Paul preaches against Creation

[JJM]

Lev 21:18 For whatsoever man [he be] that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous

Lev 21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

Lev 21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

Lev 21:21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.



Deu 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.



Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].



Since Jesus did not come to contradict the Father, this is a troublesome verse, which may require further study. Perhaps this is a segment of the Gospel of Q that has been inserted by the redacter of Matthew. In any case Jesus does not suggest that marriage be avoided as Paul does.

Jesus doesn't mean a literal eunuch he is referring to someone who doesn't marry. Also He says that if a man can stand not being married let him. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it] Paul says if a man can be celibate to do it. SO they are at one with each others teachings on this subject.

Saul could not produce the names of any witnesses for this alleged vision, nor could he keep the details of his story straight as these details are quite different later in the Acts.

Acts 9:7 states the men with Paul STOOD speechless, HEARING the voice but NOT SEEING anyone.





Acts 22:9 states they did NOT HEAR the voice.

Acts 26:14 states they all FELL to the ground and DID HEAR the voice.

Number one Paul didn't write Acts Luke did so just because they aren't mentioned in Luke's writing doesn’t mean Paul didn't know them. Also Acts 26:14 doesn't say they heard it just that they fell to their knees however that is irrelevant. This may simply a copping error. The Old Testament claims that Goliath was killed by two different people but then it shows that the person other than David actually killed Goliaths cousin in another verse. Are we to assume that David was lying about killing Goliath simply because of a copying error? Also many people believe that the verse in 22:9 in the Greek means they didn't understand the voice not that they didn't hear it. I truly don't know.

Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

You are corrupting this verse for you own purposes. In 18:15 it says to go first by yourself also it is talking about telling a sinning person he is sinning without needlessly embarrassing him not divine revelation.

2Cr 13:1 This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Paul is referring to a trial in Deuteronomy not divine revelation. God didn't reveal himself to the Prophets and two or three of his friends he just went to the prophet.

Since Paul cannot produce the names of the men he claimed were his companions, they cannot be questioned, and it is equally true none of these alleged companions ever testified independently of these alleged events of Paul's alleged vision. Paul's claim to having witnesses is therefore merely hearsay.

Once again just because Luke doesn't say their name doesn't mean Paul couldn't

Further, Saul-Paul is both a self-admitted murderer and persecutor of Christians AND a Pharisee who certainly cannot be trusted to testify of the truth.

Mat 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

It’s very unchristian to look at someone’s past faults. Especially before their conversion.

Further, Paul was not qualified to be an apostle since he did not fulfill the following:







Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.



Blessed be the Word of Yah and His Son Yahshua!

And The Twelve Apostles of the Lamb!!



Wolfgang

Paul was ordain in Acts 13:3

 

[JJM]

Long after his so-called conversion, Paul boasted of his status as a Pharisee. There is no record of Paul renouncing this status.

Phl 3:5 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

Phl 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;


​

You claim Jesus revealed himself to Paul. But we only have Paul's word for this, the word of a confessed murderer and a Pharisee. Th names or testimony of the required 2 or 3 witnesses is never provided.


You mention Ezekiel but you do not quote his verses. This is not only condescending to me but to others on this list.

I have been providing solid evidence to support my arguments from the beginning.

It is your liberty to be convinced by Paul. But can you refute Victor's many points in 'the pauline copnspiracy'?

Hallelu YAH !!



Wolfgang

​

Paul in the verses following what you quoted states that the things mentioned above are a loss this includes his status as a Pharisee. Furthermore being a Pharisee was belonging to a sect of Judaism if he started following another he obviously stopped his previous. That is like saying this man became a Catholic but never stopped being Baptist that doesn’t make sense.

 

[JJM]

Lev 21:18 For whatsoever man [he be] that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous
Lev 21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
Lev 21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
Lev 21:21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

Deu 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

Since Jesus did not come to contradict the Father, this is a troublesome verse, which may require further study. Perhaps this is a segment of the Gospel of Q that has been inserted by the redacter of Matthew. In any case Jesus does not suggest that marriage be avoided as Paul does.

Also even though Christ wasn't referring to actual eunuchs in the latter half of his statement above. He as the fulfillment of the new covenant does away with such segregation when he tells his disciples to make followers of all people.

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Regarding Celibacy

Jesus doesn't mean a literal eunuch he is referring to someone who doesn't marry. Also He says that if a man can stand not being married let him. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it] Paul says if a man can be celibate to do it. SO they are at one with each others teachings on this subject.

I would say that Jesus says what he means. If He wanted to say something different He had the words at His disposal to do so, It is not up to us to put new words in His mouth. But in any case, He is not suggesting that celibacy was better than marriage as Paul was.

Wolfgang

 

[JJM]

Re: Regarding Celibacy

I would say that Jesus says what he means. If He wanted to say something different He had the words at His disposal to do so, It is not up to us to put new words in His mouth. But in any case, He is not suggesting that celibacy was better than marriage as Paul was.

Wolfgang

What Christ is saying here and how it has been interpreted through the ages is that some people can't get married because they where born a eunuch some people can't get married because they where mutilated in a way that caused them not to be able to be married. And some people don't get married because they choose not to for the Glory of God. If someone became a literal eunuch because he chose to he would fit in the second category and Christ would have said some people where forced into it by men not simply made that by men. Then He says that those who can do this should. Why then would Christ imply that if we can not get married we should if it wasn't better?

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Paul in the verses following what you quoted states that the things mentioned above are a loss this includes his status as a Pharisee. Furthermore being a Pharisee was belonging to a sect of Judaism if he started following another he obviously stopped his previous. That is like saying this man became a Catholic but never stopped being Baptist that doesn’t make sense.

Let's look at these verses:

Phl 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

Phl 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Phl 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

Phl 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,





​

In this last verse, Paul appears to be claiming that his heritage is worthless compared to his professed beleif in Christ. But he cannot undo his heritage any more than he can undo his boasting, his foolishness or his habitual lying.

2Cr 11:16 I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little.
2Cr 11:17 That which I speak, I speak [it] not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.
2Cr 11:18 Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.
2Cr 11:19 For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye [yourselves] are wise. 2Cr 11:20 For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour [you], if a man take [of you], if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.
2Cr 11:21 I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also.
2Cr 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so [am] I. Are they Israelites? so [am] I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so [am] I.






​

One moment Paul appears to renounce his heritage as worthless, yet at other times he cannot help but to boast of it. And it is highly likely that Paul is lying about his Benjamite ancestry since he appears to be physically related to the ruling Herodians (who are not Jews or Benjamites but are Idumean proselytes). Paul is like a politician. . . . or a shape shifter

1Cr 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;




1Cr 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

1Cr 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all [men], that I might by all means save some.





​

Just like the weather, if you don't like what he's saying, just wait five minutes and he'll have a new yarn to spin. And he is not above lying, but he insists he is above the Law.

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?




1Cr 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.





​

He "will not be brought under the power of any". Doesn't that sound like something Satan would say?




More and more he is sounding like he is serving another master.

2Cr 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.








​

Perhaps his close assocaition with Satan expalins why the viper on Malta did not harm him.

Act 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid [them] on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.

Act 28:4 And when the barbarians saw the [venomous] beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.

Act 28:5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.

Act 28:6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.




​

Just like the shark who would not bite the lawyer, out of professional courtesy for a colleague, so has this viper spared Paul?




Actually, I could go on and on, (as this is quite entertaining) but it is not the burden of proof for a critic of Paul to disprove Paul's alleged vision of Christ. Rather, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that he did experience this vision.

As Carl Sagen once said: "Extraordionary claims require extraordinary proof."

Wolfgang

 

[JJM]

Let's look at these verses:

Phl 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;



Phl 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.



Phl 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.



Phl 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,











In this last verse, Paul appears to be claiming that his heritage is worthless compared to his professed beleif in Christ. But he cannot undo his heritage any more than he can undo his boasting, his foolishness or his habitual lying.



















2Cr 11:16 I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little.

2Cr 11:17 That which I speak, I speak [it] not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.

2Cr 11:18 Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.

2Cr 11:19 For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye [yourselves] are wise. 2Cr 11:20 For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour [you], if a man take [of you], if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.

2Cr 11:21 I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also.

2Cr 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so [am] I. Are they Israelites? so [am] I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so [am] I.













One moment Paul appears to renounce his heritage as worthless, yet at other times he cannot help but to boast of it. And it is highly likely that Paul is lying about his Benjamite ancestry since he appears to be physically related to the ruling Herodians (who are not Jews or Benjamites but are Idumean proselytes). Paul is like a politician. . . . or a shape shifter

Ok Let me explain what Paul is saying Philippians. He is saying that anyone who thinks that they can be saved by simply following the law with out the faith to back it up is a fool. He says that he used to do this and consider himself Holy because of his heritage. However He says that what ever graces he may have for being a strict follower of the Law are a loss because they won't bring him salvation. He is renouncing his belief that being Hebrew makes him close to God. He's not saying he is no longer Hebrew of course he can't change the fact that he's Hebrew anymore than I can change the fact that I'm Polish.



Now in his letter to the Corinthians he is saying something similar. That these Proud people are all these things but so is he but they are nothing to boast about. They call him weak but all the things that they say make them great he is. It is convenient that you stop where you do before Paul points out that not only is he what they say they are but also a Christian minister and a bold follower something they aren’t. And thus is he is weak then they must also be weak because he is greater than them. Truthfully though he knows he is weak and his boasting is sarcastic but they are no greater than him. I suggest you read the rest of this chapter. Also Even if Paul was denouncing his heritage in Philippians it doesn't matter because he wrote it six years after the second letter to the Corinthians which means that he may not have denounced it at the time of the Corinthian letter.

1Cr

9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;









1Cr 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.



1Cr 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all [men], that I might by all means save some.











Just like the weather, if you don't like what he's saying, just wait five minutes and he'll have a new yarn to spin.

Paul is saying that he lowered himself, a Roman citizen and a Christian, to the level of those he is trying to convert. Making himself a lowly servant to them to convert them like Jesus commanded at the last supper.

And he is not above lying, but he insists he is above the Law.



Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?









1Cr 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.











He "will not be brought under the power of any". Doesn't that sound like something Satan would say?

Ok once again you are taking things out of context. If you read the next passage:





And why not say - as we are accused and as some claim we say - that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve



You see that Paul is actually saying that this way of looking at actions is wrong.



In the Corinthians letter he is quoting them in this passage and then goes on to refute them.

More and more he is sounding like he is serving another master.







2Cr 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Oh come on you've got to be kidding me. He is saying that demons are attempting to make him sin because he is a good Christian. Not that he serves Satan. Really this one is just preposterous. Even out of the context of the rest of the passage it makes sense.

Perhaps his close assocaition with Satan expalins why the viper on Malta did not harm him.











Act 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid [them] on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.



Act 28:4 And when the barbarians saw the [venomous] beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.



Act 28:5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.



Act 28:6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.









Just like the shark who would not bite the lawyer, out of professional courtesy for a colleague, so has this viper spared Paul?

You are acting now like the People who claimed Christ was working with Satan. I suggest that you read Matthew 12:22-32.



Also in Mark 16:17-18 Christ says:

And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues: they shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.



While don't get me wrong I think the whole Pentecostal snake handling thing is a little crazy to say that Paul is working for Satan because a snake didn't bite him is unbiblical.

Actually, I could go on and on, (as this is quite entertaining) but it is not the burden of proof for a critic of Paul to disprove Paul's alleged vision of Christ. Rather, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that he did experience this vision.



As Carl Sagen once said: "Extraordionary claims require extraordinary proof."



Wolfgang

A Muslim could say the same thing about the resurrection. No where out side of the bible does anyone claim to have witnessed it. Granted in Josephus’s writings he says others claimed to have seen it but he didn't claim to have. I wouldn't argue that I'm responsible to prove what has been an unquestioned matter of faith for centuries because you have a hunch that he may have been crooked based on a conspiracy theory and a bunch of misused bible verses. I could use some bible verses to show that Peter wasn't Human if I really wanted to and then claim you have to prove that he was because I can't prove a negative even though what I'm claiming is ludicrous and poorly founded. So don’t pull that I’ve refuted everything you’ve said and you just keep pulling more out. SO I just ask you really look at what you are saying and think about it. You’ll see that it doesn’t make any sense. Especially the argument that this thread was started on. Because Christ backs up what he said and Christ can’t go against his own teachings because then they wouldn’t be christ’s teachings.

 

[Marsh]

Long after his so-called conversion, Paul boasted of his status as a Pharisee. There is no record of Paul renouncing this status...

[/indent]You claim Jesus revealed himself to Paul. But we only have Paul's word for this, the word of a confessed murderer and a Pharisee. Th names or testimony of the required 2 or 3 witnesses is never provided...

I have been providing solid evidence to support my arguments from the beginning.

Once again poor Paul has been taken out of context. Paul was refuting the idea that one can be justified in the flesh when he made those statements. Why else would he have said "Whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things"?

And no, I didn't claim that Jesus revealed himself to Paul; Luke did. The same Luke who wrote one of the most important pieces of writing of all time.

And I disagree that you have made solid arguments.

PS: The passage from Ezekiel is chapter 18.

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Also in Mark 16:17-18 Christ says:

And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues: they shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.

I can hardly believe you are quoting the Longer Ending of Mark (in double brackets).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm



FORGERY IN THE

GOSPEL OF MARK?​

var bnum=new Number(Math.floor(99999999 * Math.random())+1);document.write('');Forgery is perhaps a rather harsh word. Within Christian religious circles, the term "apocryphal addition" is commonly used to describe a passage that an unknown copyist added to the original manuscript.

Conservative Christians, and some others, believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. This means that God inspired its authors to write error-free text. However, the concept only applies to the original, autograph copies, not to later additions, deletions, "corrections" etc. Thus, the various endings after Mark16:8 are not necessarily inerrant.



The original ending of Mark:

Some of the oldest copies of the Gospel of Mark, the Sinaitic (circa 370 CE) and Vatican (circa 325 CE), end at Mark 16:8. Papyrus-45 (a.k.a. P-45) is an even older version of Mark, but it is incomplete; none of its text from Mark 16 has survived. Various additions after Mark 16:8 appear to have been added later by unknown Christian forgers. One addition was quoted in the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century CE.

Chapter 15 of Mark describes Jesus' death and burial. Chapter 16 describes how Mary Magdalene, Mary (the mother of James), and Salome went to the tomb on Sunday morning. They found that the stone blocking the tomb had rolled back. A young man in the tomb told them that Jesus had risen, and that they should tell the disciples that he had gone to Galilee where they should meet him. The Gospel ends by describing how the women trembled and said nothing to anyone about their experience.

The Gospel is viewed by many as incomplete. It appears to ends abruptly. The reader has been primed to expect an account of the women telling the disciples of the empty tomb, and a subsequent description of a meeting of Jesus and his the disciples in Galilee. However, none is forthcoming.

Theologians have offered 4 explanations for this strange ending:

1. The writer of the Gospel did actually intend it to end it abruptly. This is a possibility because over a dozen ancient Greek compositions have survived which end sentences with the Greek word "gar" as Mark 16:8 does.

2. The author was interrupted (perhaps by death) and never finished the Gospel.

3. The Gospel of Mark did originally continue beyond Verse 8, but the ending was accidentally destroyed: perhaps the scroll was damaged or the last page of the codex was lost.

4. Mark 16 originally extended beyond verse 8, where it described the meeting of Jesus and his disciples. However, it was intentionally destroyed because it conflicted with the Gospel of Luke or Matthew. The perpetrator may have felt that Christians might doubt the accuracy of the Christian Scriptures if the Gospels did not agree precisely. Scholars have pointed out that the lost ending of Mark presumably would have described the meeting between Jesus and the disciples as happening in Galilee, whereas Luke says that it occurred near Jerusalem. This explanation also sounds unreasonable, because Mark 16:1 already disagrees with Matthew 28:1 over the number of women who visited the tomb: (Matthew describes that only two women went to the tomb: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Mark 16:1 says there were three women and adds Salome.) Surely, if someone were to go to the effort of destroying the ending of Mark in order to make the Gospels harmonize, then they would have altered Mark 16:1 and also modified:



16:8 to delete a reference to Salome, and



16:7 to change the location of the meeting from Galilee to Jerusalem.


Also, a person who intentionally destroyed the ending would probably have cleaned up the end of verse 8 to make it appear as if that was the true ending, and leave no trace of the forgery.

The most ancient full manuscripts of Mark end mid-sentence with Mark 16:8. A variety of endings appear in later manuscripts:


The Longer Ending: This consist of verses 9 to 20, and is the ending found most often in Biblical translations. They describe that Jesus visited Mary Magdelene, who told the disciples about the empty tomb. But the disciples did not believe her. Jesus then appeared to two of the disciples who told the others; still they did not believe that he was risen. Afterwards, Jesus was received up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God. The disciples then followed the Great Commission. Theologians often refer to this passage as the "Marcan Appendix," because it appears to have been written by a later copyist, and not by the author of the rest of the Gospel of Mark. It "has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent." 1 The Appendix is incorporated without comment in the King James Version of the Bible. However, more recent authorities suggest that it is a forgery:



A note in recent copies of the New International Version of the Bible states: "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."



Most biblical translations contain a footnote indicating that the verses were not written by the author of Mark.



Mohamed Ghounem & Abdur Rahman comment: "...approximately 100 early Armenian translations, as well as the two oldest Georgian translations, also omitted the appendix." 2



"The longer ending...differs in vocabulary and style from the rest of the Gospel, is absent from the best and earliest mss. now available, and was absent from mss. in patristic times. It is most likely a 2nd-cent. compendium of appearance stories based primarily on Luke 24, with some influence from John 20." 3

There is a break in the flow of the story between verses 14 and 15. This might be evidence that the forger used two different sources when creating the longer ending.

The additional passage is quite important for a number of reasons, because it contains important material relating to the duties of Christians to proselytize, the criteria needed for personal salvation, and some of the powers granted to Jesus' disciples:



Mark 16:15 includes a direct quotation from Jesus that is usually called the "Great Commission." It instructs the 11 surviving disciples to go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Conservative Christians regard the Great Commission to be their prime directive.



Verse 16 contains Jesus criteria for salvation. In order to be saved, a person must:



"believe" - presumably this refers to belief in the "good news."



"be baptized" - one must first be baptized before one is saved.

This appears to disagree with other passages in the Bible which discuss different criteria for salvation.



Jesus told his disciples that they would be able to cast out devils, speak with new tongues, heal the sick, and be immune from death by snake bite or poison. The Church of God with Signs Following have interpreted these verses as the basis of their occasional practices of drinking poison or allowing themselves to be bitten by poisonous snakes. Many have died as a result of this testing of their faith.





The Shorter Ending: One Old Latin manuscript, the Codex Bobiensis, has survived from circa 400 CE. It contains a "shorter ending" in place of the "long ending."

One translation reads:

"But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."

The Revised Standard Version of the Bible includes this verse as a footnote.

The validity of this ending is suspect for a number of reasons:



"Earlier in Mark 16, it contains an interpolation which seems to have an affinity with the 'Gospel of Peter'..." 4 That gospel is one of almost 50 gospels that were circulated among the early Christian movement, but which were never accepted into the official canon of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).



Part of Mark 16:8 has been deleted. This text said that the women kept silent about the empty tomb; they told none of the disciples about it. If the copyist had left this verse intact, it would blatantly conflict with the "shorter ending."



"The so-called shorter ending consists of the women's reports to Peter and Jesus' commissioning of the disciples to preach the gospel. Here too the non- Marcan language and the weak ms. evidence indicate that this passage did not close the Gospel." 3



Some theologians believe that the Shorter Ending was probably written by an unknown forger, who based it on the Gospel of Matthew. His motivation was to quickly wrap up the Gospel less abruptly.

For the entire article, go to
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm

 

[JJM]

It "has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent." 1

This line means that it is Part of the Bible it doesn't matter who wrote it. It’s still cannon. Similarly the last five chapters of Jeremiah weren’t written by him nor are they even his prophecies but that doesn't change their status as biblical text.





However if you really need a Verse our side of the last 12 verses of Mark here:



Luke 10:19

I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.



It’s not as definite but it does show God giving the apostles power over snakes.

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

This line means that it is Part of the Bible it doesn't matter who wrote it. It’s still cannon. Similarly the last five chapters of Jeremiah weren’t written by him nor are they even his prophecies but that doesn't change their status as biblical text.





However if you really need a Verse our side of the last 12 verses of Mark here:



Luke 10:19

I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.



It’s not as definite but it does show God giving the apostles power over snakes.

Just because the clearly fallible church claims the longer ending of Mark is canonical does not mean we should abandon our senses and accept a clear forgery.

As to Luke, he was Paul's disciple, not Jesus'. He had never met Jesus, the Twelve Apostles had never met him or mentioned him. And Luke admits in his first chapter that all of his information is second-hand. Luke also contradicts the established apostles on many points. For example, he has Jesus telling the apostles to remain in Jerusalem to wait for the Pentecost, whereas the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John instruct the apostles to leave Jerusalem to go to Galilee. Further, the Holy Spirit was given to Ten apostles in John 20:22. They did not have to wait for the Pauline Pentecost. They went fishing with Yahshua and caught 153 fish.

Hallelu YAH !!

Wolfgang

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Paul in the verses following what you quoted states that the things mentioned above are a loss this includes his status as a Pharisee. Furthermore being a Pharisee was belonging to a sect of Judaism if he started following another he obviously stopped his previous. That is like saying this man became a Catholic but never stopped being Baptist that doesn’t make sense.

Judaism arose out of the Babylonian Talmud whereas Hebrewism or Yahwism originated from the Mosaic Penteteuch. But in any case an Israelite could certainly become a Christian and remain devoted to the God of his fathers. There is no conflict between Christianity and the Israelite religion, irrespective of what one calls the religion of the Hebrew Israelites. A Christian Israelite is not a contradiction. But Paul injected the Pharisaic 'tradition of the elders' into Christianity and thereby subverted it from its rightful Path.

Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

True Israelites follow the voice of Yahshua, the Judahite, but the largely Idumean Pharisees and Herodians who politically dominated the House of Judah were not Israelites but were sons of Esau (Canaanites) and were therefore not receptive to the Word.

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Tarry not in Jerusalem but go to Galilee


John 20:22 describes how the true apostles received the Holy Spirit long before Pentecost. AND BOTH the Gospels of Matthew AND Mark further substantiate that the apostles were NOT to remain in Jerusalem to wait for the Pentecost, as per Luke 24:49, BUT rather to leave Jerusalem and to go to Galilee to see Yahshua again before His departure. (Pentecost is not even mentioned at all by Matthew, Mark or John.)

Matthew 26:32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.



Mat 28:7 (The angel by the open tomb said And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.



Mat 28:10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.



Mat 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.



Mark 14:28 But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.



Mark 16:7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.



John 21:1 After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he [himself].




John 21:2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the [sons] of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.





In the END DAYS, (not during the first advent) knowledge of the scriptures shall be increased, as illustrated by the example above, as there is a QUICKENING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, as foretold by Joel



Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, [that] I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:



John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

It is certain that the Holy Spirit has not yet been poured out among all flesh, what with all the disagreements we have, but this event is sure to happen once the unpolluted gospel is preached to all Nations, but this has yet to be done as Paul's traditions remain firmly embedded in the apostate church. Look to the Dead Sea Scrolls to finally pull the plug on Paul. I strongly suggest that everybody read "James, Brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman and "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception" by Michael Baigent. You can read a review of these books at Amazon.com.

 

[JJM]

Re: Tarry not in Jerusalem but go to Galilee

John 20:22 describes how the true apostles received the Holy Spirit long before Pentecost. AND BOTH the Gospels of Matthew AND Mark further substantiate that the apostles were NOT to remain in Jerusalem to wait for the Pentecost, as per Luke 24:49, BUT rather to leave Jerusalem and to go to Galilee to see Yahshua again before His departure. (Pentecost is not even mentioned at all by Matthew, Mark or John.)

Ok I'll start off by saying that Pentecost occurred after the ascension. Number two the apostles weren’t waiting in Jerusalem they had come back to the city on pilgrimage to celebrate Pentecost which was a Jewish holiday also even if they where in Jerusalem for a period of time think about it where better to start spreading the message then the spiritual, political, and economical center of the region. Number 3 it isn't mentioned in any of the Gospel because it came after the ascension so it has nothing to do with the life of Christ. Four the receiving of the Holy Spirit in John is like that of being baptized the Holy Spirit entered them but they didn't receive the fullness of his gifts. They did receive them on Pentecost an event similar to Confirmation where the full gifts of the Holy Spirit are given. And five just because you have the Holy spirit in you doesn't mean you’re always right. Only when he is working through you are you right and even then you can be partly incorrect. Infallibility is only given through extreme divine intervention. I hope I've cleared this up for you.

 

[JJM]

Sorry I didn’t respond to these I didn't see them I simply went to the last Post.

Just because the clearly fallible church claims the longer ending of Mark is canonical does not mean we should abandon our senses and accept a clear forgery.

As to Luke, he was Paul's disciple, not Jesus'. He had never met Jesus, the Twelve Apostles had never met him or mentioned him. And Luke admits in his first chapter that all of his information is second-hand. Luke also contradicts the established apostles on many points. For example, he has Jesus telling the apostles to remain in Jerusalem to wait for the Pentecost, whereas the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John instruct the apostles to leave Jerusalem to go to Galilee. Further, the Holy Spirit was given to Ten apostles in John 20:22. They did not have to wait for the Pauline Pentecost. They went fishing with Yahshua and caught 153 fish.



Hallelu YAH !!



Wolfgang

Peter caught the fish Jesus just told him what to do. It symbolizes Peter (leader of the early church) as the fisher of men bringing all the nations (at the time there where thought to be 153 Nations) to Christ without any Schisms in Christianity.



Mark never met Jesus either but you accept his Gospel so that is a contradiction. Secondly I never said it was written by Mark I simply said it was cannon. If you don't accept what the church says is cannon then what do you accept? No one knows what the truth is. Obviously most new scholars think that none of the books of the bible are authentic so if you don't accept that cannon why would you accept any books? After all you are the one talking about using your senses.



And I don’t think this is the right place to get into this but what makes you think it is an obviously fallible church. I could understand you say it fallible but what is so obvious about it. Did Christ not say the Gates of hell would never prevail against his church? but you say it was corrupted within ten years. That doesn’t make sense.

 

[JJM]

Judaism arose out of the Babylonian Talmud whereas Hebrewism or Yahwism originated from the Mosaic Penteteuch. But in any case an Israelite could certainly become a Christian and remain devoted to the God of his fathers. There is no conflict between Christianity and the Israelite religion, irrespective of what one calls the religion of the Hebrew Israelites. A Christian Israelite is not a contradiction. But Paul injected the Pharisaic 'tradition of the elders' into Christianity and thereby subverted it from its rightful Path.

Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

True Israelites follow the voice of Yahshua, the Judahite, but the largely Idumean Pharisees and Herodians who politically dominated the House of Judah were not Israelites but were sons of Esau (Canaanites) and were therefore not receptive to the Word.

I did not say there was a conflict between Christianity and the Israelites religion. The way (Christianity) was a sect of Judaism and there was also a Pharisaic sect of Judaism. This man can't belong to two sects that are in conflict it is ludicrous. And how did Paul inject this in Christianity by saying that we aren't saved by works of the law. (Which according to the Dead Sea scrolls refers to the laws followed by sects such as the Pharisees)

 

[JJM]

Re: Tarry not in Jerusalem but go to Galilee

John 20:22 describes how the true apostles received the Holy Spirit long before Pentecost. AND BOTH the Gospels of Matthew AND Mark further substantiate that the apostles were NOT to remain in Jerusalem to wait for the Pentecost, as per Luke 24:49, BUT rather to leave Jerusalem and to go to Galilee to see Yahshua again before His departure. (Pentecost is not even mentioned at all by Matthew, Mark or John.)

Hi I'd like to apologize for my previous reply to this post. I was in a hurry and I miss read your post. I though you where saying rather than being in Jerusalem at Pentecost they should have been with Jesus in Galilee. Please excuse me. I also thought you where telling me that the other gospels never described Pentecost. Well I was responding of course they didn't but you where referring to Luke's elusion to it. So I'd have to say that you make a very good point here there seems to be a clear contradiction . The rest of your arguments have had some sort of fault in them but this one seems to make sense. I don't know how to respond right now. I can say that in acts Luke says that Jesus was resurrected for forty days before the ascension. But they still didn't leave Jerusalem. All I can say is that there are Contradictions in all the Gospels None of them agree on who first came to the tomb. Also we know that the Sermon on the Mount never really happened. So if I have a response I’ll get back to you. If I can't I'll still respond but I don't know what I'll say yet. SO yeah once again sorry for the former response.

 

[JJM]

Hello again I was hoping you would respond before I made this post but you haven't so I will go ahead anyway. Once again I ask that you forgive me for that misunderstanding about what you where writing and you don't let it effect how you value what I'm about to say. Yes Luke is the only one who alludes to Pentecost if you think that all the other elusions to it are about the way they received it in John’s Gospel. But as I have said the Holy Spirit was received in John similarly to how He is received in Baptism. However His full gifts where not given until Pentecost. Similarly to conformation and Holy Orders. Now Luke does say that the Disciples never went to Galilee. However that is only because he is saying Jesus was only on earth for a day in order to connect the ascension to the Resurrection. It's a literary device. He, later in Acts, says that Jesus was on earth for 40 days and not until the end did He tell them not to leave Jerusalem. Now the 40 days is symbolic but the point is that Luke new that this didn't all happen in one day. As for Luke being the only one to mention it. He is also the only one who mentions the ascension but you still accept it. John is the only one to mention the first receiving of the Holy Spirit but you don't conclude that John is making it up Just because the others don't mention it. Matthew makes up the Sermon on the Mount to condense all of Jesus' teachings into one sermon but you don't discount his gospel because of it. So why discount Luke for using another literary device to connect to essential points especially when he later tells that what he was doing. Also even if Jesus didn't tell them all to stay in Jerusalem and that was just a rumor heard by Luke they still would have been there for the feast of weeks and they as friends and leaders of a sect would have congregated together. So whether or not Jesus told them to stay they where probably there. Also I did say one other necessary thing in that post just because you have the Holy Spirit in you doesn't mean you’re always right. Only when he is working through you are you right and even then you can be partly incorrect. Infallibility is only given through extreme divine intervention. So I ask that you respond to this thread and my post in the other thread about the law of two or three and I promise to read your post more carefully.