• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

There are no true Christians? Mark 16:17-18

Valery

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2020
Messages
2,265
Reaction score
150
Mark 16

17 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;"

18 "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.""

Is there any such person in the world?
 
Oh look, a muslim trying to tell people they're not really christian by referencing a book he's never read and doesn't believe in.
 
Oh look, a muslim trying to tell people they're not really christian by referencing a book he's never read and doesn't believe in.
You have missed my point, but you're excused. Sceptics forum is one door to the left.
 
Mark 16

17 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;"

18 "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.""

Is there any such person in the world?

Mark 16:9-20 is considered to be false and added on later after the rest of the gospel was written
 
Mark 16

17 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;"

18 "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.""

Is there any such person in the world?
Look up the Pentecostal and Charismatic branches

Probably these abilities are offered to all, but not everyone desires it.
 
Please back up your statement with a citation.

Backup a statement that is actually written in many bibles?

Modern versions of the New Testament generally include the Longer Ending, but place it in brackets or otherwise format it to show that it is not considered part of the original text.

 
Backup a statement that is actually written in many bibles?



Thank-you for citing a source. As I read it, I am bound to point out that while it is considered by some scholars the longer version of the text in Mark's gospel is taken to be added later, this is not the same as saying it is false. The longer text which includes the reference to the ability to handle snakes, immunity to poison, and healing by laying-on hands, was being used as early as the second century CE. It is included in Catholic and Protestant Bibles today. It is one thing to speculate that the passage was written by a different hand from other parts of Mark's Gospel and to regard it as not canonical.

So, I take it as your position that the longer version of the text is not Biblical. You are in a minority. That is alright but are you not being over purist by insisting that only those texts which bear the hallmark style of one author rather than multiple hands can be trusted as authentic?
 
Mark 16

17 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;"

18 "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.""

Is there any such person in the world?

There has been a whole lot of interpretation of Mark 16, but ultimately what we are talking about is a capability (or immunity) via belief that is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

It is also worth mentioning context and history, as I have mentioned many times before throughout this period in human history the overwhelming majority of people could not read or write in the mash of whatever language they spoke. Often the ability to write like the authors did at the time was relatively exclusive and that means that religious and social custom was passed down via speaking about it, or hearing it from someone who was given that level of education which came off as authority. Government, religious, or otherwise.

But on Mark 16, especially 16-20.

This is a reference to Acts 28:5-6. This was all about Paul not hurt by the viper, throwing it to the fire. In this case the standard being belief in the Christian God and being able to challenge to whatever local beliefs they encountered. That accounts for Mark16:17 when considering the story of Paul and the barbarians encountered. You also cannot discount what snakes represent throughout the Bible (and plenty of other text from the period if we are being honest,) in just about every mention you conclude distrust, hint of evil, and something to be distant from.

You could say the concept of ecclesiastical capability is added to the story line, in context like clergy, for Mark16:18. That is also a reference to Acts 3:1-10 and the story of Paul with the man "lame from his mother's womb" (or cripple,) who he healed, and then could walk.

For the purposes of Mark's discussion the idea through these stories is the power of belief, with reference. In context, that pesky word, from the authority of someone with that belief.

Where this gets dicey is literalists interpretations, which is mostly a western evangelical extremism position, that suggests you take these texts and run around playing with snakes on Sundays. Where they got this wrong was the concept of avoiding by handling or even surviving a snake bite as a litmus test of faith, and that is how we ended up with stories every so often of snake handlers on Sunday ending up in the hospital and/or dead.

No where in the Bible is the suggestion that you need to challenge not being bitten, or even surviving a snake bite, to prove Christian worth. No story is really laid out like that telling you to go play with Vipers. Also no where in the Bible is the suggestion that anyone can run around and heal anyone else, again that is not really the standard in context being told.
 
Mark 16:9-20 is considered to be false and added on later after the rest of the gospel was written


As opposed to the former verse of a dead Jesus having come back to life, moved away the stone from the entrance of the tomb, and now on His way to Galilee. So much more believable. And yet those "discredited" verses righteously and officially remain as is in a "credible" bible.
 
Mark 16

17 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;"

18 "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.""

Is there any such person in the world?



[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.] - NIV



The internal evidence from this passage also casts doubt on Mark as the author.
For one thing, the transition between verses 8 and 9 is abrupt and awkward.
The Greek word translated “now” that begins v. 9 should link it to what follows, as the use of the word “now” does in the other synoptic Gospels. However, what follows doesn’t continue the story of the women referred to in v. 8, describing instead Jesus’ appearing to Mary Magdalene. There’s no transition there, but rather an abrupt and bizarre change, lacking the continuity typical of Mark’s narrative.

 
Mark 16

17 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;"

18 "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.""

Is there any such person in the world?


Here's another explanation:




All of this, however, misrepresents the passage's actual meaning. The verses just before this say:



"And He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned,'" (Mark 16:14-15).


An important rule in biblical interpretation is, "always follow the pronouns." Notice that it says "he who has believed" will be saved and "he who has not believed" will be condemned. The pronoun is the singular "he." Every single person who believes will be saved. Every single person who does not believe will be condemned. When we get to verses 17-18, however, the pronouns change. It does not continue by saying "these signs will accompany him who has believed," as one would expect if we were still talking about every single individual. It changes to "these signs will accompany those who have believed." It proceeds to note that they will do these various things. The grammar shifts from talking about the individual believer ("he who has believed") to the group of all believers ("those who have believed"). The passage is not saying that these signs will accompany every single individual believer. It is saying that such signs would accompany believers as a whole. As we read through the rest of the New Testament, that is exactly what we see: various confirming signs like these happening among various believers at various times. For example, we see:




The fact that believers brought the sick to the apostles to receive healing, for example, seems to indicate that such believers were not healing the sick by laying their own hands on them.


"And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed," (Mark 16:20).


The point of the signs was to verify the message preached, not to provide a litmus test for
judging the salvation of each individual believer.






Thus I asked you......

What is there to provide verification to Mohammad's claim?


NONE.
 
Mark 16

17 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;"

18 "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.""

Is there any such person in the world?
This is a part of the long ending of Mark's gospel. The two oldest MSS of Mark do not include anything after verse 8. Modern versions of the New Testament generally include the Longer Ending, but place it in brackets or otherwise format it to show that it is not considered part of the original text. Further
The "Shorter Ending" (first manuscript c. 3rd century[25]), with slight variations, is usually unversed, and runs as follows:

But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself (appeared to them and) sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.
While the New Revised Standard Version places this verse between verse 8 and 9, it could also be read as verse 21, covering the same topics as verse 9-20.

Source

Also [25] brackets:

Tolbert, Mary Ann (2003), The Gospel According to Mark, p. 1844. In: New Interpreter's Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha, general editor, Walter J. Harrelson, Abingdon Press, 2003

And again:

Because of patristic evidence from the late 100s for the existence of copies of Mark with 16:9-20,[note 12] scholars widely date the composition of the longer ending to the early 2nd century.

Source: ibid.

Note also
  • The earliest clear evidence for Mark 16:9-20 as part of the Gospel of Mark is in Chapter XLV First Apology of Justin Martyr (155-157). In a passage in which Justin treats Psalm 110 as a Messianic prophecy, he states that Psalm 110:2 was fulfilled when Jesus' disciples, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere. His wording is remarkably similar to the wording of Mk. 16:20 and is consistent with Justin's use of a Synoptics-Harmony in which Mark 16:20 was blended with Lk. 24:53.
Source: Ibid : Note 12 : Patristic evidence. Further

Also Note [44]: May, Herbert G. and Bruce M. Metzger. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. 1977.

Note [52]: Kelhoffer, J. Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark, 2000, 169-244.

Perhaps those not trained in Biblical Studies should refrain from commenting on texts they clearly do not understand?
 
Thank-you for citing a source. As I read it, I am bound to point out that while it is considered by some scholars the longer version of the text in Mark's gospel is taken to be added later, this is not the same as saying it is false. The longer text which includes the reference to the ability to handle snakes, immunity to poison, and healing by laying-on hands, was being used as early as the second century CE. It is included in Catholic and Protestant Bibles today. It is one thing to speculate that the passage was written by a different hand from other parts of Mark's Gospel and to regard it as not canonical.

So, I take it as your position that the longer version of the text is not Biblical. You are in a minority. That is alright but are you not being over purist by insisting that only those texts which bear the hallmark style of one author rather than multiple hands can be trusted as authentic?

If a Christian is to take that Mark wrote his gospel then whatever is known to have been added centuries later certainly wouldnt have been by him. As far as leaving it in the Bible, the Bible is more than just a holy book but also a history book. As noted the passage is marked as inauthentic in many bibles. And other than a few sects most Christians don’t do the snake handling and laying on hands
 
If a Christian is to take that Mark wrote his gospel then whatever is known to have been added centuries later certainly wouldnt have been by him. As far as leaving it in the Bible, the Bible is more than just a holy book but also a history book. As noted the passage is marked as inauthentic in many bibles. And other than a few sects most Christians don’t do the snake handling and laying on hands
Mark did not write the Gospel of Mark (CE 70). It is dedicated to him and has various sources, not just one author. The text by another hand was not added "centuries later" as it was in texts in the second century CE or within a hundred years of the earliest sources. The passage is not marked as inauthentic but of a clearly different source that the other several sources of the book and meant to make a better ending by members of the early Christian community.
 
Here's another explanation:




All of this, however, misrepresents the passage's actual meaning. The verses just before this say:



"And He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned,'" (Mark 16:14-15).


An important rule in biblical interpretation is, "always follow the pronouns." Notice that it says "he who has believed" will be saved and "he who has not believed" will be condemned. The pronoun is the singular "he." Every single person who believes will be saved. Every single person who does not believe will be condemned. When we get to verses 17-18, however, the pronouns change. It does not continue by saying "these signs will accompany him who has believed," as one would expect if we were still talking about every single individual. It changes to "these signs will accompany those who have believed." It proceeds to note that they will do these various things. The grammar shifts from talking about the individual believer ("he who has believed") to the group of all believers ("those who have believed"). The passage is not saying that these signs will accompany every single individual believer. It is saying that such signs would accompany believers as a whole. As we read through the rest of the New Testament, that is exactly what we see: various confirming signs like these happening among various believers at various times. For example, we see:




The fact that believers brought the sick to the apostles to receive healing, for example, seems to indicate that such believers were not healing the sick by laying their own hands on them.


"And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed," (Mark 16:20).


The point of the signs was to verify the message preached, not to provide a litmus test for
judging the salvation of each individual believer.






Thus I asked you......

What is there to provide verification to Mohammad's claim?


NONE.
Jesus said not to shout or write screeds in colorful font.
 
Mark 16

17 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;"

18 "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.""

Is there any such person in the world?
In the NWT, Mark chapter 16 ends with verse 8 because the verses thereafter are in question...


Long and Short Conclusions. Some have thought that Mark 16:8, which ends with the words “and they told nobody anything, for they were in fear,” is too abrupt to have been the original ending of this Gospel. However, that need not be concluded in view of Mark’s general style. Also, the fourth-century scholars Jerome and Eusebius agree that the authentic record closes with the words “for they were in fear.”—Jerome, letter 120, question 3, as published in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vienna and Leipzig, 1912, Vol. LV, p. 481; Eusebius, “Ad Marinum,” I, as published in Patrologia Graeca, Paris, 1857, Vol. XXII, col. 937.

There are a number of manuscripts and versions that add a long or a short conclusion after these words. The long conclusion (consisting of 12 verses) is found in the Alexandrine Manuscript, the Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus, and the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis. It also appears in the Latin Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Syriac Peshitta. But it is omitted in the Sinaitic Manuscript, the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, the Sinaitic Syriac codex, and the Armenian Version. Certain late manuscripts and versions contain the short conclusion. The Codex Regius of the eighth century C.E. has both conclusions, giving the shorter conclusion first. It prefixes a note to each conclusion, saying that these passages are current in some quarters, though it evidently recognized neither of them as authoritative.

In commenting on the long and short conclusions of the Gospel of Mark, Bible translator Edgar J. Goodspeed noted: “The Short Conclusion connects much better with Mark 16:8 than does the Long, but neither can be considered an original part of the Gospel of Mark.”—The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament, 1944, p. 127.

 
Mark did not write the Gospel of Mark (CE 70). It is dedicated to him and has various sources, not just one author. The text by another hand was not added "centuries later" as it was in texts in the second century CE or within a hundred years of the earliest sources. The passage is not marked as inauthentic but of a clearly different source that the other several sources of the book and meant to make a better ending by members of the early Christian community.


It is attributed to St. Mark the an associate of St. Paul and a disciple of St. Peter, whose teachings the Gospel may reflect. It is the shortest and the earliest of the four Gospels, presumably written during the decade preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
 
So Valery? No only are your Hermeneutics incorrect but so is your attempt to use the text to define Christians.
 
So Valery? No only are your Hermeneutics incorrect but so is your attempt to use the text to define Christians.
What can I say.. My argument was that there's a contradiction in the Bible. Yours is that there is a fabrication and a contradiction.
 
Look up the Pentecostal and Charismatic branches

Probably these abilities are offered to all, but not everyone desires it.

these are not offered and they are not obtained by desiring them. They are gifts given by God to those whom He so chooses. They are manifested in the body of Christ in the collection of different parts(individuals). 1 Corinthians 12 goes into detail about this. Valery without stating it seems to imply that all Christians should have these gifts.....that is a red herring. There, indeed, are Christians that have the gifts she referred to but not all have these particular gifts.....nevertheless they are all parts of the body of Christ. Example....if by marriage man and wife become they function symbolically as one yet retain specific and individual ‘gifts’ that contribute to the one.
 
Become one.....to correct
 
In the NWT, Mark chapter 16 ends with verse 8 because the verses thereafter are in question...


Long and Short Conclusions. Some have thought that Mark 16:8, which ends with the words “and they told nobody anything, for they were in fear,” is too abrupt to have been the original ending of this Gospel. However, that need not be concluded in view of Mark’s general style. Also, the fourth-century scholars Jerome and Eusebius agree that the authentic record closes with the words “for they were in fear.”—Jerome, letter 120, question 3, as published in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vienna and Leipzig, 1912, Vol. LV, p. 481; Eusebius, “Ad Marinum,” I, as published in Patrologia Graeca, Paris, 1857, Vol. XXII, col. 937.

There are a number of manuscripts and versions that add a long or a short conclusion after these words. The long conclusion (consisting of 12 verses) is found in the Alexandrine Manuscript, the Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus, and the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis. It also appears in the Latin Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Syriac Peshitta. But it is omitted in the Sinaitic Manuscript, the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, the Sinaitic Syriac codex, and the Armenian Version. Certain late manuscripts and versions contain the short conclusion. The Codex Regius of the eighth century C.E. has both conclusions, giving the shorter conclusion first. It prefixes a note to each conclusion, saying that these passages are current in some quarters, though it evidently recognized neither of them as authoritative.

In commenting on the long and short conclusions of the Gospel of Mark, Bible translator Edgar J. Goodspeed noted: “The Short Conclusion connects much better with Mark 16:8 than does the Long, but neither can be considered an original part of the Gospel of Mark.”—The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament, 1944, p. 127.


It is a slippery slope for those who believe in the truth of the Bible to cast doubt on different versions. Otherwise one should restrict themselves to quoting only from the Bible they believe(and which might not be accessible to most people) or state upfront that you believe in most of the Bible.
 
It is a slippery slope for those who believe in the truth of the Bible to cast doubt on different versions. Otherwise one should restrict themselves to quoting only from the Bible they believe(and which might not be accessible to most people) or state upfront that you believe in most of the Bible.
Which is exactly why I usually refer to several...my fav is still the NWT because it is so clear and easier to understand...
 
What can I say.. My argument was that there's a contradiction in the Bible. Yours is that there is a fabrication and a contradiction.
No, a fabrication is a thing meant to deceive; Mark's long ending is neither contradiction nor fabrication. It just is. Some Churches accept it as being genuine others consider it pseudepigrapha. Nonetheless some MSS of the NT carry it in the text.
 
Back
Top Bottom