Mark 16: 9-20 inspiration, God or man?

[eternally-gratefull]

It says they will, and they did and do. I don't understand how you think I am saying they might. They have, and will continue to do so. It is you that is forcing an interpretation on it to suggest that all believers must operate in each of those activities. No, it is saying that believers will do these things, and well, they do. There is no issue.

1. It say they will, it does say say they might, thats means all of them
2. If all of them did not (and they have not) then it should not say they will, it should say many will or some will, it does not. But yet this is what you think it says
3. Using basic math, you must think it says they might.

There is no argument that some have, the argument is what the passage says

 

[Nehemiah6]

I'll rephrase. how does one go about deciding if a particular piece of writing is the words of God through prophets, apostles, and evangelists.

The Lord Himself established the OT canon as (1) the Law of Moses, (2) the Prophets, and (3) the Psalms. Those 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh correspond to the 39 books in our non-Catholic Bibles. Then Peter -- by divine inspiration -- placed all of Paul's epistles on the same level (that's 51% of the NT). And several other books provide internal testimony to their inspiration. The early Christians were well aware of which books were inspired and which were not. And the Syriac Peshitta was translated and was in use by the 2nd century. It has all the books of the NT. The Muratori Canon (also 2nd century) provided a list of almost all the NT books in our Bible. In other words we can be confident that we have the canon of Scriptures.

As to individual passages, the traditional Hebrew text (the Masoretic) and the traditional Greek Text (Byzantine or Received Text) are well supported by the MAJORITY of extant manuscripts, including the Lectionaries of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the Patristic quotations of the Early Church Fathers. Burgon, Scrivener, and others personally collated many manuscripts to confirm this.

However, there are just a handful of corrupted manuscripts (including Aleph, A B C D) which differ from the majority in thousands of places. Those are the manuscripts which the rationalistic critics from the 18th century onwards began to promote as the true text, while falsely accusing the traditional texts of being corrupt. But all the Reformation Bibles (including the KJV and the Geneva Bible) are based on the traditional texts. Only the modern versions since 1881 are based on the corrupt critical texts.

 

[Dan_473]

The Lord Himself established the OT canon as (1) the Law of Moses, (2) the Prophets, and (3) the Psalms. Those 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh correspond to the 39 books in our non-Catholic Bibles. Then Peter -- by divine inspiration -- placed all of Paul's epistles on the same level (that's 51% of the NT). And several other books provide internal testimony to their inspiration. The early Christians were well aware of which books were inspired and which were not. And the Syriac Peshitta was translated and was in use by the 2nd century. It has all the books of the NT. The Muratori Canon (also 2nd century) provided a list of almost all the NT books in our Bible. In other words we can be confident that we have the canon of Scriptures.

As to individual passages, the traditional Hebrew text (the Masoretic) and the traditional Greek Text (Byzantine or Received Text) are well supported by the MAJORITY of extant manuscripts, including the Lectionaries of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the Patristic quotations of the Early Church Fathers. Burgon, Scrivener, and others personally collated many manuscripts to confirm this.

However, there are just a handful of corrupted manuscripts (including Aleph, A B C D) which differ from the majority in thousands of places. Those are the manuscripts which the rationalistic critics from the 18th century onwards began to promote as the true text, while falsely accusing the traditional texts of being corrupt. But all the Reformation Bibles (including the KJV and the Geneva Bible) are based on the traditional texts. Only the modern versions since 1881 are based on the corrupt critical texts.

Lots of great points in your post there! Let's start with the one about the muratorian fragment

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian-metzger.html

I believe it also includes the book of wisdom. Would that make it scripture?

 

[posthuman]

I stated what I believe and asked others for their thoughts. Why taint original thoughts and responses by stating my own? It’s called a discussion.

pretty sure what's actually called a discussion is when all parties state their opinions, evidences and whatever other input. when one party just makes declarations by fiat I think there may be another term more appropriate than 'discussion' to describe what's taking place...

 

[TheLearner]

You quote the verses and state that they are not inspired... But you then do not explain why they are not inspired.. Throwing out accusations while providing no evidence is not a good policy..

Put forward the reason why you claim that Mark 16 - 9-20 is uninspired...

The simplest reason would be they are not written by Mark. Myself, I would simply not develop teaching based on those verses alone without back up from other texts.

Besides if they are genuine in context they were written to the disciples, not to us.

 

[John146]

Well if we take the kjv as inspired we would just have partial truth,

So you take your partial truth, i will dig into the word using all resources and find the completed word.

What truth does the KJV leave out? It's the new updated, easy to read, user friendly, don't have to study, versions that have left out truth, tons of it.

 

[TheLearner]

What truth does the KJV leave out? It's the new updated, easy to read, user friendly, don't have to study, versions that have left out truth, tons of it.

Was there ever a KJV that was in error?

 

[John146]

Was there ever a KJV that was in error?

The KJV? Nope. All so called errors can be reconciled to those seeking truth.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

What truth does the KJV leave out? It's the new updated, easy to read, user friendly, don't have to study, versions that have left out truth, tons of it.

Well lets use jesus conversation with peter

Where he asked peter if he loved him 3 times, and peter responded 3 times yes, and got mad on the last one.

The kjv is flawed (as are all other english bibles) because it only had one word (love) to interpret 2 different greek words (phileo or brotherly love and agape or unconditional love) son one can only get part of the truth of what was said there.

Of course you do not think it is a problem, you never do, but to those of us who finally found this, wow what a loving God we have, that even thoug Peter could not confess he agape loved Jesus. Jesus still told him to go lead his church.

How about baptize? A transliteration not translation of a greek verb, which has caused so many problems with different beliefs concerning what baptism means in romans 6, col 2 and many other areas that could have been prevented by just tranlating the word to begin with.

Then again, i do not expedt you to see these things, i say them for others, so they will not fall for the trap that you are i , and i was freed from about kjv onlyism.

 

[John146]

Well lets use jesus conversation with peter

Where he asked peter if he loved him 3 times, and peter responded 3 times yes, and got mad on the last one.

The kjv is flawed (as are all other english bibles) because it only had one word (love) to interpret 2 different greek words (phileo or brotherly love and agape or unconditional love) son one can only get part of the truth of what was said there.

Of course you do not think it is a problem, you never do, but to those of us who finally found this, wow what a loving God we have, that even thoug Peter could not confess he agape loved Jesus. Jesus still told him to go lead his church.

How about baptize? A transliteration not translation of a greek verb, which has caused so many problems with different beliefs concerning what baptism means in romans 6, col 2 and many other areas that could have been prevented by just tranlating the word to begin with.

Then again, i do not expedt you to see these things, i say them for others, so they will not fall for the trap that you are i , and i was freed from about kjv onlyism.

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

I'm not following you. What's missing? Are you talking about the ole Greek game? We do not need different levels of love.

Let me ask you...Why did Peter get made the third time?

 

[John146]

Well lets use jesus conversation with peter

Where he asked peter if he loved him 3 times, and peter responded 3 times yes, and got mad on the last one.

The kjv is flawed (as are all other english bibles) because it only had one word (love) to interpret 2 different greek words (phileo or brotherly love and agape or unconditional love) son one can only get part of the truth of what was said there.

Agape is unconditional love? Let's go to the Scriptures and see how it's used in the following:

John 3:16 "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son..." The verb used here is form of 'agape', so you say it always means an unconditional love. OK, but what do you do with these verses using the same verb?

John 3:19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men LOVED darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Agape

John 12:42-43 "they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they LOVED the praise of men more than the praise of God." Agape

Luke 6:32 "for sinners LOVE those that LOVE them." Agape

2 Timothy 4:10 "For Demas hath forsaken me, having LOVED this present world..." Agape

2 Peter 2:15 "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam to son of Bosor, who LOVED the wages of unrighteousness." Agape

1 John 2:15 "If any man LOVE the world, the love of the Father is not in him." Agape

It should be abundantly clear that anyone who insists the word 'agape' means an unconditional, God-type love has no idea what he is talking about.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I'm not following you. What's missing? Are you talking about the ole Greek game? We do not need different levels of love.

See you ignore any truth and write it off as nothing

The greek text was inspired, and God, who inspired it, thought it was so important, that he had John write it as spoken, with 2 forms of love, so your saying what god inspired is wrong and not needed. Way to go,

Truth is, if we did not need different levels of love, the. Jesus would have used the same word, he did not, so he must have had a reason, whether you think so or not does not matter.

Let me ask you...Why did Peter get made the third time?

The first two times Jesus asked peter if he agape him, peter responded by saying he phileo him.

The last time, he lowered the level of love and asked if he phileo him,

If you can not figure out how this would draw reaction from a guilt ridden proud person, then i cant help you

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Agape is unconditional love? Let's go to the Scriptures and see how it's used in the following:

John 3:16 "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son..." The verb used here is form of 'agape', so you say it always means an unconditional love. OK, but what do you do with these verses using the same verb?

John 3:19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men LOVED darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Agape

John 12:42-43 "they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they LOVED the praise of men more than the praise of God." Agape

Luke 6:32 "for sinners LOVE those that LOVE them." Agape

2 Timothy 4:10 "For Demas hath forsaken me, having LOVED this present world..." Agape

2 Peter 2:15 "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam to son of Bosor, who LOVED the wages of unrighteousness." Agape

1 John 2:15 "If any man LOVE the world, the love of the Father is not in him." Agape

It should be abundantly clear that anyone who insists the word 'agape' means an unconditional, God-type love has no idea what he is talking about.

What is abundantly clear is you are so desperate to make yourself right, you cant see the obvious

All of those examples whow that the people loved the things they loved unconditionally and above all things(like god or the love of a spouse)

As usual in an attempt to defend yourself you made yourself look bad.

 

[garee]

Are these dead in torment as in hell? Or just resting like the RCC would like you to believe?

Hell is reconciled as a living work of suffering in the flesh .

Jonah 2 King James Version (KJV)Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish's belly,And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

When a unbeliever dies His corrupted flesh and blood returns to the lifeless spiritless dust it was formed from , And the corrupted spirit returns to the father who gave it temporally. They will never rise to new spirit life forever and ever.

Genesis 3:19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.


Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

 

[John146]

The first two times Jesus asked peter if he agape him, peter responded by saying he phileo him.

The last time, he lowered the level of love and asked if he phileo him,

If you can not figure out how this would draw reaction from a guilt ridden proud person, then i cant help you

So why does the Scripture state, He saith unto him the third time? Do you see? A third time asking the SAME thing. The Lord does not differentiate between the two, neither should we.

 

[John146]

As usual in an attempt to defend yourself you made yourself look bad.

Thank you brother. At least your "softening" the remarks.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

So why does the Scripture state, He saith unto him the third time? Do you see? A third time asking the SAME thing. The Lord does not differentiate between the two, neither should we.

So the origional text is in error
Ok john i guess according to you the kjv is greater than any of the origionals

You scream about inspiration, yet when inspiration proves you wrong, you go with the translation of the inspiration, making it greater than the inspiration.

You just destroyed your own case, thank you, you just assured anyone who reads our conversation will not fall for your idol worship.

 

[John146]

So the origional text is in error
Ok john i guess according to you the kjv is greater than any of the origionals

You scream about inspiration, yet when inspiration proves you wrong, you go with the translation of the inspiration, making it greater than the inspiration.

You just destroyed your own case, thank you, you just assured anyone who reads our conversation will not fall for your idol worship.

Not saying anything about the "original text." Just saying the Lord does not differentiate between the two and neither should we. One love.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Not saying anything about the "original text." Just saying the Lord does not differentiate between the two and neither should we. One love.

And your wrong

Because the Lord used two words, which any greek speaking in the time those words were spoken had completely different meaning
He had a reason, thats good enough, but i guess for you, it does not matter.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I believe it also includes the book of wisdom. Would that make it scripture?

The Muratori Canon simply establishes that there was a list of NT canonical books by the 2nd century, not that all were included, or that some were included which should not be. The 2nd century Syriac Peshitta however, has all the NT books which we have.