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?

[polonius]

[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.)

[Divine Insight]

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.

[Divine Insight]

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.

I'm not suggesting that Christians should go around drinking poison to show off their powers. Although since this God always loves to be "glorified" I don't see what would be wrong with that.

Also, according to this it would be impossible to poison a Christian. This can be dangerous for people who claim to be Christians. If someone wanted to test to see if they are lying about believing in Jesus all they would need to do is give the Christian a poison drink. If the "Christian" dies (or his harmed in any way) then he or she wasn't a true Christian anyway. According to the words of Jesus.

Also, think about the Jim Jones incident. All those "Christians" who believed that Jim Jones was preaching Christianity died from drinking poison Kool-Aid.

[benchwarmer]

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).

[Student]

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.)

I am very puzzled by this citation. It is certainly absent from the 1962 edition, as well as being omitted from the more recent editions [3rd & 4th] of The New Oxford Annotated Bible. As I don't have the 1977 edition to hand and I am not aware of any first century patristic citations of anything pertaining in Mark 16:9 - 20 perhaps you might care to elucidate?

[ttruscott]

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.

Hardly. Perhaps you confuse salvation with sanctification. Matt 22:37 Jesus declared, Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.

which certainly doesn't fit the narrow confines of salvation as believe and be baptised but it does fit the tenor of His message in its entirety.

[ttruscott]

If the closed canon of manuscripts that have been proclaimed as holy scriptures allows such made up additions to be tacked on to the text then what sort of integrity does that whole process have to begin with?

Good grief I'm sure glad the scientific method doesn't work this way

Are you referring to peer review? Some disagree:

THE DEFECTS OF PEER REVIEW
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
Slow and expensive
Inconsistent
Bias
Abuse of peer review
- people steal ideas and present them as their own, or
- produce an unjustly harsh review to block or at least slow down the publication of the ideas of a competitor.

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

Hardly. Perhaps you confuse salvation with sanctification.

Perhaps it is / was "Mark" (whoever that may have been) who was confused. The text quoted clearly says believe + baptized = saved. Maybe he didn't know what all was REALLY required.

Or, maybe it is Apologists or their teachers who are confused.

Is it somehow not "false teaching" / heresy to warp Mark 16:16 into something different?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 17 by ttruscott]


Those who have some understanding of science realize that The Scientific Method is NOT synonymous with Peer Review.

Peer Review refers primarily to a process used by academic / professional publications regarding articles they consider publishing. (Evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... eer-review )

That is but one step in the Scientific Method " and very incomplete version at that. Publication of results in professional literature (AFTER observation, hypothesis, experiment, duplication, conclusions) is intended to invite others to conduct research that confirms, refutes, modifies, refines, and/or continues the original study and its methodology.

The entire scientific attitude (and method) is designed to ferret out accurate and verifiable information and to eliminate to the greatest extent possible individual biases, faulty data, defective methodology, spurious conclusions, deception.

If errors or fraud are found in scientific work / publications it is found and exposed by scientists -- NOT by Theologians.

Compare that with the alternative " Take my word for it (or his or this book)


Rather than attempting to denigrate science, Religionists would be well advised to examine their own evidence (if any) and conclusions (or beliefs). Of course they cannot do anything but go over and over the same ancient text or its derivatives " with NO way to verify that claims and stories are truthful and accurate.

[bluethread]

... which explains why science leads to all applied technologies in the progress of society...

Oh, like eugenics and experimental surgery?