Mark 16:9

[Chuckt]

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 to be found nowhere else in Scripture that is used to support a doctrinal teaching. 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?

I think you have two issues going on in here. You have SDA teaching and denial of the authenticity of Mark 16.

A book on SDA would be "Sabbath in Christ" by Dale Ratzlaff in the Kindle Edition because the paperback is crazy expensive. You don't have to buy a Kindle. You can download a free reader on your computer but the book is about ten dollars.

Another book is "Counterfeit or Genuine" by David Otis Fuller.
Another book is "Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20 [Annotated]"by James Snapp Jr (Jun 7, 2011) - Kindle eBook (It is only .99 cents).

You can also find James Snapp Jr on youtube talking about this and you can also find his church on youtube.

 

[rstrats]

Chuckt,

re: "I think you have two issues going on in here."


Thanks for the comments, but actually there is only one issue involved with the request in the OP - to identify an author who argues for a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week due to the idea of a first day resurrection and who uses Mark 16:9 to support a first day resurrection.




re: "You have SDA teaching and denial of the authenticity of Mark 16."

I doubt that there would be any SDA teaching that argues for a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week.

 

[Chuckt]

We don't need just Mark 16 to prove early Christians worshipped on the first day of the week.

 

[rstrats]

Chuckt,

re: "We don't need just Mark 16 to prove early Christians worshipped on the first day of the week."


I'm not aware of any scripture that says that anyone observed the first day of the week as a day of rest and worship. What do you have in mind?

 

[Chuckt]

Chuckt,

re: "We don't need just Mark 16 to prove early Christians worshipped on the first day of the week."


I'm not aware of any scripture that says that anyone observed the first day of the week as a day of rest and worship. What do you have in mind?

The Sabbath was a shadow but now we have the reality which is Christ. I don't worship the shadow. I worship Jesus.
Jesus' resurrection was the only thing that could have changed the Sabbath.

Colossians 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

The Sabbath was a shadow of Christ
By Chuckt 3-21-2009

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:
Colossians 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

Colossians 2:17 says the Sabbath is a shadow of things to come. What is a shadow? It is the shade caused by the interception of light. It is a sketch cast by an object and it causes an image. The body is Christ and it is what cast the shadow.

Though I'm not supposed to judge others on the Sabbath, the emphasis should be on the image that cast the shadow and not the shadow itself.

Acts 20:7 And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

It was the Apostles who broke bread and preached on the first day of the week which was Sunday.

1Cor. 16:2 Upon the first [day] of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as [God] hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Paul took up a collection on the first day of the week from "every one of you" which means that the Christians came together on the first day of the week.

John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you.

Why didn't Jesus appear on the seventh day? Why didn't Jesus appear on the Sabbath?

Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place

If you read Romans 6:14 and Galatians 3:24-25, Christians are not under Old Testament law so we don't have to observe the Sabbath because the law was our schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24) and now we are no longer under a schoolmaster (Galatians 3:25).

In terms of resurrection, Jesus was crucified on a friday and he rose on the third day which would be Sunday.

The resurrection is the Lord's day because it is the last day where men are summoned (1 Thessalonians 4:16):
Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

The trumpet sounds to resurrect souls on the last day (1 Thessalonians 4:16) and Jesus rose on the first day of the week which was Sunday so it was the resurrection that changed the Sabbath to Sunday.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

This is why I have to look to what the shadow of Saturday represents because I want the reality which casts the shadow and if I'm stuck on the shadow then I haven't seen any revelation beyond the shadow.

That is why I preach Christ crucified, risen and coming again because it is the image that casts the shadow. And where is Sabbath keeping in the gospel "wherein you stand" (v1) and by which you are saved (v.2)? The Sabbath was important but it isn't the new reality of God's plan of salvation:

1 Cor. 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1 Cor. 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1 Cor. 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1 Cor. 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1 Cor. 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1 Cor. 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1 Cor. 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1 Cor. 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
1 Cor. 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 1 Cor. 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which [was bestowed] upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
1 Cor. 15:11 Therefore whether [it were] I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

Although the moral principles expressed in the commandments are reaffirmed in the New Testament, the command to set Saturday apart as a day of rest and worship is the only commandment not repeated. There are very good reasons for this. New Testament believers are not under the Old Testament law (Rom. 6:14; 2 Cor. 3:7, 11, 13; Gal. 3:24-25; Heb. 7:12). By his resurrection on the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1), his continued appearances on succeeding Sundays (John 20:26), and the descent of the Holy Spirit on Sunday (Acts 2:1), the early church was given the pattern of Sunday worship. This they did regularly. Sunday worship was further hallowed by our Lord, who appeared to John in that last great vision on “the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10). It is for these reasons that Christians worship on Sunday, rather than on the Jewish Sabbath.

https://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php/Questions_on_the_Sabbath

 

[rstrats]

Chuckt,

re: "Jesus' resurrection was the only thing that could have changed the Sabbath."

Perhaps, but there is no scripture that says so.



re: "Acts 20:7 And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread..."

You are merely assuming that the "breaking bread" in Acts 20:7 is referring to the Lord's Supper.
Acts 20:7 could simply be saying that the disciples got together to eat a meal on this particular first day of the week . The phrase, "to break bread" does not have to refer to a worship service -unless it is specifically stated - but to dividing loaves of bread for a meal. "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds" (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840.

But even if "breaking bread" did always refer to the Lord's Supper, Acts 2:46 says that the believers broke bread every day. In this case the need for any specialness being placed on the first day because of breaking bread would be eliminated. (Therefore, even if it was the Lord's Supper, it was done every day of the week making the argument of the Saturday night meeting irrelevant anyway.)
When Paul was shipwrecked on the voyage to Rome, the sailors had been fasting out of fright. But "Paul urged them all to take some food, saying, 'Today is the fourteenth day that you have continued in suspense and without food, having taken nothing. Therefore I urge you to take some food; it will give you strength...' And when he had said this, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat" (Acts 27:33-35, RSV). Here Paul broke bread to give to unconverted sailors who were hungry. It was hardly the Lord's Supper. . Also, the Lord's Supper proclaims His death, not His resurrection. (1 Corinthians 11:26.)
　



re: "1Cor. 16:2 Upon the first [day] of the week let every one of you lay by him in store...Paul took up a collection on the first day of the week from 'every one of you' which means that the Christians came together on the first day of the week."

There is nothing in 1 Corinthians 16:2 that indicates a first day gathering. The text merely says that everyone should "lay by him in store" on the first day of the week. 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 Weymouth 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". This verse says nothing about going to church on the first day or even assembling together on the first day.
　




re: "John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within..."

One day after the first day of the week would be the second day of the week, two days after the first day of the week would be the third day of the week, three days after the first day of the week would be the fourth day of the week, four days after the first day of the week would be the fifth day of the week, five days after the first day of the week would be the sixth day of the week, six days after the first day the week would be the seventh day of the week, seven days after the first day of the week would be the next first day of the week and eight days after the original first day of the week would be the second day of the week.




re: "... the command to set Saturday apart as a day of rest and worship is the only commandment not repeated."

Hebrews 4:9 - "It is therefore the duty of the people of God to keep the sabbath." (Lamsa Translation From The Aramaic of the Peshitta)
　
　
　




re: "By his resurrection on the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1)..."

Matthew 28:1 says nothing with regard to the day that the resurrection actually took place. Only Mark 16:9 does.
　




re: "...his continued appearances on succeeding Sundays (John 20:26)..."

After eight days would be the second day of the week at the earliest.
　




re: "...the early church was given the pattern of Sunday worship. This they did regularly."

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. We also see very clearly that they were not celebrating Jesus' resurrection because at that point they didn't even believe that the Messiah had risen. Nothing is said about a celebration, worship service or day of rest. And as mentioned, 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 (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.




re: "Sunday worship was further hallowed by our Lord, who appeared to John in that last great vision on "the Lord’s day" (Rev. 1:10)."

Nowhere does Revelation 1:10 identify the Lord's day as the first day of the week.

 

[Chuckt]

re: "... the command to set Saturday apart as a day of rest and worship is the only commandment not repeated."

Hebrews 4:9 - "It is therefore the duty of the people of God to keep the sabbath." (Lamsa Translation From The Aramaic of the Peshitta)

The Lamsa Bible is a cultic translation.

​

Who is George Lamsa?​

He was a man who was into psychic phenomenon, this alone should disqualify him from being a reputable source for the Scriptures. He denied the Trinity which is clearly expressed in his translation, which is why it is accepted by certain churches. This is why it is the most popular translation among the cults. He believed sin was error and he was a universalist believing all would be saved (not even the Iglesia ni Cristo church would accept this). He also believed the Holy Spirit was a influence or power. Like the Sadducee's he denies a belief in personal angels or demons. He also had a view of Christ as 2 persons in one body (Nestorian heresy which some trace to his upbringing) not 2 natures in Christ the one person. Lamsa also claimed to be the sole competent interpreter of the scriptures. "Moreover, the author was educated under the care of learned priests of the church of the east who knew no other language but Aramaic,..the author, through God's grace, is the only one with the knowledge of Aramaic, the bible customs and idioms, and the knowledge of the English language who has ever translated the Holy bible from the original Aramaic texts into English and written commentaries on it, and his translation is now in pleasingly wide use" (G. Lamsa More light on the Gospel (NY 1968). Certainly Iglesia would not agree with Lamsa's position on salvation since they teach one MUST join their Church to be saved. So why use a man who they would discredit for these things as well? Because He's one of the few published authors they can find that can agree with their position.

http://www.letusreason.org/Iglesia7.htm

Bibles go from literal to less literal. I read from reliable and literal Bibles. I'm not going to mess with cultic bibles.
I research and re-research everything that I look up.
You can't get truth from a cultic bible when they can't see the forest from the trees.

You are merely assuming that the "breaking bread" in Acts 20:7 is referring to the Lord's Supper.
Acts 20:7 could simply be saying that the disciples got together to eat a meal on this particular first day of the week . The phrase, "to break bread" does not have to refer to a worship service -unless it is specifically stated - but to dividing loaves of bread for a meal. "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds" (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840.

I don't accept his writings either. To many people with false views of the Bible are using is works and he is beyond suspect for good reason.

 

[StanJ]

I'm pretty sure the first day of the week was Sunday then, just as it is now.

 

[rstrats]

re: "I'm pretty sure the first day of the week was Sunday then, just as it is now."


I'm afraid I don't understand your point. I wonder if you might elaborate?

 

[StanJ]

That was my point. Sunday is still the first day of the week as Mark 16:9 indicates. It is when Jesus rose from the dead. Actually it says EARLY on that day.

 

[rstrats]

StanJ,
　

re: "That was my point. Sunday is still the first day of the week as Mark 16:9 indicates. It is when Jesus rose from the dead."

　

　
But only Mark 16:9 - as it is translated in the KJV - says so. The poster in the other topic wrote that even if Mark 16:9 wasn't authentic, it wouldn't matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.

To repeat what I wrote in the OP: " 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 to be found nowhere else in Scripture that is used to support a doctrinal teaching. 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?"

 

[sojourner4Christ]

”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 to be found nowhere else in Scripture that is used to support a doctrinal teaching. 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?"

The quest to “quote a published author who has done that” re: “seventh day observance versus first day,” is a misdirect born of the plethora of counterfeit modern versions that are sourced from corrupted manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (e.g. Mark 16:9-20 completely omitted). Rather, the New Age agenda is for those new versions to try to de-materialize Jesus by dissolving the verses pointing to his bodily resurrection.

Do not be deceived, as the bigger battle is over resurrection vs. reincarnation. Eastern religions allow for an afterlife of the soul and spirit, but not a bodily resurrection. Roper and Gallop polls show that between 22 and 45% of Americans agree and therefore hold to the doctrine of reincarnation.

The Bible is a barrier to this belief because of the verses testifying to the bodily appearances of Jesus Christ after his death. However, efforts to evade this reality are in evidence in New Age writing and new versions as well.

New age authors and others question almost every appearance of Jesus after his resurrection. As a result of the new omissions, “evangelical scholars” and the cults are beginning to agree.
.
.
.

 

[rstrats]

Since it's been awhile, someone new looking in may know of an author.