Why have the Sign Gifts Ended
- Thread starter Guojing
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You have just started a different thread thought altogether. I will be more than happy to discuss it with ....however YOU are not going to like it.
1 Corinthians 13:8-9........
"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, what is in part disappears."
That is the actual words. TONGUES will CEASE.
KNOWLEDGE will pass away.
PROPHECIES will CEASE.
The only question is..........What is the PERFECT that when it comes all of those temporary things will end.
From what you have already posted to me, I am sure that you do not accept that the PERFECT is the Completed Word Of Word as written in the Bible.
Generally, there are three primary interpretations concerning the meaning of the phrase “that which is perfect is come” of 1 Corinthians 13:10:
(1) Some people believe that that is a reference to us dying and going to heaven,
(2) others believe that it refers to when Jesus returns to earth, and
(3) others believe that it refers to the completed Bible.
The only sound view—in light of context, in light of grammar, in light of Scripture—is that 1 Corinthians 13:10 is referring to the completed canon of Scripture of the first century A.D. Of course that means that there are no spiritual SIGN gifts operating today because we have the completed 66-book Holy Bible.
If we are to people of faith, we must throw away our doctrinally-deficient hymns, we must discard our faulty theological systems, and we must break away from our pre-conceived ideas. We are to embrace the simple truths of the English Bible. In the end, God’s Word—not theological systems, not Bible commentaries, not preachers or teachers—not what we ant to believe, but only the Bible alone will matter.
There you go.........enjoy!
1 Corinthians 13:8-9........
"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, what is in part disappears."
That is the actual words. TONGUES will CEASE.
KNOWLEDGE will pass away.
PROPHECIES will CEASE.
The only question is..........What is the PERFECT that when it comes all of those temporary things will end.
From what you have already posted to me, I am sure that you do not accept that the PERFECT is the Completed Word Of Word as written in the Bible.
Generally, there are three primary interpretations concerning the meaning of the phrase “that which is perfect is come” of 1 Corinthians 13:10:
(1) Some people believe that that is a reference to us dying and going to heaven,
(2) others believe that it refers to when Jesus returns to earth, and
(3) others believe that it refers to the completed Bible.
The only sound view—in light of context, in light of grammar, in light of Scripture—is that 1 Corinthians 13:10 is referring to the completed canon of Scripture of the first century A.D. Of course that means that there are no spiritual SIGN gifts operating today because we have the completed 66-book Holy Bible.
If we are to people of faith, we must throw away our doctrinally-deficient hymns, we must discard our faulty theological systems, and we must break away from our pre-conceived ideas. We are to embrace the simple truths of the English Bible. In the end, God’s Word—not theological systems, not Bible commentaries, not preachers or teachers—not what we ant to believe, but only the Bible alone will matter.
There you go.........enjoy!
This comes off as a rather judgmental, and a bit childish also. You should be mature enough not to impugn other people's character or motives if you make a point in a discussion and it shown to be wrong. If you think you are right even after being shown evidence to the contrary. If 'for ye are made partakers of Christ if ye hold fast the beginning of your confidence steadfast until the end' is not a statement that the Hebrews confidence would not endure then neither should, "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels" be taken as a statement that Paul did not, could not, or never would speak in the tongues of men and of angels.
I do not believe in the seminary system either. I think Gordon Conwell may actually be rather conservative, though, but I do not know the seminaries that well. Some seminaries do have Greek scholars, though, and you should consider the evidence presented.
Some are. Some aren't. Did you bother to research the seminary of the author or his individual beliefs before forming judgments? Also, couldn't a liberal or unbeliever know something about Greek that you do not?
Thayer's is a rather light and sort of cryptic resource in places. Greek scholars look at actual usage of the Greek language to determine these types of things. This is a more accurate and in-depth way of handling these issues than looking up a dictionary entry, which they also do. There is only so much Koine Greek available to look at, and scholars of the Greek language do look at Greek in the Classical period. If there are only so many examples from Koine, they would have to look before or after for examples. Extant Classical and Koine Greek manuscripts all fit on one CD-ROM if I recall correctly.
If you reject conclusions that take into account both Classical and Koine Greek, the burden of proof would be on you to prove that the third class conditional took on some features in Koine Greek that it did not have in the Classical period. Can you prove that? Can you prove that the author of Hebrews was trying to say that the Hebrews would lose their confidence? or that beginnings do not exist, or confidence does not exist, etc? If not, how can you argue from the use of the third class conditional in I Corinthians 13:1 that there are no tongues of angels. Your line of reasoning does not make sense. Me pointing that out does not mean that I care only for winning a debate on the forum or that I do not love the truth.
I am concerned when I see someone buffalo others with some supposed knowledge of the Greek language that turns out not to be true. I suspect you did so sincerely, but I would encourage you to be skeptical and careful about repeating such claims. It helps to look up several other examples to see if the pattern holds.
I read your comments and did not see how that was relevant to the issue. You are reading too much into 'improbablity or uncertainty.' It was uncertain whether the the Hebrews would hold the beginning of their confidence steadfast until the end.... in terms of the grammar used. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't.
We use 'if' sentences in the same way without making pronouncements about such things. Is the use of the third class conditional in Hebrews 3:14 that much different from how we use similar statements in English? I think you are reading more 'uncertainty' into I Corinthians 13:1 than is warranted.
Because it does not fit __your__ interpretation.
I agree we should both be careful of this. I think you are reading more into a grammatical explanation than is warranted, and Hebrews 3:14 should caution you against reading more into the use of Greek conditionals than is warranted.
I do not believe in the seminary system either. I think Gordon Conwell may actually be rather conservative, though, but I do not know the seminaries that well. Some seminaries do have Greek scholars, though, and you should consider the evidence presented.
Some are. Some aren't. Did you bother to research the seminary of the author or his individual beliefs before forming judgments? Also, couldn't a liberal or unbeliever know something about Greek that you do not?
Thayer's is a rather light and sort of cryptic resource in places. Greek scholars look at actual usage of the Greek language to determine these types of things. This is a more accurate and in-depth way of handling these issues than looking up a dictionary entry, which they also do. There is only so much Koine Greek available to look at, and scholars of the Greek language do look at Greek in the Classical period. If there are only so many examples from Koine, they would have to look before or after for examples. Extant Classical and Koine Greek manuscripts all fit on one CD-ROM if I recall correctly.
If you reject conclusions that take into account both Classical and Koine Greek, the burden of proof would be on you to prove that the third class conditional took on some features in Koine Greek that it did not have in the Classical period. Can you prove that? Can you prove that the author of Hebrews was trying to say that the Hebrews would lose their confidence? or that beginnings do not exist, or confidence does not exist, etc? If not, how can you argue from the use of the third class conditional in I Corinthians 13:1 that there are no tongues of angels. Your line of reasoning does not make sense. Me pointing that out does not mean that I care only for winning a debate on the forum or that I do not love the truth.
I am concerned when I see someone buffalo others with some supposed knowledge of the Greek language that turns out not to be true. I suspect you did so sincerely, but I would encourage you to be skeptical and careful about repeating such claims. It helps to look up several other examples to see if the pattern holds.
I read your comments and did not see how that was relevant to the issue. You are reading too much into 'improbablity or uncertainty.' It was uncertain whether the the Hebrews would hold the beginning of their confidence steadfast until the end.... in terms of the grammar used. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't.
We use 'if' sentences in the same way without making pronouncements about such things. Is the use of the third class conditional in Hebrews 3:14 that much different from how we use similar statements in English? I think you are reading more 'uncertainty' into I Corinthians 13:1 than is warranted.
Because it does not fit __your__ interpretation.
I agree we should both be careful of this. I think you are reading more into a grammatical explanation than is warranted, and Hebrews 3:14 should caution you against reading more into the use of Greek conditionals than is warranted.
Why would you argue that 'in light of grammar' that this is the case?
Are you assuming that 'to teleion' has to agree grammatically with some word in New Testament Greek that matches with it grammatically? If so, that seems to me to be a rather naive way of thinking about the Greek language.
Let us indeed look at the context. the passage continues on.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
So before the perfect comes, Paul's understanding is like that of a child. After it comes, it is like that of an adults. The cessationist with your particular argument would have us believe that the perfect comes after Paul is dead. If that is the case, Paul experiences the perfect at the resurrection anyway, which undercuts this cessationist argument.
By the way, many cessationists see through the error of your interpretation of I Corinthians 13. John MacArthur is one of the most famous for speaking out against spiritual gifts in our day and age, and he does not accept your interpretation because of it's obvious flaws and considers the perfect to refer to 'the eternal state.' John Calvin was probably not exactly a cessationist, but he calls the idea that the perfect comes during the 'intervening time' before the resurrection or death 'stupid' or 'foolish' depending on your translation. But be that as it may, let us consider verse 11 if we take it to refer to you and other Christians having the perfect now.
What that means is that Paul, when he wrote the New Testament, wrote his childish understandings down. He, and the other apostles with their childish understanding, wrote a book which causes you to have complete understanding and to be an adult in understanding in comparison with the apostles. Do you think your understanding is complete now so that the apostles understanding was like that of children's understanding?
If that is the case, then you should never have the experience of reading some passage by Paul and learning something knew, something Paul knew, but you did not know until that moment you read it, since you would have perfect knowledge, superior to his. You would never have that experience of reading, studying, even memorizing a chapter of scripture, then going back and finding something knew there... to you... something Paul clearly understood.
No sermon, no commentary, and no web page could ever give you insight into any of Paul's passages, telling you something he knows but you do not, since you have complete understanding.
You have disproven your own theory here, because this passage does not mention supernatural healing gifts or gifts of miracles... which I am assuming you would include in the extrabiblical 'sign gifts' category. There is no scripture that indicates that the Spirit will not give gifts of healing or the working of miracles to the saints.
You are clearly drawing from some source, some men's opinions, besides scripture, to come up with your interpretation.
We should interpret chapter 13 in line with the rest of the book. In 1:7 Paul writes, 'So that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The epistle refers to themes he would address later. He was preparing to write an epistle that addressed tongues, prophecy, and various other gifts, mentioned 'utterance and knowledge' and then wrote those words in verse 7. Now why would he write those words if there were a doctrine that gifts would cease between the writing of this epistle and the Lord's return?
And if we look at what he mentions in chapter 13 compared to the last two chapters, we see he refers to:
Ch 13: a) tongues b) prophecy and c) the coming of the perfect.
Ch 14-15: a) tongues b) prophecy and c) the state of the believer in the resurrection at the return of Christ.
Are you assuming that 'to teleion' has to agree grammatically with some word in New Testament Greek that matches with it grammatically? If so, that seems to me to be a rather naive way of thinking about the Greek language.
Let us indeed look at the context. the passage continues on.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
So before the perfect comes, Paul's understanding is like that of a child. After it comes, it is like that of an adults. The cessationist with your particular argument would have us believe that the perfect comes after Paul is dead. If that is the case, Paul experiences the perfect at the resurrection anyway, which undercuts this cessationist argument.
By the way, many cessationists see through the error of your interpretation of I Corinthians 13. John MacArthur is one of the most famous for speaking out against spiritual gifts in our day and age, and he does not accept your interpretation because of it's obvious flaws and considers the perfect to refer to 'the eternal state.' John Calvin was probably not exactly a cessationist, but he calls the idea that the perfect comes during the 'intervening time' before the resurrection or death 'stupid' or 'foolish' depending on your translation. But be that as it may, let us consider verse 11 if we take it to refer to you and other Christians having the perfect now.
What that means is that Paul, when he wrote the New Testament, wrote his childish understandings down. He, and the other apostles with their childish understanding, wrote a book which causes you to have complete understanding and to be an adult in understanding in comparison with the apostles. Do you think your understanding is complete now so that the apostles understanding was like that of children's understanding?
If that is the case, then you should never have the experience of reading some passage by Paul and learning something knew, something Paul knew, but you did not know until that moment you read it, since you would have perfect knowledge, superior to his. You would never have that experience of reading, studying, even memorizing a chapter of scripture, then going back and finding something knew there... to you... something Paul clearly understood.
No sermon, no commentary, and no web page could ever give you insight into any of Paul's passages, telling you something he knows but you do not, since you have complete understanding.
You have disproven your own theory here, because this passage does not mention supernatural healing gifts or gifts of miracles... which I am assuming you would include in the extrabiblical 'sign gifts' category. There is no scripture that indicates that the Spirit will not give gifts of healing or the working of miracles to the saints.
You are clearly drawing from some source, some men's opinions, besides scripture, to come up with your interpretation.
We should interpret chapter 13 in line with the rest of the book. In 1:7 Paul writes, 'So that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The epistle refers to themes he would address later. He was preparing to write an epistle that addressed tongues, prophecy, and various other gifts, mentioned 'utterance and knowledge' and then wrote those words in verse 7. Now why would he write those words if there were a doctrine that gifts would cease between the writing of this epistle and the Lord's return?
And if we look at what he mentions in chapter 13 compared to the last two chapters, we see he refers to:
Ch 13: a) tongues b) prophecy and c) the coming of the perfect.
Ch 14-15: a) tongues b) prophecy and c) the state of the believer in the resurrection at the return of Christ.
If you a KJV onlyist, you should not accept your own explanation of Mark 16, since the KJV would indicate the ones who believe the apostles message did the baptizing. You haven't been able to show me who in Acts 1 is referred to as 'tois' in verse 16. Those who arrested Jesus would have to be the apostles, Mary and Jesus' brethren, or the two men in white apparel in the ascension if your use of the Greek were correct.
I realize your argument shows up in at least one old commentary, but I gave examples to show that your argument about Greek can't be true in other passages of scripture. So, yes, it was debunked.
Martin Lloyd-Jones commented on this approach to I Corinthians 13 in - D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Baptism and Gifts of the Spirit, Baker Book, 1994, which I quote from http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/11/lloyd-jones-on-cessationism.html (with blank lines added for readability.)
Quote opens below:
“There, then, is an outline of the argument that is being put forward at the present time, and which has been put forward very largely during this present century. Let me begin to answer it by giving you just one though at this point. It is this: the Scriptures never anywhere say that these things were only temporary – never! There is no such statement anywhere. ‘Ah but’, says somebody, ‘what about that passage from 1 Corinthians 13?’ Well, I would have thought that that chapter is sufficient answer in and of itself to this particular criticism. You see what we are asked to believe by that kind of exposition” We are told that the coming of the New Testament Scriptures puts us into a place of perfection; whereas if you look at verse 12 it actually says: ‘For now we see’ – that is the apostle and others. The apostle is included with all other Christian believers before the New Testament canon, much of which was written by Paul himself, had been completed. We read: ‘Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then’ – when the Scriptures have come and are complete – ‘face to face: Now I know in part; but then’ – which they say means the completion of the Scriptures – ‘shall I know even as also I am known.’
“You see what that involves? It means that you and I, who have the Scriptures open before us, know much more than the apostle Paul of God’s truth. That is what it means and nothing less, if that argument is correct. It means that we are altogether superior to the early church and even to the apostles themselves, including the apostle Paul! It means that we are not in a position in which we know ‘face to face’ that ‘we know, even as also we are known’ by God because we have the Scriptures. It is surely unnecessary to say more.
“What the apostle is, of course, dealing with in 1 Corinthians 13 is the contrast between the highest and the best that the Christian can ever know in this world and in this life and what he will know in the glory everlasting. The ‘now’ and the ‘then’ are not the time before and after the Scriptures were given, because that, as I have said, puts us in a position entirely superior to the apostles and prophets who are the foundation of the Christian church and on whose very work we have to rely. It is inconsistent, and contradictory – indeed, there is only one word to describe such a view, it is nonsense. The ‘then’ is the glory everlasting. It is only then that I shall known, even as also I am known; for then we shall see him as he is. It will be direct and ‘face to face’. No longer, as Paul puts it again in 2 Corinthians 3:18– as an image or a reflection, but direct, absolute, full and perfect knowledge.
“So you see the difficulties men land themselves in when they dislike something and cannot fully understand it and try to explain it away. All things must be judges in the light of the Scriptures, and we must not twist them to suit our theory or argument. Let me finish with this general statement – there is nothing in the Scripture itself which says that these things are to end, and further, every attempt to make the Scriptures say that leads to the same dismal, impossible conclusions that we have already seen in the case of 1 Corinthians 13.
End Quote
Quote opens below:
“There, then, is an outline of the argument that is being put forward at the present time, and which has been put forward very largely during this present century. Let me begin to answer it by giving you just one though at this point. It is this: the Scriptures never anywhere say that these things were only temporary – never! There is no such statement anywhere. ‘Ah but’, says somebody, ‘what about that passage from 1 Corinthians 13?’ Well, I would have thought that that chapter is sufficient answer in and of itself to this particular criticism. You see what we are asked to believe by that kind of exposition” We are told that the coming of the New Testament Scriptures puts us into a place of perfection; whereas if you look at verse 12 it actually says: ‘For now we see’ – that is the apostle and others. The apostle is included with all other Christian believers before the New Testament canon, much of which was written by Paul himself, had been completed. We read: ‘Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then’ – when the Scriptures have come and are complete – ‘face to face: Now I know in part; but then’ – which they say means the completion of the Scriptures – ‘shall I know even as also I am known.’
“You see what that involves? It means that you and I, who have the Scriptures open before us, know much more than the apostle Paul of God’s truth. That is what it means and nothing less, if that argument is correct. It means that we are altogether superior to the early church and even to the apostles themselves, including the apostle Paul! It means that we are not in a position in which we know ‘face to face’ that ‘we know, even as also we are known’ by God because we have the Scriptures. It is surely unnecessary to say more.
“What the apostle is, of course, dealing with in 1 Corinthians 13 is the contrast between the highest and the best that the Christian can ever know in this world and in this life and what he will know in the glory everlasting. The ‘now’ and the ‘then’ are not the time before and after the Scriptures were given, because that, as I have said, puts us in a position entirely superior to the apostles and prophets who are the foundation of the Christian church and on whose very work we have to rely. It is inconsistent, and contradictory – indeed, there is only one word to describe such a view, it is nonsense. The ‘then’ is the glory everlasting. It is only then that I shall known, even as also I am known; for then we shall see him as he is. It will be direct and ‘face to face’. No longer, as Paul puts it again in 2 Corinthians 3:18– as an image or a reflection, but direct, absolute, full and perfect knowledge.
“So you see the difficulties men land themselves in when they dislike something and cannot fully understand it and try to explain it away. All things must be judges in the light of the Scriptures, and we must not twist them to suit our theory or argument. Let me finish with this general statement – there is nothing in the Scripture itself which says that these things are to end, and further, every attempt to make the Scriptures say that leads to the same dismal, impossible conclusions that we have already seen in the case of 1 Corinthians 13.
End Quote
Where do you come up with this stuff? Mat 16 is not baptizing in water. It is immersing new converts in the word of God and teaching them sound doctrine.
Less commentaries and more scripture will greatly improve your sanctification. Jesus did not pray the Father to sanctify you through commentaries but through the word of God. This would be especially true of commentaries written by Montanists, Pentecostals and chrismatics.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Less commentaries and more scripture will greatly improve your sanctification. Jesus did not pray the Father to sanctify you through commentaries but through the word of God. This would be especially true of commentaries written by Montanists, Pentecostals and chrismatics.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
-
1
- Show all
Montanists may have been the first to argue for cessationism from I Corinthians 13...something they have in common with you.
Look at how baptism was done in scripture. The apostles had already baptized in water.. Water is specifically mentioned in the passage about Philip and the eunuch. You can speculate wildly on straightforward verses, but I prefer to stick with the plain sense of the passage.
Look at how baptism was done in scripture. The apostles had already baptized in water.. Water is specifically mentioned in the passage about Philip and the eunuch. You can speculate wildly on straightforward verses, but I prefer to stick with the plain sense of the passage.
While what you say is partly true water baptism is not present in Mark 16 nor is it present in Mat 28. When you make doctrine from Mark 16 you need to account for taking up deadly serpents and drinking poisons. I feel confident you do not espouse those activities.
Look to scripture and understand when water is present as baptism and when Holy Spirit is indicated in the passages. There is also baptism in the scriptures and doctrines because of how we translate immersion and baptism.
Montanists continued heretical practices which are now present in the Pentecostal and charismatic assemblies. Montanists sought miracles and wonders above the word of God.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Look to scripture and understand when water is present as baptism and when Holy Spirit is indicated in the passages. There is also baptism in the scriptures and doctrines because of how we translate immersion and baptism.
Montanists continued heretical practices which are now present in the Pentecostal and charismatic assemblies. Montanists sought miracles and wonders above the word of God.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
-
1
- Show all
Baptism in its most literal sense refers to submerging or soaking and it makes sense to infer water unless otherwise noted.
Montanists were not controversial for prophesying. It was the manner in which it was done and the content of the prophecies. Montanus' critiques affirmed the gift of prophesy was for the church. We see this in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. Eugenics also quoted Miltiades who pointed out Montanists could not claim to have prophecy at that time but the church still had the gift, for the apostle taught that prophecy would continue until the Lord returns.
Montanists were not controversial for prophesying. It was the manner in which it was done and the content of the prophecies. Montanus' critiques affirmed the gift of prophesy was for the church. We see this in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. Eugenics also quoted Miltiades who pointed out Montanists could not claim to have prophecy at that time but the church still had the gift, for the apostle taught that prophecy would continue until the Lord returns.
First of all, I am not a KJV only person. I acrutally read the ESV more than anything else.
Second----
Mark 16:17......
"And these signs shall accompany them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues".
Only Mark includes the "signs [that] will follow those who believe." and that is the only thing I have commented on. Allow me to break this down so we can actually see what is SAID and not what we want it to say.
"These signs shall accompany" ...
The Greek original here is the word "accompany" here is significant, meaning to "go along with one on a journey," the journey in view here being the travels of the apostles in the carrying out of the great commission just spoken. There was nothing in the use of this word to be construed as an endowment of permanent settlers not going anywhere, and provided merely for their benefit and comfort.
"Them that believe" ...
The antecedent of "them" is "the eleven themselves" (Mark 16:14).
The word "Antecedent" is a word which means ....."POINTS TO something already stated".
The only way this can be avoided is to change the singular pronouns in Mark 16:15-16 into plural pronouns contrary to the Greek text. That my friend is GRAMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO.
We all understand that for what you want this Scripture to mean, we have to do what is grammatically impossible. That is the only way to make "THEM that believe" to be able to have the Sign Gifts today.
What you are doing is to actually CHANGE the Word of God to make it mean what you want it to mean. I for one can not do that and there is NO amount of comments or opinions you can make that will be acceptable on this subject.
There is nothing difficult in this interpretation, since it is simply basic English translated from the Greek.
Second----
Mark 16:17......
"And these signs shall accompany them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues".
Only Mark includes the "signs [that] will follow those who believe." and that is the only thing I have commented on. Allow me to break this down so we can actually see what is SAID and not what we want it to say.
"These signs shall accompany" ...
The Greek original here is the word "accompany" here is significant, meaning to "go along with one on a journey," the journey in view here being the travels of the apostles in the carrying out of the great commission just spoken. There was nothing in the use of this word to be construed as an endowment of permanent settlers not going anywhere, and provided merely for their benefit and comfort.
"Them that believe" ...
The antecedent of "them" is "the eleven themselves" (Mark 16:14).
The word "Antecedent" is a word which means ....."POINTS TO something already stated".
The only way this can be avoided is to change the singular pronouns in Mark 16:15-16 into plural pronouns contrary to the Greek text. That my friend is GRAMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO.
We all understand that for what you want this Scripture to mean, we have to do what is grammatically impossible. That is the only way to make "THEM that believe" to be able to have the Sign Gifts today.
What you are doing is to actually CHANGE the Word of God to make it mean what you want it to mean. I for one can not do that and there is NO amount of comments or opinions you can make that will be acceptable on this subject.
There is nothing difficult in this interpretation, since it is simply basic English translated from the Greek.
If that is the case my friend.....and since the Sign Gifts were a PACKAGE DEAL, in other words THEY HAD ALL the Sign Gifts not just one or two.
Since YOU believe that YOU have the Sign Gifts, then according to the literal, actual Word of God....not only can YOU speak in a noise that no one can understand, and heal the sick, cast out demons and raise the dead.....YOU must also be able to survive a bite from a Cobra, drink bleach water.
Now will you please give us the name of the people you have raised from the dead and when did you get snake bitten and have you drank poision dirty water?
Yes....I am serious! If you think you can do one or two sign Gifts then you must be able to do them all!
Since YOU believe that YOU have the Sign Gifts, then according to the literal, actual Word of God....not only can YOU speak in a noise that no one can understand, and heal the sick, cast out demons and raise the dead.....YOU must also be able to survive a bite from a Cobra, drink bleach water.
Now will you please give us the name of the people you have raised from the dead and when did you get snake bitten and have you drank poision dirty water?
Yes....I am serious! If you think you can do one or two sign Gifts then you must be able to do them all!