, Vol. 3, p. 740, article ‘Chronology’ says: “It is to be noted that in the Christian period, the order of days in the week has never been interrupted.”

If you have documentation that shows that the seven day cycle has been interrupted at some point between now and the first century I would very much like to see it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 10-08-2006 7:57 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 10-08-2006 8:58 PM rstrats has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 12 of 18 (355293)
10-08-2006 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by rstrats
10-08-2006 8:18 PM


Re: No.
Sorry, but I answered your question. I know of no author. It is good to know that the Creation was on the current days of the week. Also good to know that some folk think Jesus sinless.It is also good to know that Monday has always been the first day of the week, and Sunday the last day. I will try to forward that information to all the silly calendar makers that allow people to choose what the first day of the week was.

Anyway. this was my last post in this thread.

I know of no author for you.

I know of no reason anyone would even care.

I see no reason to connect the content of Mark 16:9 to what day should be celebrated.

I really don't care whether someone celebrates on the first or seventh day.

The Sabbath that the Messiah honored was the Sabbath that his fellow countrymen used. They had honored it for centuries. If He had been honoring it on the incorrect day, then He would have been in violation of the Commandment and therefore not sinless.

The question of what day is the Sabbath or that there might be an incorrect day is really pretty silly.

The day that Jesus celebrated the sabbath has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with when someone else celebrates the Sabbath.

The commandment says to keep the Sabbath Holy. It does not say that it is necessary for everybody to call the same day Sabbath.

AbE:

In addition, the whole idea of a fixed calendar was not in effect through most of the period of the old testament. Different towns and villages worked on different calendars with the local Sanhedrin inserting months as he deemed needed to keep the holidays in the proper season.

Edited by jar, : No reason given.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by rstrats, posted 10-08-2006 8:18 PM rstrats has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by rstrats, posted 10-09-2006 8:28 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 13 of 18 (355295)
10-08-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by rstrats
10-08-2006 7:55 PM


As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week.

What about Luke 24?

According to Romans 14:5-6, St Paul agrees with jar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by rstrats, posted 10-08-2006 7:55 PM rstrats has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by rstrats, posted 10-09-2006 7:51 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 14 of 18 (355320)
10-09-2006 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by rstrats
10-08-2006 6:43 PM


It gets mentioned in A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics p. 610

Many books seem to discuss also the fact that the Sabbath was over on resurrection day. Emperor Constantine seems to be the most famous proponent of Sunday rest.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by rstrats, posted 10-08-2006 6:43 PM rstrats has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by rstrats, posted 10-09-2006 8:34 AM Modulous has responded

  
rstrats
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 114
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 15 of 18 (355343)
10-09-2006 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
10-08-2006 9:59 PM


Dr Adequate,

re: “What about Luke 24?”

I see nothing in Luke 24 that says when the resurrection took place. What do you have in mind?

re: “According to Romans 14:5-6, St Paul agrees with jar.”

As for Romans 14:5-6, the subject of the chapter from start to finish has to do with what people eat. 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. This passage has nothing to do with the Sabbath.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2006 9:59 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018