1 / 15

Canon of Mark 16:9-20

rich
Download Presentation

Canon of Mark 16:9-20

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Canon of Mark 16:9-20 Lesson 2

    2. The Canon of Mark 16:9-20 Argument Against: “Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses” If I never quote from Zechariah 14 in my writings, does that mean Zechariah 14 was not in existence in my day? Clement believed baptism was essential for salvation In the previous lesson we discussed the claim that the most reliable manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20 when in reality, it is only two seemingly corrupt manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. When I warned that most of the modern day versions used these manuscripts, viz., the minority text to draw from, I did not mean to convey that it is sinful to use those version, but warned that they are inferior versions to those who draw from the majority text. . . In the previous lesson we discussed the claim that the most reliable manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20 when in reality, it is only two seemingly corrupt manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. When I warned that most of the modern day versions used these manuscripts, viz., the minority text to draw from, I did not mean to convey that it is sinful to use those version, but warned that they are inferior versions to those who draw from the majority text. . .

    4. The Canon of Mark 16:9-20 Argument Against: “Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses” Clement believed baptism was essential for salvation Irenaeus quotes from this text in ca. 185 AD, “Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies III:10:5-6, which was written ca.185 AD” (wikipedia.org) Justin Martyer . . .

    5. The Canon of Mark 16:9-20

    6. The Canon of Mark 16:9-20 Argument Against: “There are 17 non-marcan words used” 17 words in these last 12 verses are not found anywhere else in Mark In Mark 4:20-29 there are 14 words which occur nowhere else in Mark’s gospel! who questions the authenticity of Mark 4:20-29? In Luke 24:41-53, there are 9 words used nowhere else by Luke! who questions the authenticity of Luke’s ending?

    8. The Canon of Mark 16:9-20 Argument Against: “There are 17 non-marcan words used” 17 words in these last 12 verses are not found anywhere else in Mark In Mark 4:20-29 there are 14 words which occur nowhere else in Mark’s gospel! who questions the authenticity of Mark 4:20-29? In Luke 24:41-53, there are 9 words used nowhere else by Luke! who questions the authenticity of Luke’s ending? This is probably the only sermon I have ever used this word up to this point in my preaching life out of about 1000 sermons! But such doesn’t take away from this lesson being genuinely mine!This is probably the only sermon I have ever used this word up to this point in my preaching life out of about 1000 sermons! But such doesn’t take away from this lesson being genuinely mine!

    9. The Canon of Mark 16:9-20 Argument Against: A theological contradiction! “Mark 16:12 says, ‘And after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them, while they were walking along on their way to the country.’  This verse may be problematic.  Jesus rose in the same body that he died in (John 2:19), though it was a glorified body.  This is problematic because it suggests ‘a different form.’  Jesus did not appear in a different form.  He appeared in the same body he rose in” (Email 3/04/2006) John 2:19-22. . . 19 Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty–six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said. Did Jesus raise the same body that was buried? Yes! Does Mark 16:12 say that Jesus raised up a different body than was buried? Absolutely not! Does it suggest that Jesus appeared in a different form to two disciples? NO! It doesn't suggest it, it states it! Because he chose to appear in a different form to two disciples doesn't negate the fact that Jesus resurrected the body that died. This individual is looking for a contradiction and so builds an argument on feeble logic. Where does John 2:19 assert that Jesus could never conceal his true identity to another after His resurrection?John 2:19-22. . . 19 Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty–six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said. Did Jesus raise the same body that was buried? Yes! Does Mark 16:12 say that Jesus raised up a different body than was buried? Absolutely not! Does it suggest that Jesus appeared in a different form to two disciples? NO! It doesn't suggest it, it states it! Because he chose to appear in a different form to two disciples doesn't negate the fact that Jesus resurrected the body that died. This individual is looking for a contradiction and so builds an argument on feeble logic. Where does John 2:19 assert that Jesus could never conceal his true identity to another after His resurrection?

    10. Mark doesn’t say that Jesus was in a different “body” and doesn’t deny that Jesus physical “body” was raised! He simply appeared in another form to these two He restrained his appearance to these two persons on a road in the country Jesus was “transfigured” before Peter, James and John prior to his death, why could He not take on another form at some time after his death if He wanted (Matt. 17:1, 2)? “After that, He appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country” (Mk. 16:12) RE: transfiguration. . .if Jesus could be transformed before the crucifixion without negating that a blood and bone body was crucified, then why could he not also appear in a different form after the ressurection without negating a blood and bone body was raised?RE: transfiguration. . .if Jesus could be transformed before the crucifixion without negating that a blood and bone body was crucified, then why could he not also appear in a different form after the ressurection without negating a blood and bone body was raised?

    11. “After that, He appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country” (Mk. 16:12) If this discounts authenticity of Mark, then it also denies the authenticity of Luke – both speak of the same thing! “Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus. . . So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him” (Lk. 24:13, 15, 16) They compliment (not contradict) each other! Mark simply tells us how Jesus restrained their eyes, by appearing in another form!Mark simply tells us how Jesus restrained their eyes, by appearing in another form!

    12. The Only Bogus Things In Relation to Mark 16:9-20. . . ARE THOSE ARGUMENTS GIVEN TO DISCOUNT ITS AUTHENTICITY!

    13. Peter/Mark Connection “She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; and so does Mark my son” (1 Pet. 5:13) Mark worked closely with Peter, Paul, and Barnabas (Phil. 1:24; 2 Tim. 4:11; Col. 4:10; Acts 15:39) Mark simply taught what Peter already affirmed Jesus taught regarding baptism: [CLICK X2] Note only did he work closely with the apostle Peter, but was Barnabas's cousin, "Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him)" (Col. 4:10) "as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow laborers" (Philemon 1:24).[CLICK X2] Note only did he work closely with the apostle Peter, but was Barnabas's cousin, "Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him)" (Col. 4:10) "as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow laborers" (Philemon 1:24).

    14. No doctrine taught in Mark 16:9-20 contradicts any other doctrine in the NT Those in error hate this passage because of its clearness Without Mark 16:9-20 the disciples are left in our minds as “afraid” The Gospel appears unfinished the Great Commission would be left out (cf. Matt. 28:18, 19, Lk. 24:46-49) The Canon of Mark 16:9-20

    15. If you want to be saved, obey Mark 16:16 today in belief and baptism!

More Related