Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Disputed ending of Mark 16.

rstrats
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 9:52:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn't really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.

I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture that is used to support a doctrinal teaching. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:58:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
When i gooled Mark 16:9 and resurrection. I saw where you had posted this question on many boards, and that is what I found.
Me
rstrats
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:26:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
yoda878,
re: "When i gooled Mark 16:9 and resurrection. I saw where you had posted this question on many boards..."

Indeed I have. What's your point?
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:30:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 9:52:48 AM, rstrats wrote:
A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn't really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.


I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture that is used to support a doctrinal teaching. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

The earliest verses of Mark that we have end at 16:8. There are reasons speculated or this (dramatic irony).
rstrats
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:36:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Meatros,
re: "The earliest verses of Mark that we have end at 16:8."

Yes, that was the issue being discussed in the other topic.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:22:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 9:52:48 AM, rstrats wrote:
A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn't really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.


I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture that is used to support a doctrinal teaching. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

The only people that I hear regularly dispute the KJV ending of Mark 16 (Mark 9: 20) are people who are wanting to do away with Mark 16: 16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that disbelieveth shall be damned." If that verse is authentic, the necessity of water baptism to salvation is again confirmed. I have never heard anyone quote Mark 16 as the sole authority for the change from the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian first day of the week.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:29:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 9:52:48 AM, rstrats wrote:
A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn't really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.


I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture that is used to support a doctrinal teaching. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

By the way, if you'd like a reference in which Mark 16: 1 is utilized as ancillary supporting evidence for Sunday worship, try http://www.sycamorechapelcoc.org...
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 12:22:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 9:52:48 AM, rstrats wrote:
A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn't really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.


I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture that is used to support a doctrinal teaching. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

Actually, in the book of Acts we see the Disciples meeting on the first day of the week (Sunday) as opposed to the Sabbath (Saturday), because that's the day that Christ rose.
rstrats
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 2:36:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
AgoKeytarHero,

re: "Actually, in the book of Acts we see the Disciples meeting on the first day of the week (Sunday) as opposed to the Sabbath (Saturday), because that's the day that Christ rose."

I assume you are referring to Acts 20:7 which says nothing about meeting on the first day for rest and worship.

Actually, as far as the Bible is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody getting together on the first (day) of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first. The John reference has them together in a closed room after the crucifixion because they were afraid of their fellow Jews. Nothing is said about a celebration, worship service or day of rest.

And Acts 20:7 could simply be saying that the disciples got together to eat a meal on this particular first day of the week . The phrase, "to break bread", does not have to refer to a religious service - unless it is specifically stated - but to dividing loaves of bread for a meal. "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds" (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840.

But even if "breaking bread" did always refer to the Lord's Supper, Acts 2:46 says that the believers broke bread every day. So it had nothing to do with placing a special emphasis on the first (day) because they broke bread every day.
rstrats
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 2:37:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
annanicole

re: "The only people that I hear regularly dispute the KJV ending of Mark 16 (Mark 9: 20) are people who are wanting to do away with Mark 16: 16..."

For the purpose of this topic, I'm not disputing the ending of Mark 16.

re: "By the way, if you'd like a reference in which Mark 16: 1 is utilized as ancillary supporting evidence for Sunday worship, try http://www.sycamorechapelcoc.org...... "

Mark 16:1 can't be used since it does not say when the resurrection actually occurred. Only verse 9 does.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 7:29:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2012 11:22:58 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/22/2012 9:52:48 AM, rstrats wrote:
A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn't really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.


I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture that is used to support a doctrinal teaching. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

The only people that I hear regularly dispute the KJV ending of Mark 16 (Mark 9: 20) are people who are wanting to do away with Mark 16: 16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that disbelieveth shall be damned." If that verse is authentic, the necessity of water baptism to salvation is again confirmed. I have never heard anyone quote Mark 16 as the sole authority for the change from the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian first day of the week.

Not true.

I haver never disputed that verse.

What I do dispute, and what is not supporter anywhere else in scripture id the passage at

Whilst I do not believe any of that long conclusion is authentic I can confirm that v 16 does nothing to contradict other scriptures on the same subject.

However, the same cannot be said about Vv 17,18, which present an altogether scriptural set of signs, for identifying true believers, which appear nowhere else in the bible and even if observed would prove nothing of use.

After all, Jannes and Jambres did very similar things to Moses but without God's power behind them.

No, such signs prove nothing about the source of such signs. Even Jesus miracles were no real proof of his authority, since the Pharisees claimed that he performed them in Satan's power. However the prophecies he fulfil were absolute proof of who he was.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 7:32:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2012 2:37:32 PM, rstrats wrote:
annanicole

re: "The only people that I hear regularly dispute the KJV ending of Mark 16 (Mark 9: 20) are people who are wanting to do away with Mark 16: 16..."

For the purpose of this topic, I'm not disputing the ending of Mark 16.



re: "By the way, if you'd like a reference in which Mark 16: 1 is utilized as ancillary supporting evidence for Sunday worship, try http://www.sycamorechapelcoc.org...... "

Mark 16:1 can't be used since it does not say when the resurrection actually occurred. Only verse 9 does.

As all accounts state, including verse 9, the resurrection occurred on the Sunday, which was viewed as the first day of the week until very recent times, and in some places and circumstances still is.
rstrats
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 8:11:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
MadCornishBiker,

re: "As all accounts state, including verse 9, the resurrection occurred... the first day of the week..."

Other than Mark 16:9, what are the other verses?
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 8:38:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 7:29:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/22/2012 11:22:58 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/22/2012 9:52:48 AM, rstrats wrote:
A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn't really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.


I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture that is used to support a doctrinal teaching. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

The only people that I hear regularly dispute the KJV ending of Mark 16 (Mark 9: 20) are people who are wanting to do away with Mark 16: 16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that disbelieveth shall be damned." If that verse is authentic, the necessity of water baptism to salvation is again confirmed. I have never heard anyone quote Mark 16 as the sole authority for the change from the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian first day of the week.

Not true.

I haver never disputed that verse.

What I do dispute, and what is not supporter anywhere else in scripture id the passage at

Whilst I do not believe any of that long conclusion is authentic I can confirm that v 16 does nothing to contradict other scriptures on the same subject.

However, the same cannot be said about Vv 17,18, which present an altogether scriptural set of signs, for identifying true believers, which appear nowhere else in the bible and even if observed would prove nothing of use.

Nonetheless, those signs DID follow those that believed - and of course they were evidence that God was working through those who had these signs.

After all, Jannes and Jambres did very similar things to Moses but without God's power behind them.

Similar, but presumed to be fakes.

No, such signs prove nothing about the source of such signs. Even Jesus miracles were no real proof of his authority, since the Pharisees claimed that he performed them in Satan's power. However the prophecies he fulfil were absolute proof of who he was.

You accept the Pharisees claim as legitimate? LMAO. I thought Jesus adequately answered their follow contentions. Signs ARE one of the proofs of the veracity of a speaker.

"And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed." (Mark 16: 20)
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:24:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 8:38:49 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/10/2014 7:29:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/22/2012 11:22:58 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/22/2012 9:52:48 AM, rstrats wrote:
A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn't really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.


I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture that is used to support a doctrinal teaching. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

The only people that I hear regularly dispute the KJV ending of Mark 16 (Mark 9: 20) are people who are wanting to do away with Mark 16: 16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that disbelieveth shall be damned." If that verse is authentic, the necessity of water baptism to salvation is again confirmed. I have never heard anyone quote Mark 16 as the sole authority for the change from the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian first day of the week.

Not true.

I haver never disputed that verse.

What I do dispute, and what is not supporter anywhere else in scripture id the passage at

Whilst I do not believe any of that long conclusion is authentic I can confirm that v 16 does nothing to contradict other scriptures on the same subject.

However, the same cannot be said about Vv 17,18, which present an altogether scriptural set of signs, for identifying true believers, which appear nowhere else in the bible and even if observed would prove nothing of use.

Nonetheless, those signs DID follow those that believed - and of course they were evidence that God was working through those who had these signs.

After all, Jannes and Jambres did very similar things to Moses but without God's power behind them.

Similar, but presumed to be fakes.

Presumed by whom? Certainly not by scripture, scripture speaks of them as very real.

But no doubt you deny that inconvenient scripture as well as all the others that disagree with your doctrine.


No, such signs prove nothing about the source of such signs. Even Jesus miracles were no real proof of his authority, since the Pharisees claimed that he performed them in Satan's power. However the prophecies he fulfil were absolute proof of who he was.

You accept the Pharisees claim as legitimate? LMAO. I thought Jesus adequately answered their follow contentions. Signs ARE one of the proofs of the veracity of a speaker.


No, of course I don;t accept them as legitmate. However do you doubt for one second that Satan and his demons can perform such things? If you do then you are even blinder to scripture than I thought you were.

The point I was making an it is a 100% valid one, is that we would have no way of knowing where such signs came form, so God not performing them is the logical; answer to the problem

"And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed." (Mark 16: 20)

Oh I never said that the signs didn't confirm anything, but it was the prophecy that did the real identifying work, the signs on their own would have proved nothing, the prophecy already had proved what was needed.

Matthew 7:21-23 is a warning of just such a possibility, powerful works will count for nothing in the judgement. In fact it's even more of a warning against getting involved with such ones.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:27:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 8:11:06 AM, rstrats wrote:
MadCornishBiker,

re: "As all accounts state, including verse 9, the resurrection occurred... the first day of the week..."

Other than Mark 16:9, what are the other verses?

John 20:1
20 On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and she saw that the stone had already been taken away from the tomb.

Matthew 28:1
28 After the Sabbath, when it was growing light on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to view the grave.
rstrats
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:33:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
MadCornishBiker,

re: "John 20:1 re: Matthew 28:1"

I don't see where those verses say when the resurrection actually took place. They only say that the women came to the tomb on the first of the week.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:35:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:24:13 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/10/2014 8:38:49 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/10/2014 7:29:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/22/2012 11:22:58 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/22/2012 9:52:48 AM, rstrats wrote:
A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn't really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.


I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture that is used to support a doctrinal teaching. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

The only people that I hear regularly dispute the KJV ending of Mark 16 (Mark 9: 20) are people who are wanting to do away with Mark 16: 16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that disbelieveth shall be damned." If that verse is authentic, the necessity of water baptism to salvation is again confirmed. I have never heard anyone quote Mark 16 as the sole authority for the change from the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian first day of the week.

Not true.

I haver never disputed that verse.

What I do dispute, and what is not supporter anywhere else in scripture id the passage at

Whilst I do not believe any of that long conclusion is authentic I can confirm that v 16 does nothing to contradict other scriptures on the same subject.

However, the same cannot be said about Vv 17,18, which present an altogether scriptural set of signs, for identifying true believers, which appear nowhere else in the bible and even if observed would prove nothing of use.

Nonetheless, those signs DID follow those that believed - and of course they were evidence that God was working through those who had these signs.

After all, Jannes and Jambres did very similar things to Moses but without God's power behind them.

Similar, but presumed to be fakes.

Presumed by whom? Certainly not by scripture, scripture speaks of them as very real.

LMAO! "Enchantments" implies illusions, or as others have defined it: "implies a deceptive appearance, an illusion, a juggler's trick, not an actual putting forth of magic power." Look it up. Or pray that God will define these words for you.


But no doubt you deny that inconvenient scripture as well as all the others that disagree with your doctrine.


No, such signs prove nothing about the source of such signs. Even Jesus miracles were no real proof of his authority, since the Pharisees claimed that he performed them in Satan's power. However the prophecies he fulfil were absolute proof of who he was.

You accept the Pharisees claim as legitimate? LMAO. I thought Jesus adequately answered their follow contentions. Signs ARE one of the proofs of the veracity of a speaker.


No, of course I don;t accept them as legitmate. However do you doubt for one second that Satan and his demons can perform such things? If you do then you are even blinder to scripture than I thought you were.

Then you render Jesus's argument impotent.

The point I was making an it is a 100% valid one, is that we would have no way of knowing where such signs came form, so God not performing them is the logical; answer to the problem

And your point has no point. It's absurd. You make the claims. Give the proof. GIve proof that Satan ever enabled a single person to perform any of the signs in Mark 16. All it would take is one example, and I have a feeling that you will bark a lot, but won't provide it.


"And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed." (Mark 16: 20)

Oh I never said that the signs didn't confirm anything, but it was the prophecy that did the real identifying work, the signs on their own would have proved nothing, the prophecy already had proved what was needed.

Prophesy-fulfillment alone was often not enough. The signs and wonders, however, were conclusive.

Matthew 7:21-23 is a warning of just such a possibility, powerful works will count for nothing in the judgement. In fact it's even more of a warning against getting involved with such ones.

The signs and wonders merely serve as a means for identifying those who spoke the truth of God before the written word was completed. That was their purpose.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 4:17:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:35:34 AM, annanicole wrote:
And your point has no point. It's absurd. You make the claims. Give the proof. GIve proof that Satan ever enabled a single person to perform any of the signs in Mark 16. All it would take is one example, and I have a feeling that you will bark a lot, but won't provide it.
I feel MCB's blunders & failure List number 44. coming up!

Come on MCB, especially show us from the YLT & E.D. as you claimed any version will suffice?

LMAO at MCB always whilst I remain vindicated!

You remain as always, a lying sack of penis motivated ideological excrement!
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 5:02:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 4:17:44 AM, Composer wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:35:34 AM, annanicole wrote:
And your point has no point. It's absurd. You make the claims. Give the proof. GIve proof that Satan ever enabled a single person to perform any of the signs in Mark 16. All it would take is one example, and I have a feeling that you will bark a lot, but won't provide it.
I feel MCB's blunders & failure List number 44. coming up!

Come on MCB, especially show us from the YLT & E.D. as you claimed any version will suffice?

LMAO at MCB always whilst I remain vindicated!

You remain as always, a lying sack of penis motivated ideological excrement!


It's already Blunder #44:

"And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen." (Mk 16: 20)

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." (John 20: 30-31)

"And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. Then the proconsul, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord." (Acts 13: 11-12)

"Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake (on the evidence of the works themselves - NIV)." (John 14: 11)

"how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation? which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders" (Heb 2: 3-4)

Now MadCornish knocks along and informs us that these signs and wonders really didn't mean much for the devil could have duplicated the same signs! The scriptures themselves state that they (the scriptures) were confirmed by miracles, signs, and wonders. Since according to MCB, the devil could have caused the same miracles, then by his own logic the scriptures are not confirmed at all - and never were.

The truth is: he doesn't even know the purpose of miracles. Hasn't got a clue.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 6:04:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:35:34 AM, annanicole wrote:

Presumed by whom? Certainly not by scripture, scripture speaks of them as very real.

LMAO! "Enchantments" implies illusions, or as others have defined it: "implies a deceptive appearance, an illusion, a juggler's trick, not an actual putting forth of magic power." Look it up. Or pray that God will define these words for you.

In fact an enchantment is a magical spell.

That is precisely how the Egyptians would have viewed what Moses did also, and for the Egyptians all "magic" came from the Gods.

So no it does no imply illusion, even though you wish to take it that way in order to bend it round your doctrine.

Again you have to deny what scriptural actually says to sustain your false beliefs.



But no doubt you deny that inconvenient scripture as well as all the others that disagree with your doctrine.


No, such signs prove nothing about the source of such signs. Even Jesus miracles were no real proof of his authority, since the Pharisees claimed that he performed them in Satan's power. However the prophecies he fulfil were absolute proof of who he was.

You accept the Pharisees claim as legitimate? LMAO. I thought Jesus adequately answered their follow contentions. Signs ARE one of the proofs of the veracity of a speaker.


No, of course I don;t accept them as legitmate. However do you doubt for one second that Satan and his demons can perform such things? If you do then you are even blinder to scripture than I thought you were.

Then you render Jesus's argument impotent.

Not in Jesus case, but all signs are impotent in the end because no-one can prove where they came from

The only evidence for the source of Jesus miracles was the prophecy that showed who he was.

Just like the Pharisees before you, you rely on signs more than you should, hence Jesus would call you part of a "wicked and adulterous generation" just as he called them for their demanding a sign.


The point I was making an it is a 100% valid one, is that we would have no way of knowing where such signs came form, so God not performing them is the logical; answer to the problem

And your point has no point. It's absurd. You make the claims. Give the proof. GIve proof that Satan ever enabled a single person to perform any of the signs in Mark 16. All it would take is one example, and I have a feeling that you will bark a lot, but won't provide it.


There are numerous examples of that in the world of "Faith healing" some of which is much more than psychosomatic.

There are of course also the example of Janes and Jambres which of course you minimise as you do everything that you disagree with. What they did was not illusion, it was magic.

How about the "star" which guided the Magi to Jerusalem rather than Bethlehem and thus brought about the deaths of many infants? Do you claim that God is so inefficient that he would send a sign which did not even find the right place?

There is only one possible source for those works since Paul points out that all such signs would come to an end.

Why?

Because we are to rely on scripture, not on parlour tricks.

You are trapped in a situation that you have to deny Satan's power because you so thoroughly downgrade the power of God.


"And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed." (Mark 16: 20)

Oh I never said that the signs didn't confirm anything, but it was the prophecy that did the real identifying work, the signs on their own would have proved nothing, the prophecy already had proved what was needed.

Prophesy-fulfillment alone was often not enough. The signs and wonders, however, were conclusive.

Matthew 7:21-23 is a warning of just such a possibility, powerful works will count for nothing in the judgement. In fact it's even more of a warning against getting involved with such ones.

The signs and wonders merely serve as a means for identifying those who spoke the truth of God before the written word was completed. That was their purpose.

No it was not thier intended purpose, though as you riughtly point ou
t manytook them that way.

After all the wonders that God showed Israel:

Parting the Red Sea

The provision of Manna.

The provision of the quails

Parting the waters of the Jordan

Causing the a shadow created by the sun to retreat 10 steps of Hezekiah's tower

Causing the sun to appear to remain motionless in teh sky for almost a whole day, and the dozens of other miracles why would God and Christ believe for one minute that signs had any lasting value?

How much value did the signs Jesus performed have? How many people followed him because of them?

No, signs have no real value at all. Little in the short term, one at all in the long term.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 6:45:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anna: LMAO! "Enchantments" implies illusions, or as others have defined it: "implies a deceptive appearance, an illusion, a juggler's trick, not an actual putting forth of magic power." Look it up. Or pray that God will define these words for you.

MCB: In fact an enchantment is a magical spell.


Anna: Does the Hebrew word "imply a deceptive appearance, an illusion, a juggler's trick, not an actual putting forth of magic power"? That's how the folks who actually studied Hebrew defined it.

MCB: So no it does no imply illusion, even though you wish to take it that way in order to bend it round your doctrine.

Anna: I didn't "bend" it. I said that people who actually studied the Hebrew language say it does imply that. The word means "secrecy, hidden, mystery", and its common use implies a deception to the senses.

It never ceases to astound readers that you know more about these ancient languages than men who studied the subject, researched, taught, authored books, etc for their entire lives.

The Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon says that the word means "secrecy, hidden, mystery", and that it implies deception.

MadCornishBiker says that he's sure that it does not imply deception.

I guess we should take MCB's word for it, because he invokes John 17: 3, and after all, Mr. Brown, Mr. Driver, and Mr. Briggs were probably apostate anyhow. They wasted their whole lifes studying ancient Hebrew, without realizing that all we have to do is ask MCB about it.

LMAO! What a joke!

Anna: I'm simply going by the lexicographical definition of the word.

MCB: Again you have to deny what scriptural actually says to sustain your false beliefs.

Anna: I gave you the definition of the word. We'll just add that to the list of words that you can't define.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 6:48:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 6:04:17 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
You are trapped in a situation that you have to deny Satan's power because you so thoroughly downgrade the power of God.
And of course true to your ideology founded upon excrement, despite your previous lies & false claims, you can't show us this ' Satan ' ideology either using the YLT & E.D?

This Story book god of your making is in fact fallible i.e. NOT Almighty, NOT Omnipotent!, NOT Omniscient & NOT Omnipresent!


e.g. The Lord was with the men of Judah. They conquered29 the hill country, but they could not30 conquer the people living in the coastal plain, because they had chariots with iron-rimmed wheels.31 (Judges 1:19) NET Story book

So obviously Story book god is NOT Omnipotent; but as we read, is actually impotent in the coastal plain and is also impotent against iron-wheel rimmed chariots and is impotent against moi, and we successfully manage to ' keep out ' ALL
Supernatural gods, especially & including your imagined ones? LOL!


Supernatural gods only literally exist in the duped corrupt minds of a few and recent Data shows even those few are dwindling in numbers as we speak, LOL!

Hence it is impossible for Supernatural gods to literally live or exist anywhere except in corrupt mindsets such as MCB's!

Furthermore here is another example of the lack of omnipresence & lack of Omniscience of Story book god -

But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the people14 had started15 building. (Gen. 11:5) NET Story book.

So we see here that Story book god was unaware of the City of Babel & the structure being built there and it obviously not being ' omnipresent ' as claimed; it had to actually physically ' come down there ' to see what it didn't already know? LOL!


&

So the Lord said, "The outcry against57 Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so blatant58 18:21 that I must go down59 and see if they are as wicked is the outcry suggests.60 If not,61 I want to know." (Gen. 18:21) NET Story book

Again Gen. 18:21 proves Story book god is NOT Omnipresent nor Omniscient and it had to literally ' go down ' again, but this time to Sodom & Gomorrah to ' see for itself ' and it obviously didn't already know, but wanted to find out, so it ' went down itself ' to do so? LOL!


Your mentor & literal Saviour moi!

Me Composer the ongoing successful & vindicated Cult buster!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 7:38:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 6:45:21 AM, annanicole wrote:
Anna: LMAO! "Enchantments" implies illusions, or as others have defined it: "implies a deceptive appearance, an illusion, a juggler's trick, not an actual putting forth of magic power." Look it up. Or pray that God will define these words for you.

MCB: In fact an enchantment is a magical spell.


Anna: Does the Hebrew word "imply a deceptive appearance, an illusion, a juggler's trick, not an actual putting forth of magic power"? That's how the folks who actually studied Hebrew defined it.

As always you mean the Hebrew Scholars you agree with.

You always discount any other version.

However you only have to consider the context to realise that "illusion" simply doesn't cut it. No illusion would have done any good in those circumstances up against Moses realities.

As always Doctrine overcomes all else in your mind.


MCB: So no it does no imply illusion, even though you wish to take it that way in order to bend it round your doctrine.

Anna: I didn't "bend" it. I said that people who actually studied the Hebrew language say it does imply that. The word means "secrecy, hidden, mystery", and its common use implies a deception to the senses.

You bent it, and you kn ow it. You had to go against all of the context of the situation to do it also.

You did what you always did, pick the meaning which suits your doctrine, not the story in scripture.


It never ceases to astound readers that you know more about these ancient languages than men who studied the subject, researched, taught, authored books, etc for their entire lives.

The Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon says that the word means "secrecy, hidden, mystery", and that it implies deception.

MadCornishBiker says that he's sure that it does not imply deception.

I guess we should take MCB's word for it, because he invokes John 17: 3, and after all, Mr. Brown, Mr. Driver, and Mr. Briggs were probably apostate anyhow. They wasted their whole lifes studying ancient Hebrew, without realizing that all we have to do is ask MCB about it.

LMAO! What a joke!


Anna: I'm simply going by the lexicographical definition of the word.

MCB: Again you have to deny what scriptural actually says to sustain your false beliefs.

Anna: I gave you the definition of the word. We'll just add that to the list of words that you can't define.

No Anna you gave me a definition of the word, not the definition, I do not deny it is a possible meaning of the word, it just isn't the meaning of the word that fits the circumstances.

You have to stick by your lexicons rather than scripture don't you. You always retreat into the words of men.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 8:13:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
MCB: "No Anna you gave me a definition of the word, not the definition, I do not deny it is a possible meaning of the word, it just isn't the meaning of the word that fits the circumstances.

You have to stick by your lexicons rather than scripture don't you. You always retreat into the words of men."


Anna: Then why don't you give us a definition of the word that demands a lack of illusion, of deception, or trickery.

"And the magicians of Egypt did in like manner with their deceptive illusions: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as Jehovah had spoken."

You've admitted that the preceding could be a correct meaning to the passage - but you say it's not!

And from THAT, you've concluded that the signs and wonders that accompanied the disciples of Jesus really didn't confirm much of anything, for the devil could have performed the same signs.

Nicodemus was a Jew. Presumably he knew about Exodus 7. What did he say?

"Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: the same came unto him by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him."

Was Nicodemus right or wrong?

Did Nicodemus not recognize, especially based upon Exodus 7, that the devil could have duplicated the signs and fooled everyone?

Man, I find it odd that everyone in the world is only concerned with what you style "doctrine" (even though you can't define that word, either: you concocted a non-existent meaning), but alas, the Witnesses .... ahhhh...the Witnesses! They are concerned with "scripture". "Scripture" must be where you got the idea that the appellation "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" would be a scriptural name if only they believed and taught what was in the scriptures! Chalk that up to yet another absurdity from you.

No, sir, a group could get everything else right, yet use the wrong name - and still be wrong. Likewise a group of people could be totally wrong on everything else, yet still utilize a scriptural name.

That's just an example of you and your "concern over scripture". Exodus 7 is simply another example.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 9:00:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 8:13:23 AM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "No Anna you gave me a definition of the word, not the definition, I do not deny it is a possible meaning of the word, it just isn't the meaning of the word that fits the circumstances.

You have to stick by your lexicons rather than scripture don't you. You always retreat into the words of men."


Anna: Then why don't you give us a definition of the word that demands a lack of illusion, of deception, or trickery.

"And the magicians of Egypt did in like manner with their deceptive illusions: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as Jehovah had spoken."

You've admitted that the preceding could be a correct meaning to the passage - but you say it's not!

No, I have not admitted any such thing.

I have admitted that the word, not the entire phrase, could indicate illusion, however the passage does not.

Moses actually by "magic" produced these signs, and Janes and Jambres did similar, though not with the same quality that Moses had. They did not produce, for instance, the illusion of a snake any more than Moses did.

Of course you can't accept the power of either God or Satan can you?

We have touched here on something I have often wondered about you, but never asked.

I wonder just how much you minimise the power that was necessary for these events.

How do you rationalise away the plagues of Egypt?

The parting of the Red Sea.

The parting of the Jordan?

The collapse of the Walls of Jericho?

The reversing of the sun back up the steps of the tower as a sign for Hezekiah

The sun appearing to stand still over the plains of Aijalon.

How much do you minimise those or rationalise them away I wonder?

Do you have any idea, for instance, how massive a miracle the parting of the Red Sea had to be for it to work at all?

Somehow I doubt it, and yet if you think it through, taking all the factors into account, it must have been thousands of times more spectacular than anything Cecil B DeMille could conjure up.

But since you do all you can to minimise the power of God you cannot admit to it can you.


And from THAT, you've concluded that the signs and wonders that accompanied the disciples of Jesus really didn't confirm much of anything, for the devil could have performed the same signs.


No not just from that, from knowledge of the power that scripture shows us that Satan and his demons posses which is sufficient for a demon "Prince of Persia" to delay an Angle sent to aid Daniel, so that after about a week he had to have re-enforcements to overcome that opposition.

Also, don;t frontage that Jesus never argued with Satan over his authority to offer "the glory of all the Kingdoms of the earth" as a bribe.

Nor did he turn to the Pharisees and say that Satan could not indeed do what they were saying, merely that if her were to them his house was divided, which of course it is.

no. Jesus ever underestimated the power Satan has at his command, nor should we. We simply have to remember that it doesn't matter how much power Satan and his Demons have, God has more and can limit anything Satan can do.

Don't forget also that those "Workers of Lawlessness" from Matthew 7:21-23 come to Christ bragging about the "powerful works " they have performed in his name. If they had the power to do such things, where did they get it? Not from God or Christ would not have denied knowing them. No their power comes from Satan.Why do you think we get so manywarnings about Satan and his hordes?

Why do you think hsis being cast down to the earth is sucha cause for woe?

Nicodemus was a Jew. Presumably he knew about Exodus 7. What did he say?

"Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: the same came unto him by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him."

Was Nicodemus right or wrong?

Did Nicodemus not recognize, especially based upon Exodus 7, that the devil could have duplicated the signs and fooled everyone?

Are you sure he wasn't just brown-nosing? The passage certainly gives the impression that he was simply trying to flatter Christ for his own reasons.


Man, I find it odd that everyone in the world is only concerned with what you style "doctrine" (even though you can't define that word, either: you concocted a non-existent meaning), but alas, the Witnesses .... ahhhh...the Witnesses! They are concerned with "scripture". "Scripture" must be where you got the idea that the appellation "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" would be a scriptural name if only they believed and taught what was in the scriptures! Chalk that up to yet another absurdity from you.


You find that odd? After all Christ said on the subject. I would find if much odder after his comments it it were to be the other way round.

Luke 17:22-29
22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. 23 And they shall say to you, Lo, there! Lo, here! go not away, nor follow after them: 24 for as the lightning, when it lighteneth out of the one part under the heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall the Son of man be in his day. 25 But first must he suffer many things and be rejected of this generation. 26 And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: 30 after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed.

Luke 18:8
ASV(i) 8 I say unto you, that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

He was right. He didn't.

No, sir, a group could get everything else right, yet use the wrong name - and still be wrong. Likewise a group of people could be totally wrong on everything else, yet still utilize a scriptural name.

That's just an example of you and your "concern over scripture". Exodus 7 is simply another example.

That is true. I do insist on being concerned that the understanding of scripture fits in with the whole story. Scripture is God's word, and therefore has to be harmonious above all else.