Is all of Mark inspired by God?

[atpollard]

The ending as found in the KJV especially the last few verses are seen by some to support Pentecostals

Paul's letters sufficiently support Pentecostals (actually "continuationism" vs "cessationism") to render last few verses in Mark unnecessary for the task.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I find it more interesting that the question is moot.
While there are verses in the "questionable" portion of Mark that are convenient for their clarity, there is nothing in the passages in question that are essential to any doctrine. It adds no information that is not also found elsewhere.

I agree. The same goes for 1 John 5:7-8 and a few others

 

[Yeshua1]

I see. So God cannot actually heal? Is there no gift of tongues? These days, I feel like the media is a snake biting people, and that we need God to heal us from that. But I don't think I could rule out some people having faith to be healed even from an actual poison snake bite. Now if they were foolish and purposely allowed themselves to get bitten, that is another matter.

God can still heal and do miracles, but none gifted by Him to do such today!

 

[Yeshua1]

Why don't you do your OWN research rather than keep on quoting Wallace???

Maybe because Dr Wallace is a world renowned and reputable textual critic?

 

[dad2]

God can still heal and do miracles, but none gifted by Him to do such today!

No? So no healing gift exists then today. Interesting. The bible does say to put oil on folks so they may be healed. Is that outdated? The bible says pray for one another, and that whatever we pray for will be heard and answered. Can you show us where that means 'except' healing?

 

[Yeshua1]

No one including your Net Bible can disprove Burgon. Period

There are several experts that disagree!

 

[Yeshua1]

No? So no healing gift exists then today. Interesting. The bible does say to put oil on folks so they may be healed. Is that outdated? The bible says pray for one another, and that whatever we pray for will be heard and answered. Can you show us where that means 'except' healing?

Healing not always the will of God, as there are many times that His will is not to heal, as he trains and instructs us in our affinities!

 

[dad2]

Healing not always the will of God, as there are many times that His will is not to heal, as he trains and instructs us in our affinities!

I know. That does not mean it never is.

 

[Yeshua1]

No! You challenge it as inspired!

Not at all, just that the last portion might not have been!

 

[dad2]

Not at all, just that the last portion might not have been!

So God made a mistake?

 

[Yeshua1]

I know. That does not mean it never is.

I agree, but physical healing is not in the atonement, as that awaits our resurrection state!

 

[Yeshua1]

So God made a mistake?

Not if He did not inspire it in the original!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Maybe because Dr Wallace is a world renowned and reputable textual critic?

he studied under the LIBERAL Bruce Metzger!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I agree. The same goes for 1 John 5:7-8 and a few others

show another verse in the Bible that is as clear as 1 John 5:7-8, that teaches the Holy Trinity? It was corrupted by enemies if this essential Doctrine.

 

[canadyjd]

….. The bible does say to put oil on folks so they may be healed. Is that outdated?…..

Well, yes. Oils were considered helpful medicine in that day. Some folks still use oil for medicine today, but most folks use modern medicine.

Prayers, in the other hand, are always helpful.

peace to you

 

[SavedByGrace]

I agree, but physical healing is not in the atonement, as that awaits our resurrection state!

By His stripes we are healed, includes the physical. remember that the Name Jesus also means HEALER!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Not if He did not inspire it in the original!

disprove John Burgon, IF you or anyone else can!

 

[SavedByGrace]

There are several experts that disagree!

yet no one has ever disproved what Burgon has written. The greater majority who reject this passage, like Metzger did, and Wallace does, is because they are ANTI KJV!

 

[Reynolds]

Not at all, just that the last portion might not have been!

All of it might not have been! All a fairy tale!
It's a slippery slope you headed down!!!!

 

[Reynolds]

Exactly. Yet John MacArthur generally does not do that. Yet he teaches this. I guess I will simply chalk it up to he is wrong again on something. (as he is with Calvinism/predestination etc) That being said I seem to agree with him on maybe 85 or 90% of things.

Has anyone shown he teaches this? His commentary leans toward he accepts it as inspired.