Esv

[faroukfarouk]

Please copy for our information what your copy of the Scofield Bible states. That's all I'm asking.

I think I read what you quoted.

 

[OzSpen]

There's really not much difference between "false doctrine" and "bad theology" if anything "false doctrine" is a stronger condemnation of the teaching contained therein, or is this not your view?

I have no problem with either view but 'bad theology' was not my language.

As for Mark 16, would you promote some of this teaching as sound doctrine?

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
​

v 16: Baptismal regeneration.
v. 18: pick up serpents with the hands, drinking deadly poison, and they will not be hurt.

Where do these teachings fit with false or true doctrine?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I think I read what you quoted.

That's not my point. Why didn't you quote it when you referenced Scofield?

What I quoted from Scofield, in my understanding, says nothing about the trustworthiness of Mark 16:9ff.

 

[Keachian]

I have no problem with either view but 'bad theology' was not my language.

As for Mark 16, would you promote some of this teaching as sound doctrine?

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
​

v 16: Baptismal regeneration.
v. 18: pick up serpents with the hands, drinking deadly poison, and they will not be hurt.

Where do these teachings fit with false or true doctrine?

Oz

I would agree with you somewhat but that's beside my point the Scriptural status of the longer ending is not dependent upon the theological content of the passage but whether it is what Mark intended to write. The same holds true of the pericope adulterae, while I do believe it is a true account of an event in the ministry of our Lord, it is not a part of any of the Gospels (whether it is Scripture is a different question exclusive for it though)

 

[faroukfarouk]

That's not my point. Why didn't you quote it when you referenced Scofield?

What I quoted from Scofield, in my understanding, says nothing about the trustworthiness of Mark 16:9ff.

I don't quite know what your point is about my contributions, Sir. I was just speaking reasonably naturally, I guess. The fact that that there are early Patristic citations might well strengthen the case.

 

[OzSpen]

I would agree with you somewhat but that's beside my point the Scriptural status of the longer ending is not dependent upon the theological content of the passage but whether it is what Mark intended to write. The same holds true of the pericope adulterae, while I do believe it is a true account of an event in the ministry of our Lord, it is not a part of any of the Gospels (whether it is Scripture is a different question exclusive for it though)

I agree with you on both of these Scriptures (Mk 16:9ff; Jn 7:53-8:11) but being in or out of Scripture is based on MSS evidence in my understanding.

The false or unsound doctrine included in Mark 16:9ff is another reason - for me - to confirm its non-canonical status.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I don't quite know what your point is about my contributions, Sir. I was just speaking reasonably naturally, I guess. The fact that that there are early Patristic citations might well strengthen the case.

My response at #60 is what I was addressing.

 

[faroukfarouk]

My response at #60 is what I was addressing.

I think I answered that at #61.

I'm really not sure where this is leading, though.

 

[Keachian]

I agree with you on both of these Scriptures (Mk 16:9ff; Jn 7:53-8:11) but being in or out of Scripture is based on MSS evidence in my understanding.

The false or unsound doctrine included in Mark 16:9ff is another reason - for me - to confirm its non-canonical status.

Oz

If the Longer ending is not Scripture its theological content is irrelevant, if it is Scripture our theology must incorporate it, since we both agree it is not Scripture then nothing more need be said, it just doesn't make sense to talk of the theology of the longer ending having any bearing on its canonical status

 

[faroukfarouk]

If the Longer ending is not Scripture its theological content is irrelevant, if it is Scripture our theology must incorporate it, since we both agree it is not Scripture then nothing more need be said, it just doesn't make sense to talk of the theology of the longer ending having any bearing on its canonical status

In any case, miraculous activity did happen at the beginning of dispensations; it does not mean that with the completion of the Scriptures such activity would continue to be the norm.

 

[OzSpen]

If the Longer ending is not Scripture its theological content is irrelevant, if it is Scripture our theology must incorporate it, since we both agree it is not Scripture then nothing more need be said, it just doesn't make sense to talk of the theology of the longer ending having any bearing on its canonical status

It does have a bearing to discuss the theology of the longer ending of Mark 16 because there are many people out there who accept the longer ending. Therefore, I choose to address the doctrines in Mk 16:9ff that conflict with other Scripture.

 

[Keachian]

In any case, miraculous activity did happen at the beginning of dispensations; it does not mean that with the completion of the Scriptures such activity would continue to be the norm.

And this has no bearing on the Longer ending at all, not to mention Dispensationalism being bad from start to finish.