Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: Mark 16:9-20 Epilogue.

  1. #1
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    443

    Mark 16:9-20 Epilogue.

    There are a number of issues with the Mark 16:9-20 epilogue.

    Let us discuss two of the issues:

    1) Is the text Holy Scripture?

    2) Was that epilogue written by Mark?

    Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture when it was written. Something Jesus said to unbelievers in His day, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." -- John 8:47.

    The manuscript evidence, only a very few of [our current copies of] manuscripts omit the reading (00.2%). The evidence being the majority of early Christians accepted it as Holy Scripture.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  2. #2
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    71
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    26
    Yes it is Holy Scripture.

    I have my own theory. I think it was written by Peter, much earlier, as a sort of “The Gospel of Christ’s Resurrection According to Peter,” a stand alone book, and Mark chose to conclude his own gospel with it.

    Reasoning:
    Tradition says Mark was asked to write an account of Christ’s life according to what Peter had taught. If he had any actual writings of Peter, it just makes sense that he’d use them as is, especially something as important as the Easter story.

    The content of these verses seems to me to be the sort of thing that would have been written very early. Instead of covering all the things Jesus taught and did during his last 40 days, it briefly points to the apostles as those who were sent out with signs to demonstrate the validity of their apostleship. Before any of the gospels were written, this would have been a useful way to say, “Here’s how you will recognize those who can tell you everything you need to know that’s not in this Easter account.” Much later, after the gospels were finished and as the time of the apostles drew to a close, it would seem much less reasonable to write this type of a summary. I could imagine Peter writing these verses in the very first year or two after the resurrection. I can’t imagine that someone found Mark’s Gospel missing a chapter toward the end of the first century and decided to fill in the rest of the story with this type of conclusion.

    It seems highly unlikely to me either that:
    1) Mark chose to end his gospel with the women leaving the tomb and saying nothing because they were afraid.
    2) Mark’s gospel losing its ending, and someone added a new ending, but did such an awkward job of combining them (backtracking and reintroducing Mary Magdalene, for example).
    3) Mark’s gospel accidentally lost its ending, but at just the right spot so that there just happened to be a writing that fit almost perfectly that could just be tacked on as is.

    On the other hand, if Mark intended to end with Peter’s Resurrection Gospel, then he might very well have chosen to tell the story in his own words just up to the point of the angel’s appearance (since Peter skipped that, and it seemed a very valuable detail to include). In that case, adding on the ending as is would have worked just fine.
    Especially if a lot of people were already familiar with this ending and they eagerly anticipated that Mark was leading up to it. “The women went away and said nothing because they were afraid.” (Wait For It...) And then the Easter story is told in a way Mark’s readers might already have memorized and cherished. The tension is released in the perfect way.
    And that would also explain why a few copyists omitted it, because they already knew it as a separate book. Especially if Mark presented it as its own writing (maybe with a gap on the page or starting these verses on a new page of parchment). The copyists could tell this was tacked on; they just didn’t realize it was Mark himself who tacked it on, so they omitted it in their copy.
    Are there any obvious flaws to my theory?

  3. #3
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Next to you
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,219
    Amen (Given)
    1488
    Amen (Received)
    3965
    It certainly wasn't part of the original but I think it was generally accepted by most Christian leaders at the time the canon was finalized so for better or worse, it's in there.

    Doctrinally, I don't think there's anything unacceptable in there. People object to the mention of snake handling, as the snake handlers in Appalachia proof text it for their practices. However, it's not a promise that all Christians will be able to handle snakes (and anybody who tries it is putting the Lord to the test), but rather that some of the apostles will be able to handle snakes and be unhurt.
    Last edited by KingsGambit; 06-23-2018 at 05:02 PM.
    For what was given to everyone for the use of all, you have taken for your exclusive use. The earth belongs not to the rich, but to everyone. - Ambrose, 4th century AD

    All cruelty springs from weakness. - Seneca the Younger

  4. #4
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by KingsGambit View Post
    It certainly wasn't part of the original but I think it was generally accepted by most Christian leaders at the time the canon was finalized so for better or worse, it's in there.

    Doctrinally, I don't think there's anything unacceptable in there. People object to the mention of snake handling, as the snake handlers in Appalachia proof text it for their practices. However, it's not a promise that all Christians will be able to handle snakes (and anybody who tries it is putting the Lord to the test), but rather that some of the apostles will be able to handle snakes and be unhurt.
    The so called church canonization is a damnable false doctrine of the false churches which actually denies Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture upon being written and was give to the churches upon being written to begin with.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  5. #5
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Next to you
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,219
    Amen (Given)
    1488
    Amen (Received)
    3965
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    The so called church canonization is a damnable false doctrine of the false churches which actually denies Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture upon being written and was give to the churches upon being written to begin with.
    A damnable doctrine?

    You do realize it was debated among early Christians which books were Scripture, right? Maybe the majority of Christianl leaders thought, for example, the Shepherd of Hermas was Scripture. It wasn't as self evident as you claim.
    For what was given to everyone for the use of all, you have taken for your exclusive use. The earth belongs not to the rich, but to everyone. - Ambrose, 4th century AD

    All cruelty springs from weakness. - Seneca the Younger

  6. #6
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    42,654
    Amen (Given)
    933
    Amen (Received)
    16142
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    The so called church canonization is a damnable false doctrine of the false churches which actually denies Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture upon being written and was give to the churches upon being written to begin with.
    How do you think that the early Christians were supposed to distinguish between the biblical writings and the myriad of extra-biblical writings ranging from works like the Shepherd of Hermas and Didache to the Gospel of Peter or Epistle of Barnabas?

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  7. #7
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    How do you think that the early Christians were supposed to distinguish between the biblical writings and the myriad of extra-biblical writings ranging from works like the Shepherd of Hermas and Didache to the Gospel of Peter or Epistle of Barnabas?
    Again, Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture when it was written. Not later when some irregular church or churches said so. A church which originally received the original document would have known the human writer and did. All the writers belonged to their own respective church.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  8. #8
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    42,654
    Amen (Given)
    933
    Amen (Received)
    16142
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Again, Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture when it was written. Not later when some irregular church or churches said so. A church which originally received the original document would have known the human writer and did. All the writers belonged to their own respective church.
    You answered a question I didn't ask. How was someone to know which books were Holy Scripture and which weren't?

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  9. #9
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Next to you
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,219
    Amen (Given)
    1488
    Amen (Received)
    3965
    Paul mentioned in his letters that he wrote other letters that are now lost to history. How would the audience have known that those letters were not scripture, but that some of his others were?
    For what was given to everyone for the use of all, you have taken for your exclusive use. The earth belongs not to the rich, but to everyone. - Ambrose, 4th century AD

    All cruelty springs from weakness. - Seneca the Younger

  10. #10
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    You answered a question I didn't ask. How was someone to know which books were Holy Scripture and which weren't?
    So if one rejects the 66 books one cannot know. In one of those 66 books Jesus said to the unbelievers, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." -- John 8:47.

    The claims of those writings to be Holy are supernatural. The claims of the Christian resurrection of Christ is supernatural. Regeneration of the believer is supernatural (2 Corinthians 5:17). Knowing God or not actually knowing God is supernatural (1 John 4:7).

    If mere human judgement is how we are going to determine those writings are authentically supernatural, I do not think so.

    There are two reasons and only two I remain a professing Christian. Knowing God Himself (John 17:3; 1 John 5:20). And the uncanny affirmation of the gospel of grace only by the saved (2 Corinthians 4:3-4). The means of this of course has been through my originally ignorant acceptance of those 66 books where Moses, the prophets and coming to believe in God's Christ according to them.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •