Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Are you convinced? | Mark 16:10 | retxar | 54782 | ||
Ray, I don’t doubt Mark 16:9-20 as being inspired at all. Your post presents strong internal evidence of its originally. Here’s another bit of evidence that I think might convince others to believe it is authentic also! In his book “Against Heresies” by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, he says; "Also towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says; "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God." This is, without a doubt, a quote of Mark 16:19. What is interesting is the fact that “Against Heresies” was written in about A.D.180. This precedes the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts by about 200 years! If Mark 16 is supposed to end at verse 8, and verses 9-20 were added hundreds of years after the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, what in the world was Irenaeus reading? Do not be unbelieving, but believing! retxar P.S. PLEASE don’t take my word for this. Check out my source at www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/iren/iren3.html#Section10 (paragraph 5). |
||||||
2 | Are you convinced? | Mark 16:10 | Morant61 | 54794 | ||
Greetings Retxar! Good post my friend! :) The issue with Mark 16:9-20 is not just age. There are many strands of evidence for four different endings to Mark. One can make a very strong case for both the long and short ending depending upon which evidence one cites. The whole point of calling this passage into question though is the various strands of evidence themselves. Some early church fathers quote the longer ending, while some say that it does not exist in the manuscripts known to them. Some manuscripts include the longer ending with notes that it was found in the margin or added later. The whole point is that no one knows. The reason this became an issue, other than simple scholarly curiosity, was that several posters were trying to deny salvation by faith alone by appealing to Mark 16:16. The problem with this approach is obvious - how can one ignore the clear teaching of hundreds of verses based upon one's intepretation of a verse which is highly disputed textually? A general rule that I try to follow is not to base any doctrine on a single disputed verse! ;-) However one comes down on the original ending of Mark, all sides must deal with the conflicting evidence - especially if one is trying to deny Eph. 2:8-9 and other great passages. p.s. - The site you refer to is a great resource for reading the early church fathers. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||