Doctor X

Win:

Actually, one can just place Chronicles beside the Deuteronomistic History and see how the Chronicler edits the DH.

Simple.

One can do the same with Mt and Lk to see them using and editing Mk.

Of course, one can just run around screaming "IT DID NOT HAPPEN!" but that does not change the situation.

Also, I am sure you recognize that Mk does not contain the requirement that one must be "born again." You also recognize that "born again" is a mistranslation of "born from above" in Jn.

There are, of course, wonderful sources to demonstrate the above--such as Who Wrote the Bible?. Oddly enough, despite such sweepingly erroneous proclamations, he does not actually address the evidence presented in scholarly sources.

Funny that.

To quote Dorothy Parker when challenged to compose a poem based on the word "horticulture:"

--J.D.

Mageth

It is according to every commentary I've ever seen on it, including Matthew Henry's. The question of whether it requires water baptism to be saved is a different issue (as is the question of whether Mark 16:9-20 should even be there - it's not included in the earliest known manuscripts, and it includes several discrepancies).

Amos

That's cute but isn't thinking is the enemy of culture?

Sci_Fidelity

Well as I said, either that or god repeats himself. What do you think it is? BTW- it wasn't my conclusion- it was a minister's.

And you assume it's not a problem. That's quite presumtuous of you.

Calzaer

Geeze, for someone who's not too keen on Catholics, Magus sure does rely a whole lot on extra biblical tradition to interperet troublesome verses. Whatever happened to Sola Scriptura, the Protestant belief that everything required to understand the Bible is contained in the Bible itself?

Sci_Fidelity

Not to mention the fact that as soon as the questions get a bit difficult, he abandons the thread.

Magus55

When have I ever used catholic doctrine to explain the Bible? I do believe in Sola Scriptura.

Magus55

No, the threads just tend to spawn into insults and sarcastic ridicule, which I'm not gonna bother with. If you can't have a civil discussion without the ridicule and insults, just because I believe something you don't, then you don't deserve an answer.

Mageth

But above you claimed "Mark 16 is referring to Baptism by the Holy Spirit." A plain reading of the text disagrees with that - it seems clearly to indicate baptism in water (which is what the Gospels mean when they say "baptism" without any qualifers). Indeed, as I said, that's what the commentaries I'm familiar with claim.

So where did you get the idea that the verse in question was referring to "baptism by the Holy Spirit"?

Sci_Fidelity

Pot, kettle, black. If we mistreat you so why are you still here?

Are you going to tell us about 2Kings 19/ Isa. 37 or not?