The Ending of Mark Again

If you believe that then do you practice what is taught in Mark 16:9-20? Do you believe that if you step on a snake it will not bite you? Then join the snake handlers because they do. Yet some have died due to snake bites. So something is wrong. Either their belief is wrong or God is wrong. Both can't be right. But they are trusting Mark 19:9-20 by their actions. But they still die. Why?

 

--------------------------------------------------
If you believe that then do you practice what is taught in Mark 16:9-20? Do you believe that if you step on a snake it will not bite you? Then join the snake handlers because they do. Yet some have died due to snake bites. So something is wrong. Either their belief is wrong or God is wrong. Both can't be right. But they are trusting Mark 19:9-20 by their actions. But they still die. Why?
--------------------------------------------------


As it has been pointed out, this thread is not to discuss/debate these things.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle is correct - the topic is not what is contained in the passage, but the reasons for including or excluding it.

 

Thanks, Michelle. It was a little easier to read; however, it seems that some study of the early church leaders (i.e., Jerome) is in order, also. It seems that there were, and still are, some very intelligent men on both sides of the issue, but we must discern what wisdom has come from God. I have become more familiar with the 'oldest is best' stance, and my first take is to also consider it a fallacy, but I will continue to research and learn. Of course, nothing will deter me from my practice of bible study and prayer to find the answers.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Thanks, Michelle. It was a little easier to read;
--------------------------------------------------


Your very welcome!


--------------------------------------------------
Of course, nothing will deter me from my practice of bible study and prayer to find the answers.
--------------------------------------------------


Praise the Lord and Amen!! to that.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Philip can feel free to relocate my post regarding evidence as he suggested. I am about 250 miles away from my source material this weekend while guest preaching, and have limited access, so can't help more in this matter until Tuesday.

 

"Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 269-270.

There seems to be no good reason ... to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark."

(I think there is a "not" missing in the last clause of the sentence.) Although it's possible for a second century addition to be God's Word, it seems unlikely. If we can say conclusively that it's not in the originals, it should be a footnote.

 

AGAIN? Was the last time the ending or was it not?