The case for Mark 16:16.

[37818]

Mark 16:16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Teaches two things.
That believer's water baptism can precede salvation. But does not teach that the believer's.water baptism is necessary in order to be saved. But the believing the gospel is, from verse 15. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel.

Paul explained in 1 Corinthians 1:17, For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: . . . Showing the baptism was not the requirement for salvation.

The over all importance is belief in the gospel is essential to precede one's regeneration, being in one's salvation.

 

[kyredneck]

Teaches two things.

<sigh>

It teaches the dull-witted nothing.

"I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

 

[Rye]

That believer's water baptism can precede salvation.

Where did you get that from the text?

He that believeth (first and foremost) and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Believing always precedes water baptism.

 

[37818]

Believing always precedes water baptism.

.
Yes. Also precedes prayer to be saved too. Romans 10:13-14, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?

The prayer is not the requirement. But a true promise. As is Mark 16:16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; . . .

 

[JD731]

Mark 16:16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Teaches two things.
That believer's water baptism can precede salvation. But does not teach that the believer's.water baptism is necessary in order to be saved. But the believing the gospel is, from verse 15. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel.

Paul explained in 1 Corinthians 1:17, For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: . . . Showing the baptism was not the requirement for salvation.

The over all importance is belief in the gospel is essential to precede one's regeneration, being in one's salvation.

Actually, the command means exactly what it says to whom it says it and about whom it is said and the proof is the fact that these to whom it is said followed these directions to a T. So, my advice is to define the word "creature" and to consider if it is the operative word in the text.

Paul, an apostle, would say this later about the creature to a church of the province of Asia..

Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye (Colossians) have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Is Paul saying the apostolic mission is accomplished concerning the creature in 60 AD when this letter is written? Every creature under heaven seems to leave no creature out, no?

It makes me ask the questions, how much of the Bible are we willing to believe and how much effort are we willing to exert for the right answers?

 

[Silverhair]

.
Yes. Also precedes prayer to be saved too. Romans 10:13-14, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?

The prayer is not the requirement. But a true promise. As is Mark 16:16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; . . .

Are you suggesting that baptism is a requirement for salvation?

 

[Rye]

As is Mark 16:16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

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.

 

[37818]

Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye (Colossians) have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Is Paul saying the apostolic mission is accomplished concerning the creature in 60 AD when this letter is written? Every creature under heaven seems to leave no creature out, no?

Re: Mark 16:15, And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

A case can be made, Paul cites from the long ending of Mark in Colossians 1:23.

 

[37818]

Are you suggesting that baptism is a requirement for salvation?

Not at all.

You seem not to understand what I had explained.

 

[Silverhair]

Not at all.

You seem not to understand what I had explained.

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

 

[Silverhair]

Re: Mark 16:15, And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

A case can be made, Paul cites from the long ending of Mark in Colossians 1:23.

That is quite a stretch you are making there 37.

What we do know is that Paul used similar phrasing to that found in Col_1:23 ...which was preached to every creature under heaven, ...in other letters.
1Co_1:21 ...it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
1Co_9:27 ...when I have preached to others, ...
1Co_15:1 ... I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, ...
1Co_15:2 ...if you hold fast that word which I preached to you; ...
Gal_1:8 ... preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, ....
1Th_2:9 ... we preached to you the gospel of God.

What case are you making for the long ending of Mark? The textural evidence does not support the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20.

 

[JD731]

Re: Mark 16:15, And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

A case can be made, Paul cites from the long ending of Mark in Colossians 1:23.

Some mistakenly say the last 12 verses of Mark is not supposed to be here. Why would they say such a thing?

I have 2 points to make about this chapter.

First;

There are three distinct occurrences of Jesus in this chapter given where he was seen on the day he was resurrected.


ONE
Mr 1:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

TWO
Mr 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
Lu 24:29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,

THREE
Joh 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

From Mark 16:9 to Mark 16:18, he was recording the meeting #3 in Jerusalem with the apostles and others in the evening. This whole day is very detailed if one will be careful about their study of it. Jesus was 40 days between his resurrection and his ascension and he spoke of things to his men concerning the kingdom of God during those days. Each of the three, John, Luke, and Mark recorded different things about this meeting. Matthew did not mention this meeting but did speak about the meeting with the disciples when the commission was given in Galilee to teach and preach to the nations 8 days later.

Second

Next post.

 

[JD731]

Second

If God, who cannot lie, gives a condition as clear and forthright as that recorded in Mark 16 and demonstrated by the actions of the apostles and stated again by the leader of the apostles, Peter, in Acts 2:38, why would we ever doubt the legitimacy of it. Rather, we should attempt to understand the theology behind it because when properly understood it is completely logical.

 

[37818]

Second

If God, who cannot lie, gives a condition as clear and forthright as that recorded in Mark 16 and demonstrated by the actions of the apostles and stated again by the leader of the apostles, Peter, in Acts 2:38, why would we ever doubt the legitimacy of it. Rather, we should attempt to understand the theology behind it because when properly understood it is completely logical.

What are you arguing? [Mark 16:16 with Acts of the Apostles 2:38?]
It is explicitly my understanding that believer's baptism is never a requirement in any way in order to be saved.

 

[Silverhair]

Second

If God, who cannot lie, gives a condition as clear and forthright as that recorded in Mark 16 and demonstrated by the actions of the apostles and stated again by the leader of the apostles, Peter, in Acts 2:38, why would we ever doubt the legitimacy of it. Rather, we should attempt to understand the theology behind it because when properly understood it is completely logical.

These verses are in dispute as to whether they are God breathed.
Here are two articles
1 Pro

A Case for the Longer Ending of Mark by James Snapp

An argument for Mark 16:9–20 as the original, canonical ending, written by Mark but added by his colleagues. James Snapp, Jr. writes on why he thinks Mark 16:9–20 belongs in the Bible.

textandcanon.org

& 1 Con

A Case against the Longer Ending of Mark by Peter Head

An argument that Mark 16:9–20 is not original and so not inspired Scripture Peter Head considers the evidence against the Longer Ending and concludes by reflecting on how we should treat it today.

textandcanon.org

As for me, either answer is okay with me I really am honestly genuinely okay with concluding that Mark16:9-20 belongs in the bible or that it doesn't. My faith and my beliefs are not impacted in any significant way by this.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Back to the well-meaning, but confusing addition to the ending of Mark (added after v 8). My thoughts

Mark stopped writing his gospel account given by Peter in 16:8. We have no clue as to "why". Some suggest death of Peter or in persecution in Rime. Others then tried to "finish" his narrative since it seems so "abrupt" and not as detailed as Matthew or Luke, hence later copies of copies of copies have anywhere from one to a dozen verses of "extra" material, NOT given by inspiration of God but of fresh memories of early Christians.

When the “transmission” of Mark's account began to share it with churches around the Empire, there was a great controversy over these pious "additions" that were not in the original. Earliest copies EXCLUDE these additions or sometimes left a blank space after Mark 16:8 (unsure about the long ending). Some compiled the number of variant endings to appear as if it was a part of the original. Hence the confusion.

I opt toward the original ending in v. 8. Language, grammar, vocabulary of the pious attempts to conclude it that came CENTURIES later are not like all the rest of Mark's account, and I simply do not see them as inspired.

 

[JD731]

What are you arguing? [Mark 16:16 with Acts of the Apostles 2:38?]
It is explicitly my understanding that believer's baptism is never a requirement in any way in order to be saved.

I am arguing that Mark recorded exactly what Jesus said and meant. Instead of taking words out of the mouth of Jesus, why not try to understand why he said it?

Fifty days after Mark wrote that Jesus said this, Peter said the same thing to Israel at the feast of Weeks. I will first quote the question in response to his sermon and then his answer.

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
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.

Those who are afar off are those scattered abroad.

Why would you read Mark 16 and then read Peter in Acts 2 and conclude a difference? You do understand that receiving the Holy Ghost is the definition of salvation, no?

There is a reason for this.

 

[JD731]

These verses are in dispute as to whether they are God breathed.
Here are two articles
1 Pro

A Case for the Longer Ending of Mark by James Snapp

An argument for Mark 16:9–20 as the original, canonical ending, written by Mark but added by his colleagues. James Snapp, Jr. writes on why he thinks Mark 16:9–20 belongs in the Bible.

textandcanon.org

& 1 Con

A Case against the Longer Ending of Mark by Peter Head

An argument that Mark 16:9–20 is not original and so not inspired Scripture Peter Head considers the evidence against the Longer Ending and concludes by reflecting on how we should treat it today.

textandcanon.org

As for me, either answer is okay with me I really am honestly genuinely okay with concluding that Mark16:9-20 belongs in the bible or that it doesn't. My faith and my beliefs are not impacted in any significant way by this.

Without the testimony of Mark of the events of that meeting there would be more confusion than now with no way to resolve it. Peter did what Jesus said to do. When God changed things, so did Peter. Read the last verses in Acts 10 and compare every thing before that to see what I mean.

 

[JD731]

Back to the well-meaning, but confusing addition to the ending of Mark (added after v 8). My thoughts

Mark stopped writing his gospel account given by Peter in 16:8. We have no clue as to "why". Some suggest death of Peter or in persecution in Rime. Others then tried to "finish" his narrative since it seems so "abrupt" and not as detailed as Matthew or Luke, hence later copies of copies of copies have anywhere from one to a dozen verses of "extra" material, NOT given by inspiration of God but of fresh memories of early Christians.

When the “transmission” of Mark's account began to share it with churches around the Empire, there was a great controversy over these pious "additions" that were not in the original. Earliest copies EXCLUDE these additions or sometimes left a blank space after Mark 16:8 (unsure about the long ending). Some compiled the number of variant endings to appear as if it was a part of the original. Hence the confusion.

I opt toward the original ending in v. 8. Language, grammar, vocabulary of the pious attempts to conclude it that came CENTURIES later are not like all the rest of Mark's account, and I simply do not see them as inspired.

You would be dead wrong, Doc.

 

[37818]

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.