Goal or Gateway ? Empowering of the Holy Spirit

[notuptome]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

A very thorough explanation of every manuscript with and without the long ending. After reading through this information I am even more confident than ever that it belongs. Some of the blank columns in the other manuscripts might mean something. It was accepted as canon very early on. Probably for the same reason we do today. The Spirit bears witness with our spirit that it is the Word of God. It only irritates those who reject the idea that all believers will speak in tongues. That is probably why it is missing from the manuscripts it is missing from.

Which is why you take the position you take. It suits your already determined conclusion. Compare Mark 16 with Matthew 28 and while quite similar Mark goes way off from Matthew and opens the door to some very strange behaviors.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[wolfwint]

Wrong! it is not my teaching. I have never said if you do not speak in tongues you can't be empowered with the Holy Spirit. That is lie you have told and assumption. Please do not speak untruthfully of my Thread. It doesn't even say that. If you are looking to be confrontational find another venue. Thank you.

Then you should read in your First Post how you definate Goal and Gateway.
There is no place for be baptised with the Holy Spirit, without speaking in tongues.
For what you call me a liar?

 

[notuptome]

LOL you have made a booboo. The manuscript is not an "Original" it is a copy from the original known as the Autograph. All manuscripts are copies from that either made earlier or later. You accuse me of making things up, yet you don't even know what a manuscript is. And again you did not provide any Biblical chapters, verses, or even a sentence from the Bible to refute what I used in
Mathews 28, Acts 1:8, Luke 24 and Mark 16:15-18.

You Just have mocking and scoffing. Your disrespect for God's word now you try to insult about poisons and serpents.

Thank you for confirming what I have said another thread like this one. You at the end of the day have no Biblical refute. And will admit you are wrong by mocking and scoffing. Thank you.

The Thread is Goal or Gateway
and many have enjoyed it. and still will

You do not enjoy truth. You are promoting error when you promote tongues in todays church.

You delight in untoward behavior.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Scribe]

Which is why you take the position you take. It suits your already determined conclusion. Compare Mark 16 with Matthew 28 and while quite similar Mark goes way off from Matthew and opens the door to some very strange behaviors.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

We all have a conclusion. It is a matter of which one is the correct conclusion. Since I do speak in tongues I have a pretty good reason to conclude that Mark 16 long ending belongs. However from a purely textual criticism point of after reading information on the subject, (though I have not retained half of what I read, and will review it again until I can speak intelligently on it) I still believe that it belongs and so do scholars that know more about textual criticism than I plan to learn, which is why it was included and considered canon.

 

[notuptome]

We all have a conclusion. It is a matter of which one is the correct conclusion. Since I do speak in tongues I have a pretty good reason to conclude that Mark 16 long ending belongs. However from a purely textual criticism point of after reading information on the subject, (though I have not retained half of what I read, and will review it again until I can speak intelligently on it) I still believe that it belongs and so do scholars that know more about textual criticism than I plan to learn, which is why it was included and considered canon.

Just to be clear I'm not advocating it's removal just cautioning against using it as foundational to doctrine. It is fine in a supporting role when qualified by other scripture.

Always preferable to arrive at a conclusion after study of the passage than to bring the conclusion before one arrives.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[CS1]

We all have a conclusion. It is a matter of which one is the correct conclusion. Since I do speak in tongues I have a pretty good reason to conclude that Mark 16 long ending belongs. However from a purely textual criticism point of after reading information on the subject, (though I have not retained half of what I read, and will review it again until I can speak intelligently on it) I still believe that it belongs and so do scholars that know more about textual criticism than I plan to learn, which is why it was included and considered canon.

Scribe I would argue there is more support for it with other scriptures in the New Testament than not. If I have to engage in textual criticism before seeing Jesus healed, the Apostles Healed , the Book of Acts over and over again records the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and the Apostles doing everything Jesus is believed to have said in Mark 16:15-18. Maybe the reason for it to be canon, is on that Truth. The person who has issue with it ,made known it was added and suggested it is not Biblical. He said I have added to the context . Which is false.

 

[CS1]

You do not enjoy truth. You are promoting error when you promote tongues in todays church.

You delight in untoward behavior.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

you disagree that the manuscripts are not the original writings of the Bible but copies from the Original? Ok. Your personal attacks are noted and your response to the Biblical point I have made you have not refuted.

Thank you

 

[CS1]

Which is why you take the position you take. It suits your already determined conclusion. Compare Mark 16 with Matthew 28 and while quite similar Mark goes way off from Matthew and opens the door to some very strange behaviors.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

LOL you say you are not for removal but "just cautioning against using it as foundational to doctrine."

SO you are ok with those who have agreed to Mark 16:15-18 been there but not in agreement that it should be used to teach with?

Even if Matthew 28 supports it and Acts 1:8, Luke 24, and other chapters in the Book of Acts? I did not know you were the sole canonizer and the authority of the context of Mark 16: 15-18. You have posted and reposted many times, I am waiting for a Bible scripture based refuting. I only have seen attacks and mocking and scoffing. Maybe you should just leave this thread alone and speak on something you have understanding in.

 

[notuptome]

you disagree that the manuscripts are not the original writings of the Bible but copies from the Original? Ok. Your personal attacks are noted and your response to the Biblical point I have made you have not refuted.

Thank you

I do not disagree over trivial matters such as should they be referred to as manuscripts or autographs. Call them what you wish and be happy.

If you are going to make doctrine from Mark 16 then do not omit verse 18.

I only refute doctrine I do not make personal attacks as you falsely accuse me of doing. No matter what I say or how I say it you will take it as a personal attack. I cannot help for your lack of maturity.

I cannot refute the utter foolishness of a fool to the satisfaction of a fool, in fact no man could possibly do it.

Pr 17:16 Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

LOL you say you are not for removal but "just cautioning against using it as foundational to doctrine."

SO you are ok with those who have agreed to Mark 16:15-18 been there but not in agreement that it should be used to teach with?

Even if Matthew 28 supports it and Acts 1:8, Luke 24, and other chapters in the Book of Acts? I did not know you were the sole canonizer and the authority of the context of Mark 16: 15-18. You have posted and reposted many times, I am waiting for a Bible scripture based refuting. I only have seen attacks and mocking and scoffing. Maybe you should just leave this thread alone and speak on something you have understanding in.

I understand that you advocate for things that have ceased. You seek power and fail to see that man cannot handle such power. The power remains with God and not in the hands of men.

Jas 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[CS1]

I do not disagree over trivial matters such as should they be referred to as manuscripts or autographs. Call them what you wish and be happy.

If you are going to make doctrine from Mark 16 then do not omit verse 18.

I only refute doctrine I do not make personal attacks as you falsely accuse me of doing. No matter what I say or how I say it you will take it as a personal attack. I cannot help for your lack of maturity.

I cannot refute the utter foolishness of a fool to the satisfaction of a fool, in fact no man could possibly do it.

Pr 17:16 Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

To you I am a fool and that I will wear as a badge of honor.

 

[oldethennew]

Not, you know we love you very much, and also, we have missed you,
but it would appear that you are confident that our Saviour 'cannot appoint special gifts'
to whom He will, when He wills, or if He chooses -
just because 'everything' that goes down, down here on earth is not documented by someone held up
as pure authority', surely doesn't mean that Jesus doesn't touch and use His Holy, Eternal, Gifts through
others hands that serve Him...
it's His Truths/choices, Not ours to determine or state as a truth or not -
hub and I have seen, done, been a part of many miracles, and yet, we have been
instructed to keep it just between Jesus, a very few others, and ourselves...
please, let us not limit or put our own interpretations upon God and what He does as He wills upon man...

 

[notuptome]

To you I am a fool and that I will wear as a badge of honor.

Oh I know you will.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[CS1]

Oh I know you will.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I will thank you I am in good company As Jesus said, Count all joy when they speak evil against you for they did it to me.

 

[Prycejosh1987]

This is also why as we freely received we should freely give, although Jesus did also say that we can work for our food. Its good on Peter and Paul to freely bless. We dont see that nowadays, we just see some preachers really taking liberties.

 

[CS1]

I do not disagree over trivial matters such as should they be referred to as manuscripts or autographs. Call them what you wish and be happy.

If you are going to make doctrine from Mark 16 then do not omit verse 18.

I only refute doctrine I do not make personal attacks as you falsely accuse me of doing. No matter what I say or how I say it you will take it as a personal attack. I cannot help for your lack of maturity.

I cannot refute the utter foolishness of a fool to the satisfaction of a fool, in fact no man could possibly do it.

Pr 17:16 Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Hey Chester !!!!! here is a person actually come, someone, a fool? And it was not me LOL

 

[Blik]

What a work for the Lord Gateway is doing. A heart felt thank you.

The Holy Spirit uses the word that is in our minds, and as we discuss the word and see it clearly it enforces the power of the word in the world. Even posters who have distorted the word go to the word with their distortion and by discussing it based on that word, many truths are worked out. Perhaps never is the minds of those who have distorted the word but others who read these posts see how the distortions are brought about.

 

[Scribe]

What a work for the Lord Gateway is doing. A heart felt thank you.

The Holy Spirit uses the word that is in our minds, and as we discuss the word and see it clearly it enforces the power of the word in the world. Even posters who have distorted the word go to the word with their distortion and by discussing it based on that word, many truths are worked out. Perhaps never is the minds of those who have distorted the word but others who read these posts see how the distortions are brought about.

Is that your third cup of coffee? So Positive!

 

[Scribe]

I do not disagree over trivial matters such as should they be referred to as manuscripts or autographs. Call them what you wish and be happy.

If you are going to make doctrine from Mark 16 then do not omit verse 18.

I only refute doctrine I do not make personal attacks as you falsely accuse me of doing. No matter what I say or how I say it you will take it as a personal attack. I cannot help for your lack of maturity.

I cannot refute the utter foolishness of a fool to the satisfaction of a fool, in fact no man could possibly do it.

Pr 17:16 Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

autographs (original writings)
apographs (copies of the original writings.)