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?

[theophilus]

Mark isn't the only one who says the resurrection was on the first day of the week.

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
(Luke 24:1-3 ESV)

This section does say that one of the signs that will follow believers is that they will pick up deadly snakes and not be hurt. Some people use this statement to teach that handling poisonous snakes should be part of Christian worship services. Here is a post that discusses that subject.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=412022&postcount=21

[rstrats]

theophilus,

re: “Mark isn't the only one who says the resurrection was on the first day of the week...(Luke 24:1-3 ESV)”


I’m afraid that I don’t see where those verses say that the resurrection occurred on the first day of the week. They only say that the women came to the tomb on the first day and found the tomb empty.

[rstrats]

**Anyone?**

[Morpheus]

Sure.

Your a Seventh Day Adventist?

We should discuss the relevance of observing a calendar day?

Theo:

This section does say that one of the signs that will follow believers is that they will pick up deadly snakes and not be hurt. Some people use this statement to teach that handling poisonous snakes should be part of Christian worship services. Here is a post that discusses that subject.

It is also written, "Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test."

[rstrats]

Morpheus,

re: “Sure.”

OK, I shall await your information about an author.



re: “Your a Seventh Day Adventist?”

No.



re: “We should discuss the relevance of observing a calendar day?”

Not for the purpose of this topic.

[psychoslice]

The resurrection may have been on the first day of the week, but nowhere does it say that the first day is the Sabbath, so the Sabbath is still and always was the seventh day, Saturday.

[rstrats]

psychoslice,

re: “The resurrection may have been on the first day of the week, but nowhere does it say that the first day is the Sabbath, so the Sabbath is still and always was the seventh day, Saturday.”


I’m afraid I don’t see the relevance of that comment to the OP.

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by rstrats

psychoslice,

re: “The resurrection may have been on the first day of the week, but nowhere does it say that the first day is the Sabbath, so the Sabbath is still and always was the seventh day, Saturday.”


I’m afraid I don’t see the relevance of that comment to the OP.

Well I said it away lol.

[rstrats]

psychoslice,

re: “Well I said it away...”

I don’t know what that means.