The disputed ending of Mark 16.

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Now I can go to bed ... am very tired ... slaap op jou sy en droom van my ...

 

[Chowmah]

The disciples worshiped on the first day of the week. You've attempted to make this fact trivial.

Youve yet to prove this a fact preacher. Ive asked already where you find these scriptures as proof they worshipped on the 1st day of week and youve posted none. Now thats a fact. Im patient so ill be asking again in a week or so.

 

[rstrats]

Chowmah,


re: "‘Im patient so ill be asking again in a week or so."
　
Just a friendly reminder that its been over a week or so.

 

[rstrats]

Since its been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of an author.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Youve yet to prove this a fact preacher. Ive asked already where you find these scriptures as proof they worshipped on the 1st day of week and youve posted none. Now thats a fact. Im patient so ill be asking again in a week or so.

GE:

Well, if you would accept the Sundayists' corruptions of the Scriptures, I can refer you to Acts 20:7

Perhaps also 1 Corinthians 16:2,

And maybe John 20:19 on to even 21:1,2.

But most certainly THE Scripture that PROVES Christians fell away into Sunday-worship, is Galatians 4:10!

Now reckon, hey ...! After all the Sundaydarians' daring paid off

 

[rstrats]

Since it has again been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of an author.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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?

GE:

Well, nobody else will; so I'll promote my book, myself.

May I tell you the best book ever on the subject of the day that Jesus rose from the dead on.

Yes, accepted and received and entered into the theological library of the Hans Merensky library of the University of Pretoria among all the publications I don't think of one that was not on those shelves --- with the personal blessing of the Dean of the faculty of Theology at that time (I forgot his name after all these years) and given a prominent exposure by the then librarian a wonderful Christian spinster lady.

Then came along the new and young librarian and on her own REMOVED my book because she couldn't stomach its contents. She told me so personally.

In the library of the University of Potchefstroom for Higher Christian Education, a Calvinistic, Reformed orientated University, my book rates five star among Carsen and one other work
http://millennium.nwu.ac.za/search~...,12,B/frameset&FF=Xlord's+day&1,1,/indexsort=

My book is referenced throughout the world at http://www.biblestudents.co.za, and currently is being used in Study Format for a New Afrikaans Bible, the committees' decisions and conclusions are not published but will be seen in the new Edition. I know nothing of my suggestions will reflect; or if they will, I'll be utterly surprised. Fact remains, no other work is so involved in the translation process as 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace'.

I have extensively through the years written on Baptist Board on the issues touched upon in this discussion so far. Find my latest posts, here,


http://www.baptistboard.com/search.php?searchid=1812348

and here,

http://www.baptistboard.com/search.php?searchid=1812349

God willing I shall touch on some detail a.s.a.p.






T

 

[billwald]

Sunday has been considered The Lord's Day for 2000 years. If Baptists were orthodox Christians you all would not have to reinvent the wheel every generation.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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?

GE:
Dear Strats, to make Jesus’ Resurrection one moment before or after when “Suddenly there was a great earthquake and the angel of the Lord descending from heaven hurled away the stone from the sepulchre”, would be illogical. For what reason were those events other than emphatically to accompany and mark the moment, ‘kai idou’, “THEN, SEE!” ---of the Resurrection?!
The logic is not to see the earthquake or the stone, but through the earthquake and stone to visualize the Resurrection by faith --- exactly what “the angel EXPLAINED”!

These Resurrection-accompanying events were what the angel wanted the women to vizualize and understand by faith: “Do not be afraid … HE IS RISEN! … Come have a look at where He lay.” Why would the angel try to convince the women if they were looking at the earthquake and angel opening the grave?

The angel “INFORMED the women” ABOUT these things at some LATER time AFTER the actual occurrence of it. He would not have “told them, He is risen” if they were looking at the Resurrection because the women did not look on as the earthquake occurred or as the angel descended, but the angel “informed” them and “explained” to them, WHEN, the earthquake occurred and the angel descended, “Late on the Sabbath Day”.

That does not mean the Resurrection was “earlier” than the earthquake or angel’s descent or stone’s removal; it means that the angel’s “explanation” for sooth of, the Resurrection, “to the women”, was later.

The ‘information / explanation / instruction’ regarding the actual moment of the actual Resurrection came under different and suitable circumstances when the women themselves had also psychologically been better prepared. They only received full instruction on their LAST visit at the tomb the next Sunday morning. Shortly after Jesus “met them”— Mary Magdalene excluded because Jesus had “appeared to Mary Magdalene early on the First Day of the week, first”, already.

The earthquake and angel’s descent and the Resurrection are separated and the Resurrection gets forced back in time only to fit some people’s weird and totally unfounded idea of a Wednesday Crucifixion. Their scheming defies all logic, mocks all truth and openly contradicts Matthew’s record of the whole “third day”— from that the grave the Sabbath “morning after the Preparation” “for the third day” was secured, until Jesus “Late on the—VERY SAME—Sabbath” and in spite of man’s attempts to prevent Him, rose from the dead.

 

[37818]

Sunday has been considered The Lord's Day for 2000 years. If Baptists were orthodox Christians you all would not have to reinvent the wheel every generation.

Do you believe Mark 14:12, ". . . And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? . . ."?

That Hebrew day is the 14th (Exodus 12:6; Exodus 12:18). The next day begins that evening (Mark 14:17). Which places the crucifixion on the 15th of the Jewish calendar. A Sabbath of the Passover feast. Not to be confused with the weekly Sabbath which follows the Preparation (Mark 15:42). It began that evening following Christ's physical death on the 15th.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This five year old zombie thread is closed.