Spirituality
29 Jun 05
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayHonestly? It's a rhetorical question, because I don't think people do these things. I merely want to point out to rational people that Christianity is incorrect if it claims the Bible is something that can be trusted in everything it says.
A yes vote will do what for you, will it prove something?
Kelly[/b]
Now, if someone actually thinks they can do these things, the way to check out their claim would be to run the tests in a scientifically rigorous way. If such testing showed that people can do these things, then this would be something that warranted further investigation and might give strong evidence that Bible literalists are correct about something the rest of us don't believe. Feeding people poison would be illegal; however curing people is not.
As I say however, I am making the assumption that people who think they are believers generally can't do these things, and I want to show them that they if they cannot then either they are not true believers or that they cannot rely on the Bible as much as they otherwise might have thought they could.
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy would the Bible describe the signs of a true believer if we weren't supposed to trust the signs when we saw them or failed to see them?
Personally, I'm just as happy to wait on Jesus to separate the
sheep from the goats, that day is coming. What you are suggesting
here can be faked.
Kelly
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
30 Jun 05
I have a B.S. in Bible/Ancient History, and studied Mark 16. Though it is not conclusive, I have my reservations concerning Mark 16:9-20. There is little evidence to support that it was extant prior to the 4th century A.D. Most if not all mss prior to the 4th century end at verse 8. In addition the verses 17, 18 are not supported (except for the tongues) by any other canonical book of the N.T. A better verse would be found in Galatians 5: 22-24, in addition, Jesus said a good tree is known by it's good fruit. So if a person is genuine, there will be evidence, even when they are in sin.
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by LangtreeCould you mix a little more history B.S. with the Bible B.S.?
I have a B.S. in Bible/Ancient History, and studied Mark 16. Though it is not conclusive, I have my reservations concerning Mark 16:9-20. There is little evidence to support that it was extant prior to the 4th century A.D. Most if not all mss prior to the 4th century end at verse 8. In addition the verses 17, 18 are not supported (except for the tongue ...[text shortened]... it's good fruit. So if a person is genuine, there will be evidence, even when they are in sin.
RX
01 Jul 05
Originally posted by LangtreeSo you're saying Mark 16:9-20 might not be legitimate scripture, right?
I have a B.S. in Bible/Ancient History, and studied Mark 16. Though it is not conclusive, I have my reservations concerning Mark 16:9-20. There is little evidence to support that it was extant prior to the 4th century A.D. Most if not all mss prior to the 4th century end at verse 8. In addition the verses 17, 18 are not supported (except for the tongue ...[text shortened]... it's good fruit. So if a person is genuine, there will be evidence, even when they are in sin.
How does a person know what is legitimate and what is not? If you accept that parts of the Bible might be wrong, then any part of it might be wrong. I suppose archaeology and ancient history would be the ways to determine this?
01 Jul 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungthere's a simple answer for that, Mark 16:9-20 ..outlines how people are to tell the authenticity of ministers , that being the case : phoney ministers either fake it or refer the reader to Paul's writing.
So you're saying Mark 16:9-20 might not be legitimate scripture, right?
How does a person know what is legitimate and what is not? If you accept that parts of the Bible might be wrong, then any part of it might be wrong. I suppose archaeology and ancient history would be the ways to determine this?
Pauline Doctrine raises all the bible to the level of God's word ,except the parts that doesn't fit with Paul's letters to cultures that no longer exist.
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
01 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompFrog stomp, You have a PhD in insults? Well, your pretty poor when you have to hurl insults when there is no reason to, I certainly didn't provoke. You poor, poor man. I genuinely pity you.
there's a simple answer for that, Mark 16:9-20 ..outlines how people are to tell the authenticity of ministers , that being the case : phoney ministers either fake it or refer the reader to Paul's writing.
Pauline Doctrine raises all the bible to the level of God's word ,except the parts that doesn't fit with Paul's letters to cultures that no longer exist.
01 Jul 05
Originally posted by Langtreehahahaha
Frog stomp, You have a PhD in insults? Well, your pretty poor when you have to hurl insults when there is no reason to, I certainly didn't provoke. You poor, poor man. I genuinely pity you.
why would I care what a grandstanding phony like you thinks about me?
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
01 Jul 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungUnderstand, this is a controversial issue. I'm not saying discard Mark 16:9-20, but be aware of the problem. I have a Bible published in 1952, by Thomas Nelson & sons that excluded the above mentioned verses. The first problem it isn't certain when the verse 9-20 appeared. Secondly, and this is my bone of contention. Verse 18 teaches that one can pick a serpents snd if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them. Several holiness churches have attempted this supposed show of holiness. Well, those who tried died, that is tantamount to stupidity. There no where else in the N.T. that sort of doctrine is taught, or condoned Paul was bitten by a serpent, but he didn't. try to test his courage, it was an "accident" ordained by God. One of the best ways to determine canonicity is to check for consistency throughout the N.T. Of course, Jamesand 2 Peter were considered spurious, but later incooperated into the canon. Yes, Aechaeology is an excellent method to verify the historical data of the Bible, and in particular "secular" historical documents. For your question on canonicity, the early church used a four fold method to determine what books should be accepted. 1. Was it written by an apostle? 2. Was it written by one in close association with an apostle? (Luke and Mark fit this category. 3. Does it bear the vibrance of the Holy Spirit. 4. I think is, is it consistent with the other canonical books. There were some other books rejected because of inconsistencies. The "secret" gospels, Thomas, Peter, Mary and others fit this category. I hope this helps you a little bit. All the best, Tigran
So you're saying Mark 16:9-20 might not be legitimate scripture, right?
How does a person know what is legitimate and what is not? If you accept that parts of the Bible might be wrong, then any part of it might be wrong. I suppose archaeology and ancient history would be the ways to determine this?
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
01 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompOOOOO, more insults. You know something, Frog stomp, your insults are only a reflection of yourself. I can take insult, if you are trying hurt me, you might as well give up. I don't get emotional like you, further, I can see by your words, you have extreme biases. I truly pity you, poor, poor man, you are destitute, intellectually and probably morally, based on your responses.
hahahaha
why would I care what a grandstanding phony like you thinks about me?
01 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Langtreehow silly you are. you fake!
OOOOO, more insults. You know something, Frog stomp, your insults are only a reflection of yourself. I can take insult, if you are trying hurt me, you might as well give up. I don't get emotional like you, further, I can see by your wor ...[text shortened]... ute, intellectually and probably morally, based on your responses.
believe this with all your heart. if I was all those things you just said , which is only you childish attempt to make your self look good, I would still be less biased than you. I would rather be destitute than make a living of perverting childrens minds like you are trying to do and intellectually you would have know way to tell since your intellect is very close to that of a zombie. And as to morals there no way to compare since you are such a liar.
and you can keep your mock pity it's as useless as your garbage "creation science"
01 Jul 05
Originally posted by LangtreeGot it. It's not that "the Bible" is without error. It's only the "correct" parts of the Bible that are without error. It's not clear which are the "correct" parts of the Bible.
Understand, this is a controversial issue. I'm not saying discard Mark 16:9-20, but be aware of the problem. I have a Bible published in 1952, by Thomas Nelson & sons that excluded the above mentioned verses. The first problem it isn't certain when the verse 9-20 appeared. Secondly, and this is my bone of contention. Verse 18 teaches that one can pick ...[text shortened]... r, Mary and others fit this category. I hope this helps you a little bit. All the best, Tigran
Seems "the word of God" isn't as clear as many Christians seem to think it is. There seems to be plenty of room for genuine mistakes in understanding what it is God wants as opposed to people being willfully disobedient.
01 Jul 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOr....you are misreading the passage.
Honestly? It's a rhetorical question, because I don't think people do these things. I merely want to point out to rational people that Christianity is incorrect if it claims the Bible is something that can be trusted in everything it says.
Now, if someone actually thinks they can do these things, the way to check out their claim would be to run ...[text shortened]... s or that they cannot rely on the Bible as much as they otherwise might have thought they could.
It does not say that every Christian will perform every one of these items. It only says these signs will 'accompany' those who believe. It is suggesting that when you see these signs, it means such and such. Like you might say that white coats will accompany a group of doctors. If you notice a group of people wearing white coats and walking along the street you might reasonably conclude that a clinic or hospital is nearby because you would take the sign to suggest they are doctors. Now your doc might not be wearing a white coat when you see him, but he is one nonetheless.
When Paul's ship wrecked on Malta he exhibited a couple of the signs given here: he handled a snake (after the poisonous thing bit him, he threw it in the fire), and he healed the head honcho on the island. This display of radical behavior demonstrated to the people there that Paul was something special, and that he might have something important to say to them.
So if you do find a group where these signs are occurring, you can conclude that they are believers. Unfortuneately, the statement in Mark allows for the sad truth that there may also exist believers who don't show any of these signs in their lives.
01 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by chinking58I don't think you're correct. It doesn't say "these signs might follow" or "these signs will sometimes follow" but that "these signs shall follow". Those that believe will do the following things. That is what it says.
Or....you are misreading the passage.
It does not say that every Christian will perform every one of these items. It only says these signs will 'accompany' those who believe. It is suggesting that when you see these signs, it mean ...[text shortened]... believers who don't show any of these signs in their lives.
"...if [they that believe] drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."
If these signs shall accompany those who believe; and you for instance believe; then these signs shall accompany you. Right?