Mark 16>

I think it is proper to research if verses were part of the original texts. I personally think that this is part of the original text and believe it.

Some may just be trying to explain away supernatural events.

 

No, this is not true. It is challenged because of textual evidence. There is no reason to associate those that question the authenticity of the passage with those who question what it teaches, just as one shouldn't say that those who think "the Holy Spirit" shouldn't be in Acts 4:25 are people who don't want to believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the OT authors.

 

Here is what I just typed for a similar thread regarding Mark 16:9-20:

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.
NIV Study Notes.

 

15  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
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.

These signs existed for that time so others would believe. Today we no longer need a sign because that which is perfect has come and that my friend is the Bible. People today take a piece of scripture and never bother to study the context of it. I dare anyone to let the most venomous snake bite them, not go to the doctor and lets see how long they last.

Back then God used signs to help those there to believe. Today He uses the Bible. Believe it or not.

 

What in the context indicates this promise was only temporary?

Where in scripture is this idea taught? Or instead, is it just a rationalization to explain why you don't want to try to be bitten by a snake?

 

Textual criticism is not a theological issue, but the employment of a quasi-scientific method (I say quasi, because they do make exceptions when the context shows this to be appropriate. Seeing what is "appropriate" comes with great familiarity with the method and the Greek text. This is something I don't possess, and few do.)

 

Why quibble over whether they belong to the Gospel of Mark or not? One thing is certain, their qualification as Scripture is easily seen.

 

Why quibble over whether they belong to the Gospel of Mark or not? One thing is certain, their qualification as Scripture is easily seen.</font>[/QUOTE]How?

 

God will no longer perform sign miracles because we have the Bible?
If that is true, is He no longer going to miraculously return as promised because we have the completed Word of God? Are we to quit praying for the sick, knowing that God will not heal them publicly having become shy since He completed His Word?

The Bible nowhere explicitly states the hyper-dispensationalist view that signs cease when the Word is complete. If the Bible taught this view, it would also teach us the standard by which to apply it.

I will not pick up a scarry snake for these reasons: Jesus was not speaking to me. I am not an apostle. I was not on that hill. I cannot go to Jerusalem first Judea next, since neither is anywhere close. & I am afraid of snakes.

jh

 

What in the context indicates this promise was only temporary?

1 Corinthians 13:10  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Where in scripture is this idea taught? Or instead, is it just a rationalization to explain why you don't want to try to be bitten by a snake? </font>[/QUOTE]Signs where for those that did not believe.
1 Corinthians 14:22  Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

and I don't want to be bitten.

 

Huh? He will return for those that are saved.

Again, huh? Never stop praying. If God wants to heal publicly He will, but not the way Benny Hinn says he does.

Then explain 1 Corinthians 13:10.

 

I'm not JonHenry, but that verse seems to discuss the return of Jesus, not the completion of the canon of scripture as so many dispensationalists claim.

 

How?

The witness of the Holy Spirit. Scholarship cannot discern which writings are inspired or not. For every test of canonicity, there is at least one portion of Scripture that is an exception.

Truly the only true criterion is the witness of the Holy Spirit.

 

I'm not JonHenry, but that verse seems to discuss the return of Jesus, not the completion of the canon of scripture as so many dispensationalists claim.</font>[/QUOTE]Well, I don't know who Jon Henry is nor what a dispensationalists is. I do believe that this verse deals with the perfecting of the Bible.

In verse 8 it talks about things ceasing, why, because that which is perfect has come. No need for signs and wonders because we have God's complete revelation.

I guess I will have to lookup the things I don't know.

 

Oops!, I just figured out who Jon Henry is.

Sorry JonHenry.

 

He may not, but the Holy Spirit who inspired him to write these things did.

I agree that He never changes. But, things progress.

Nor did he say that it was Jesus. I believe in a perfect Bible and you obviously don't, so therefore we will always bump heads

Your right, the translators were human and not perfect, but when the Holy Spirit inspired them just like He did Paul, God gave us His perfect Word. Where else would you know about faith in Jesus.

Well, I ask you what makes more since. Believing in a God that is perfect in everything he does, or believing in a God that can create the Heavens and Earth, part the Red Sea, heal the sick, raise the dead, but, for some reason, He can't keep a couple of pages together?

 

Ultra-dispensationalism can be hard to understand. I wrote the following annecdote to help illustrate the meaning of I Cor. 13:10 as some people see it:

An evangelist (let's call him Ted) is in Antioch, healing the sick etc. He finishes healing someone with gout and begins healing a leper. Meanwhile, the apostle John on Patmos writes the final "Amen" and ends the Book of Revelation. The evangelist (Ted) tries in vain to heal the leper. "Oops," he says, "Sorry. Someone must have just completed the canon of Scripture. You can no longer be healed by a sign gift. However, I will send you a Bible and we will pray for you in our midweek service."

Of course, the leper does not understand a word Ted is saying, since Ted also lost his ability to converse in the man's foreign tongue.

Then Ted, walking away, is bitten by a viper and dies.

 

1 Cor 13:10 is not in the context of then end of Mark 16. And it doesn't mention anything about snakes.