Mark 16:9
- Thread starter rstrats
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S
sllhouette
Guest
Actually they do, look in Matthew 28:1. "After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning,* Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb." This is saying he was resurrected at least some time before/on Sunday. We know that he was dead for "three days and three nights" (see the explanation of that I posted above). We also know he died of Friday. Let me give you the proof for that. John 19:31 The Jews did not want the bodies to remain on the cross on the Sabbath. That would not be a problem if Christ died on a Thursday, but only if he died on Friday.
It seems to me that the only reasonable interpretation of scripture is that Christ died on Friday and rose on Sunday.
S
sllhouette
Guest
haha, sorry. I think I was answering another question that you asked early in the discussion... oops.
S
sllhouette
Guest
If that doesn't answer you question, perhaps it would be helpful for me if you would restate the question you have. The original post is a little confusing. It sounds just like you are asking for a scriptural basis for believing that the resurrection was on Sunday.
S
sllhouette
Guest
I have heard before that the Jews would consider the falling of the night to be the beginning of the next day. So on Friday, when the sun began to set, the guards would have come to make sure that the victims were taken from the cross before nightfall. This also means that the night before Sunday would be part of Sunday. It is worth noting the significance of the sun coming up as Christ is rising. "let the guards wait on daybreak; and Israel on the lord!". Indeed, on that first day on which Christ rose, a new creation was formed and Christ, the Light, shined for all to see!
Wed. 6:00 pm. (dusk, evening begins ) - Sat. 6:00 pm = 3 days + 3 nights = 72 hours; therefore, Christ was crucified all day Wed.; was entombed before evening (the Law), and arose sometime after Sat. 6:00 pm.
Since none of you have mentioned 'high days', which are the holy days by the Law (mosaic), none of you realize that the Passover was a high day, and it was the very day Jesus was crucified; but, it began at Evening, and lasted 24 hours. Also, the feast of unleaven bread began, and it lasted 7 days. The point is, since no one could work, nor buy on sell on 'high' days, and the Sabbath was on Saturday (another high day); then, the only day the women could buy ointments for Jesus's body was Friday, so they could have it for Sunday morning (Mk 16:1)! Therefore, Jesus had to be crucified on Wed., buried before nighttime, and arose after Sat. evening.
according to Gen 1, One Day was from the start of Evening, through the Morning, and back to the sart of Evening.
Hope this helps someone.
Since none of you have mentioned 'high days', which are the holy days by the Law (mosaic), none of you realize that the Passover was a high day, and it was the very day Jesus was crucified; but, it began at Evening, and lasted 24 hours. Also, the feast of unleaven bread began, and it lasted 7 days. The point is, since no one could work, nor buy on sell on 'high' days, and the Sabbath was on Saturday (another high day); then, the only day the women could buy ointments for Jesus's body was Friday, so they could have it for Sunday morning (Mk 16:1)! Therefore, Jesus had to be crucified on Wed., buried before nighttime, and arose after Sat. evening.
according to Gen 1, One Day was from the start of Evening, through the Morning, and back to the sart of Evening.
Hope this helps someone.
serpentslayer,
re: "... the only day the women could buy ointments for Jesus's body was Friday, so they could have it for Sunday morning..."
Couldn’t they have bought them after the Sabbath ended at sundown when the shops reopened for business?
re: "... the only day the women could buy ointments for Jesus's body was Friday, so they could have it for Sunday morning..."
Couldn’t they have bought them after the Sabbath ended at sundown when the shops reopened for business?
sllhouette,
re: " it would be helpful for me if you would restate the question you have."
I’m looking for a published author who argues for a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week at least in part due to the idea of a first day of the week resurrection and who supports a first day of the week resurrection with Mark 16:9.
re: " it would be helpful for me if you would restate the question you have."
I’m looking for a published author who argues for a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week at least in part due to the idea of a first day of the week resurrection and who supports a first day of the week resurrection with Mark 16:9.
Nearly all modern Bible scholars have concluded that all of what appears at Mark 16:9-20 were not written by Mark but were added by a later hand. This conclusion is based on both external and internal evidence.
First of all, there is the telling fact that two of the oldest and most highly regarded Bible manuscripts, the Vatican 1209 and the Sinaitic, do not contain this section; they conclude Mark’s Gospel with verse eight. There are also a number of ancient manuscripts that contain a short ending of just about one verse beyond eight; and other manuscripts contain both conclusions. So, some manuscripts end with verse eight, others have a short ending, others have a long ending, and some even give both endings. In addition to this testimony of the Greek manuscripts, all of which combines to cast doubt on Mark’s having written anything beyond verse eight, there are a number of the oldest versions (or translations) that do not contain the verses in question. Among such are ancient Syriac, Armenian and Ethiopic versions. No wonder that the noted manuscript authority Dr. Westcott states that “the verses which follow [9-20] are no part of the original narrative but an appendage.”
Supporting this testimony of the Greek manuscripts and versions are the church historian Eusebius and the Bible translator Jerome. Eusebius wrote that the longer ending was not in the “accurate copies,” for “at this point [verse 8] the end of the Gospel according to Mark is determined in nearly all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark.” And Jerome, writing in the year 406 or 407　C.E. said that “nearly all Greek MSS. have not got this passage.”
Quite pertinent here is what the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1966), Volume 9, page 240, has to say 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…. Mark 16.1-8 is a satisfactory ending to the Gospel insofar as it declares Jesus’ Resurrection-prophecy to be fulfilled.” Yes, Mark’s style is plain, direct; his paragraphs are short and the transitions are simple.
There is also the matter of vocabulary. There are words used in verses 9 through 20 that do not appear elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel, some words that do not occur in any of the other Gospels, some that do not occur elsewhere in the Christian Greek Scriptures. These verses consist of 163 Greek words, and, of these, 19 words and 2 phrases do not occur elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel. Or, put otherwise, in these verses there are 109 different words, and, of these, 11 words and 2 phrases are unique to these verses.
But most conclusive of all that Mark could not have written these verses and that they are no part of the inspired Word of God is their content. As has already been noted, there is no evidence that Christ’s followers were to be able to drink deadly poison without being hurt, as stated in verse 18. Even in the matter of handling snakes it is very apparent that those handling them do all they can to keep the snakes from biting, and they handle them only for five minutes at a time.
Further, these questionable verses state that the eleven apostles refused to believe the testimony of two disciples whom Jesus had met on the way and to whom he revealed himself. But, according to the account in Luke, when the two disciples found the eleven and those with them, these said: “For a fact the Lord was raised up and he appeared to Simon!”-Luke 24:13-35.
So in view of all the foregoing it can be concluded that Mark 16:9-20 is not part of God’s inspired Word, and that for the following reasons: (1)　These verses are not found in two of the oldest and most highly regarded Greek manuscripts as well as others. (2)　They are also not found in many of the oldest and best Bible translations or versions. (3)　Such ancient scholars as Eusebius and Jerome pronounced them spurious. (4)　The style of these verses is entirely different from that of Mark. (5)　The vocabulary used in these verses is different from that of Mark. (6)　And, most important of all, the very content of these verses contradicts the facts and the rest of the Scriptures.
First of all, there is the telling fact that two of the oldest and most highly regarded Bible manuscripts, the Vatican 1209 and the Sinaitic, do not contain this section; they conclude Mark’s Gospel with verse eight. There are also a number of ancient manuscripts that contain a short ending of just about one verse beyond eight; and other manuscripts contain both conclusions. So, some manuscripts end with verse eight, others have a short ending, others have a long ending, and some even give both endings. In addition to this testimony of the Greek manuscripts, all of which combines to cast doubt on Mark’s having written anything beyond verse eight, there are a number of the oldest versions (or translations) that do not contain the verses in question. Among such are ancient Syriac, Armenian and Ethiopic versions. No wonder that the noted manuscript authority Dr. Westcott states that “the verses which follow [9-20] are no part of the original narrative but an appendage.”
Supporting this testimony of the Greek manuscripts and versions are the church historian Eusebius and the Bible translator Jerome. Eusebius wrote that the longer ending was not in the “accurate copies,” for “at this point [verse 8] the end of the Gospel according to Mark is determined in nearly all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark.” And Jerome, writing in the year 406 or 407　C.E. said that “nearly all Greek MSS. have not got this passage.”
Quite pertinent here is what the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1966), Volume 9, page 240, has to say 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…. Mark 16.1-8 is a satisfactory ending to the Gospel insofar as it declares Jesus’ Resurrection-prophecy to be fulfilled.” Yes, Mark’s style is plain, direct; his paragraphs are short and the transitions are simple.
There is also the matter of vocabulary. There are words used in verses 9 through 20 that do not appear elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel, some words that do not occur in any of the other Gospels, some that do not occur elsewhere in the Christian Greek Scriptures. These verses consist of 163 Greek words, and, of these, 19 words and 2 phrases do not occur elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel. Or, put otherwise, in these verses there are 109 different words, and, of these, 11 words and 2 phrases are unique to these verses.
But most conclusive of all that Mark could not have written these verses and that they are no part of the inspired Word of God is their content. As has already been noted, there is no evidence that Christ’s followers were to be able to drink deadly poison without being hurt, as stated in verse 18. Even in the matter of handling snakes it is very apparent that those handling them do all they can to keep the snakes from biting, and they handle them only for five minutes at a time.
Further, these questionable verses state that the eleven apostles refused to believe the testimony of two disciples whom Jesus had met on the way and to whom he revealed himself. But, according to the account in Luke, when the two disciples found the eleven and those with them, these said: “For a fact the Lord was raised up and he appeared to Simon!”-Luke 24:13-35.
So in view of all the foregoing it can be concluded that Mark 16:9-20 is not part of God’s inspired Word, and that for the following reasons: (1)　These verses are not found in two of the oldest and most highly regarded Greek manuscripts as well as others. (2)　They are also not found in many of the oldest and best Bible translations or versions. (3)　Such ancient scholars as Eusebius and Jerome pronounced them spurious. (4)　The style of these verses is entirely different from that of Mark. (5)　The vocabulary used in these verses is different from that of Mark. (6)　And, most important of all, the very content of these verses contradicts the facts and the rest of the Scriptures.
N
nathan3
Guest
Verse 9 to the end, was not added to Mark...
It's true that some old manuscripts has it missing . But the" oldest ", Syriac, or Aramaic manuscripts have it included. If it was taken out. It had to be that a scribe messed up. But it does belong. God would not have it end with them being afraid ?
This will clear it up for you. These scholarly notes where put together using the Massorah.--->>>>>>>
Link ->> THE RAIN / THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF MARK'S GOSPEL.
It's true that some old manuscripts has it missing . But the" oldest ", Syriac, or Aramaic manuscripts have it included. If it was taken out. It had to be that a scribe messed up. But it does belong. God would not have it end with them being afraid ?
This will clear it up for you. These scholarly notes where put together using the Massorah.--->>>>>>>
Link ->> THE RAIN / THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF MARK'S GOSPEL.
Last edited:
nathan3,
re: "This will clear it up for you."
I'm afraid I don't see where your link argues for a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week at least in part due to the idea of a first day of the week resurrection and that supports a first day of the week resurrection with Mark 16:9.
Last edited:
Romans 14:5-9 [SUP]5 [/SUP]One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. [SUP]6 [/SUP]He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. [SUP]7 [/SUP]For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. [SUP]8 [/SUP]For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. [SUP]9 [/SUP]For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
Does it really matter? Every day we live should be holy unto the Lord.
Does it really matter? Every day we live should be holy unto the Lord.
N
nathan3
Guest
I'm only addressing weather the text, there belongs. I'm not arguing any point about what it is about . It's not an issue for me. Just sharing notes on it being in the original copies we have. You did mention that in your original post' that's what I was directing my respond to. Not about the change of observance thing.
It is not recorded anywhere in the Word that the earliest Christians, pre-Roman, called the first day of the week the Lord's Day. The earliest Christians would have called it either Yom Rishon or the equivalent in the tongue being spoken.
Last edited: