Mark16:9-20 is NOT part of the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Dude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Dude

Guest
Help please…
I was debating with someone the other day and as I was quoting passages in favor of my position I qouted:
Mark16:
16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
Click to expand...
Now I thought I had him, but he came back saying that according to “scholars” that part and vv9-20 were not part of the original text. I went off on how I had never heard of that and that it was not fair that we both use the Bible but he refuses to accept a valid passage. And in his case I asked if any of it was out of line with the other Gospels. I told him it has been accepted for centuries and Im sticking with it.

I looked into it as best as I could, but I didnt find anything useful. One web page says that the original manuscript did contain that passage, but that page was lost. But most other pages say that it was “added” later. I really dont know what to say.

Here is the full “disputed” passage…
9 But he rising early the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalen, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10 She went and told them that had been with him, who were mourning and weeping.
Click to expand...
11 And they hearing that he was alive, and had been seen by her, did not believe. 12 And after that he appeared in another shape to two of them walking, as they were going into the country. 13 And they going told it to the rest: neither did they believe them. 14 At length he appeared to the eleven as they were at table: and he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen him after he was risen again. 15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover. 19 And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God. 20 But they going forth preached every where: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed.
Click to expand...
To me this passage in Mark is second only to the Passion chapters. This is the passage where Jesus appears alive to everyone. How would this Gospel get chosen as sacred scripture if that passage didnt exist in the original?

Does anyone have any good www’s for me on this topic?
ANY info or (name removed by moderator)ut would be great.
 
2 [9-20] This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Luke 24 and John 20. The Shorter Ending: Found after Mark 16:8 before the Longer Ending in four seventh-to-ninth-century Greek manuscripts as well as in one Old Latin version, where it appears alone without the Longer Ending. The Freer Logion: Found after v 14 in a fourth-fifth century manuscript preserved in the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, this ending was known to Jerome in the fourth century. It reads: "And they excused themselves, saying, "This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things dominated by the spirits [or, does not allow the unclean things dominated by the spirits to grasp the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now.’ They spoke to Christ. And Christ responded to them, "The limit of the years of Satan’s power is completed, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who sinned I was handed over to death, that they might return to the truth and no longer sin, in order that they might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible heavenly glory of righteousness. But . . . .’ "

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/mark/mark16.htm
 
That is what I found on it. BUT, you know what is AweSOME? He’s all about the Bible but, he cannot say FOR SURE if that is part of the Bible (though, it has been defined so at Trent), and if he doesn’t like it, he tosses it. …Sound familiar? :rolleyes:
 
Where does it say in Scripture that Mark16:9-20 is not scripture? Sounds like a MAGISTERIUM made a ruling and your protestant friend accepts this MAGISTERIUM.

Violation of sola scriptura 🙂
 
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Dr. Colossus! :mad: WARN people before you post something that ugly & scarey!!! :crying: :crying: I’m going to have nightmares now. 😦
 
MORE PROOF THAt a living magisterium is needed to answer definitively questions like these—c’mon protestants wake up will ya its obvious!!! come home will ya!! your souls are crying oUT!! HELL IS HOT YOU DONT WANNA GO THERE!!
 
Catholic Dude:
Help please…
I was debating **with someone ** the other day and as I was quoting passages in favor of my position I qouted:
Click to expand...
Just curious, what church/denomination did this person claim?

God Bless…
 
Your friendly neighborhood Methodist(👋 ) has just checked several Bibles, including translations both new & old…
They all not only include this passage, but they have notes to back themselves up. This passage is apparently missing from just 2 manuscripts from the 4th century, Sinaiaticus, & Vaticanus.(VS all the many mss that do include it!). In both cases , the mss. were truncated; the assumption is that they are incomplete, as there is remaining empty space of the right size to include it. (And they were careful w/paper back then; it was rare & valuable…)Furthermore, I have a (partial) list I compiled of ECFs who quote this passage: 1st-3rdC–Ireneaous, Tatian, Justin Martyr, & Hippolytus.

My favorite note on this subject came from my NKJV:“It does not seem likely that the author would end his gospel on a note of fear…” [v 8] IMHO,this makes sense…
 
40.png
marineboy:
MORE PROOF THAt a living magisterium is needed to answer definitively questions like these—c’mon protestants wake up will ya its obvious!!! come home will ya!! your souls are crying oUT!! HELL IS HOT YOU DONT WANNA GO THERE!!
Click to expand...
Just a little over the top, dontcha think? LOL!!! http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
 
40.png
adstrinity:
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Dr. Colossus! :mad: WARN people before you post something that ugly & scarey!!! :crying: :crying: I’m going to have nightmares now. 😦
Click to expand...
Thats what the guy I was talking to looked like, the lazy eye and all.
 
40.png
Zooey:
Your friendly neighborhood Methodist(👋 ) has just checked several Bibles, including translations both new & old…
They all not only include this passage, but they have notes to back themselves up. This passage is apparently missing from just 2 manuscripts from the 4th century, Sinaiaticus, & Vaticanus.(VS all the many mss that do include it!). In both cases , the mss. were truncated; the assumption is that they are incomplete, as there is remaining empty space of the right size to include it. (And they were careful w/paper back then; it was rare & valuable…)Furthermore, I have a (partial) list I compiled of ECFs who quote this passage: 1st-3rdC–Ireneaous, Tatian, Justin Martyr, & Hippolytus.

My favorite note on this subject came from my NKJV:“It does not seem likely that the author would end his gospel on a note of fear…” [v 8] IMHO,this makes sense…
Click to expand...
Thats a good point, if there were only a few manuscripts then if it was missing in some it doesnt prove that it was “added”.

As for the “note of fear” part, I had the same thoughts, how could it have been accepted if it was missing the second most important fact a Gospel needs… when Jesus appears alive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top