The case for Mark 16:16.

[JD731]

He that believeth not shall be damned. It does not say he that is baptized not shall be damned.

The emphasis is on believing. Anybody can get baptized but if they have a heart of unbelief then it means nothing.

If salvation is defined by receiving the Holy Ghost, or if you prefer, the Holy Spirit, that was sent from God from heaven upon Israel in Acts 2, to be received as his indwelling presence forever, then for someone who had already received Jesus Christ by faith in his person before the Spirit was given from God as his gift, they would not be damned. They have already been justified by faith. They would take part in a different resurrection. A justified person cannot be damned.

Jn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

That is all I will say about that now but those who have the capacity to think spiritual thoughts should not dismiss what I am saying out of hand.

 

[Silverhair]

Fact, only 3 codex mss omit Mark 16:9-20. The blank column in one ms which has room to allow for Mark 16:9-20 supports the notion Mark 16:9-20 is older than that codex. Also Colossians 1:23 for Mark 16:15. Also over 1700 codex have Mark 16:9-20.

A copy of an error is still an error no matter how many times it is copied. The question you have to answer is why Mar 16-9-20 was left out of the oldest mss. If it was part of the original then what reason would someone have to remove it.

 

[Rye]

If salvation is defined by receiving the Holy Ghost, or if you prefer, the Holy Spirit, that was sent from God from heaven upon Israel in Acts 2, to be received as his indwelling presence forever, then for someone who had already received Jesus Christ by faith in his person before the Spirit was given from God as his gift, they would not be damned. They have already been justified by faith. They would take part in a different resurrection. A justified person cannot be damned.

I have read through your earlier responses and I am not quite clear on what your position is. Unless I'm misunderstanding, it seems like what you're is saying that the Holy Spirit comes upon Jews and Gentiles differently, or that the message of baptism was for the Jews only. If that is not what you're saying, please correct me.

 

[Silverhair]

If salvation is defined by receiving the Holy Ghost, or if you prefer, the Holy Spirit, that was sent from God from heaven upon Israel in Acts 2, to be received as his indwelling presence forever, then for someone who had already received Jesus Christ by faith in his person before the Spirit was given from God as his gift, they would not be damned. They have already been justified by faith. They would take part in a different resurrection. A justified person cannot be damned.

Jn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

That is all I will say about that now but those who have the capacity to think spiritual thoughts should not dismiss what I am saying out of hand.

What different resurrection?

 

[JD731]

I have read through your earlier posts and I am not quite clear on what your position is. Unless I'm misunderstanding, it seems like what you're is saying that the Holy Spirit comes upon Jews and Gentiles differently, or that the message of baptism was for the Jews only. If that is not what you're saying, please correct me.

I have read through your earlier posts and I am not quite clear on what your position is. Unless I'm misunderstanding, it seems like what you're is saying that the Holy Spirit comes upon Jews and Gentiles differently, or that the message of baptism was for the Jews only. If that is not what you're saying, please correct me.

My emphasis in this thread has been a defense of the whole chapter of Mark as being correct and I have only mentioned the passages on Baptism in water in that context.

But let me just answer your question by posting what Peter said to Israel in Acts chapter 2 when the believers were Jews with what Peter said in Acts chapter 10 when the believers were gentiles. Take a look;

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
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.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
_______________________

Acts 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

It is plain dishonest of a person to compare these two passages, the first to the Jews in AD 30 and the second to gentiles in AD 40 and not recognize the difference in what he said to each of these people groups.

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

This is not a forever thing for the Jews.

Acts 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we (Jews) shall be saved, even as they (gentiles).

Being saved is receiving the Holy Spirit into the mortal body by faith in Christ.

 

[37818]

Also over 1700 codex have Mark 16:9-20.

A misstatement of fact. The number of codex of Greek copies of Mark are reported to be 1650 codex. Only 3 of them omit Mark 16:9-20.

 

[kyredneck]

It is explicitly my understanding that believer's baptism is never a requirement in any way in order to be saved.

<sigh>

For the Jews of 'that generation' water baptism was an act of repentance/profession of faith that 'saved' them from the 'wrath to come' upon 'that generation' [Matthew 3:10]. There indeed was a 'saving' in water baptism. The only way for those Jews of 'that generation' to be delivered [saved] from the wrath to come and avoid bringing the curses/plagues of Lev 26/Dt 28 upon themselves and their progeny was to repent and profess Christ as LORD, and water baptism was an integral part of that profession.

10​	And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mt 3

 

[Silverhair]

A misstatement of fact. The number of codex of Greek copies of Mark are reported to be 1650 codex. Only 3 of them omit Mark 16:9-20.

So you are going to hang your hat on the number of errant copies rather than the oldest copies that do not have the longer ending. An error is still an error no matter how many times you copy it.

The evidence is strongly against its inclusion in the text (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at Mar_16:8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to Mar_16:9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at Mar_16:8.) NET+

The two earliest parchment codies, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus, plus 2 minuscules and several versions and manuscripts, do not contain verses 9-20. Two important early Christian writers testify that these verses are not found in Mark: Eusebius (Quaestiones ad Marinum I) says that they are not in "accurate" copies of Mark and are missing from "almost all" manuscripts; Jerome (Epistle CXX.3, ad Hedibiam) testifies that almost all Greek manuscripts of his time lack vss. 9-20.
Many manuscripts that do have these verses "have scholars stating that older Greek copies lack them," and other textual witnesses add "conventional signs used by scribes to mark off a spurious addition to a literary text." There are also several variant endings of Mark in circulation. Our vss. 9-20 are the most common, but there is also a "short" ending, and seven Greek manuscripts with both the long and short ending.

 

[kyredneck]

Being saved....

Focus on the word save [sozo], it's intent is not always in the eternal sense.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"
"Save yourselves from this crooked generation."
"few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, [even] baptism"

Original Word: σώζω
Transliteration: sṓzō
Phonetic Spelling: sode'-zo
[σώζω] from a primary σῶς (contraction for obsolete σάος, "safe"); to save, i.e. deliver or protect (literally or figuratively)

 

[37818]

Just wanted clarification. Have seen many try to use it for that reason.

But [Mark 16:16] does not teach that the believer's.water baptism is necessary in order to be saved.

. . . but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

[37818]

So you are going to hang your hat on the number of errant copies rather than the oldest copies that do not have the longer ending. An error is still an error no matter how many times you copy it.

I believe it is a valid evidence. But not a sole evidence.

God has promised in Proverbs 30:5-6, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Fact, only 3 codex mss omit Mark 16:9-20. The blank column in one ms which has room to allow for Mark 16:9-20 supports the notion Mark 16:9-20 is older than that codex. Also Colossians 1:23 for Mark 16:15. Also over 1700 codex have Mark 16:9-20.

3 oldest, closest to original. And remember, the weight of copies of copies of copies by the Eastern Orthodox Byzantines are going to be numerous since the used the Greek. The "number" of copies means nothing. The "age" means everything. That is how modern scholarship deals with Shakespeare, too. A thousand "copies" is not worthy to pass judgment. Find the old ones BEFORE all the later copies.

 

[37818]

3 oldest, closest to original. And remember, the weight of copies of copies of copies by the Eastern Orthodox Byzantines are going to be numerous since the used the Greek. The "number" of copies means nothing. The "age" means everything. That is how modern scholarship deals with Shakespeare, too. A thousand "copies" is not worthy to pass judgment. Find the old ones BEFORE all the later copies.

Codex Vanticanus supports the notion that Mark 16:9-20 is older than it's omission by it's unusual blank column which has been demonstrated it can allow it's insertion.

Proverbs 30:5-6, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

 

[Rye]

Here are my two cents.

Looking at all of the evidence, I would tend to doubt the authenticity of the longer ending of Mark. While it does attest to appear as early as the second century, there are many variations that come up that seem to indicate that the conclusion of the story was not apostolic.

Some early manuscripts contain an either longer or shorter version of the story than what we have in the Alexandrian text type. To me, this is the biggest reason why I don't believe it is original, because if it was, there would be no reason for the differing lengths.

The Greek vocabulary and syntax of the longer ending is very different from the rest of the Gospel of Mark. Not to mention, it seems odd to all of a sudden bring up things like picking up snakes and drinking poison.

Some suggest that there did exist early manuscripts and the last page fell off and was lost in the transmission process. However, I think it is more likely that an ending was forced into the text because some might think it would be awkward to leaves things off with the women afraid. I believe that it was likely cobbled together from extra-canonical Gospels or oral teachings.

Does this affect doctrine in any way? Of course not. In fact, some speculate that the reason it is supposed to end after verse 8 is so that the Christian reading it in the early church would have room to conclude the story with their own testimony of their encounter with Christ.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Codex Vanticanus supports the notion that Mark 16:9-20 is older than it's omission by it's unusual blank column which has been demonstrated it can allow it's insertion.

If you read an honest report, they will say that the KJVonly/MT superiority sect is not accurate in saying you could "fit in these added verses in the blank space". They tried. You have to change the size of letters from every other verse in Mark into much smaller size before it will "fit".

 

[37818]

If you read an honest report, they will say that the KJVonly/MT superiority sect is not accurate in saying you could "fit in these added verses in the blank space". They tried. You have to change the size of letters from every other verse in Mark into much smaller size before it will "fit".

I have seen it done. And to me, KJV onlyism is not tenable.

Codex Vaticanus and the Ending of Mark

www.thetextofthegospels.com

 

[Dr. Bob]

Witten by Casey Perkins

The debate over whether the scribe of Vaticanus was aware of the longer ending appears to me to be an absurd one. If one reads the early Fathers, it quickly becomes apparent there was rapid and widespread sharing of Christian writings, even before the time of Constantine. For instance, Irenaeus was acquainted with the writings of Justin within a couple of decades of them being written, and Tertullian and Hippolytus were acquainted with those of Justin and Irenaeus in short order as well. Many of those who wrote show knowledge of those who came before them. Yet we are to imagine that non-canonical writings circulated widely and quickly - even some referencing the 12 verses, such as Irenaeus' Against Heresies - but NT manuscripts containing the end of Mark somehow did not make come to the awareness of scribes in Alexandria (or possibly Caesarea) after well over one hundred years? Eusebius, a contemporary of the scribes of B, and who also lived in the city where B possibly was copied, was certainly aware of them, even if he tended against accepting them. The Christian communities were not isolated from the rest of the world, and exchange between them was vigorous, even during the age of persecution.

 

[JD731]

What different resurrection?

Actually, the resurrection is about timing. There is only one resurrection unto life but it is one resurrection in three parts, stamping it with the trinitarian signature of God. All believers, no matter when they live and believe will be resurrected, but not without differences in body and function. God likens the resurrection as a harvest at the end of a season.
The OT believers were resurrected during the time Jesus was resurrected. We are told that by Matthew. Jesus is the firstfruits of the resurrection.

Matthew 27:52
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Then you have the resurrection of the church, the body of Christ when those believers are glorified.

After that is the resurrection of those believers who perished during the 7 years of the tribulation. Among these will be the justified believers who did not receive the Spirit after the resurrection of Jesus.

I know that for more than one reason but there is a powerful reason in Acts 19: 1-7. I am going to quote it but it is about believers, Jews, who did not have the Spirit of God BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT BEEN BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS. Acts 19 was in about 58/59 AD.

Acts 19:1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
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.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
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.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve.

Honesty will demand that one have Mark 16:15-16, and Acts 2:38, as well as having a general knowledge of the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ as recorded in the gospels to understand this passage.

These men were justified by faith in the gospel they were required by God to believe, the gospel of the kingdom, and in the person of Jesus the Messiah of Israel and had they never met an apostle who could teach them about Jesus dying and rising from the dead baptizing them and laying hands on them that they might receive the indwelling Spirit and put into the body of Christ, the feature of this age, then they would have been resurrected with those of Re 20.

Here is what Jews were required to believe during the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ in order to be justified.

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Not one single believer during the 3 1/2 years of the ministry of Jesus knew about or believed that Jesus would die and rise from the dead, especially his apostles and prophets, and all four of the gospel writers clearly says it. They did not even believe it after he rose from the dead. Thomas, an apostle is proof of this.

God had given 10 years for all those who had believed in him during his earthly ministry to receive his Spirit and he has especially equipped his apostles to ensure that only those will receive the Spirit. After that God opened the door of faith to gentiles and all gentiless received the Spirit upon their heartfelt faith in the resurrected Jesus.

There is more proof that this is true but I will give you this to ponder. There is a very good reason why God required baptism in water by Jewish believers in those early days.

The resurrection harvest
1 Firstfruit - Jesus and OT believers
2 Main harvest - the body of Christ formed in this age
3 Gleanings - Tribulation saints

No more death of believers.

 

[Conan]

Irenaeus in the 2nd century is the oldest testimony to Mark 16:9-20.

 

[Silverhair]

Irenaeus in the 2nd century is the oldest testimony to Mark 16:9-20.

In addition, it is not only the earliest Greek manuscripts which end at Mark 16:8. There is good evidence that the earliest form of the Gospel of Mark, as translated into Latin, Syriac, Sahidic Coptic, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Armenian, and Georgian, all consisted of the text of Mark ending at 16:8. This is further very significant confirmation of the testimony of Eusebius as to the state of the text of Mark in the manuscripts of the fourth century. Here is a brief listing of the relevant evidence.13

• The oldest Old Latin manuscript (VL 1 = Codex Bobiensis, from the fourth or fifth century) concludes at Mark 16:8 with a version of the Shorter Ending and lacks 16:9–20
• The oldest Syriac manuscript (the Sinaitic Syriac, from the fourth century) ends at 16:8
• The oldest Sahidic manuscript (sa 1 = P. Palau-Ribes Inv. Nr. 182, from the fifth century) ends at 16:8
• The earliest evidence we have for the Christian Palestinian Aramaic version of Mark (Codex Sinaiticus Rescriptus in St Petersburg, Syr. No. 16) ends at 16:8
• The oldest Armenian manuscripts (going back to the ninth century) end at 16:8
• The oldest Georgian manuscripts (translated from the Armenian) end at 16:8

In each of these language groups, later witnesses include the Longer Ending, but that does not detract from the force of this observation. The general direction of travel in the manuscript evidence as we have it for Greek, Sahidic, Latin, Syriac, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Armenian, and Georgian, moves from an original, shorter Mark towards incorporating a version of Mark with the Longer Ending.

In other words, the Greek manuscript evidence, and the evidence within these six linguistic areas, works in the opposite direction to that proposed by James Snapp (and others). In short, it is not evidence that an original long form of Mark was subsequently edited down, but is in fact evidence for the opposite: the earliest form of Mark known in these areas ended at Mark 16:8, and this was subsequently supplemented with one or more of the available additional endings.

A Case against the Longer Ending of Mark by Peter Head