GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20  (Read 2035 times)

Kenneth Sublett, e.r.m. and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Ginger Rella

  • Guest
A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 08:11:03 »
Now I am not up for discussion on this, YET, as I am still learning and studying..... but very interesting and educating.


Manuscript attestation.

Mark 16:9-20 doesn't appear in many of the oldest ancient manuscripts.  "The last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are lacking in the two earliest parchment codices, B and Aleph, in the Old Latin manuscript k,, the Sinaitic Syriac, many manuscripts of the Old Armenian version, the Adysh and Opiza manuscripts of the Old Georgian version, and a number of manuscripts of the Ethiopic version.

 Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Ammonius show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; other Church Fathers state that the section is absent from Greek copies of Mark known to them (e.g. Jerome, Epist. cxx. 3, ad hedibiam,) . . .

The original form of the Eusebian sections makes no provision for numbering sections after 16:8.  Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scholia stating that older Greek copies lack it (so, for example, MSS. 1, 20,22, &c.), and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional sigla used by scribes to indicate a spurious addition to a literary document."1

2. There is another ending to Mark.
 
Another ending is found in L, Psi, 099, 0112, and minuscules 274mg 579, k, Syrh and more is as follows:

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

3. Apparent, theological error.

Mark 16:12 says, "And after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them, while they were walking along on their way to the country." This verse may be problematic. Jesus rose in the same body in which he died (John 2:19) though it was a glorified body.

 This is problematic because it suggests "a different form."  Jesus did not appear in a different form. He appeared in the same body in which he rose.

This is a significant problem and seems to support the idea that this section of scripture is spurious, a later addition, or a possible attempt to recount a lost section of the gospel.

4. Vocabulary usage.

There are 17 non-marcan words used in a non-marcan sense in these verses.  In other words, in the last 11 verses under discussion there are 17 "new" words that don't occur in the entire gospel of Mark.

It appears that someone wrote the ending of Mark and added it to the gospel because the style is different, and the vocabulary is different.

And the author at the end states. This information about the ending of Mark is not intended to cast doubt upon God's word.  But the fact is that the ending is under a large cloud of doubt as to its authenticity.  I would not use it as a defense for baptismal regeneration.

Link https://carm.org/baptism-and-mark-1616

Christian Forums and Message Board

A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 08:11:03 »

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32671
  • Manna: 715
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #1 on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 08:21:30 »
(SORRY rella) So RB, the KJV is not perfect? Hmmm. Who’d a thunk it! I wonder if the KJV could possibly have gotten wrong it’s translation of 1 Peter 3:21 where it translates “because of” a clear conscience rather than “for” a clear conscience”? Making it perfectly congruant with acts 22:16? If congruance with other scripture is relevant? Yes Rella this “discrepancy” has been brought up pretty much every time there is a discussion on Mark 16:16. Not poo pooing it at all, just saying it ALWAYS is brought up and rightlfully so. Pretty much as prevalent as the eis discussion that always ensues. But it definitely shows you are diligently searching and I applaude that!
« Last Edit: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 08:37:17 by Jaime »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #1 on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 08:21:30 »

Online RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5251
  • Manna: 303
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #2 on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 09:52:05 »
(SORRY rella) So RB, the KJV is not perfect? Hmmm. Who’d a thunk it! I wonder if the KJV could possibly have gotten wrong it’s translation of 1 Peter 3:21 where it translates “because of” a clear conscience rather than “for” a clear conscience”? Making it perfectly congruent with acts 22:16? If congruence with other scripture is relevant? Yes, Rella, this “discrepancy” has been brought up pretty much every time there is a discussion on Mark 16:16. Not poo-pooing it at all, just saying it ALWAYS is brought up and rightfully so. Pretty much as prevalent as the eis discussion that always ensues. But it definitely shows you are diligently searching and I applaud that!
I love Rella, but I do not agree with what is posted, and after all, she is STILL trying to figure these things out and SHE WILL if she will be patience and TRUST her bible. The KJV is the word of God and every word is inspired of God and we do not pick and chose what is, and what is not~we have FAITH that our God has perfectly preserved his word~per Psalm 12. I love Mark 16 ALL OF IT and can defend it with all other scriptures, no problem.  You see brother, just because some fruitcake who thinks they are wise said that it was not part of oldest ancient manuscripts does not mean a hill of beans, the scriptures OVERALL proves clearly otherwise.

I could spend time proving how Mark 16 9-20 ARE inspired, but I do not want to at the moment, having other important matters to deal with, but would if a sincere saint asked for it.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #2 on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 09:52:05 »

Online Kenneth Sublett

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1972
  • Manna: 38
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)cheives (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #3 on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 10:04:36 »
Ginger when you rely on CARM and Ginger you have picked a fight with the wrong GOD: God is never slow about slapping contenders with STRONG DELUSIONS.

Isaiah 1 inspired by God as the Spirit OF Christ is parallel to what Jesus FULFILLED and COMMANDED. Are you sure that you are trained enough to contradict the Holy Spirit OF God?

In our bound volume just after the Great Comission, Mark begins with the "arche" which is the most important part of the gospel. He quotes Malachi 3 about the "fuller" washing our garments as white as snow. Then, he launches into the baptism of John and the disciples of Jesus.  It would seem natural that the ARCHE would be restated.

Sometimes not finding something in a manuscript which means someone's old Bible can be AMENDED by what the theologians and historians wrote.

I CAN SUPPLY LINKS

    Justin Martyr wrote in his First Apology (ch.45) that the apostles, "going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere." A comparison of this paragraph shows that it is highly likely that he was borrowing his terms from the longer or shorter ending;
    Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies III:10:5-6, which was written c. 185;
    Eusebius of Caesarea and Philip of Side record the writings of Papias (c. 125-150), who mentions that Justus Barsabbas (c.f. Acts 1:23) once drank a poisonous drink and suffered no ill effects. The motivation for this story may have been to provide an example of the fulfillment of Mark 16:18; furthermore Papias claimed that Mark did not omit anything that Peter had preached.
    Eusebius and Marinus (c. 330) both reflect knowledge of the existence of the longer ending, in Eusebius' work Ad Marinum; but Eusebius also relates that the Long Ending is not in the accurate manuscripts. Eusebius provides Marinus with a scheme to harmonise (and thus retain) Mark 16:9 via the use of Matthew 28:1.
    Augustine (d.430) used 16:9-20 in Easter sermons. This demonstrates that, by the early 400's, the longer ending had been established in the lectionary in North Africa (though this says nothing about its originality!);

Jesus commanded:

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

There would only be one reason to GO into these four divisions of humanity:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them,
        Repent, and be baptized every one of you
        in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the remission of sins,
        and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Without YOUR spirit made holy with a good CONSCIOUSNESS or the gift of reading BLACK text on BROWN paper you will never read the secrets HIDDEN IN CLEAR SIGHT.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved;
        but he that believeth not [no trust or Compliance] shall be damned.

The Holy Spirit OF God says they will be CONSUMED.  Isaiah preached the GOSPEL and the eunuch WANTED to be baptized.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #3 on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 10:04:36 »

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32671
  • Manna: 715
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #4 on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 11:13:15 »
Red, I have a few issues with the KJV and consider it as no more superior than several others that use earlier manuscripts. The closer a manuscript is to the original, the more dependable and and vice versa. No version is perfect and unblemished. Would you rather have a translation from the 3rd transcribed handwritten copy or the 23rd?
« Last Edit: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 19:32:44 by Jaime »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #4 on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 11:13:15 »



Offline Texas Conservative

  • Intensity, Integrity and Intelligence!
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7593
  • Manna: 305
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #5 on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 11:38:36 »
If Mark 16:9-20 was not inspired, there are plenty of other verses that show a person who believes in Christ should be baptized by immersion.

No reason to get into the "Acts 2:38 it's still in thar!" type discussions.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #5 on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 11:38:36 »

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32671
  • Manna: 715
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #6 on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 11:49:51 »
That is correct TC. I have always thought Mark 16:16 is by far not the strongest argument for my opinion of the purpose and need for baptism - IN CHRIST’s NAME. Acts 22:16 settles the issue to me.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2602
  • Manna: 75
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #7 on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 19:18:35 »
Ginger Rella:

    I might add that immersion [not “baptism”] in water does not finalize one’s initial salvation, but simply confirms it, as you indicated.

    However, if a person deliberately and knowingly rejects being immersed in water after being exposed to the command, such as Jesus’ last words in Matthew 28 before He ascended back to heaven, his “faith” is in question and his initial [spiritual] birth could be in jeopardy.

Just a thought or two,

Buff
« Last Edit: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 19:44:59 by Reformer »

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32671
  • Manna: 715
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #8 on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 19:39:13 »
Buff, I have asked this a couple of times and have never gotten a straight answer. Maybe you would like to tackle it: What was the reason stated for Paul’s baptism? In other word’s what did God accomplish in Paul’s baptism? And will he accomplish that for us?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #8 on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 19:39:13 »

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2602
  • Manna: 75
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #9 on: Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 19:58:53 »

JAIME:

   It is my sentiment that Paul was immersed in water 1] because God decreed it through Ananias and 2] because the act confirmed his faith and acceptance of the Lord Jesus.

   Yes, of course, God will accomplish for us [new birth] what He accomplished for Paul.

Thanks for asking,

Buff

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32671
  • Manna: 715
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #10 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 06:27:27 »
Would it not be to wash away his sins calling upon the Lord as the text says? Or is that level of specificity out of line with people’s idea of the purpose of baptism?
« Last Edit: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 06:40:20 by Jaime »

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7161
  • Manna: 217
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #11 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 06:49:02 »
Yes of course, Jaime, Paul's [Saul's] baptism was for the forgiveness of his sins and for his receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Online RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5251
  • Manna: 303
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #12 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 06:59:08 »
Now I am not up for discussion on this, YET, as I am still learning and studying..... but very interesting and educating. ...........................................L ink https://carm.org/baptism-and-mark-1616
I'm tired, but open up for discussions of Matt's Slick understanding of Mark 16:9-20. I see that he wrote this article ten years ago, so his understanding may very well have changed, and I pray that it has, for he seems to be very sincere and sound in many of the other articles that he has written I have only glanced at some over time. I'll come back and spend some time today looking at his points of views. 

Offline NorrinRadd

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1383
  • Manna: 49
  • Gender: Male
  • Everybody is somebody's heretic
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #13 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 07:50:48 »
I tend to agree with Matt that the "long ending" of Mark is likely inauthentic.  I don't think his #3 and #4 reasons are sound.

#3 is, IMO, sufficiently consistent with Luke 24:31 to avoid the charge of theological error.

Regarding #4, Josh McDowell decades ago cited evidence along the lines that the verses leading up to the disputed portion also contained a similar number of supposedly non-Marcan words.  (At this point, I doubt I can even find that book, let alone the specific section where he addressed that question.)

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7161
  • Manna: 217
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #14 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 09:06:41 »
Matt Slick's analysis in his second paragraph beginning with, Mark 16:16 does not say that baptism is a requirement for salvation, is bad logic. He bungles it even further with some non sequitur analogies about believing and going to church.  The statement in Mark 16:16, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" does not prove that either believing or being baptized is necessary for salvation.  What that statement says is that believing and being baptized is a sufficient condition for salvation, but it says nothing about either being necessary for salvation.  However the next statement in Mark 16:16, "whoever does not believe will be condemned," shows that believing is a necessary condition for salvation.

In summary then, Mark 16:16 says that believing and being baptized is a sufficient condition for being saved and that believing is a necessary condition for being saved.  It is important to understand here that the sufficient condition is believing AND being baptized.  That is both the sufficient condition is given as believing AND being baptized. 

Online yogi bear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11863
  • Manna: 743
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #15 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 11:18:43 »
okay you really made this confusing with sufficient and necessary and now I do not understand what you are saying is believing and baptism part of salvation or not?

Online Kenneth Sublett

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1972
  • Manna: 38
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)cheives (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #16 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 12:19:29 »
A person who has not HEARD cannot believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.  A person who has HEARD may not YET believe because he is a slow. 

However, in Mark 16 Believeth not is NOT just "I don't believe." Pistis includes to COMPLY if you TRUST someone trying to save your life or SOUL

The APistos is ANTI Pistis and denies the Prophecy in Isaiah 1 which Jesus obeyed to be SANCTIFIED AND SENT. It denies the direct command and clear statements by EAR-witness

Arise and BE baptized and WASH AWAY thy sins came with Paul SEEING and HEARING the Glorified Jesus in His HOLY SPIRIT assignment.

The Peter who commanded Acts 2:38 wrote 1 Peter 3:21 proving that the ARK (not a boat but a blood-red COFFIN) was the PROTOTYPICAL Prophecy.  Peter said:

BAPTISM SAVES you because that is the only way to REQUEST or Call on the name of the Lord REQUESTING A good conscience or A holy spirit WITHOUT WHICH (2 Cor 3) you cannot read BLACK text on BROWN paper or HEAR it when it is PREACHED by being READ once each REST day.

The statement that JEWISH BAPTISMS did not give one A good conscience or A holy spirit because connected with CARNAL ORDINANCES.  The Baptism of Jesus is based on HIS SHED BLOOD and can do what the blood of goats could not do.

The believeth (complieth) and obey the command to be baptism SAVES. Period, full stop.

The APISTOS shall be DAMNED.

If you can say Negative Inference Fallacy you have an evil view of God. God is NOT silent as the PROGRESSIVE ANTI-ACAPPELLA FELLAS SAY.




IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND, THAT AGREES WITH JESUS WHO SAID THAT GOD HIDES FROM THE WISE OR SOPHISTS: self-authoring speakers, singers or instruments players with MELODY in holy places

« Last Edit: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 13:00:47 by Kenneth Sublett »

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2602
  • Manna: 75
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #17 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 13:31:14 »
Jaime:

    You asked [above], “Would it not be to wash away his sins calling upon the Lord as the text says? Or is that level of specificity out of line with people’s idea of the purpose of baptism?”

    I have no problem with “wash away your sins” [Acts 22:16] if we understand that doing so validates our faith and acceptance of the Lord.

    We both know that water, as such, cannot remit sins. By submitting to the act, however, we authenticate our new birth. By deliberately refusing to be immersed in water, we are testifying that our “faith” is either insufficient or is counterfeit.

    I’m a big believer in immersing a repentant candidate, and I have done this most of my adult life. But I’m reluctant to become guilty of what many call “water salvation.”

    Faith is the primary factor in one’s new birth. “For without faith it is impossible to please God.” Genuine faith will lead a repentant candidate to be immersed in water, as our Lord commanded—assuming he/she has been taught and exposed to our Lord’s decree.

    If he/she has been mis-taught, and many thousands have, immersion in water will be considered a non-essential matter or a matter that can be “delayed till another time.”

    During the primitive years of the grace community, an urgency was placed upon immersing the person as soon as possible. That in itself carries a lot of weight in favor of “getting the job done quickly.”

Buff

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32671
  • Manna: 715
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #18 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 13:48:28 »
Buff as I hope you know and realize, i hold that the water is powerless, but God does His work in the water.

I have seen several immersions that had no more spiritual consequence than a cannonball in a backyard pool because of the attitude and lack of submission of the baptizee. I have seen too much emphasis on baptism and I have seen WAY Too little to the point we now discuss for pages whether it should be done or not much less the reason behind it. We have a whole cadre of people that consider it a work. We have some that have never been immersed, and we probably have some who hold it out to be the be all and end all of salvation and some that poo poo it as totally and inarguably unrelated to salvation in any shape or form. And as I have said, if sins are washed away in baptism as Paul’s were, it is not an inconsequential faith response to be delayed, putoff or poo poo-ed. I don’t feel guilty for what some accuse is baptismal regeneration, it is simply God regeneration. The water is a spiritually inert mode for His work, that HE chose. Left to me I woulda chose probably another mode, maybe a root beer float. But I refuse to be a Naaman and be offended by God’s chosen mode. It just is what it is. And I believe the Naaman story was inserted in the Bible to illustrate this point.
« Last Edit: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 14:09:18 by Jaime »

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7161
  • Manna: 217
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #19 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 14:27:38 »
We both know that water, as such, cannot remit sins. By submitting to the act, however, we authenticate our new birth.
What new birth?  How can there be a new birth before sins are remitted [forgiven]?  There is no such thing.  The new birth is sins being forgiven and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Forgiveness of sins and receipt of the gift of the Holy Spirit is regeneration.  That is the new birth. 

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2602
  • Manna: 75
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #20 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 14:32:35 »
Jaime:

   I hear you and I appreciate your additional input. I agree with much of what you say. Our “minor” disagreements on this subject are “not worth disputing over!”

Blessings,

Buff

Online Kenneth Sublett

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1972
  • Manna: 38
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)cheives (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #21 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 14:44:02 »
If everything has to be traced back to God with Him having no authority to put HIS power in anything, you are forced to REJECT blood along with WATER.

You are forced to say that Jesus was in error along with Paul

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done,
       but according to his mercy HE saved us,
       BY the washing of regeneration,
       AND renewing of the Holy Spirit; [Not BY but giving a NEW BIRTH]

g3067. loutron, loo-tron´; from 3068; a bath, i.e. (figuratively), baptism: — washing.

Go ahead, call The Spirit in Isaiah 1, the baptism of Jesus, the command of Jesus and all historic Scholars liars.

Jesus made WATER the element by which to TRANSFER His power because He knew that the WORLD would mock Him.  Human pride of those OF the World (Aborigines) will never believe and obey. That is why those who do not COMPLY and be BAPTIZED in ORDER to be Saved are APISTOS.

Gen. 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth,
         and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart
         was only evil continually.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32671
  • Manna: 715
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #22 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 14:49:54 »
Buff, if our minor disagreements are for example baptism “because of” remission of sin in lieu of FOR remission of sin, that is about as major as it gets. As 4WD has indicated.
« Last Edit: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 14:57:28 by Jaime »

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2602
  • Manna: 75
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #23 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 15:06:16 »
Jaime:

    The Greek “eis” is correctly translated “for” in English, not “because of.” We agree on that point. This has been my understanding of the Greek eis for decades. And Greek scholars confirm it.

Buff

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32671
  • Manna: 715
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #24 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 15:24:54 »
So Buff, how would you answer what 4WD has posted to you in post number 19?
« Last Edit: Mon Sep 17, 2018 - 10:19:50 by Jaime »

Online Kenneth Sublett

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1972
  • Manna: 38
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)cheives (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #25 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 15:45:01 »
The only operative Words of a Holy God are SPEAK and READ.  Anyone who questions the clear prophecy, fulfillment and commands making WATER (like Word, Spirit) the HUMAN AGENCY God has decided as a way to MARK the Little Flock you prove that you are OF the World, Kosmos, Ecumenical or the kingdom of the Devil.  Water was one of the original "gods" and when you go near WATER She intends to destroy you.  People readily trust what THEY BELIEVE and repudiate God and His Son by calling both liars.  They even build or steal universities to promote their FOREORDAINED task.  That's fine because the Lost Sheep Knows the Masters Voice and when they hear it they are MARKED for easy "pickup."

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly RECEIVED his WORD were BAPTIZED:
        and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

God is WORD in the same sense that He is LIGHT.  God breathed into Jesus and He SPOKE only what the Father said through Him.
The Spirit OF God (same as the Spirit of CHRIST for the end time defined the future church both inclusively and exclusively. Isaiah 1 began by repudiating human effort such as animal slaughter and replaced the TRUE to a small remnant based on their being BAPTIZED.

Reread the APISTOS information which identifies those who COMPLY NOT and reject Baptism.

Once you have tried to arm wrestle with the Almighty and substituted YOUR OWN (in you church today) you have fallen and will never get up.  Never expect that quoting the EXACT passages will stop those standing at the GATE trying to prevent anyone from goint in.  It is the WAY that is called a SECT and fools cannot even stumble into the NARROW PATTERN.


NOTICE THAT THESE PEOPLE WERE ALREADY SAVED IN EPHESIANS 1.



Baptism is the ONLY time and place where Jesus promises to meet us as we IMITATE His finished word and bestows FORGIVENESS OF SINS

Don't let me slow you down for your Purpose Driven Pattern

Muttering and Murmuring against God is for the WORLD for which Jesus does no pray.
.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2602
  • Manna: 75
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #26 on: Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 21:46:45 »
4WD:

   You inquired earlier, "What new birth?  How can there be a new birth before sins are remitted [forgiven]?  There is no such thing.  The new birth is sins being forgiven and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Forgiveness of sins and receipt of the gift of the Holy Spirit is regeneration.  That is the new birth."

   Been busy all day so only now getting around to adding a few comments. I agree that forgiveness is aligned with faith, repentance, and immersion in water—as per Acts 2:38. But since repentance confirms one's faith, I'm inclined to say immersion in water also confirms one's faith.

   If either is knowingly neglected, one's so-called "faith" is futile and his sins have not been remitted. My point is that we have a tendency to examine only one side of Acts 2:38. To me, as described above, there's another side.

   You explain your side, I explain my side. And yet we both are correct in our assessment without contradicting each other or distorting the Spirit's intent.

Blessings,

Buff

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7161
  • Manna: 217
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #27 on: Mon Sep 17, 2018 - 06:10:46 »
Buff, with all due respect, you said
We both know that water, as such, cannot remit sins. By submitting to the act, however, we authenticate our new birth.
The new birth is the result of faith, repentance and immersion in the name of Jesus Christ.  Immersion can't confirm what the believer has not yet received.  Faith and the new birth are not the same.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2602
  • Manna: 75
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #28 on: Mon Sep 17, 2018 - 10:02:35 »

4WD:

    "Immersion can't confirm what the believer has not yet received."

   But immersion in water does confirm his faith, as well as his repentance. This was my point.

   Regardless of the "location" you ascribe his new birth, the truth is that both repentance and immersion authenticate his faith.

Buff

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7161
  • Manna: 217
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #29 on: Mon Sep 17, 2018 - 10:13:41 »
4WD:

    "Immersion can't confirm what the believer has not yet received."

   But immersion in water does confirm his faith, as well as his repentance. This was my point.

   Regardless of the "location" you ascribe his new birth, the truth is that both repentance and immersion authenticate his faith.

Buff
No, not regardless, Buff.  Your ascribing baptism as authentication of the new birth means that (1) you simply misspoke or (2) you really do not understand the new birth.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32671
  • Manna: 715
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #30 on: Mon Sep 17, 2018 - 10:23:47 »
Buff, I think the issue is in one post you said baptism confirms the new birth and in subsequent posts you said it confirms our faith. 4WD is saying a new birth happens at baptism when sins are forgiven and the indwelling gift of the Spirit is conveyed. He is saying baptism can’t confirm a new birth that hasn’t happened yet, if as you have agreed that baptism is FOR remission of sin and the gift of the Holy spirit and not because of. Yes baptism is a faith response. If there is no faith, just getting wet was accomplished in the baptism.
« Last Edit: Mon Sep 17, 2018 - 10:29:54 by Jaime »

Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Manna: 35
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #31 on: Tue Sep 18, 2018 - 01:42:46 »
Did the inauguration confirm that Trump was the President? Yes. Well how could he be confirmed as President if he wasn't President until he was inaugurated?

Buff is correct. Baptism confirms that sins are washed away.

Online RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5251
  • Manna: 303
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #32 on: Tue Sep 18, 2018 - 05:23:01 »
Did the inauguration confirm that Trump was the President? Yes. Well how could he be confirmed as President if he wasn't President until he was inaugurated?

Buff is correct. Baptism confirms that sins are washed away.
Interresting...could you elaborate more? Please.

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7161
  • Manna: 217
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #33 on: Tue Sep 18, 2018 - 07:18:11 »
Did the inauguration confirm that Trump was the President? Yes.
No.  Until the inauguration he is only the President elect, i.e., the person voted to become the President.  The inauguration is the point in time, i.e., the occasion, when the person chosen actually becomes the President.

Baptism is the point in time that the person who believed and repented has his sins forgiven and is given the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Online yogi bear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11863
  • Manna: 743
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #34 on: Tue Sep 18, 2018 - 09:53:28 »
True according to scripture record 4WD is correct and Norton is not quite right.