Mark 16:9

[rstrats]

iamowen,

re: “But there is no question as to the legitemacy of Mark 16:9-20, unless ! you want to try and make a point that you would rather that it was not legitimate!”

Where have I suggested that that is my position?


re: “Since Mark states it clearly ...you try to ignore Mark or/and discredit him.”

I don’t know where you are getting that from. I am doing just the opposite.


re: “What is your objective ?”

I state it in my OP.


re: “Why do you not beleive scripture ?”

To what scripture are you referring?

[Lily]

There is nothing said that precludes a seventh day resurrection.

That isn't what I am addressing. I am addressing what you claimed here,,,

Mark 16:9 is the only scripture that places the resurretion on the first of the week.

That statement isn't true. John 20 is quite plainly describing the same event as Mark 16:9 describes and they both say " on the first day ".

You can nitpick all you like but only a foolish person would disagree that both JOhn and Mark are relating the same event. I somehow don't think you are a fool.
This was part of you're OP,,,

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.

which is incorrect and to which I was addressing.

Mary came to the tomb on the first day, saw that the stone had been taken away, and apparently looked in and saw that the tomb was empty.

PLease do explain where he had gone. Just out for a stroll ?

2. She then ran and told Peter and another disciple that the tomb was empty, that “he was gone,” and that she didn’t know what had happened to the Messiah (which BTW is curious because in Matthew she does know).

So now I have shown you an author that supports what Mark says, you want to go on to discuss something else, something that you told Chuck you didn't want to do as you only wanted to discuss what was in your'e OP.
Well, I have addressed you're OP ( as seen above ), yet with a BTW, you suddenly address something that wasn't in you're OP.

So, whats it to be, keep to you;re OP ( as you expressed to Chuck ), or go against what you expressed ?
It's up to you, I will sit and discuss this with you ( time restraints permissable ) but please don't think you can have it both ways by one minute asking others to adhere to you're OP, then derail it yourself.

Where have I suggested that that is my position?

The very fact that you made an incorrect statement yet still nitpick over 2 authors that plainly say " On the first day " and are describing the same event, is evident that that is your position, you don't have to actually say it.

I don’t know where you are getting that from. I am doing just the opposite.

PLease don't insult our intelligence. How many Christian forums have you said that self same thing on where you have already made up your mind that Christ is not for you ? Or are you going to deny that you knew full well when you came here, that Christ is not for you ? That is your decision and yours alone and I would even respect you if you had been honest enough to admit it.

Why don't you be honest enough to admit Christ is not for you then we can debate in a civilised fashion but please don't take me for a fool by saying you are doing the opposite to what Owen said when you have been given Scripture to show you were wrong in what you said in your OP and rather than acknowledge that, you are still doing your best to discredit it.

[Steveg]

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?

Harold Camping - Sunday The Sabbath says:
In Mark 16:9 we read, "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils."

Though it is not the main text he relies on

Read it here: Sunday the Sabbath

On a different point, the following verses are used for other purposes.
16: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. – used when discussing baptism

17: These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages. –used when discussing the “gift of tongues”

18: They will pick up serpents (with their hands), and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” – used when discussing the "gift of healing"

[Chuckt]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][FONT=Arial]Harold Camping - Sunday The Sabbath says:
In Mark 16:9 we read, "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils."

Though it is not the main text he relies on

Read it here: Sunday the Sabbath

Harold Camping has been setting dates most of his life and I can't find him to be a reliable source. I know some people listen to Family Radio because that is their only Christian radio station but I don't have a reason to listen to him.