Mark 16:9-20

[rosiecotton]

I have a couple questions concerning this passage.

First of all, it is stated in my Bible that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts. In the footnotes it states: "Serious doubt exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style, and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost."

So, where did this passage come from and who decided to put it in?

Second question. Mark 16:16 is used by many to show that you have to be baptized to be saved. The church I attend, which is part of the Restoration Movement, states this.
However, what about the rest of what is said in verses 17 & 18..."And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
Why is it verse 16 is stated soooooo much, but the rest of the passage is totally ignored? In our church it is taught that tongues is no more (I don't agree with this), but yet in the following verses Jesus says we will speak in new tongues. So, why do those who believe so strongly in verse 16, ignore the rest?
Just curious.

[Kelly]

I think it was to have it line up with the Matthew and Luke. Good question though.

[WesWoodell]

I have a couple questions concerning this passage.

First of all, it is stated in my Bible that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts. In the footnotes it states: "Serious doubt exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style, and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost."

So, where did this passage come from and who decided to put it in?

Second question. Mark 16:16 is used by many to show that you have to be baptized to be saved. The church I attend, which is part of the Restoration Movement, states this.
However, what about the rest of what is said in verses 17 & 18..."And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
Why is it verse 16 is stated soooooo much, but the rest of the passage is totally ignored? In our church it is taught that tongues is no more (I don't agree with this), but yet in the following verses Jesus says we will speak in new tongues. So, why do those who believe so strongly in verse 16, ignore the rest?
Just curious.


The Christians spoke in different languages (new tounges) in Acts 2. Paul was bitten by a snake but felt no ill effects later in the book of Acts. I've heard that the apostle John was poisened later on in his life but it didn't effect him.The apostles had the ability to heal by the laying on of hands, and the apostles (and the apostles only I might add) had the ability to pass the gift to heal this way on to other believers.

The Scriptues explicitly state that the signs mentioned would accompany the believers, and those signs did. I believe it might be taking the verse out of context to state that those signs are still occuring, but I could be wrong.

I personally believe that the Holy Spirit was over the writing of the Bible as well as the canonization. I believe the Spirit was over the entire process.

I believe strongly in Mark 16:16, and I believe strongly in the remaining portion of Mark as well as the rest of the Bible.

But have you ever seen a blind person healed or a lame person made to walk? Have you ever seen an english-speaking person suddenly have the ability to speak in Chinese, Japanese, or Swahili?

I believe those signs that are mentioned were used to establish credibility among the early believers, and I believe they did.

I am also apart of the Restoration movement.

[Athanasian Creed]

[/url] (http://#_ftn2) (http://#_ftn4)Mark 16:9-20


This passage is referred to as the “Longer Ending” of Mark. Many textual critics doubt its authenticity, believing it was an addition made in the second century. It often appears in modern versions in brackets with footnotes questioning its authenticity.[10] Most textual scholars believe that the text abruptly ends after verse eight. Even the so-called “Shorter Ending” that is added after verse eight is considered to have originated in the second century. The shorter ending reads:

But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been bold. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.[11]

Most scholars believe the original ending to Mark’s Gospel has been lost.[12] If this is true, the concept of preserving the words of Scripture is forever annihilated. The words cannot be preserved and lost at the same time. However, textual scholars usually call for its inclusion even if they question its originality. Dr. Bruce Metzger departs from the maxim of modern textual critics, Brevior lectio potior (the shorter reading is preferable), and supports the longer ending even though admittedly he does not regard the passage as genuine. He considers it to be a legitimate part of the New Testament because of its traditional significance to the body of Christendom.[13] The passage is not contained in the Alexandrian texts, minuscule 2386, the Syrian Sinaitic Version, and a few other translations.

However, it is in many of the Greek uncials (A, C, D, K, X, D, Q, and P) dating between the fifth and ninth centuries. It is also contained in later dated Greek minuscules (137, 138, 1110, 1210, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1221, and 1582). It is the reading found in the majority of Old Latin texts as well as the Coptic versions and other early translations. Finally, it is cited (at least in part) by many of the early church fathers such as Justin (165 AD), Tertullian (220 AD), Hippolytus (235 AD), Ambrose (397 AD) and Augustine (430 AD).[14]

In 177 AD Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies. In it he cites from Mr 16:19, establishing that the longer reading was in existence at this time and was considered canonical, at least by Irenaeus:

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; “ confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: “The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool.” Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein. (3:10:5).

The difference here is extremely important. If we conclude that this passage is not authentic, then we must question what happened to the original ending of Mark. It is not logical that the Gospel would end at this place so abruptly. Nor is it likely, as some scholars have suggested, that the Gospel was never finished, calling biblical inspiration into question. The conclusion held by most textual scholars, whether liberal or conservative, that the original ending has been lost over the passage of time certainly denies the doctrine of biblical preservation. If we allow that a passage of inspired Scripture has been lost from this section of the Bible, what stops us from making the same application to other passages? It is certainly within the realm of scholastic studies to note any and all textual differences. But once we open the possibility that this or that passage has been lost, we are now trusting in the understanding of men over the biblical promises of God. Certainly it is better to embrace the textual evidence and hold to the promise of preservation. (http://#_ftn6)

from "Crowned with Gold, The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version
(http://#_ftn2)by Dr. Thomas Holland. (http://#_ftn4)


Ray :wave:
(http://#_ftn2) (http://#_ftn2)
(http://#_ftn4) (http://#_ftn3) (http://#_ftn5) (http://#_ftn7)[url="http://#_ftn9"]

[mark53]

What about Mark 9:44; 11.26; 15:28 which is now left out of the Greek N.T. plus the hundreds of variants in each of the books of the N.T.

I have previously recommended that we all should learn the Greek and the Hebrew and own you own copy of these!

[mark53]

tried to delete a double posting! and couldn't! :help:

[Hushai]

If a person doesn't have faith in the bible which is the word of God. Then what can you place your trust in. Can a person really think that God knowing all would allow such discrepincies to go unhindered. The signs that Jesus said would foolow those that believe. He didn't solely attribute this to the apostles. He said those that believe. Another thing is that the signs that Jesus said would follow happen today. People speak in unknown touges lay hands on the sick cast devils out. All these things happen today. They happen to those that are spirit filled!

Hushai

[New_Wineskin]

If a person doesn't have faith in the bible which is the word of God. Then what can you place your trust in.


The Lord . Abaraham had faith in the Lord before the Scriptures existed .

[TruthSetsYouFree]

I believe if God didn't approve of that last part of Mark 16, He would have prevented it from being added (if it was indeed 'added'). How do we know that God didn't speak to the person who 'added' it and said "here's what was lost... make sure that's included!"? :)

[holo]

The Lord . Abaraham had faith in the Lord before the Scriptures existed .Yep, and we should do the same.

[New_Wineskin]

Yep, and we should do the same.
I agree .

[Theophorus]

I have a couple questions concerning this passage.

First of all, it is stated in my Bible that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts. In the footnotes it states: "Serious doubt exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style, and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost."

So, where did this passage come from and who decided to put it in?

Second question. Mark 16:16 is used by many to show that you have to be baptized to be saved. The church I attend, which is part of the Restoration Movement, states this.
However, what about the rest of what is said in verses 17 & 18..."And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
Why is it verse 16 is stated soooooo much, but the rest of the passage is totally ignored? In our church it is taught that tongues is no more (I don't agree with this), but yet in the following verses Jesus says we will speak in new tongues. So, why do those who believe so strongly in verse 16, ignore the rest?
Just curious.

Those things still happen, but not like on TV. :D

[rosiecotton]

Thanks for all the responses.
As for those who think I'm not 'trusting' the Bible, I do. I believe fully in the Bible as God's Word. That's one reason this passage always troubled me and reading that it wasn't in the earlier manuscripts and was added.
Also, I do believe that tongues still exists even though I've never experienced it or heard anyone else speak in tongues. But our church teaches that they were done away with. That's why I wondered why they hold so fast to verse 16, but practically ignore the rest of the passage.
Anyway, thanks again for all your responses and I'd love to read anymore thoughts anyone has on this.

[BigNorsk]

Hi,
The NET Bible has an informative footnote from the translators.

9 (http://9)tc The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). The following shorter ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 0112 579 al); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the longer ending (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between vv. 14 and 15] Θ Ë13 33 2427 Ï lat syc,p,h bo); however, Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious). Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.”

I think it should be pointed out that verse 16 can be a bit confusing in itself. You have believe and be baptised to be saved but those who don't believe shall be condemned. What do you do with those who believe but haven't had time to be baptised? They don't fit either category. Not if you take the baptism here spoken of to be water baptism. People often quote this verse to prove the importance of water baptism (I say water baptism to distinguish from the baptism of the Holy Spirit), but taken with other verses, I believe such a use to be a bit questionable. Another alternative is to take it to mean baptism by the Holy Spirit and that that would then happen at the moment of belief. Again taken with other passages, that doesn't really seem to fit either. We are left with either a passage that if it is scripture is problematic or else it is not.

I believe the evidence it is not scripture is very strong. I don't use the ending of Mark to set doctrine.

Marv

[Stinker]

When I was a member of the Church of Christ we were taught to use (Mk.16:16) as a weapon to enforce water baptism. It is very effective against those who are not aware of questions so many scholars have about it's lack of authenticity. I personally think Mk.16:9-20 it was an addition by the Catholic Church in order to scare as many people as possible into their church.

I would like to see the quote 'word for word' by Irenaeus in his 'Against Heresies' that lends support for Mk.16:9-20.

[TruthSetsYouFree]

(For readability, I quoted the Mark verses in bold, and below I explain how I feel those statements were backed up elsewhere in scripture)

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

9) 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.

John 20:1-13 tells us that Mary Magdalene was the first one that Jesus appeared to after rising from the dead.

10) And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

John 20:18 tells us that she went and told the rest of the disciples.

11) And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

Luke 24:11 tells us that the rest of disciples didn't believe her when she told them that the Lord has risen.

12) After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

Luke 24:13-15 tells us that two of them were walking along talking, when suddenly Jesus appeared to them.

13) And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

Luke 24:35-38 tells us how the rest of them didn't really believe that Jesus appeared to the two.

14) Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

Luke 24:35-41 tells us how He appeared to the 11 of them, and got onto them for their unbelief.

15) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Matthew 18:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:18 tells us that he who believes will not be condemned, but he who doesn't believe will be condemned. Acts 2:38 tells us to repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins. Note that this verse in Mark doesn't say that if you aren't baptized, you won't be saved. It simply puts baptism along side believing, both of which are preached elsewhere in scripture. I believe the believing part is what makes a person saved, and the baptism part is preached elsewhere in scripture as a recommendation for new converts.

17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Believers casting out devils is backed up by John 14:12, when Jesus said that those who believe will do the works He did (and casting out devils was a big part of what He did). Jude 1:20 tells believers to be building themselves up by praying in the Holy Ghost. Praying in the Spirit and tongues is clearly linked in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15.

18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I believe this is backed up when Jesus told His disciples that they will tread on serpents and scorpions and nothing by any means will harm them in Luke 10:19. Healing the sick is one of the works that Jesus did, and said that we would do the works He did and greater in John 14:12.

19) So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

The story where He ascended into heaven after speaking to them is also spoken of in Luke 24:51. Acts 2:33 tells us that Jesus went and sat at the right hand of God.

20) And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Hebrews 2:4 speaks of God confirming the Word with signs and wonders.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

I believe if God didn't want Mark 16:9-20 in the Bible, He wouldn't have allowed it. I believe if it were added, it wasn't simply 'made up', but inserted by somebody who understood what happened or God revealed to them what happened. Since Jesus spoke in verses 15-18, these couldn't have been made up too easily. They say that some of the old Greek manuscripts don't include these verses, while other Greek manuscripts do. How do we know that the original manuscripts don't include it, but some of the old copies were ripped and these verses were lost?

My gut feeling tells me these verses were meant to be there.

I don't like the idea of picking apart the Bible... before long, you begin to question the whole thing! What does that do for your faith in God? Why trust anything at all in the Bible? How can we be sure that the rest of our Bible is "authentic"? :doh:

To me, Satan hates these verses in Mark, and wants God's people to 'write them off'. :P

[TruthSetsYouFree]

I found a really good Web site that embraces these verses:

http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/mark16-1.html

[TruthSetsYouFree]

I found another very good Web site that tackles this:

http://www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com/articles/diff_quest/Mark16.html

He goes on to say that the two manuscripts that omit these verses also omit THOUSANDS of other verses in the gospels ALONE... these manuscripts were HEAVILY tampered with!!! :eek:

While THOUSANDS of other Greek manuscripts DO include these verses in Mark... why should we believe a couple heavily tampered manuscripts, when thousands of other manuscripts include it?? :scratch:

Like I said... I believe Satan wants those verses omitted... and that's why he's caused such a rift here. :P

[TruthSetsYouFree]

Many other verses in the early church preach and practice water baptism. Water baptism is preached in Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 and Acts 10:48. Water baptism was practiced in the early church in Acts 19:5, Acts 18:8, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, Acts 9:18, Acts 8:38, Acts 8:12-13 and Acts 2:41.

If the early church (which was AFTER Jesus was glorified) preached and practiced water baptism... I'd say it isn't something we should be quick to write off and avoid practicing.

[TruthSetsYouFree]

I love how this Web site makes this argument so simple and broken down! :)

http://www.tftw2.org/QA/Q230.htm

[Nuysa]

I believe if God didn't want Mark 16:9-20 in the Bible, He wouldn't have allowed it. I believe if it were added, it wasn't simply 'made up', but inserted by somebody who understood what happened or God revealed to them what happened. Since Jesus spoke in verses 15-18, these couldn't have been made up too easily. They say that some of the old Greek manuscripts don't include these verses, while other Greek manuscripts do. How do we know that the original manuscripts don't include it, but some of the old copies were ripped and these verses were lost?

My gut feeling tells me these verses were meant to be there.

I don't like the idea of picking apart the Bible... before long, you begin to question the whole thing! What does that do for your faith in God? Why trust anything at all in the Bible? How can we be sure that the rest of our Bible is "authentic"? :doh:

To me, Satan hates these verses in Mark, and wants God's people to 'write them off'. :P

Amen to that! Thank you for taking the time to clarify this with scripture. I agree with you whole heartedly.

I do have a question though. I remember a few years ago a news special about a church that did all these things. They would dance around while holding deadly snakes and they would purposely drink poison. Now, I had a problem with this when I saw it. To me it seemed as if they were testing God. Although, they were completely surrendered in doing these things and they were passionate about it. Did anyone else see this special on the news? It still is unsettling to me. But Mark clearly states that these would be signs. Why am I so unsettled about this if Mark states that believers would do these very things?

[TruthSetsYouFree]

Amen to that! Thank you for taking the time to clarify this with scripture. I agree with you whole heartedly.

I couldn't help myself... :angel: I knew I smelled a rat when folks said that those verses weren't truly God's Word :P I love those verses... so don't try to rip them outta my Bible :P

I just love exposing the works of the devil... don't you? ;)

I do have a question though. I remember a few years ago a news special about a church that did all these things. They would dance around while holding deadly snakes and they would purposely drink poison. Now, I had a problem with this when I saw it. To me it seemed as if they were testing God. Although, they were completely surrendered in doing these things and they were passionate about it. Did anyone else see this special on the news? It still is unsettling to me. But Mark clearly states that these would be signs. Why am I so unsettled about this if Mark states that believers would do these very things?

Ok... what did Jesus tell Satan, when Satan said to jump off a tall building, because God would protect Him? (See Mathew 4:6)

Matthew 4:7, "Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

I don't believe we should purposely handle snakes, etc. I believe what this passage in Mark is speaking of, is either one of two things (or both!):

a) Physical protection: Such as when Paul got bitten by a deadly viper and was not harmed at all. (See Acts 28:3-6)

b) Spiritual protection: Jesus told His disciples that they could tread on serpents (spiritual ones (demons) in this passage) and not be harmed. (See Luke 10:19)

I have a couple testimonies in the testimonies forum of how God has went ahead of me and protected me in the face of danger. You can read my testimonies here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2336147-god-spoke-to-me-and-saved-a-guaranteed-car-accident.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t1331769-saved-from-a-possibly-robbery-at-the-bank.html

Did I purposely run and leap into the face of danger to see if God would protect me? No... but when the circumstances arrived out of nowhere, I was protected!

I hope this helps! God bless ya! :wave:

Bobby

[Nuysa]

I couldn't help myself... :angel: I knew I smelled a rat when folks said that those verses weren't truly God's Word :P I love those verses... so don't try to rip them outta my Bible :P

I just love exposing the works of the devil... don't you? ;)



Ok... what did Jesus tell Satan, when Satan said to jump off a tall building, because God would protect Him? (See Mathew 4:6)

Matthew 4:7, "Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

I don't believe we should purposely handle snakes, etc. I believe what this passage in Mark is speaking of, is either one of two things (or both!):

a) Physical protection: Such as when Paul got bitten by a deadly viper and was not harmed at all. (See Acts 28:3-6)

b) Spiritual protection: Jesus told His disciples that they could tread on serpents (spiritual ones (demons) in this passage) and not be harmed. (See Luke 10:19)

I have a couple testimonies in the testimonies forum of how God has went ahead of me and protected me in the face of danger. You can read my testimonies here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2336147-god-spoke-to-me-and-saved-a-guaranteed-car-accident.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t1331769-saved-from-a-possibly-robbery-at-the-bank.html

Did I purposely run and leap into the face of danger to see if God would protect me? No... but when the circumstances arrived out of nowhere, I was protected!

I hope this helps! God bless ya! :wave:

Bobby

Most definitely! Thank you again. It's great to see someone use scripture to back up their beliefs. It is also edifying to me. Thank you again. That's exactly why I believe I was feeling unsettled.

[rosiecotton]

I believe if God didn't want Mark 16:9-20 in the Bible, He wouldn't have allowed it. I believe if it were added, it wasn't simply 'made up', but inserted by somebody who understood what happened or God revealed to them what happened. Since Jesus spoke in verses 15-18, these couldn't have been made up too easily. They say that some of the old Greek manuscripts don't include these verses, while other Greek manuscripts do. How do we know that the original manuscripts don't include it, but some of the old copies were ripped and these verses were lost?

My gut feeling tells me these verses were meant to be there.

I don't like the idea of picking apart the Bible... before long, you begin to question the whole thing! What does that do for your faith in God? Why trust anything at all in the Bible? How can we be sure that the rest of our Bible is "authentic"? :doh:

To me, Satan hates these verses in Mark, and wants God's people to 'write them off'. :P

Thanks for your post and all the other scriptures that back up those verses in Mark. I think that's the best explanation I've heard of them. I will have to look at the links you provided in the other posts.
Yesterday, I overheard our minister and youth minister talking about these verses. And they were saying that Paul did all these things, so they think the verses are referring to Paul (since John-Mark traveled some with him). But, the verse says 'those who believe', not 'Paul'. If it is referring to just Paul, then why would it say those, which is plural?
I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick apart the Bible. I believe fully in the Bible and believe it's the way God wants it to be. Mine was just an honest question, because I've heard so many people quote verse 16 as proof that you HAVE to be baptized to go to heaven, but they never say anything about the following verses. Like I said, our church teaches you have to be baptized for salvation, but yet they also say tongues was done away with...even though in the following verses it states those who believe will speak in new tongues.
Don't get me wrong, I also believe in baptism, and believe every believer should be baptized, but I'm not going to say someone who isn't baptized is going to hell.
Again, thanks for your posts, and I'll check out the links!! :D

[TruthSetsYouFree]

Thanks for your post and all the other scriptures that back up those verses in Mark. I think that's the best explanation I've heard of them. I will have to look at the links you provided in the other posts.
Yesterday, I overheard our minister and youth minister talking about these verses. And they were saying that Paul did all these things, so they think the verses are referring to Paul (since John-Mark traveled some with him). But, the verse says 'those who believe', not 'Paul'. If it is referring to just Paul, then why would it say those, which is plural?
I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick apart the Bible. I believe fully in the Bible and believe it's the way God wants it to be. Mine was just an honest question, because I've heard so many people quote verse 16 as proof that you HAVE to be baptized to go to heaven, but they never say anything about the following verses. Like I said, our church teaches you have to be baptized for salvation, but yet they also say tongues was done away with...even though in the following verses it states those who believe will speak in new tongues.
Don't get me wrong, I also believe in baptism, and believe every believer should be baptized, but I'm not going to say someone who isn't baptized is going to hell.
Again, thanks for your posts, and I'll check out the links!!

I honestly wasn't referring to you when I jumped on those 'picking apart my Bible'... I actually had in mind a general audience of folks, Bible scholars, etc... those who are out promoting this false teaching, etc. I wasn't referring to you at all, just those who are bound determined to take chunks outta my Bible in general. I knew you weren't one of them the moment I read your post! :wave:

The idea that tongues have seized is an easy thing to prove wrong actually. The Bible tells us WHEN tongues and prophecy will seize... at the return of Christ. 1 Cor 13:8-12 tells us that at the return of Christ, tongues and prophecy will seize. Which means, until then, it's alive and well. Some people believe that 1 Cor 13 is referring to when the Bible was compiled, which was after the early church. This is easily exposed by many other verses in the Bible, but one of my favorites is Acts 2:17, where it is prophesied that in the last days (and don't try to tell me we are living 'beyond' the last days! :P) prophecy will be alive and well. There are many other great arguments that expose the false teaching that tongues and prophecy have seized, but that's one of my favorites. :thumbsup:

I personally think the primary reason why Satan wanted those verses 'omitted' is because of verse 17... them who believe will be casting out demons! If you have any experience with a good deliverance ministry that God is moving through, it is one of the greatest ministries out there, and deliverance played a HUGE part of Jesus' ministry here on earth! Yet it is also one of the hardest fought ministries as well... because demons hate it tooth and nail! Can ya blame em? ;) That's likely the #1 reason Satan wanted doubt cast upon those verses, in my opinion. Yet Jesus basically said the same thing when He said that those who believe will be doing the works He did, and one of the most well known things He did was cast out demons!

Is baptism unto repentance necessary for salvation? I believe so, but it doesn't always have to be 'shown' through water baptism. What about those who are on their death bed and accept Jesus? What about the man who died with Jesus on the cross? The need for repentance though is clearly backed up elsewhere in scripture. I've heard people say that submerging them in water is an outward sign of an inward change. I know it was well practiced and preached in the early church, so I certainly am not going to discourage it, and I encourage all believers to be water baptized. The only times I wouldn't push it, is when somebody accepts Jesus on their death bed, or water baptism is not available. I will say though... demons can get very ticked when somebody is water baptized! They don't like it at all! So I by no means say it's not an important thing! If it ticks off demons, then it must be awfully good! :thumbsup: And I've also heard of people coming out of the water speaking in tongues too!

That's my opinion at least!

God bless!!
Bobby

[mark53]

(For readability, I quoted the Mark verses in bold, and below I explain how I feel those statements were backed up elsewhere in scripture)

I believe if God didn't want Mark 16:9-20 in the Bible, He wouldn't have allowed it. I believe if it were added, it wasn't simply 'made up', but inserted by somebody who understood what happened or God revealed to them what happened. Since Jesus spoke in verses 15-18, these couldn't have been made up too easily. They say that some of the old Greek manuscripts don't include these verses, while other Greek manuscripts do. How do we know that the original manuscripts don't include it, but some of the old copies were ripped and these verses were lost?

My gut feeling tells me these verses were meant to be there.

I don't like the idea of picking apart the Bible... before long, you begin to question the whole thing! What does that do for your faith in God? Why trust anything at all in the Bible? How can we be sure that the rest of our Bible is "authentic"? :doh:

:P
So you are saying that it is alright to add passages to that of the original writer? When did this adding stop or can stuff still be added. All of the early manuscripts didn't have the additions and other verses throughout Mark's Gospel come into the same category. These verses were in a Gnostic version which is called the Secret Gospel of Mark.
What seems to have happened is that later writers say that something was missing and added verses from other Gospels to give it a more 'orthodox' viewing. Remember that they did not see these writings and letters as being part of the Bible. This did not happen to some time later, though many of them were seen as being beneficial to Christians and to be read in the Churches. During the second century some came to be more important than others and when Marcion started to come up with his own canon, various Churches decided to come up with their own.

There are many variants in the N T manuscripts and this was because of the above points. Some have no effect on theology but many do. If the Bible is innerant than there would be NO variants at all and the original and other very early copies would have been kept. (The earliest full copy of the O T is around 1000 AD!)

What is 'authentic' anyway. Isn't it what God says to his believers at any time in history not just in a short period of time.

[mark53]

I personally think the primary reason why Satan wanted those verses 'omitted' is because of verse 17... them who believe will be casting out demons! .That's my opinion at least!

God bless!!
Bobby

The problem I have is that if passages were added later who says that they can't still be added now! Then, also, they weren't writing scripture they were writing leters to a Church or group of Churches which over time became Scripture. There are many, many other writings under the name of Apostles that did not make it.
To say that Satan wants these verses ommitted is a bit silly because then you are saying that everything that the original writer wrote is not confronting Satan, only the added ones?!?

[heyder]

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Timothy 2:15).

[TruthSetsYouFree]

All of the early manuscripts didn't have the additions
All = two? Because the third oldest (Alexandrian) DOES include these verses.

The problem I have is that if passages were added later who says that they can't still be added now!

Let's take a closer look at this belief that they were 'added':

- It's most solid "proof" is that the two oldest manuscripts don't include it. So let's look at these two old manuscripts... they were both BUTCHERED by some gnostics... leaving THOUSANDS of omissions JUST in the 4 gospels (yes, that's thousands in EACH manuscript). One of the manuscripts left out DOZENS of chapters in the Bible. Basing any kind of argument on such corrupt manuscripts makes a very weak argument.

- If they were indeed added, then why did some people in the 1st century (before those two oldest manuscripts were even written!) quote verses out of the end of Mark, and they line up perfectly with what is in our Bibles today? For example, a man by the name of Irenaeus, who knew the Apostle John personally, quoted Mark 16:19 in one of his books, and it's the same as what we find in our Bibles today!

My belief is that they weren't added to anything, but removed from a handful of Greek manuscripts. This belief has plenty of room to move because those two old manuscripts were heavily tampered with anyways. :)

I also like how you can take verse by verse and easily back up almost EVERYTHING said in the end of Mark in other areas of scripture!

[rosiecotton]

The idea that tongues have seized is an easy thing to prove wrong actually. The Bible tells us WHEN tongues and prophecy will seize... at the return of Christ. 1 Cor 13:8-12 tells us that at the return of Christ, tongues and prophecy will seize. Which means, until then, it's alive and well. Some people believe that 1 Cor 13 is referring to when the Bible was compiled, which was after the early church. This is easily exposed by many other verses in the Bible, but one of my favorites is Acts 2:17, where it is prophesied that in the last days (and don't try to tell me we are living 'beyond' the last days! :P) prophecy will be alive and well. There are many other great arguments that expose the false teaching that tongues and prophecy have seized, but that's one of my favorites. :thumbsup:God bless!!
Bobby

See, I agree that it's when Christ returns. However, when I asked my minister about this just the other day, he believes it's referring to the Bible. But, when I read those verses in 1 Corinthians 13, I see it as referring to Christ. My question is, when they were in the process of actually writing these letters to the churches, did they know that later on they would be put together into a book that we call the Bible?
That is a good point about Acts 2:17. It states right there your sons and daughters will prophesy. But then 1 Cor. 13:8 talks about prophecies ceasing. So, if prophesy hasn't ceased, then it comes to reason that tongues hasn't.
This has become somewhat of an issue in our church lately. Well, actually within our eldership. We have an elder who comes from a charismatic background. Well, our church in no way supports the pentecostal/charismatic beliefs. There were 3 elders who actually sent a letter to every member of our church letting them know that there were people who leaned towards the charismatic way of thinking and we needed to really pray before voting on the elders. (the letter did NOT go over very well with most of our members!!--so it basically backfired on the elders that did it). Anyway, one of our members was in my office the other day and she was raised charismatic. She said she spoke in tongues for the first time when she was 10, and that she still does now when she prays (not when she's in church though, unless she is whispering). I had no reason to think she was lying or that what she experiences isn't real. I've never experienced tongues or heard anyone speak in tongues, but that doesn't mean I don't believe they still exist.
Thanks for the discussion! :)

[TruthSetsYouFree]

See, I agree that it's when Christ returns. However, when I asked my minister about this just the other day, he believes it's referring to the Bible. But, when I read those verses in 1 Corinthians 13, I see it as referring to Christ. My question is, when they were in the process of actually writing these letters to the churches, did they know that later on they would be put together into a book that we call the Bible?
That is a good point about Acts 2:17. It states right there your sons and daughters will prophesy. But then 1 Cor. 13:8 talks about prophecies ceasing. So, if prophesy hasn't ceased, then it comes to reason that tongues hasn't.
This has become somewhat of an issue in our church lately. Well, actually within our eldership. We have an elder who comes from a charismatic background. Well, our church in no way supports the pentecostal/charismatic beliefs. There were 3 elders who actually sent a letter to every member of our church letting them know that there were people who leaned towards the charismatic way of thinking and we needed to really pray before voting on the elders. (the letter did NOT go over very well with most of our members!!--so it basically backfired on the elders that did it). Anyway, one of our members was in my office the other day and she was raised charismatic. She said she spoke in tongues for the first time when she was 10, and that she still does now when she prays (not when she's in church though, unless she is whispering). I had no reason to think she was lying or that what she experiences isn't real. I've never experienced tongues or heard anyone speak in tongues, but that doesn't mean I don't believe they still exist.
Thanks for the discussion! :)

Tongues is such a spiritual powerhouse that the devil tries hard to keep it under cover. He tries to tell people that it no longer exists. Does it make sense? You decide! :sorry:

There's an article online that you might want to read sometime! It shows you how the baptism of the Holy Ghost works, and how praying in tongues fits into the picture... how it works, what it does, etc.

http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/holy_spirit_baptism.php

One point that I like to highlight, is that if those verses in 1 Cor are referring to the return of Christ (which they clearly are!), then that means that they will NOT seize until that time and they will remain alive and in full swing until then! It pretty much shoots down their whole argument in one sweep. If the Bible tells you they won't seize until then... no use trying to argue about it! :)

God bless you sister!! :wave:

Bobby

[justinstout]

I've often heard it said that though some claim these verses weren't in the original text, they are still working in the lives of many believers today. :)

I have seen (or at least heard of) everything mentioned in these verses taking place in the modern-day Church. It wasn't just for the apostles of the early Church.

I have personally met men of God who have laid hands on people and seen blind eyes opened and deaf ears opened. I know a few men personally who have seen people raised from the dead.

Here's a few of the ministries:
www.awmi.net (http://www.awmi.net/)
www.impactministries.com (http://www.impactministries.com/)
www.fccministry.com (http://www.fccministry.com/)


Grace and peace to you,
Justin