Discussion in 'Holy Spirit Baptism and Living' started by blessed09, Oct 20, 2013.
Receiving the Holy Spirits infilling after coming to Jesus Christ as your saviour.
Act 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
This part of Mark is not actually part of the Gospel of Mark. The oldest manuscripts do not contain this passage. That's why many Bibles introduce Mark 16:9-20 into brackets, which indicates that this passage is most probably not original to Mark.
There are more than 5 thousand ancient manuscripts of the New Testament. Not all of them contain the entire New Testament. Because we have so many manuscripts, we are able to tell which words were present in the originals and which words weren't. The New Testament that we have in our hands today reproduces the original manuscripts with great accuracy, and we know it because the experts are able to trace every small variant to its origins.
Yes I am very aware of the manuscripts, that's why I asked you to expound on your statement about Mark 16...because what you said is not exactly the truth.
Those who do not want to believe these verses are quick to say they are not scripture.
The most reliable early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at verse 8. Other manuscripts include various endings to the Gospel. A few include both the “shorter ending” and the “longer ending.” The majority of manuscripts include the “longer ending” immediately after verse 8.
Yes, I see what you mean. I found this:
"COMMENTS: Verses 9 through 20 are in double brackets in the UBS text, which means that the UBS Textual Committee felt that they were not originally written by Mark. Verses 9 through 20 are missing from manuscript 2386 because a leaf is missing from the manuscript at this point.... Verses 9 through 20 are often suspected of having been added to Mark to give it an ending, because it is supposedly written in a different style from the rest of Mark. A close examination of style, however, reveals that it is not so different in style from the rest of Mark as is sometimes claimed. See the Appendix: "
However, it seems to me that there are good reasons to think that this passage is not original. I wouldn't base my understanding of key issues on it, at least.
It's not that I do not want to believe in the contents of the passage. I believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit as something that it is present today. My problem with this passage is that it is quite dubious from a historical point of view (earlier manuscripts and stuff like that).
Actually, the passage agrees with other scriptures, so historically, it is right on.
I can also write things that agree with the Scriptures. However, the things that I write are not Scripture.
That's right. Only God-inspired writings are included as scripture. Now is not the time to be doing a critique of scripture.
Why are you so eager to prove that Mark 16:9-20 is Scripture. Can't you find the same teachings in other parts of the Scriptures, as you yourself said that you could do?
I don't have to prove what is already scripture. It's there, and God put it there, and Holy Spirit speaks to me through it. It is important, and not worthy of you or anyone else trying to nullify it. Check yourself. What are your motives for this turn of the discussion?
I am not trying to nullify it. However, I believe that there's nothing wrong in tracing the history of each passage in order to prove/disprove its authenticity.
You are the one who admitted to having a problem.
There is definitely something wrong with critiquing canonized scripture as to its authenticity now in the year 2014, when you have no reason or spiritual authority to do so.
Mark 16 is God speaking to your heart. Do you accept what He says or not?
I thought it was generally understood that Mark 16:9-20 was not original. Now I am reading about it and it seems that it could be original, since some of the people who studied these things regard this passage as authentic. I learned this from this discussion.
Regarding what is Scripture and what is not, there is nothing wrong in analyzing the history of the passages and trusting in the guidance of the Holy Spirit to determine what is and what is not Scripture. To give you an example, when I became a Christian I was living in my native country, Argentina. I had a Catholic Bible. However, whenever I read the deuterocanonical books I used to feel that these books were not like the rest. They were lacking in something and, although I didn't know what it was at the moment, it actually was God's inspiration. So, I am not afraid of being aware of any criticism of the text. I know that Jesus resurrected from the dead and we have plenty of evidence for that in Mark (even without the verses 9-20) and in the rest of the New Testament.
The thing is, that the end of Mark 16 contains a very strong truth about believers, and the mark of believers that the enemy of God would just love to discredit.
And what is that very strong truth?
Here I found some strong evidence for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. The articles is very good and interesting.
The longer ending of Mark, which appears as Mark 16:9-20 in most translations, is believed to be spurious by many Bible translators and commentators today. Most modern translations footnote the passage, and the NIV 2011 prints the passage in italics, further indicating doubt as to its authenticity. The omission is supported by Aleph (4th century), B (4th century), 304 (12th century), Latin k (4th/5th century), Syrus Sinaiticus, a Sahidic manuscript, Armenian manuscripts (Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edition (2006)). Eusebius (early 4th century) and Jerome (late 4th century) appeared to know of many Greek manuscripts omitting the passage, but they nonetheless knew of the passage. The longer ending is supported by W (4th/5th century), A (5th century), C (5th century), D (5th century), Theta (9th century), 33 (9th century), 2427 (14th century?), majority of all Greek manuscripts, Vulgate and part of the Old Latin tradition, Syrus Curetonianus, Syriac Peshitta, Syrus Harklensis, Bohairic (Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edition (2006)). The late 2nd century Irenaeus considered the passage as authentic scripture, citing Mark 16:19 as follows:
"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 sits on the right hand of God; confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your foes Your footstool." (Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 10:5))
For more on the external and internal evidence for the authenticity of the longer ending, the following articles provide much greater detail:
The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 by James Edward Snapp, Jr. (2007)
Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired? by Dave Miller, Ph.D. (2005)
Instead of reiterating most of the points in these articles, this page will provide additional information to support the authenticity of the longer ending of Mark.
Does the earliest manuscript of Mark 16 count as proof against the longer ending?The above-mentioned articles note that Vaticanus (c. 325–350 AD), the oldest manuscript omitting the longer ending, leaves an entire blank column in between the end of the book of Mark and the beginning of the book of Luke. The authors note how this is unusual as the regular practice of the scribe is to begin a new book in the column immediately after the ending of the previous book. This blank space provides enough room for the longer ending of Mark. Vaticanus' omission does not prove that the longer ending did not exist in the early 4th century any more than does the omission in the RSV prove that the longer ending did not exist in the 20th century (the first edition of the RSV omitted the longer ending). The omission in Vaticanus merely proves that the scribe of Vaticanus did not consider the longer ending as part of scripture. The blank column in Vaticanus, however, proves that some sort of longer ending existed in the early 4th century and that it was of such weight and importance that the scribe of Vaticanus left enough space for it, presumably to include it if the scribe changed his mind later as to its authenticity. Shown below are the ending and beginning of each New Testament book of Codex Vaticanus, demonstrating that an entire blank column exists only at the ending of Mark (which is Mark 16:8 in Vaticanus).
Dubious is not a term I would use, maybe some question...but I believe its clearly backed-up as reliable. Even your own post on the discussion lends toward its acceptance, so not sure how you could make that post and then use the term "dubious"?