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?

[McCulloch]

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.

However, Mike Willis, in Worship (III): The Day of Worship: The Lord's Day, does make reference to Mark 16. Although, his argument does not rely on that one passage.

It might be time that you admit that you may have overstated your case.

[rstrats]

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.



re: “1 Corinthians 16:1-2 “

This scripture does not say when the resurrection took place. Only Mark 16:9 does.




re: “Acts 20:7"

This scripture does not say when the resurrection took place. Only Mark 16:9 does.



re: “It might be time that you admit that you may have overstated your case.�

My case is that only Mark 16:9 says that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week. So far no one has shown otherwise.

[McCulloch]

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?

[rstrats]

McCulloch,

re: “Now the writers of the New Testament repeatedly said that the resurrection would be on the third day...so if the resurrection happened on the seventh day, it would have been too early.�

That would be true if the crucifixion occurred on the fifth day but not if it took place on the fourth day. However, a fifth day crucifixion is not a slam dunk. Other than Mark 16:9, there is no scripture that absolutely, positively, unequivocally, and incontrovertibly precludes a fourth day crucifixion.

[jedicri]

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.

However, Mike Willis, in Worship (III): The Day of Worship: The Lord's Day, does make reference to Mark 16. Although, his argument does not rely on that one passage.

It might be time that you admit that you may have overstated your case.

More here too:

Matt. 28:1
And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.

Col 2: 16-17
Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. (ie. He means with regard to the Jewish observations of the distinction of clean and unclean meats; and of their festivals, new moons, and sabbaths, as being no longer obligatory.)


Heb. 4:8-9
For if Jesus had given them rest, he would never have afterwards spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a day of rest for the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, the same also hath rested from his works, as God did from his. (ie. regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of "another day," which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord's resurrection, which was on Sunday)

Heb 7:12
For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law. (ie. when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday; note well what the prior verse (11) states. )

[jedicri]

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.



re: “1 Corinthians 16:1-2 “

This scripture does not say when the resurrection took place. Only Mark 16:9 does.




re: “Acts 20:7"

This scripture does not say when the resurrection took place. Only Mark 16:9 does.



re: “It might be time that you admit that you may have overstated your case.�

My case is that only Mark 16:9 says that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week. So far no one has shown otherwise.

Re: bolded statement/claim.
I may be re-iterating what was posted above but here it is nevertheless.

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

[rstrats]

jeicri,

re: “More here too: Matt. 28:1...Col 2:16-17...Heb. 4:8-9...Heb 7:12"

I’m afraid I don’t see where those verses say that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week.

[jedicri]

jeicri,

re: “More here too: Matt. 28:1...Col 2:16-17...Heb. 4:8-9...Heb 7:12"

I’m afraid I don’t see where those verses say that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week.

It is not only a matter of "where does it say this or that" but also why such verses were written and recorded as such. It is when you seek to ask the "why" you will discover by logic and inference that the Resurrection did indeed take place on the first day of the week and why the early Christians paid such heed to this particularly when they did gather on this day once a week and why the sabbath no longer was obligatory or binding to Jews or Gentiles for that matter.

By only adhering to that one verse to the detriment of others that teach and demonstrate to the contrary, you would limit yourself to what the early Christians actually practiced and why the sabbath was changed to Sunday, the Lord's day as shown by the verses I have provide above.

[rstrats]

jeicri,

re: “It is a fact that special honor is shown to Sunday throughout the New Testament.�

Nowhere does scripture say that any specialness is to be attributed to the first day of the week. It is man’s invention to do so.


re: “ Luke records that Sunday was observed by the Christian community from the very beginning...�

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.