The End Part of the Gospel of Mark

I would preach or teach that Christ told the Apostles if they drank any deadly thing they would not die.

Although I find no record of them drinking poisonous substances, I also find no record of them dying from drinking poisonous substances.

So, Christ's Words were true!

 

If you find it dangerous, don't drink it. But it is in the Word of God.

 

Question is, are you willing to teach/preach such doctrine in your church?

Thanks. </font>[/QUOTE]Hi, Bro. Ruben.

Since I believe the long ending of Mark is Scripture, certainly I am willing to teach/preach it, and I have in the past. But of course it would be in connection with persecution, not as some Charismatic-type way to "prove" your faith. I'm an independent Baptist, after all.

Many American Christians need to come outside of their box and start thinking about the rest of the world when they interpret Scripture. (I do not say you don't do so, Bro. Ruben.) I can easily picture a case here in Japan in the future such as Richard Wurmbrandt's (who was not a Charismatic--and I finally got the spelling right ) where the poison passage would be a huge encouragement.

During WW2, the State Shintoist government of Japan fiercely persecuted Christians. I have two Japanese friends (one in Heaven now) whose parents were imprisoned for the cause of Christ. The Japanese did many evil things to their prisoners, both Japanese Christians and American prisoners of war. Unit 731 experimented with WMD's (gas, bacterial weapons) on American prisoners. http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/germwar/731rev.htm

As I stand in my pulpit in Japan and tell my people that someday they may suffer for the cause of Christ, the ending of Mark gives me material to say, "If it be His will to do so, God can physically protect you if you are persecuted."

 

I find that dangerous, Sir. </font>[/QUOTE]How could it possibly be dangerous to tell people that if they are forced to drink poison when being persecuted, God is perfectly able to protect them from harm, if it be His will?

 

Amen, John of Japan!

We serve a mighty God. To tell people He could not protect them through persecution would break their spirits.

God was able to deliver the three hebrew young men from the fiery furnace. He can do the same today. He is able to deliver still!!!

If He carries you to it, He will carry you through!

 

Amen, brother.

The truth is, I feel sure that as soon as politics forces the US military out of Japan (and the process has started), we missionaries will be kicked out and the Christians persecuted again. I try to prepare my people for that.

 

Preach faith in Christ unswervingly. Let them know of Daniel, the three Hebrew children, Paul (who was cast down, but not destroyed), and yes, even John (they tried to boil him in oil before exiling him to Patmos). All these great men had one thing in common. God was with them and as they looked to Him, He carried them through!

 

Amen, standingfirminChrist.

 

Hello again Bro. Ruben: We have four gospels, and I believe they represent four views. Let’s say these four view’s or from the North, East, South, and West. We don’t know from which Mark is standing, but for this discussion let’s use Mark viewing from the South. In every view the writers touche on the gospel in that dispensation. Therefore it would be unthinkable that Mark would ignore the “great commission”, for that is the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. That is if we believe Mark. Mark 1:1

Evidently no one knows for sure why Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus manuscripts do not agree with all other manuscripts. For whatever reason the “great commission” is left out, and it has certainly but doubt into minds of some, and gives those lacking understanding more “blanks” to feed and confuse those that have doubts about the Bible. It is difficult to believe the Catholic church would delete this information for this is what they believe. This is what they teach, and many believe. The believe they are that Pentecostal church preaching the gospel that Peter did preach, and that is what is included in that which is missing from Mark.

The wording and style certainly sounds like Mark, so I can see no problem of believing what I believe (from what I have read) to be the best Codex, and that is Textus Receptus, the Majority Text. From all the bits and pieces of manuscripts some as far back as the 2nd century (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus 4th century) TR has the greatest percentage (believe it is 90%) agreement of all known manuscripts.

Surely there is no way John Mark would have left out what he had to believe, to be saved as a Jew.

Christian faith, ituttut

 

As far as the discussion as to whether it is, isn’t, or should be preached in church, I believe it should, regardless of which denomination it may be. We cannot pick and choose, but all churches avoid those verses that do not agree with what they preach.

Those that say they believe in the “great mission”, but do not, will not preach or have this in their Sunday school quarterlies, and will try to kept it out of studies of the Bible. If they don’ believe they have to be water baptized to be saved, how can they defend their position of believing in the “great commission”?

Christian faith, ituttut

 

ituttut, you say some good things here.

Concerning Vaticanus, in his book The Last 12 Verses of Mark, John Burgon has a photographic copy of the page in question. While Vaticanus leaves out all of the endings of Mark, it has a very clear space for what looks like the long ending before it begins Luke.

Thus, Vaticanus is a silent witness to the existence of an ending to Mark. As you say, no one knows why the ending was left out by the copiest. But he had to be looking at a copy of Mark that had it, or a manuscript of Mark that had the end torn off, or something! And maybe Origen himself told him, "Aw, I don't like that passage. It makes me want to go out and evangelize!" (There, aren't I Origen-al? )

 

Not believing in co-incidences but
in God-incidences, my paster preached on this
passage last night. He says that maybe
chapter 16 of Mark isn't in the oldest copes
of the Bible. It sure is in some of the
oldest letters. It sure is in most of the
Bibles today. Therefore it is in the Bible.

Of course, I'm the one who assumes
that each faithful translation contains
the preserved, inerrant written Word of
God: the Holy Bible. If we find what seems
like a part that contridicts another part,
it AIN'T GOD'S FAULT, but ours.

 

Mark 16:17a,18b (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ):
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe:
... 18. ... if they should drink anything deadly, it
will never harm them; ...

Here seems to be the discussion.
Does that mean A or B?

A. 17 And these signs will accompany EACH OF THOSE
those who believe:
... 18. ... if b]EACH OF[/b] they should drink anything deadly, it
will never harm them; ...

B. 17 And these signs will accompany ALL those who believe:
... 18. ... if SOME OF they should drink anything deadly, it
will never harm them; ...

I believe that B is more representative of the meaning than
is A. anyway, the conditional of 'if they should drink ...'
not every Christian will be those who drink deadly stuff unharmed.

As for checking this out, to see if you 'have faith' remember
"Thou Shalt Not Tempt Thy God".

BTW, my HCSB notes that some manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-19.
The HCSB includes the text. IMHO this is honest and
the proper thing to do.

Diggin in da Word: //Many of the modern versions omit the last several
verses of the 16th chapter of Mark.//

What is many? 2% maybe? 12%-34% maybe?
The inprecision of your statement negates it, making it
a waste of time to write it.

Please tell me two Modern Versions which omit Mark 16:9-19.
If you don't personally check them, quote the source where you
find the information (so they, not you will have the disrespect
when the statement is found false).

Frankly, I know of no Modern Version
which omits the end of Mark TOTALLY from their pages
(but have not checked all).
Of course, I'm the guy who likes to read the TRANSLATOR MARGIN
NOTES in the original edition KJV1611 edition. I believe
that the Translator Margin notes are the inspired/preserved
Written Word of God.

(Do not confuse my statement, as some (2-12%) do with any of
the following:

(Cross-reference - notes that show other similiar or related verses.

(Commentary - the comments of men showing what they think the scripture
means. This includes both sets of Schofield's notes).

 

Diggin in da Word: //They try to cover their tracks of removing
verses by saying ((The most reliable early manuscripts
and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))//

That is sure curious wording for TELLING THE TRUTH.
The most reliable of the early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20
written in them. Some early witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.
The majority of later manuscripts, copies of each other, have
Mark 16:9-20.

I beleive that God has preserved one of His Truths in this
matter OF THE MISSING VERSES.

Diggin in da word: //IMO, it is an attempt of satan trying to plant
doubt in the mind that Christ arose.
First these passages removed, tomorrow, more. //

But due to SOUL LIBERTY in Christ, others should consider
themselves free to assume that God can't lick the lead devil
nor can God perserve His Holy Written Word against the
Devil's wiles.

IMHO God has the lead devil on the run and God is beating
Satan with the HCSB, NIV, NASB, etc.

Meanwhile, while some slept:

1. In 1986 the number of Christians in North America was
surpassed by the number of Christians in Africa. If you haven't
had a native African missionary to America
come to your church, you might be a redneck

2. About 1947 Dennis Gabor of England
invented the Holograph. This is a method of recording 3-dimentional
color light. Strangely, you can take half a Holograph away, and
still see the picture recored in the remaining half.
My God is Big enough to create and preserve His Holy Written Word
on any PAGE of any Translation of the New Testament.

The doctrine of Soul Liberty says I must let others have a
teeny tinny God that is running scared of the lead devil
thinking if the Devil snatches ONE VERSE the whole universe
will come falling apart. So i let them be.

Meanwhile, my BIG GOD has His Holy WRITTEN WOrd stored
in over 400 different English texts alone
And any one of them BY ITSELF contains the whole of the
inerrant written Word of God: the Holy Bible.

\O/ You GO, GOD!!!!!!! \O/

\o/ Glory to the Lord! \o/

God's Holy Bible takes a lickin'
and keeps on tickin' !!


Mark 16:16 (who ever quoted it didn't tell which Bible
he got it from):

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,
but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

My preacher said the believing v. non believing
and the saved v. (not saved AKA condemned
repeats the important part. The less important part
about being baptized is NOT repeated.

Anyway, the truth of the logical proposition 'Whoever believes ... will
be saved' does not automatically prove it's opposite
'Whoever believes NOT will NOT be saved'.
However, this verse makes it clear that both the proposition and
it's opposite are true. I love this \o/ Praise Jesus \o/
It will help me prove my favorite doctrine: OSAS = once saved,
always saved

Matthew 24:13 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003):

But the one who endures to the end,
this one will be delivered.

This proposition, being right there in the Bible is true.
It's opposite is debated by the anti-OSAS folk and the OSAS people.

What is the truth of 'the one who endures NOT to the end,
this one will NOT be delivered'? This anti-proposition is NOT
true mearly because the proposition is true, the opposite proposition
must be proved on it's own merits.

As can be seen in Mark 16:16, in God's Holy Bible God tells
both sides of the coin, if both sides are true.

-----------------------------------
For those who think that a proposition and it's anti-proposition
must both be true given the proposition is true. All I have to
do is provide one example of a proposition which is true and
an anti-propostion which is false. Here it is:

PROPOSITION:
If a person stays out in the sun too long;
then they will suffer skin damage.

ANTI-PROPOSTION:
If a person DOES NOT stay out in the sun too long;
then their skin will NOT be damaged.

The proposition is true, the anti-proposition is flase.
Even as you read this, people are in tanning salons getting
their skin killed.

 

ituttut, you say some good things here.

Concerning Vaticanus, in his book The Last 12 Verses of Mark, John Burgon has a photographic copy of the page in question. While Vaticanus leaves out all of the endings of Mark, it has a very clear space for what looks like the long ending before it begins Luke.

Thus, Vaticanus is a silent witness to the existence of an ending to Mark. As you say, no one knows why the ending was left out by the copiest. But he had to be looking at a copy of Mark that had it, or a manuscript of Mark that had the end torn off, or something! And maybe Origen himself told him, "Aw, I don't like that passage. It makes me want to go out and evangelize!" (There, aren't I Origen-al? ) </font>[/QUOTE]I doubt its plagiarism.