U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-09-2011, 05:55 AM
 
343 posts, read 196,982 times
Reputation: 38

Advertisements

Cyber Munchkin,

re: "Maybe I misunderstood your OP..."
 
No problem, it happens all the time. I merely am looking for an author and a quote from their book that argues for a change from observance of the seventh day of the week to observance of the first day of the week - at least in part - because of the resurrection, and uses Mark 16:9 to place the resurrection on the first day of the week.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-09-2011, 07:06 AM
 
Location: On a road heaven bound !
10,290 posts, read 8,068,824 times
Reputation: 17784
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstrats View Post
Cyber Munchkin,

re: "Maybe I misunderstood your OP..."
 
No problem, it happens all the time. I merely am looking for an author and a quote from their book that argues for a change from observance of the seventh day of the week to observance of the first day of the week - at least in part - because of the resurrection, and uses Mark 16:9 to place the resurrection on the first day of the week.
Boy, did I misunderstand...
I apologize and thank you for your kind response to my bad !!

Blessings
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2011, 06:14 AM
 
343 posts, read 196,982 times
Reputation: 38
Anyone?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 06:27 AM
 
343 posts, read 196,982 times
Reputation: 38
Since it's been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of an author.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 03:16 PM
 
343 posts, read 196,982 times
Reputation: 38
Anybody?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,949,704 times
Reputation: 256
On the venerable Day of the Sun [Sunday] let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost. (Given the 7th day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time” Source: Codex Justinianus, 321 AD.


Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364, Canon XXIX: “Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.”

Last edited by ancient warrior; 03-23-2012 at 05:33 PM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 08:42 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,949,704 times
Reputation: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstrats View Post
A poster on another forum, 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.
 
From the New American Bible, Revised Edition, 2011

Footnote:

"[Mark 16:920] This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Lk 24 and Jn 20."

"The Shorter Ending: Found after Mk 16:8 before the Longer Ending in four seventh-to-ninth-century Greek manuscripts as well as in one Old Latin version, where it appears alone without the Longer Ending."

And there is this ending too:

"The Freer Logion: Found after v 14in a fourth-fifth century manuscript preserved in the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, this ending was known to Jerome in the fourth century."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 08:59 PM
 
1,534 posts, read 1,599,271 times
Reputation: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstrats View Post
A poster on another forum, 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, 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. Does anyone here know of one?

Quote:
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. Does anyone here know of one?
Sorry, I don't know the answer to the above. However I do know this.

"First day of the week" is mia ton sabbaton and means one of the sabbaths [ BTW, the word 'day' is not in the expression]

It refers to the fact there are 2 Sabbaths during Passover. The high Sabbath [which would have been on the day we call Wed. and the day Messiah died] and the weekly Sabbath [our Saturday] and the day Messiah rose from the dead.

That's why the tomb was empty on 'one of the sabbaths' i.e the weekly Sabbath. [remembering their "day" began at sunset] when Mary came at sunrise.

Side note: Messiah fulfilled the 4 Spring feasts by His death, burial, resurrection and ascention into heaven.

ETA: Sorry forgot to say His resurrection on the first of 'one of the sabbaths' [there were 7 between Passover and Pentecost] was the fulfillment of the offering of the first fruits to God, making Messiah the firstfruits from the dead.

Last edited by mshipmate; 03-23-2012 at 09:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2012, 07:17 AM
 
343 posts, read 196,982 times
Reputation: 38
Since it has again been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of an author.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2012, 07:21 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,491,441 times
Reputation: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstrats View Post
Finn_Jarber,

re: "Doesn't Matt 28:1 confirm it?"

Matthew 28:1 doesn’t say when the resurrection took place - only that the women came to the tomb on the 1st of the week.
Actually, this is a better translation:

Mat 28:1 Now it is the evening of the sabbaths.
At the lighting up into one of the sabbaths
came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to behold the sepulcher.

"We are strongly confirmed in our position by the fact that the word "first" has no more right here than the word "week." In seventy-nine occurrences of this form of the word, in which it is usually translated "one" we find only eight instances in which it is rendered "first." All of these, with one exception, are in the phrase we are studying: "the first day of the week." When we remember that the Greek language was not at a loss to so express it we wonder why the divine Author did not so write it if that were His
thought. Where "first" is intended (Mark 16:9) He used the word which means "first" (prooteei). We next wonder at the temerity of translators in changing it to "first." It is "not first, it is simply one. Let us use the same license in a few other passages
and find out our folly. On the mount of transfiguration they would build booths "the first for Thee, and the first for Moses, and the first for Elias!" They murmured against the eleventh hour laborers in the vineyard (Matt.20:12) saying "these last have
wrought but the first hour!" How silly! Yet we are guilty of the very same folly when we speak of "the first day of the week." It is simply ONE." As a matter of fact it refers to the last day of the week, just as it referred to the last hour of the day.

"Of the word "day" we have nothing to say for it is entirely lacking in the Greek. It is an intruder and can show no right or title to a place here. That a day is meant is implied in the context, yet there is no more necessity to use the term in English than in Greek. It must be expunged.

"Our Lord was raised from among the dead upon a sabbath morning. So, too, all who realize what His resurrection means enter into a sabbath of rest. " (Unsearchable Riches, vol.7)

Mark 16:1-2 And, for the elapsing of the sabbath,
Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James,
and Salome, buy spices, that, coming, they should be rubbing Him."
(2) And, very early in the morning on one of the sabbaths,
they are coming to the tomb at the rising of the sun."

When Jesus died there were two sabbaths that week.

Concerning the last 12 verses of Mark:
"Both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit
the last twelve verses, but s tacitly admits
a longer conclusion to Mark, by
spacing out the text of the last few
pages, and by the fact that the last
four pages are "cancel leaves", written by a different scribe. The
original conclusion of Mark was torn out, and a
shorter one substituted for it. Likewise,
B admits a longer conclusion by leaving a blank column after verse
eight, the only blank column in the whole manuscript. Our text
is taken from Alexandrinus. (A.E. Knoch, Concordant Commentary)

Last edited by Eusebius; 05-23-2012 at 07:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top