Talk:Mark 9-16 (Translated)

For older conversations, see the archives: Archive 1 (common archive of Talk:Mark 1-8 (Translated) and Mark 9-16 (Translated))

---

Mark 9:3

I respectfully disagree with the proposed translation of Mark 9:3. The words "so as no fuller on earth can white them" refer to a fuller, i.e., one who cleans wool through fulling. The Greek text confirms this reading. Therefore, we might want to say something like "whiter than any launderer on earth could make them." Thanks. DavidE 12:06, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Your insight is excellent. Thank you. The original is a statement about perfection beyond what ordinary man can achieve, and our proposed translation loses that important message. Please edit directly as you think best.--Andy Schlafly 12:12, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Thank you. I've made the change. DavidE 18:28, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Mark 15:46

Joseph then purchased a quality shroud - that sounds like something from a shopping channel, why not simply say then Joseph bought a fine shroud? AugustO 08:03, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

I considered using "fine", but it has many different meanings. "Fine shroud" lacks the clarity of "quality shroud." Would anyone say "purchased a fine blanket"? The listener would wonder what that meant, and might think "fine" was a brand or type of blanket. But "purchased a quality blanket" is clear and unambiguous.--Andy Schlafly 10:17, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

Mark 13:30

Πᾶσαι οὖν αἱ γενεαὶ ἀπὸ Ἀβραὰμ ἕως Δαυεὶδ γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες, καὶ ἀπὸ Δαυεὶδ ἕως τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος ἕως τοῦ χριστοῦ γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες.

Yeah, fourteen movements from Abraham to David, and then fourteen races from David to the exile in Babylon, and then fourteen peoples from Babylon till Jesus Christ! --AugustO (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2015 (EST) --AugustO (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2015 (EST)

Mark 14:1–2

Per the ESV for the two verses:

“	It was now two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth and kill him, for they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar from the people.”	”
—Mark 14:1–2

It seems to suggest that, contrary to the common narrative of "the Jews rejecting Jesus," He must have been quite popular among the general Jewish populace when he cast out demons and exhorted them to have faith in Him. The Feast of Unleavened Bread was obviously a time of celebration for Jews, not Gentiles; since the chief priests and scribes were absolutely certain that killing Jesus at that moment would lead to such an outcry due to the timing, it must imply that a substantial number of everyday Judeans (note the wording, "uproar from the people") in that time followed Christ. —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Wednesday, 14:05, December 28, 2022 (EST)

That's exactly it - Jesus had a grassroots following that threatened the leadership of the chief priests and scribes - that's why the chief priests and scribes sought to kill him.

Now the country was already under occupation, and the chief priests and scribes were the recognized authority by the Romans to keep order. So if they failed in that duty, they feared a Roman massacre as a result of the uprising. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:08, December 28, 2022 (EST)

Mark 16:1

In the ESV, for example, it reads:

“	When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.	”
—Mark 16:1

The verse seems to indicate that the Sabbath was kept by Jesus's followers. Although most Christian denominations these days claim that the New Covenant abolishes the need for Sabbath observance, it would appear otherwise when reading between the lines of Scripture. —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Wednesday, 14:20, December 28, 2022 (EST)

duh, well Jesus was barely dead 48 hours. We know where the tradition (note: tradition, not law) of the first day, not the seventh, originated. In Acts. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:15, December 28, 2022 (EST)

Let's combine the points you make from this thread and the one's above from chapt 14 to make a point; "the Jews" refers to those "under law", i.e. Sabbath keeping, for example. "Christians", as defined in the Book and of Acts and afterward, are "under grace". RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:24, December 28, 2022 (EST)

Sunday observance is grounded in the Book of Acts? That's patently false. Doug Batchelor does a good job of debunking the common misconception about Acts 20:7. Furthermore, the argument that "the Apostles met on Sunday" cherry-picks from the fact that they met every day of the week. Sunday observance is rooted in sun worship, which is bluntly forbidden in Deuteronomy 4:19. The replacement of Sabbath observance with Sunday rest was the result of pagan influence that permeated into the church under the reign of Constantine (also, check out the antisemitism of the Council of Laodicea when they said, "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday"). Sounds like Sunday observance was the result of antisemitic paganism, yet far too many professed Christians either don't realize or ultimately don't care. —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Wednesday, 16:08, December 28, 2022 (EST)

<sola scriptura> “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

And it was part of the Ten Commandments, also being the only one to begin with the word "remember." —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Wednesday, 16:31, December 28, 2022 (EST)

Let's go back to the beginning of that chapt Mark 2, only we'll take Luke's account account in chpt 6 which adds more detail:

he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands

So we have two violations of the commandment here: (1) laboring on the Sabbath, and (2) eating with unwashen hands. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 16:42, December 28, 2022 (EST)

Oh please, you're ignoring the context of that full section. Let's take a look:

“	One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”	”
—Mark 2:23–28

If you read carefully, it's apparent that Jesus is not criticizing the institution of the Sabbath itself, rather the manner in which the Pharisees treated it. Jesus is not downplaying the importance of the Sabbath; the title of those verses is "Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath." And He isn't the Lord of dead institutions, so it's absurd to argue that the Sabbath is obsolete for Christians. —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Wednesday, 16:49, December 28, 2022 (EST)

Well duh (incidentally, that "Title" was added later by men, and is not part of the original text), let's return to Romans 7 sola scriptura:

Let us not serve in the oldness of the letter but newness in spirit

which basically is the same thing as you saying, "Jesus is not criticizing the institution of the Sabbath itself, rather the manner in which the Pharisees treated it". RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 16:54, December 28, 2022 (EST)

Alright then, it hopefully seems that you're no longer disputing my point about how the Sabbath itself remains relevant, and that Sunday observance is rooted in antisemitic paganism. —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Wednesday, 16:57, December 28, 2022 (EST)