Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved

[Zzyzx]

.
Here are the words straight from Jesus (supposedly)

Mark 16;16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned

Notice that the ONLY requirements to be saved are believe and baptized PERIOD.

Believe WHAT?

Baptized by who, how?

There is NO mention of following commandments, praying, avoiding sin, repentance, forgiveness, worship, or anything else (not even love one another " or enemies). Just believe and be baptized.

Where do all the other requirements come from since they are not from Jesus?

Did he change his mind and say different things at other times?

[Saved75]

So we can accept that Mk 16: 1--20 is the true account.

Did I say otherwise? I simply pointed out that Mk 16: 1-8 is generally agreed to have been part of the original text and verses 9-20 are not.

Most of the original manuscripts had Vs 15--20 of Mark 16, In them.

We don't HAVE any original manuscripts so that statement is untrue.

And most Born again, Spirit filled Bible scholars, knew Mk 16 had Vs 16--20 in the best of the earliest manuscripts.

I would have no idea which bible scholars are "born again, spirit filled" so I cannot comment on that, neither do I feel qualified to judge which manuscripts are "the best" but I do know that the verses do not appear in the earliest manuscripts we currently have.



JW

There was the original manuscripts at one time, And History tells us that most and best manuscripts had Mk 16: 1--20 in them.
It's only those who deny the power today, Who come against Vs 16--20.

[JehovahsWitness]

There was the original manuscripts at one time, And History tells us that most and best manuscripts had Mk 16: 1--20 in them.
It's only those who deny the power today, Who come against Vs 16--20.

That is generally accepted by most bible scholars to be incorrect. References have already been provided.

JW

[Saved75]

[Replying to Saved75]

Saved 75 posted:

Most of the original manuscripts had Vs 15--20 of Mark 16, In them.
And most Born again, Spirit filled Bible scholars, knew Mk 16 had Vs 16--20 in the best of the earliest manuscripts.

So we can accept that Mk 16: 1--20 is the true account.

RESPONSE: Hardly. Perhaps the Born again, Spirit filled Biblical scholars but certainly not scriptural scholars and historians general. They know better.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/mk/16:1
[16:9"20] This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Lk 24 and Jn 20.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16
The two oldest manuscripts of Mark 16 (from the 300s) then conclude with verse 8,[1] which ends with the women fleeing from the empty tomb, and saying "nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Many scholars take 16:8 as the original ending and believe the longer ending (16:9-20) was a later addition. In this 12-verse passage, the author refers to Jesus' appearances to Mary Magdalene, two disciples, and then the Eleven (the Twelve Apostles minus Judas). The text concludes with the Great Commission, declaring that believers that have been baptized will be saved while nonbelievers will be condemned, and pictures Jesus taken to Heaven and sitting at the Right Hand of God.
Because of patristic evidence from the late 100s for the existence of copies of Mark with 16:9-20, it is contended by a majority of scholars that this passage must have been written and attached no later than the early 2nd century (see May, Herbert G. and Bruce M. Metzger. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. 1977.)

The Born again Spirit filled Bible Scholars, were scriptural historians, and they say Mk 16: 16--20 was in the original manuscripts.
They were Scriptural historians,How do you think the knew the truth??.

[Saved75]

Every Christian can and should lay hands on the sick, and the promise is,
"They SHALL recover".

Exactly. That's the PROMISE of this religion. And it's a promise that is clearly not true.

Show me any Christian who can walk into a hospital and empty the place by simply placing their hands on the people there.

If such a person existed it would not only be in the news but it would be the focal point of all scientists and theists.

But the TRUTH of reality is that no such people exist.

Therefore we can conclude that either no one who claims to be a "Christian" actually believes in Jesus, or we can conclude that the fables of Jesus simply don't contain truth.

I would suspect that the latter conclusion is more realistic.

Any Christian can and should lay hands on the sick, and the promise is, The sick shall recover. But the sick person has to have faith to be healed as well as the Christian who is ministering healing.
No one can just walk into a hospital and heal the sick, without teaching what the Bible says about healing, as faith come by hearing what God says about healing.

So we can teach on healing and as the sick believe, we can have a great time healing the sick by God's power.

[Saved75]

That doesn't mean Christians have to look for a snake or deadly drinks, But if a snake bit a Christian, or someone tried to poison them, It wouldn't harm them.

Wow, that's quite the statement! So you're asserting that no Christians have died from snake bites or poison? I guess there aren't very many real Christians then. As a matter fact, here is someone who thought like you and paid for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... ted_States

David Brock, 60, male July 28, 2015 unknown (almost certainly Timber Rattlesnake) Bitten during a religious service at a Pentecostal Church in Jenson, Kentucky. Refused treatment and died in his brother's home.

And I guess all these pastors in Vietnam have nothing to worry about:

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/v ... /91150.htm

The latest pastors to be imprisoned, more than 60, join another 42 who are still behind bars even though the 15-year sentences they received in 2001 for practising their faith have been completed. Their lands were seized when they were arrested.

Su said: "If you do not strictly follow the rules, they can put poison in your food. So you take a little bit, and if you feel something or want to vomit, you stop eating. A few people have died."

Every Christian can and should lay hands on the sick, and the promise is,
"They SHALL recover".

I've witnessed a lot of 'hand laying' and even done some of it myself. Result? Nothing but some shared body warmth (which in itself has some emotional comforting properties, but no actual physical healing).

Please note, The signs in Mk 16: 17--18, Aren't for every Christian, In the sense that Jesus said they are those WHO BELIEVE, And there are a lot of Christians who don't believe in healing, Or they believe God will heal if He wants to, or if it's His time for them to be healed.

As for the body warmth, That's the tangible healing power of God, God uses me with a tangible healing power, and most people fall under God's power, Some people are out for hours, as God's power goes into them.

[Zzyzx]

.

Any Christian can and should lay hands on the sick, and the promise is, The sick shall recover. But the sick person has to have faith to be healed as well as the Christian who is ministering healing.
No one can just walk into a hospital and heal the sick, without teaching what the Bible says about healing, as faith come by hearing what God says about healing.

So we can teach on healing and as the sick believe, we can have a great time healing the sick by God's power.

Thus, Christian / Missionary hospitals that teach about God and pray should have a phenomenal record of curing ill and injured patients with God's help -- FAR better than secular hospitals that presumably do not pray, teach, seek God's help. Right?

Is that the way it works out in real life?

[polonius]

[Replying to Saved75]

The Born again Spirit filled Bible Scholars, were scriptural historians, and they say Mk 16: 16--20 was in the original manuscripts.
They were Scriptural historians,How do you think the knew the truth??.

RESPONSE: Please provide the names and the references they wrote so we can examine them.

Please support your assertion with appropriate documentation and citations.

Perhaps begin by evidencing when the longer ending to Mark first appeared. (That is before the second century).

And incidentally wasn't Mark a Syrian Jew, never a witness to what he wrote?

[Saved75]

.

Any Christian can and should lay hands on the sick, and the promise is, The sick shall recover. But the sick person has to have faith to be healed as well as the Christian who is ministering healing.
No one can just walk into a hospital and heal the sick, without teaching what the Bible says about healing, as faith come by hearing what God says about healing.

So we can teach on healing and as the sick believe, we can have a great time healing the sick by God's power.

Thus, Christian / Missionary hospitals that teach about God and pray should have a phenomenal record of curing ill and injured patients with God's help -- FAR better than secular hospitals that presumably do not pray, teach, seek God's help. Right?

Is that the way it works out in real life?

That's the way it should work, As God always confirms His word with signs following,
Mk 16: 20.
So if we preach, teach or speak about healing from the Bible, God will confirm it with healing's.

[Zzyzx]

.

Thus, Christian / Missionary hospitals that teach about God and pray should have a phenomenal record of curing ill and injured patients with God's help -- FAR better than secular hospitals that presumably do not pray, teach, seek God's help. Right?

Is that the way it works out in real life?

That's the way it should work,

The way it "should work" is NOT how it DOES work in real life.

Perhaps there is a BIG mistake being made by those who talk about how "it should work"

So if we preach, teach or speak about healing from the Bible, God will confirm it with healing's.

I credit people with knowing that religious hospitals do not have a vastly better record of successfully treating illnesses and injuries than do non-religious hospitals.

How can that be IF religious hospitals are receiving supernatural / divine help? Are they really terrible hospitals that are pulled up to average with God's help?

Christians should be careful about claiming to receive God's help when they are only about average and do not perform (whatever) better than Non-Christians (except perhaps in their imagination).

[Divine Insight]

Any Christian can and should lay hands on the sick, and the promise is, The sick shall recover. But the sick person has to have faith to be healed as well as the Christian who is ministering healing.
No one can just walk into a hospital and heal the sick, without teaching what the Bible says about healing, as faith come by hearing what God says about healing.

So we can teach on healing and as the sick believe, we can have a great time healing the sick by God's power.

This argument fails for precisely the reasons that Zzyzx has given.

Even if Christians could only heal Christians that too would be extremely noticeable, measurable, and in the news!

Moreover, if Christians are able to heal sick Christians because of their belief then why do Christians themselves who are believers ever become sick?

Clearly this religion is a fraud. There can be no doubt about it.

The claims of this religious dogma are clearly false. Period.

To deny this can only be a serious act of refusing to face the truth.