Gospel of Mark, chapter 16, verse 16, 17 and 18'
'He who believes and is baptized will be saved but he who does not believe shall be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe in my name. They shall cast out devils, they shall speak in
tongues, they will handle snakes and if they drink poison it will not hurt them and they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover'.
question 1:why then does a christian die from snake bite?
question 2:If a christian drinks poison by mistake will he die or not die?
question 3:Will any christian come with me to a hospital to cure sick people by his touching them?Its not for testing god,but for helping sick.
A true christian is needed
Moderator: Moderators
-
worship-your-mother-she-i
- Apprentice
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:56 am
-
chrispalasz
- Scholar
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:22 am
- Location: Seoul, South Korea
in search of a sign
Post #31Keep 'em comin'. I'm not running anywhere.wait,wait.You dint answer anything.Dont run away so soon.
No. It does not raise a question mark on the whole book. The reason that I believe those are not the words of Mark are because many Christian scholars argue that the last part of the text is written in a different style. It is also shown that the oldest manuscripts that exist today of the Gospel according to Mark do not include these verses. On top of those arguments - the verses must agree with the rest of what the Bible says. While the verses do not directly contridict other Bible verses... they do seem to imply contridiction. This last argument is weaker, I know, so let's try to focus on the first two.1)If you claim that those arent the words of mark,then it raises a question mark on your book itself.How many such verses were intersections?
The probability is very very very very very poor. The fact stated in that verse is consistently upheld throughout the Bible. The probability of it being wrong is close to .1%.What about the verse "None can come to my father except through me?" What is the probablity that it too wasnt an original verse?
If you're not going restate my words correctly, please quote me so I am not misrepresented. In most cases, I choose my words carefully. I did not say that it demonstrates God's "might". I said it demonstrates God's redemptive power. ALL of the healings in the New Testament demonstrate aspects of God. The acts of healing in themselves are prophetic and symbolic.2)If a christian heals sick only to demonstrate the might of god, I am ready to accept it.If a true christian can come and heal a person whom I show by just touching, or praying I am ready to convert the next moment.Do we have any volunteers?There are 2 billion christians.Only one volunteer is needed.
Not only that, but the acts of healing are meant to draw in God's children - Christians. Even in the Bible Jesus does not do signs for people with no faith.
Matthew 12
39But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
The signs are all there for you to see. They have already been given. I God so chooses, He will lead a Christian into your life and you will see a sign. But a faithless person that seeks a sign with evil intentions and with a heart to slander the Christ will be given no sign.
I do not mean to be offensive... but the Gospel of Christ is offensive to non-believers. I do not apologize for the Gospel, but please do not get mad.
Post #32
Maybe it doesn't for you, but this is only one incidence of editing of NT texts. There are many other differences between the earliest manuscripts of 'Mark' (and the other gospels) and the translations in use today. The fact that Mark 16:9-20 is included in modern bibles in spite of its being a known forgery should raise doubts about the authenticity of the rest of the NT, specifically about which sayings can be confidently attributed to Jesus himself.No. It does not raise a question mark on the whole book.)If you claim that those arent the words of mark,then it raises a question mark on your book itself.How many such verses were intersections?
Well, the folks from the Jesus Seminar would disagree with that. In fact, according to them, there is very little of the original Jesus in the book of John. Of course, they might be wrong, and you might be right, but they have all those degrees and methodology and whatnot. I would be interested to know how you calculated the probability of John 14:6 being original.The probability is very very very very very poor. The fact stated in that verse is consistently upheld throughout the Bible. The probability of it being wrong is close to .1%.What about the verse "None can come to my father except through me?" What is the probablity that it too wasnt an original verse?
What is, to me, the more interesting question isn't whether or not the text of the NT books have been altered from their original form (for they most definitely have) but why so many churches teach that these alterations are the inspired word of God.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
-
worship-your-mother-she-i
- Apprentice
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:56 am
Re: in search of a sign
Post #33Mark's words might be not original to you but there are millions of christians for whom it is original and the words of mark himself. Then they must be wrong and you are right i guess.GreenLight311 wrote:If you're not going restate my words correctly, please quote me so I am not misrepresented. In most cases, I choose my words carefully. I did not say that it demonstrates God's "might". I said it demonstrates God's redemptive power. ALL of the healings in the New Testament demonstrate aspects of God. The acts of healing in themselves are prophetic and symbolic.
Not only that, but the acts of healing are meant to draw in God's children - Christians. Even in the Bible Jesus does not do signs for people with no faith.
Matthew 12
39But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
The signs are all there for you to see. They have already been given. I God so chooses, He will lead a Christian into your life and you will see a sign. But a faithless person that seeks a sign with evil intentions and with a heart to slander the Christ will be given no sign.
I do not mean to be offensive... but the Gospel of Christ is offensive to non-believers. I do not apologize for the Gospel, but please do not get mad.
If evil people dont get a sign let it be so.But let anyone of the good people enter a hospital,full of devout ones who believe in god,and cure them by touching alone .Let there be no infidel present there.Do it for any reasons mentioned in the book.Who is volunteering?
I do not mind gospel being offensive to nonbelievers.Not at all.who am i to decide what should be in gospel and what should not be in it?
-
chrispalasz
- Scholar
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:22 am
- Location: Seoul, South Korea
Post #34
I didn't say I was right and everyone else is wrong. I hold to my opinion that the text is not original... but I see nothing wrong a person disagreeing with me, which is why I chose to respond with other arguments instead of just saying "the text isn't original" and leaving it at that.Mark's words might be not original to you but there are millions of christians for whom it is original and the words of mark himself. Then they must be wrong and you are right i guess.
In fact, this does happen today. I have never seen it nor have I done it; most of the time I hear of it happening on the missions field. If God ever led me into a position where I was to perform this type of healing - I most certainly would. Maybe someday I will. I plan on doing missions in a few years.If evil people dont get a sign let it be so.But let anyone of the good people enter a hospital,full of devout ones who believe in god,and cure them by touching alone .Let there be no infidel present there.Do it for any reasons mentioned in the book.Who is volunteering?
Mark 16,17,18, and originality
Post #35GreenLight 311,
You've discussed the possible meanings of signs and wonders found within Mark 16-18 and also commented upon the originality of Mark's words.
Indeed there is a part of Mark that Biblical scholars understand to be added to the original text, and not by Mark. The original Markan text ends in the middle of 16:8: "So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid." Two issues: the "shorter ending" and the "longer endings" of Mark undermine the message of the text in their mentionings of signs, wonders and the ascension of Jesus- these were not conserns of Mark in the writing of the text... read Mark, carefully. So often does Jesus ground the disciples and those to whom he preaches in the here and now, denying signs and wonders as means to revealing the kingdom of God and of revealing himself. Secondly, the ending I've just quoted from the NRSV which also appears similarly in alll commonly used English versions is also wrong: the Greek ends peculiarly. It does not make grammatical sense... unless one understands it in the context of Mark. The actual Greek ends this way "So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, they were afraid for...
What I've given here is a very abreviated version of studies on Mark's ending done in the fields of Biblical interpretation by Myers and others before and after him. Perhaps this will prove to be interesting material to wrestle with.
You've discussed the possible meanings of signs and wonders found within Mark 16-18 and also commented upon the originality of Mark's words.
Indeed there is a part of Mark that Biblical scholars understand to be added to the original text, and not by Mark. The original Markan text ends in the middle of 16:8: "So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid." Two issues: the "shorter ending" and the "longer endings" of Mark undermine the message of the text in their mentionings of signs, wonders and the ascension of Jesus- these were not conserns of Mark in the writing of the text... read Mark, carefully. So often does Jesus ground the disciples and those to whom he preaches in the here and now, denying signs and wonders as means to revealing the kingdom of God and of revealing himself. Secondly, the ending I've just quoted from the NRSV which also appears similarly in alll commonly used English versions is also wrong: the Greek ends peculiarly. It does not make grammatical sense... unless one understands it in the context of Mark. The actual Greek ends this way "So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, they were afraid for...
What I've given here is a very abreviated version of studies on Mark's ending done in the fields of Biblical interpretation by Myers and others before and after him. Perhaps this will prove to be interesting material to wrestle with.
-
chrispalasz
- Scholar
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:22 am
- Location: Seoul, South Korea
Post #36
palmera:
Thank you for your comments. I'm glad to see somebody else has studed this. Have you studied the Greek? I won't claim to be an Acient Greek expert... but I have taken Ancient Greek classes at a University for a year and a half and I've taken classes studying the book. I am very familiar with the irregular ending of Mark's gospel, and I find it quite interesting. Actually... Mark has a number of grammatical errors in his text, but he gets his point across (I actually find it amusing to read with the errors). The book ends in the word "gar" in Greek, which means "for", and is a postpositive (which means it always comes after what it modifies). This is very strange. Nobody really ever ended a sentence in that way before, and it is considered to be incorrect.
There are many theories out there. The one that I agree with goes like this:
The Gospel of Mark is giving the life story of Jesus and is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It says everything a person needs to know, and it ends without talking about Jesus risen. Mark's point may be that if a person does not understand that Jesus is the risen Christ by the time they are done with the book... they won't understand anyway. The brilliance of Mark's text is that it allows the reader to analyze the evidence for Jesus risen and decide for themselves the truth of it.
It's very interesting.
Thank you for your comments. I'm glad to see somebody else has studed this. Have you studied the Greek? I won't claim to be an Acient Greek expert... but I have taken Ancient Greek classes at a University for a year and a half and I've taken classes studying the book. I am very familiar with the irregular ending of Mark's gospel, and I find it quite interesting. Actually... Mark has a number of grammatical errors in his text, but he gets his point across (I actually find it amusing to read with the errors). The book ends in the word "gar" in Greek, which means "for", and is a postpositive (which means it always comes after what it modifies). This is very strange. Nobody really ever ended a sentence in that way before, and it is considered to be incorrect.
There are many theories out there. The one that I agree with goes like this:
The Gospel of Mark is giving the life story of Jesus and is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It says everything a person needs to know, and it ends without talking about Jesus risen. Mark's point may be that if a person does not understand that Jesus is the risen Christ by the time they are done with the book... they won't understand anyway. The brilliance of Mark's text is that it allows the reader to analyze the evidence for Jesus risen and decide for themselves the truth of it.
It's very interesting.
greek scholar
Post #37GreenLight311:
gar indeed! i've also a background in ancient and biblical greek! it's a nice surprise to see another here with a similar background.
I differ though in the interpretation you've provided about the ending in relation to Mark's gospel. Mark's concern does not lie in the risen Christ, but in a grounded Christ, present, active, suffering. An example: taking the ending of Mark's gospel as stated before (16:8a) where is Jesus at the end of the gospel? Galilee... during the time of Jesus and after his death while Roman imperial rule dominated the ME landscape, Galilee was much like Falluja today- a no go zone, uncontrollable, a breeding ground for insurgents. It was a place the Romans continuously battled to gain control of but could not... so in the end Jesus goes right back into the fray... Jesus is resurrected but does not rise to heaven, but rises to the challenge of discipleship- the ongoing suffering of one who seeks to change the world. Seen through this lense, the seemingly incorrect ending of Mark literarily makes sense as a way to talk about discipleship as that which never ends, is ongoing- to end the story with a "..." speaks to this very issue.
For me I see the alternate endings as rewrites attempting to deal with the Marcan text, to not allow it to end with a "..." here on earth, but a "." looking towards heaven which was not the concern of Mark-Matthew, Luke, and certainly John yes, but not of Mark.
gar indeed! i've also a background in ancient and biblical greek! it's a nice surprise to see another here with a similar background.
I differ though in the interpretation you've provided about the ending in relation to Mark's gospel. Mark's concern does not lie in the risen Christ, but in a grounded Christ, present, active, suffering. An example: taking the ending of Mark's gospel as stated before (16:8a) where is Jesus at the end of the gospel? Galilee... during the time of Jesus and after his death while Roman imperial rule dominated the ME landscape, Galilee was much like Falluja today- a no go zone, uncontrollable, a breeding ground for insurgents. It was a place the Romans continuously battled to gain control of but could not... so in the end Jesus goes right back into the fray... Jesus is resurrected but does not rise to heaven, but rises to the challenge of discipleship- the ongoing suffering of one who seeks to change the world. Seen through this lense, the seemingly incorrect ending of Mark literarily makes sense as a way to talk about discipleship as that which never ends, is ongoing- to end the story with a "..." speaks to this very issue.
For me I see the alternate endings as rewrites attempting to deal with the Marcan text, to not allow it to end with a "..." here on earth, but a "." looking towards heaven which was not the concern of Mark-Matthew, Luke, and certainly John yes, but not of Mark.
