The disputed ending of Mark 16.

[preacher4truth]

preacher4truth,

re: "This is an age old argument. Many agree with this, some do not."

And for the purpose of this topic I’m only interested in those authors that do.
　


re: "Read Colossians, Galatians about our freedom in Christ."

Does that include freedom to ignore the 10 commandments?
　


re: "We know that the disciples worshiped on the first day of the week as is shown in the Scriptures."

Actually, as far as scripture 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" 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 religious 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 the "breaking of bread mentioned" always did refer to the Lord’s Supper, it had nothing to do with placing a special emphasis on the first (day) because Acts 2:46 says that they broke bread every day.

Why stick to only the 10? Let's do all 613.

Arer you seeking to be under the Law and under it's curse?

The disciples worshiped on the first day of the week. You've attempted to make this fact trivial. If the Scriptures said it more, what then? It has to say it how many times to be valid? Where do the Scriptures state to the NT church worship is to be done according to the Sabbath Day?

They also worshiped other days. There is no mandate within the NT that we are to worship on the Sabbath.

1 Corinthians 16:2 also alludes to first day gathering and giving. So you're incorrect with limiting it to the passages you've given.

It doesn't really matter which day we worship. It's not a determinitive factor regarding salvation, nor are we to judge one anothers days of importance and days that one respects as holy or not.

I also see nothing in Acts 20:7 suggesting that they gathered just because Paul happened to be in town. That's eisegetical.

Is there something you gain by observing only on a certain day, specifically teh Sabbath day? Favor? Merit? Pride? Righteousness?

You're a Baptist? Yes?

 

[Ruiz]

Ruiz,

re: "Look at the context. The context is the Resurrection. We can't separate the verse from the context."

If additional verses are necessary to support your position, then they should have been referenced. I was merely commenting on the ones that you referenced.
　

re: "Thus, we know that he did not rise from the dead later nor earlier."

Later, yes, but the context doesn’t preclude earlier. Only Mark 16:9 does.

Do you have any information about an author?

When I quote a verse, I do so within context, that is why I do that.

Secondly, we know that Jesus could not have risen earlier because we know he must have been dead for three days for theological reasons and other verses.

 

[rstrats]

　
　
preacher4truth,

re: "Why stick to only the 10? Let's do all 613.’

Because I think the 10 will be sufficient for my question.
　


re: "Arer you seeking to be under the Law and under it's curse?"

Of course not.
　
　

re: "The disciples worshiped on the first day of the week."

There is no incontrovertible scripture that says that.
　


re: "If the Scriptures said it more, what then? It has to say it how many times to be valid?"

Once would be enough, just like the Sabbath command.
　


re: " Where do the Scriptures state to the NT church worship is to be done according to the Sabbath Day?"

The Messiah said that the Sabbath is made for man. If it is not made for man to observe, what is it made for? Also, Hebrews 4:9 says: "It is therefore the duty of the people of God to keep the sabbath." (Lamsa Translation From The Aramaic of the Peshitta).
　


re: "They also worshiped other days. "

That would be during the annual festivals.
　


re: "1 Corinthians 16:2 also alludes to first day gathering and giving. "

1 Corinthians 16:2 does not say that NT Christians observed the first day of the week for their day of rest and worship. The text merely says that everyone should "lay by him in store" on the first day of the week. The Wemouth 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 to". This verse says nothing about going to church on the first day or even assembling together on the first day.
　


re: "You're a Baptist? Yes?"

If being baptized in a Baptist Church, attending Baptist Church services and going to a predominately Baptist populated college makes me a Baptist, then yes.
　

Look, I’m not saying that observing the first day of the week (or any other day of the week for that matter) is wrong. I’m only saying that there is no scripture for doing so. Nor is there any incontrovertible scripture that abrogates the observing of the seventh day Sabbath.

 

[rstrats]

Ruiz,

re: "...we know that Jesus could not have risen earlier because we know he must have been dead for three days for theological reasons and other verses."

That is dependent on the day of crucifixion. If it was on the 5th day, then the resurrection had to be on the first day, but if it was on the 4th day, then the resurrection had to be on the seventh day. What we do know is that the crucifixion couldn't have taken place on the 6th day because of Matthew 12:40 and Luke 24:21.

 

[sag38]

Nor is there any incontrovertible scripture that abrogates the observing of the seventh day Sabbath.

If this is the conclusion that you have come to then you need to worship on Saturday. As for me and my house, we disagree. We will worship everyday of the week with Sunday being a day to gather with other believers for corporate worship.

 

[Ruiz]

Ruiz,

re: "...we know that Jesus could not have risen earlier because we know he must have been dead for three days for theological reasons and other verses."

That is dependent on the day of crucifixion. If it was on the 5th day, then the resurrection had to be on the first day, but if it was on the 4th day, then the resurrection had to be on the seventh day. What we do know is that the crucifixion couldn't have taken place on the 6th day because of Matthew 12:40 and Luke 24:21.

I think every scholar holds he was in the ground for three days. The debate is whether that three day period is three days from the day he died or includes the day he died. The point is still valid either way. Predominantly, Mark 16 does not teach a new doctrine. Your presupposition that it does is false. The text in other places clearly shows the Resurrection on Sunday.

 

[Jim1999]

Don't forget the Jewish reckoning of a day. It may not be a full 24 hours as we know a day.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[preacher4truth]

　
　
preacher4truth,

re: "Why stick to only the 10? Let's do all 613.’

Because I think the 10 will be sufficient for my question.
　

The 10 have never been sufficient. You're cherry-picking. That, and my doubts about you are growing as you say you're a Baptist.

 

[AresMan]

Although we can regard Sunday as "the Lord's day," there is NO Biblical evidence that the Sabbath switched to Sunday.

We can assemble to worship on the Lord's day to remember the resurrection, but doing so is NOT observing the Sabbath.

Either we are under the Saturday Sabbath or we are not.

I say the Christian life is the New Covenant fulfillment of the Sabbath.

In Creation, God rested the seventh day because He completed the original work of Creation.
When mankind sinned, we needed a redeemer. Christ had His work scheduled. The Sabbath, like the sacrifices, and all the Law were types and pictures of Christ, awaiting His work and completion.

Christ finished the work of redemption and then sat down (Hebrews 1:3; 10:12), which a Levitical priest never did when entering the Holy of Holies. A priest offered the sacrifice, then continued to stand and leave. Christ sat down to demonstrate that the work was complete.

Now, we are not subject to literal Sabbath day observances:
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:
17: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

We enter into His rest:
Hebrews 4
2: For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
3: For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
9: There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10: For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

 

[rstrats]

sag38,

re: "If this is the conclusion that you have come to then you need to worship on Saturday."

If by Saturday you mean the seventh day of the week, then that is indeed what 7th Day Baptists do.

 

[rstrats]

Ruiz,

re: "Mark 16 does not teach a new doctrine."

So you’re saying that the teaching of a first day resurrection was an old doctrine at the time?
　


re: "The text in other places clearly shows the Resurrection on Sunday."

You still haven’t provided any scriptures the clearly show that.

 

[Ruiz]

Ruiz,

re: "Mark 16 does not teach a new doctrine."

So you’re saying that the teaching of a first day resurrection was an old doctrine at the time?
　


re: "The text in other places clearly shows the Resurrection on Sunday."

You still haven’t provided any scriptures the clearly show that.

What I am saying, is other texts clearly teach it.

You are setting a standard for evidence to the hyperliteralism. However, exegetically, we don't need hyperliteralism to show the first day like we don't need it for the Trinity. The passages I cited clearly show Jesus rose on the first day of the week within it's context. If you want a hyperliteral text, we will not be able to meet your criteria. However, if you accepted standard exegetical rules, the evidence is clear... as clear as the Trinity.

 

[freeatlast]

I think every scholar holds he was in the ground for three days. The debate is whether that three day period is three days from the day he died or includes the day he died. The point is still valid either way. Predominantly, Mark 16 does not teach a new doctrine. Your presupposition that it does is false. The text in other places clearly shows the Resurrection on Sunday.

The problem is the scripture say three days and three nights not just three days.

 

[rstrats]

Ruiz,

re: "I think every scholar holds he was in the ground for three days. The debate is whether that three day period is three days from the day he died or includes the day he died."

I suppose there are a few who debate that, but the predominate debate is whether the time has to include at least parts of three light periods AND at least parts of three dark periods or whether it only has to include parts of three calendar days.

 

[Ruiz]

Ruiz,

re: "I think every scholar holds he was in the ground for three days. The debate is whether that three day period is three days from the day he died or includes the day he died."

I suppose there are a few who debate that, but the predominate debate is whether the time has to include at least parts of three light periods AND at least parts of three dark periods or whether it only has to include parts of three calendar days.

Two different issues. The Mark section neither addresses the three days and nights nor brings anymore light than other texts.

 

[freeatlast]

Ruiz,

re: "I think every scholar holds he was in the ground for three days. The debate is whether that three day period is three days from the day he died or includes the day he died."

I suppose there are a few who debate that, but the predominate debate is whether the time has to include at least parts of three light periods AND at least parts of three dark periods or whether it only has to include parts of three calendar days.

It is impossible to get Him in the grave for three days and three night with a Friday crucifixion even if one manipulates the times that constitute a day and night. No amount of math or manipulation can have a Friday crucifixion and a Resurrection after three days and three nights with a Sunday resurrection. Also scripture never says He rose on Sunday. Most likely He rose at sun down on Saturday the 7th day Sabbath.

 

[rstrats]

Ruiz,

re: "Two different issues."

Hey, you’re the one that brought it up.

 

[rstrats]

Ruiz,

re: "What I am saying, is other texts clearly teach it."

And yet you still haven’t provided them and explained how they do that.

 

[Ruiz]

Ruiz,

re: "What I am saying, is other texts clearly teach it."

And yet you still haven’t provided them and explained how they do that.

I did bring up the texts. Granted, someone corrected my numbers as I hit a "1" instead of a "2". Yet, I will provide them again, and in context they are all talking about the Resurrection.

Matthew 28:1
Luke 24:1
John 20:1
I Co 15:4
Acts 10:40

 

[rstrats]

Ruiz,

re: " I will provide them again, and in context they are all talking about the Resurrection."

But you haven’t explained how they prove a first day resurrection.