Mark 16:9-20
NR:
New Reformationist
SW1:
Sunday-worshipper
SW2: do.
SW3: do.
SW4: do.
SW6: do.
SW7: do.
SW8: do.
SW9: do.
NR:
Does anyone know of a published author who has used Mark
16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection which in turn they used — at
least in part — to justify the establishment of the first day of the week as a
special day for rest and worship?
GE:
I have a library full!! I don't know of a
'pro-Sunday-worship' book --- 'theology', 'dogmatics', call them what you want
--- that does not make use of Mk16:9 to support Christian Sunday-worship.
NR:
When you get some time I wonder if you might be so kind as
to identify one of the authors in your collection and the title of the publication
along with a quote from the pub regarding Mark 16:9 and first day observance.
GE:
Do you believe Jesus was resurrected on the Sabbath
(Seventh) Day?
NR:
I have no set belief with regard to the day of the
resurrection. It could have been either the seventh day or the first day
depending on when the crucifixion took place.
SW1:
Mark 16
9 Now, rising in the morning in the first sabbath, He
appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.
This is the correct word for word translation from the
Original Greek in the New Testament, into English. Any help?
NR:
“Any help?” I’m afraid not. Thanks anyway.
SW1:
Amazing.... God is the author of all things including the
New Testament.
How could it be that he is no help for you? You sought the answer from a Published
Author, yet did you have eyes to see...... ?
NR:
Apparently not. I wonder if you might explain how the
quoting of Mark 16:9 is responsive to my OP?
SW1:
Scripture tells us the day is a sabbath..... God is the
published Author, now I guess the only question we are left to ask, is
scripture referring to the first day of the week? That could possibly be.... does not God have
the power to do anything, who ever said Sunday was the Sabbath ? tradition?
Here scripture tells us the first Sabbath day he was raised, correctly
translated scripture to word for word Greek into English.
NR:
I’m sorry, but I guess I will just have to continue to not
understand how your comments are responsive to my OP.
SW3:
I would hesitate to use any part of Mark from 16:9 onwards
in any kind of scholarly argument, as Mark 16:9 to the end of this gospel were
added sometime later and do not reflect the writings of the original author.
Originally, Mark ended with the women running away when they were afraid. The
passages shown in 16:9 onwards are not present in the earliest manuscripts of
Mark and the passage about followers of Jesus picking up snakes and drinking
poison and not being harmed somewhat stand out as being alien to the rest of
the Markian gospel.
GE:
I would NOT hesitate in any manner to use any part of Mark
from 16:9 onwards in any kind of scholarly argument because although Mark 16:9
to the end of this gospel was added sometime later it in no manner is in
conflict with the writings of the original 'author' --- who obviously was no
less of a collector of 'sources' than was Luke. For what reason on earth can
the later addition of a portion of the Scriptures render it invalid? How much
of the Scriptures are we going to have left over if we take that route? All
four Gospels are compilations of 'texts', each to the preferences of the
'author' or 'authors' of each Gospel. What's difficult about that? Does that
interfere with the 'Inspiration' of the Gospels or whichever other book of the
Bible? Are we of so little faith?
SW4:
SW3 does make a point, but we are dealing with
translations mainly interpreted from the TR. Some things need to taken into
consideration, mainly the use of the word "sabbath" in some Bibles.
The word 'sabbath' or sabbaton can mean one of two things:
Strong's Ref. # 4521, Romanized sabbaton .... of Hebrew
origin [HSN7676]; the Sabbath (i.e. Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from
secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension, a
se'nnight, i.e. the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all
the above applications: KJV--sabbath (day), week.
In order to harmonize with the rest of the Gospel books
(since none of the them support a sabbath resurrection) it would be proper for
the translators to insert the word "day" for clarity. So, we are
looking at [the first day of the interval between two sabbaths].
We do know from other Gospel passages that He rose
sometime right after sunset of the first day and sunrise of the same first
day.
NR:
What scriptures are you using to support your statement
that, “We do know from other Gospel passages that He rose sometime right after
sunset of the first day and sunrise of the same first day”?
SW4:
Now for your question, “Does anyone know of a published
author who has used Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection?”:
Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn
toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see
the sepulchre.
Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of
the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
Luke 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early
in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they
had prepared, and certain others with them.
John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene
early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away
from the sepulchre.
John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me
ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good
cheer; I have overcome the world.
NR:
With all due respect, I do not see where Matthew 28:1,
Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1 and John 20:1 say anything with regard to the actual day
of the resurrection.
SW4:
Ok, let me bounce back on you. What day do you believe He was raised and why
are you looking for proof that the first day was changed to the Sabbath?
Also, who said the day was changed in the first place?
NR:
I don’t know. It could have been either the seventh day or
the first day.
And I’m not looking for proof that the first day was
changed to the Sabbath. I don’t see how
you can get that from what I say. Someone who was questioning the authenticity
of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, said 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.
Actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV has
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,
first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to
justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, 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, hence my query.
SW1:
9 Now, rising in the morning in the first sabbath, He
appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.
This is the correct word for word translation from the
Original Greek in the New Testament, into English
GE:
This, "9 Now, rising in the morning in the first
sabbath, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene ...” in fact is the wrong 'word for word’ translation from
the Original Greek, "anastas de ... efaneh"; it should be, "Risen, He appeared". A Participle
that shows how Jesus,
"appeared": "As the Risen (One)". "Anastas"
is no Verb; it does not tell that
Jesus (then) 'rose'. If it were a finite, Indicative Verb, it would have meant
Jesus then-was-rising from the dead.
In truth, “Now, rising in the morning in the first
sabbath, He appeared”, simply is telling a lie,
because it means that Jesus as-He-was-rising,
was-appearing-to-Mary, and she would
have been seeing Him— which of
course, she did not!
NR:
I’m afraid that I can not find where SW4 uses Mark 16:9 to
place the resurrection on Sunday. Strangely, though, he does reference Matt
28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1 and John 20:1, none of which mention a resurrection,
much less the timing of it.
GE:
Some people rely on a sunrise reckoning of the day in Mt28:1
in order to get the Resurrection on Sunday. But they are in every respect
confused.
It is a fact no Gospel in its 'passion-narratives'
mentions Jesus' resurrection directly. Only
Mt28:1, directly describes the circumstances and time of occurrence -- in other
words, implies the reality of the resurrection of Jesus, happening. It is the only Gospel that – by implication –
tells when, Jesus rose from the
dead. Mk16:9, does not say directly when the Resurrection took place, nor does
any other Gospel or NT book wherever, despite the fact they all imply the
Resurrection any time before the
first discovery of an opened grave.
SW5:
Where in the Greek is 'protos' meant to mean 'first
Sabbath'? Where in the original Greek is the term 'sabbata’ used to denote the
first day? Where in Mark is it used except to denote the seventh day
Sabbath?"
GE:
I cannot imagine anyone would say 'protos' meant 'first
Sabbath', really! 'Prohton' in Mk16:9c, means 'first' in Adverbial, chronological order: Jesus appeared first to Mary --
alone -- before he appeared to any other. "He appeared to Mary first,
early on the First Day of the week" -- Sunday. "First day of the
week" from "prohtehi sabbatou": "On the first ('day' by
Ellipsis). ‘First (day)’ means ‘first’ in Adjectival,
sequential, numerical sense, “The First Day” in the sequence of the days “of
the week”, “sabbatou”.
Note that the singular, 'sabbaton' — Genitive, 'sabbatou'
is used in Mk16:9 – not the Plural, 'sabbatohn', as in Mt 28:1. Then nowhere in Mark, is 'sabbatohn' (Plural) used to denote the Seventh Day
Sabbath.
NR asked if anyone knew of a published author who has used
Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection which in turn they
used — at least in part — to justify the establishment of the first day of the
week as a special day for rest and worship.
Virtually every author that believes in Sunday-sacredness and who has
'published', has "used (Mark 16:9) to justify the establishment of the
first day of the week as a special day for rest and worship" –
because
of the wrong assumption 'anastas' means 'rose' -- simply. It is the grand reason for Sunday-sanctity.
I think the principle as such of Jesus' resurrection why
the day of its occurrence should have special meaning for the Church, is sound,
and Biblical. The only problem is, Did Jesus rise from the dead on Sunday?
Calvin taught differently; and so must have thought differently the translators
of the KJV who translated Mt28:1 "In the Sabbath"; and other
translations --- all 'old' ones --- "On the Sabbath". Note how the
'new' 'translations' speak of "After the Sabbath"! They must have
realised the 'old' versions' destructive implications for their
Sunday-tradition!
SW1:
Here scripture tells us the first Sabbath day he was
raised, correctly translated scripture to word for word Greek into English.
GE:
This is a hackneyed 'non-issue' if ever there has been
one. Be careful how you advertise your knowledge and mastery of the Greek
language. Yours is incorrect and very far
from "word for word Greek into English"!!
If it said "the first Sabbath day", it would not
have said, "prohtehi sabbatou",
but "prohtehi sabbatohi".
But now by Greek 'style' or 'linguistics', it actually says, "prohtehi
_hehmerai tou_ sabbatou" --- by Ellipsis as I said before. The concept
'day' is implied -- unavoidably!
SW4:
We are dealing with translations mainly interpreted from
the TR. Some things need to taken into consideration, mainly the use of the
word "sabbath" in some Bibles.
GE:
I guess you are at a loss to explain how "we are
dealing with translations mainly interpreted from the TR" with regard to
the word 'sabbatou' in Mk16:9. I may be wrong, and therefore would appreciate
if you could please show me these supposed discrepancies or just differences
between and in the different 'texts', because I am not aware of any!
Now I am surprised how many make of Strongs virtually
their first Bible, like here, where we must interpret the Bible according to
information given in Strongs while the Bible and the NT in particular causes no
problems in the understanding of its use of the word 'Sabbath' et al.
I could raise objections to the particulars here given by
Strongs, but it would be both unnecessary and irrelevant. Let me only say
Strongs' idea of the word 'sabbath' indicating "the interval between two
Sabbaths" in all of the Bible and particularly in the NT is unfounded and
totally imaginary. If an interval between two Sabbaths were meant, the Koine
Greek had the best of linguistic tools to convey and express the idea 'word for
word', literally, and exactly, just,
like it had the proper 'tools' to convey and express 'word for word' literally
and exactly the idea or concept of that reality called a 'Sabbath': by the hellenised
Hebrew word, 'Sabbaton'. (I cannot see why one should view this word in the
Greek of the Greek NT Scriptures, as a latinisation or "Romanised"
word! Strongs occasionally as shown here
can be very weak in fact! It goes to show, simply, no one is immune to that strong
power called 'tradition'. Strongs came to the fore with these strange
statements only because it (he /
they) had no answers to the enigmas of the Sunday-resurrection tradition. Were
it not for these unanswerable difficulties for Sunday-resurrectionists, Strongs
would not have published its nonsense.
Some claim, "We do know from other Gospel passages
that He rose sometime right after sunset of the first day and sunrise of the
same first day."
But, Quote please? They do not know what they claim for
fact so innocently. Nowhere else
than in Mt28:1 will you read of anything implying the resurrection --- which is
the only place, where time and day
are given --- given for having been "In
the Sabbath / On the sabbath".
SW5:
Although St. Ignatius may not be using Mark 16:9 maybe if
not probably because the idea to celebrate the Liturgy on the day Jesus rose
predates the establishment of the cannon of Scripture.
St. Ignatius of
If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient
order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing
the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our
life has sprung up again by Him and by His death--whom some deny, by which
mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the
disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master--how shall we be able to live apart
from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for
Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being
come, raised them from the dead.
But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common
assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in
the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the
same day rose from the dead (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).
You may be putting the cart before the horse they were
already celebrating the Liturgy on Sunday before they were even writing the New
Testament. For the reasons testified too above.
GE:
I guarantee you this is the falsest 'Ignatius' possible!!
It is so shameless I cannot think a Christian wrote it.
Ignatius says the OT prophets were disciples of Christ who
did not legalistically "sabbatized, but according to Lord's life
lived" their Sabbath-keeping, in other words, kept the Sabbath -- of the
OT -- with NT-meaning, by
celebrating it because of Jesus' resurrection from the dead.
There are many
false Ignatius'; do not be deceived by them! The Lord's Day is the Day of
His Lordship — the day of his conquering death and grave --- which the Bible foretold would be "the Seventh Day
God thus concerning did speak", and Christ in actual resurrection
confirmed was, "In the Sabbath", Mt28:1.
NR:
I see nothing in Matthew 28:1 that says when the
resurrection took place. What do you have in mind?
GE:
Can't you read? Everybody can see the word 'resurrection'
is not there, but just so must everybody can ‘see’ the resurrection happening,
then!
NR:
You ask if I can read. Indeed I can, and I do not read
where Matthew 28:1 says anything about a resurrection, much less the timing of
one. “Now after the Sabbath, as the day of the week began to dawn, Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.”
GE:
Jesus’ resurrection is in there. To mention just one
reason why: How and why did the women suddenly believe that He rose from the
dead? Because "the angel
answered / explained”, it, the
Resurrection, “to the women"! The angel did not tell them about time and
day for nothing!
That is why the Gospel is believed by faith (and "seen of angels" only) --- believed by the
faith of hearing and not by a
believing because of seeing. 'See', with the eye of faith, and all
you can see, is Christ in the Glory of the Father being raised from
the
dead "On the Sabbath Day" in Mt28:1.
NR:
I’m afraid that I am a bit dense here with regard to the
point made, Isn't it interesting that the word for ‘week’ in Mark 16:9 is
sabbaton? Somehow lots of people miss that. Could you please elaborate?
SW6:
Sure. In Mark 16:9 the word "week" is actually
the Greek word sabbaton — the sabbath. That taken into consideration it should
be obvious that Jesus didn't necessarily rise on the "first day of the
week" but on the "first day after the sabbath."
GE:
It is not ‘actually the Geek word sabbaton’; it actually
is the Greek word ‘sabbatou’, “of the week”. If ‘sabbaton’ had been the case,
then the Greek would have used an Accusative and no Genitive, and most likely
with the help of Prepositions, like, “meta (mian) sabbaton”. So forget it;
you’re lost!
SW6:
Now, are both the same? Yes. Do both (the "first day
of the week" and “on the first day after the sabbath") carry the same
meaning? That depends on whether one recognizes the sabbath I suppose. More
importantly I think is, it gives clearer meaning as to when Jesus actually
rose. After the sabbath. After His rest in the tomb.
GE:
Quite incomprehensible to me, and certainly nothing
explained! 'Sabbatou' in Mk16:9 means 'week', and it says "On the First
Day of the week, early", with saying, “prohi prohtehi sabbatou”. There is
absolutely nothing difficult about understanding this. You create difficulties
in your own mind only!
Worse trouble starts with people making of the Participle, 'anastas' — 'risen' / 'as
the Risen One', a Verb, and saying
it means, "He rose";
Or people making 'anastas' a Present Participle, instead of the Aorist Participle it is, saying it means, 'rising' -- 'Rising He
appeared' --- which is making it a lie
because – besides the Grammatical factors – Jesus simply did not appear as He was ‘rising’ : Nobody ever saw Him rising from the dead!
Therefore, “On Sunday morning early, Jesus, having been
raised from the dead, and risen, first of all appeared to Mary." All,
‘problems’, solved once for all:
Jesus did not rise on Sunday
morning; he was or had been raised
from the dead already, "Late Sabbath's mid-afternoon before / tending / towards the First
Day of
the week"— Mt28:1.
NR:
“Now after the Sabbath, as the day of the week began to
dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.”
GE:
It’s a false
'translation' (in other words, it is a corruption) of the correct, "Late Sabbath
Day’s mid-afternoon against the First Day of the week ..." --- correct
and literal of "opse sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi eis mian sabbaton".
Next, the women "set
off to see / went to go have a look”; they did not ‘arrive’. It can be
categorically stated the women did not
'arrive', because they if they ‘arrived’ would have seen what then, was
happening. (That, judging by the way you see, you obviously too will be unable
to see.) But it is evident from all the
rest of all the Gospels, the two women had seen nothing, and it is evident from Mt28:5 the women were “told” these things that indeed had
happened about 15 hours before ----
but what you say you do not read of in this Scripture.
SW7:
The Greek phrase "??? ??? ????????" refers to
the first (day) of the week in every context in the New Testament, and ALL
translators of whom I am aware (except the Concordant Translation), so
translate it.
It becomes obvious that this is the meaning when one
considers Matthew 28:1
GE:
Beg to differ on some important detail:
In Mk16:9 we find 'prohtehi sabbatou' Dative, "On the First Day of the week".
(The Singular is of no consequence) --- it tells of the day "of the
week", upon which Jesus "appeared to Mary".
In Mt28:1 though, we do not find the Dative, but the Accusative, "eis mian sabbatohn", "towards / against / before the First
Day of the week". (Again, the Plural, sabbatohn, is incidental and of no
consequence; it simply means 'week — of the week’.)
What we do find besides this Accusative of: “towards the First Day”, is the Genitive
of: “In the Sabbath’s Day”! And that
is what in the phrase gives the time
of the event and events that "On / In the Sabbath" occurred; or, that
were "OF the Sabbath's"
occurrence -- which of course entailed Jesus' resurrection, which nobody seems
is able to read or ‘exegete’ here, but without which, the whole passage would
be absolutely senseless and worthless.
SW8:
THE LORD'S DAY,
"This is the day which the LORD has made; let us
rejoice and be glad in it." The day
of the Resurrection: the new creation.
Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the
week" because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's
Resurrection. It recalls the first creation because it is the "eighth
day" following the sabbath. It symbolizes the new creation ushered in by
Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the
first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies
"We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the
first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God,
separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus
Christ our Savior rose from the dead."
Sunday- fulfilment of the sabbath,
Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which
it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance
replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the
spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God.
For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done
there prefigured some aspects of Christ.
"Those who lived according to the old order of things
have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in
which our life is blessed by him and by his death."
The celebration of Sunday, observes the moral commandment
inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible,
public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to
all." Sunday worship, fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant,
taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and
Redeemer of his people.
GE:
Everything above here claimed for Sunday, belongs to the
Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD your God, and has been stolen from it, and has
been given to the usurper-lord, Sunday – in fact all, on the assumption of this
one, false, claim: Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the
week."
SW6:
More importantly I think is, it gives clearer meaning as
to when Jesus actually rose. After the sabbath. After His rest in the tomb.
GE:
Jesus did not rise "after the Sabbath" You will
find this only in translations made since the translators became aware of the
truth of the older translations that used to have "In", or "On
the Sabbath". They feared the consequences for their Sunday-dogma, but had
no fear for the Word of God, so nonchalantly just changed the Word of God, and
'translated' to, "After the Sabbath ... on the First Day" — an
impossibility for the Greek, 'opse sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi eis mian s.'
It is horrific!
But what is far more horrific, is that you say that Jesus
rested in the tomb!! Death is the wages of sin;
how dare you make it Jesus' 'rest'? No! Jesus' 'rest' was to have been raised— from death and to have "Entered Into His Own Rest As God In
His Own" Victor, through
resurrection from the dead. "Then",
was it, that God found and founded His Sabbath Day's Rest, "As He raised Christ from the dead .... by
the exceeding Greatness of His Power Which He Worked In Christ."
Re: "....depending on when the crucifixion took
place"....
No text in Scriptures mentions
the resurrection as it happened,
whenever it happened. Only Mt28:1-4
describes the circumstances that
surrounded and accompanied the resurrection. The resurrection is undeniably implied in these text,
taking into account the angel "explained
to the women" in verse 5, what
indeed had taken place when there was an earthquake and while the Marys set out
to go and have a look at the grave, and the angel of the Lord descended from
heaven and rolled the stone away and sat on it. nowhere else in the NT is there such a direct explanation of the events which any believer will accept by
faith accompanied Jesus' resurrection from the dead. There is absolutely nothing too complicated to understand
and accept for the greatest Truth
ever recorded. Just so unambiguous is the time—
given: "In the Sabbath’s fullness
of mid-afternoon before the First Day of the week".
NR:
I sorry, but Matthew 28 does not say WHEN the resurrection
took place.
GE:
No sir, Matthew 28:1-4 does say ‘when’, the Resurrection
took place. You are questioning the Resurrection,
because the time clearly is stated there— for even the unbeliever
to see. It is only what happened
"then", as Paul says in
Eph1:17f, "When God— raised, Christ from the dead and exalted, Him to (His) Right Hand",
that you question because it does not stand there written in so many words. Do
you believe the Scriptures?
This is what you insinuate those who use Mk16:9 to show
Jesus' resurrection, cannot do, because His resurrection is not mentioned in
that verse. Now who does not know that? One should rather ask: Who does not believe it? in order to answer your
fishy questions and doubts. No sir, even the Sunday-sacredness adherents at
least believe Jesus in fact, rose from the dead; they at least, are real Christians despite they
misinterpret the text! Your cunningness is tangible!
I think, you are a New Reformationist
But, to answer your vague question as to the time-relation
between the day of the resurrection and the day of the crucifixion, there are a
hundred reasons why there can be no doubt Jesus rose, and had to rise from the
dead, on the Sabbath Day.
Here is one of them:
Luke tells the disciples who went to Emmaus late on Sunday
afternoon, told Jesus, "Today is the third day, since these things
happened". Now to which things did they refer? To the things they knew about — of no other things! And
what was it they knew about? They tell us themselves: They mention Jesus'
suffering and crucifixion. Simply count: Sunday, day 3 after or since the
crucifixion; Saturday, day 2 since the crucifixion; Friday, day one since the
crucifixion; Thursday, day of, the crucifixion!
Therefore, Jesus must have been crucified on a Thursday
--- against popular belief, as it is against popular belief He rose on a
'Saturday', "the Seventh Day the Sabbath of the LORD your God". It is
against popular belief although this
name of it already foretold God in Christ Jesus would on the Seventh Day His
Sabbath Day, and in it, rest. "God from all His works, on the Seventh Day rested" --- a NT Word! What can God's 'Rest' be – and have
been – but His Triumph of Lordship by having raised Christ from the dead?
Now who can deny the faith
that believes if God is "speaking", "through the Son",
"in these last days" of ours --- in New Testament times, "Thus,
concerning the Seventh Day: And God the Seventh Day rested from all His Works", that God is speaking from God's
Work of Redemption first and foremost: In and Through the Son, ultimately, finally, axiomatically, Victoriously,
Triumphantly, in and through God the Son, Jesus Christ: in and through resurrection from the dead!
SW9:
Mark 16:9-20 appears in certain Bible manuscripts and
versions of the fifth and sixth centuries C.E. But they do not appear in
the older Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and
In commenting on the long and short conclusions of the
Gospel of Mark, Bible translator Edgar J. Goodspeed noted: “The Short
Conclusion connects much better with Mark 16:8 than does the Long, but neither
can be considered an original part of the Gospel of Mark.”—The Goodspeed
Parallel New Testament, 1944, p. 127.
Thus, Mark 16 ends with verse 8, with verses 9-20 and the
short conclusion as being added at a later date. Supporting this testimony of
the Greek manuscripts and versions are the church historian Eusebius (bishop of
Bible scholars agree that the last twelve verses shown
with the book of Mark, which speak about tongues and not being injured by
snakes, were not written by Mark but were added by another. Samuel Tregelles, a
noted nineteenth-century English Bible scholar, states: “Eusebius, Gregory of
Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers,
especially Greeks, testify that these verses were not written by St. Mark,
or not found in the best copies.” (Source
of information — Watchtower Library)
GE:
Alright; Eusebius might not have known of the longer
endings' existence; it doesn't prove:
1) it not somewhere else existed and was known and
accepted by other Christians. It doesn't prove
2) the longer ending is not genuine, or not 'Scripture'.
That it is not, is a subjective opinion at best.
The 'reasons' from the content for why not, always are
based on opinion and dogmatic prejudice, as if no other interpretation could be
given than the usual fantastic ones — snake bites and that stuff. Once these
things are understood for what they are:
1) Signs of apostleship, and,
2) Of figurative application to all other believers,
no
problems are left with believing them for the Word of God.
I have before made notice, that none of the NT texts
originated simultaneously; they are all from oldest to youngest -- we are only
here and there able to tell which is which.
The fact Mk16-20 got
preserved proves God's protecting hand over his genuine written Word.
Like in the Gospel of Luke — according to Luke himself -,
very little was written by himself — the Gospel is mainly a compilation made by
Luke of many unidentified sources -, so the Gospel of Mark contains as it seems
everything Mark was not himself the eye-witness of. So why make an exception of
the longer ending? Because it could not have been Mark himself who added it to
his Gospel because it was added too late? So you see we are back to personal
feelings, so that anyone could say, yes, indeed! But there's no proof for any
such conclusions under the sun!
SW9:
Eusebius was aware of the of the longer ending to the book
of Mark, saying that it was not in any of the "accurate copies" of
early Bible manuscripts. One such manuscript may have been a palimpsest (erased
manuscript and then written over) found in 1892 at the St. Catherine Monastery
at the base of
In this manuscript, Mark 16:8 is the end of this book, with
then a little row of circles followed by a little space and the beginning of
Luke. Thus, this ancient manuscript provides evidence that Mark 16 ended with
verse 8, and that verses 9-20 are not part of the Bible, but both the short and
long conclusions are later spurious additions.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1966), Volume 9, page 240,
said about these verses: “The manuscript tradition indicates that the Gospel
originally ended at 16.8, but that the longer ending that is incorporated in
the Vulgate was later added, becoming widely accepted in the course of the 5th
century. . . . Its vocabulary and style differ so radically from the
rest of the Gospel that it hardly seems possible Mark himself composed it.
. . . Mark 16.1-8 is a satisfactory ending to the Gospel insofar as
it declares Jesus’ Resurrection-prophecy to be fulfilled.”
The proper conclusion is that Mark could not have written
these verses and that their content is no part of the inspired Word of God.
There is no evidence that Christ’s followers were commanded or able to drink
deadly poison without being hurt, as stated in verse 18. (Compare 1Cor.4:6, to
follow the "rule" to "not go beyond the things written")
GE:
No fine, I do not contend any facts you make mention of, only some deductions or inferences made.
"Eusebius was aware of the longer ending to the book
of
Mark," --- accepted
"... saying that it was not in any of the
"accurate copies" of early Bible manuscripts." --- not accepted.
"One such manuscript may have been a palimpsest
(erased manuscript and then written over) found in 1892 at the St. Catherine
Monastery at the base of
"In this manuscript, Mark 16:8 is the end of this
book, with then a little row of circles followed by a little space and the
beginning of Luke. Thus, this ancient manuscript provides evidence that Mark 16
ended with verse 8," --- accepted.
Black on white facts cannot be argued about.
Not accepted :
"... and that verses 9-20 are not part of the Bible,
but both the short and long conclusions are later spurious additions."
"The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1966), Volume 9, page
240, said about these verses: “The manuscript tradition indicates that the
Gospel originally ended at 16.8, but that the longer ending that is
incorporated in the Vulgate was later added, becoming widely accepted in the
course of the 5th century. . . . Its vocabulary and style differ so radically
from the rest of the Gospel that it hardly seems possible Mark himself composed
it. . . . Mark 16.1-8 is a satisfactory ending to the Gospel insofar as it declares
Jesus’ Resurrection-prophecy to be fulfilled.” --- accepted 100%.
" The proper conclusion is that Mark could not have
written these verses and that their content is no part of the inspired Word of
God." --- Not accepted; the
word 'proper' is subjective and predisposed.
"There is no evidence that Christ’s followers were
commanded or able to drink deadly poison without being hurt, as stated in verse
18." --- Not accepted; the word
or idea that "Christ’s followers were commanded" anything in the
'ending', is illegitimate for purely the absence of command. I believe these
'command/-ments' must rather be understood for promises of God's faithfulness.
And also, that they were to serve as marks or proofs of apostleship. No one after the apostles
have any right more to claim these assurances. That's where the trouble with
the interpretations of this Scriptures starts – when false claims of
apostleship, like by the charismatics or pentecostals are started being made.
"(Compare 1 Cor 4:6, to follow the "rule"
to "not go beyond the things written")" ---- not accepted, because not relevant in
any way, not even in the sense of "the things written" --- which the
'ending'
certainly had been from its origin.