FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-19-2001, 03:12 PM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post Signs of Belief in Mk 16

Mark 16.16, NRSV:
"The one who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned."

This is often used to support claims that every non-Christian (and even some Christians, depending on who's talking) will be assigned to hell, but I have never heard anyone make use of the criteria of belief in the following two verses (these are also NRSV):

"And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover" (Mk 16.17-18).

Four criteria, then, accompany believers:
1) They cast out demons;
2) They speak in "new tongues" (languages, I assume);
3) They are immune to ingested or injected poison;
4) They heal by laying on hands.

Now, I know of groups who claim that they perform 1 and 2, and many more have made the news by attempting 4 (there is debate on whether the subjects are actually healed), but I have never seen or heard of anyone claiming power over poison. How does this fit in?

As has been mentioned before in this forum, the ending of Mark (16.9 ff.) is of questionable validity, but I would assume that people who cite 16.16 hold it to be reliable. My question is: How do verses 17 and 18 relate to 16?

--Muad'dib
 
Old 06-19-2001, 04:35 PM   #2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Muad'dib:

As has been mentioned before in this forum, the ending of Mark (16.9 ff.) is of questionable validity, but I would assume that people who cite 16.16 hold it to be reliable. My question is: How do verses 17 and 18 relate to 16?
Quote:
</font>
I doubt that you'll find any Christians on this board who believe that Mark 16:9 ff. is authentic.

Peace,

Polycarp
 
Old 06-20-2001, 10:25 AM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Actually, many Chrisitians believe the 4-fold criteria is true but somehow come up the assertion that it was only for the apostles, or the first century believers in order to get the movement going. It has now stopped as it is no longer needed.

That is not my assertion, just passing along the way many Christians see it. (was one)
 
Old 06-20-2001, 11:24 AM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Muad'dib:
Mark 16.16, NRSV:
"The one who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned."

This is often used to support claims that every non-Christian (and even some Christians, depending on who's talking) will be assigned to hell, but I have never heard anyone make use of the criteria of belief in the following two verses (these are also NRSV):

"And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover" (Mk 16.17-18).

Four criteria, then, accompany believers:
1) They cast out demons;
2) They speak in "new tongues" (languages, I assume);
3) They are immune to ingested or injected poison;
4) They heal by laying on hands.

Now, I know of groups who claim that they perform 1 and 2, and many more have made the news by attempting 4 (there is debate on whether the subjects are actually healed), but I have never seen or heard of anyone claiming power over poison. How does this fit in?

As has been mentioned before in this forum, the ending of Mark (16.9 ff.) is of questionable validity, but I would assume that people who cite 16.16 hold it to be reliable. My question is: How do verses 17 and 18 relate to 16?

--Muad'dib
</font>
Contrary to Polycarp
... MY experience (limited as that is) large numbers of X-tians (especially but "not"limited to the US) not only accept these as valid but laying on of hands and annoiting by elders as means to heal the sick ... as for drinking of posion and handling snakes it believed but NOT widely practiced. There was a recent (within 3years ) documentary on this ..... Somewhat confused if those sections are not considered "GOSPEL" why are they still printed .... a retraction seems to be in order ....

** Polycarp would you correct someone who used those "questionable" verses in a sermon?

Now that would make for a really intersting service.


** edited to add "not" limited and the question to polycarp


[This message has been edited by I_AM (edited June 20, 2001).]
 
Old 06-20-2001, 11:39 AM   #5
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Muad'dib:

Now, I know of groups who claim that they perform 1 and 2, and many more have made the news by attempting 4 (there is debate on whether the subjects are actually healed), but I have never seen or heard of anyone claiming power over poison. How does this fit in?

--Muad'dib
</font>
There are some groups that do this in the Appalachian Mountain area. I believe they are some form of penecostals but I don't remember for sure. I've seen at least two documentaries about these people, so the info is out there.
 
Old 06-20-2001, 12:43 PM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Polycarp:
I doubt that you'll find any Christians on this board who believe that Mark 16:9 ff. is authentic.</font>
What other bible passages would the "Christians on this board" consider inauthentic?
 
Old 06-20-2001, 01:39 PM   #7
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Muad'dib:
Now, I know of groups who claim that they perform 1 and 2, and many more have made the news by attempting 4 (there is debate on whether the subjects are actually healed), but I have never seen or heard of anyone claiming power over poison. How does this fit in?
</font>
There was a group on the news who claimed that they could walk out into traffic, and their god would protect them from injury. At least one of them died. Might have gotten a Darwin Award for improving the gene pool. . .

Toto is offline  
Old 06-20-2001, 01:52 PM   #8
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by draven:
There are some groups that do this in the Appalachian Mountain area. I believe they are some form of penecostals but I don't remember for sure. I've seen at least two documentaries about these people, so the info is out there.</font>
Thanks for the lead. I was able to find a site on snake handlers. They were in the U.S. for a while, and several states banned the practice because people were dying. Ironically, their founder also died from complications resulting from snakebite.

http://religiousmovements.lib.virgin...ms/Snakes.html

--Muad'dib

[This message has been edited by Muad'dib (edited June 20, 2001).]
 
Old 06-20-2001, 03:11 PM   #9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by I_AM:
MY experience (limited as that is) large nUmbers of X-tians (especially but "not"limited to the US) not only accept these as valid but laying on of hands and annoiting by elders as means to heal the sick ... as for drinking of posion and handling snakes it believed but NOT widely practiced. There was a recent (within 3years ) documentary on this ..... Somewhat confused if those sections are not considered "GOSPEL" why are they still printed .... a retraction seems to be in order ....
Quote:
</font>
I agree with you that large numbers of Christians accept Mark 16:9-20 as authentic, but I was pointing out that it would be unlikely to find such a Christian here at the SecWeb. Actually, most modern translations have a note next to questionable passages that says something to the effect of “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have XXXXX (i.e. Mark 16:9-20)”.

In a sense this is a “retraction” of sorts.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">** Polycarp would you correct someone who used those "questionable" verses in a sermon?
Now that would make for a really intersting service.
Quote:
</font>
LOL… Would I interrupt the sermon? No. Would I discuss the issue in private with the person giving the sermon? Yes, in some cases if I knew the person giving the sermon. On a related personal note… I don’t think I’ve ever heard a sermon in which I agreed with absolutely everything said by the speaker. However, I’m normally not the type to get into discussions with pastors/priests. I tend to keep my distance from them most of the time.

Peace,

Polycarp
 
Old 06-20-2001, 03:15 PM   #10
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by hezekiahjones:
What other bible passages would the "Christians on this board" consider inauthentic?
Quote:
</font>
The other major one that comes to mind is John 7:53-8:11 which is the story of the woman caught in adultery. I'm not very familiar with Old Testament issues, but I know there are some. There are a few other single verses scattered throughout the New Testament, but Mark 16:9-20 & John 7:53-8:11 are the two major inauthentic sections.

Peace,

Polycarp



[This message has been edited by Polycarp (edited June 20, 2001).]
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:13 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.