And these signs shall follow them that believe;

[OzSpen]

"What's inspired" is a rather modern development which seems to have arising after the puritans decided that the apocrypha shouldn't be in their KJV.
The possibility that the end of Mark was a later addition is the product of modern scholarship based on modern archaeological finds.
IMO, the arguments for not considering the ends of Mark as "inspired" are essentially academic hubris. (Was Paul's letter to the Laodician church "inspired"? No one has seen it in 1900 years so we'll never know but we could argue about it.)
The entire Gospel of Mark has served us well for nearly 2 millennia and arguing about whether it is "inspired" seems to me to be a useless exercise.
I'm just not interested.
Sorry.

blessings
jim

All right, inspiration of Scripture may not be the correct language but God-breathed = theopneustos is biblical (2 Tim 3:16 NIV).

I am interested in Mark 16:9-20 because of some of the false teaching promoted.

Take Mark 16:16, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved”. This promotes the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration that a person needs to be baptised to be saved. What does the rest of the Bible teach?

• ‘But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God’ (John 1:12 ESV).
• “’And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” ‘(Acts 16:31).
• ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast’ (Eph 2:8-9).
• ‘Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom. 5:1).
• ‘and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith’ (Phil 3:9).

These Scriptures are very clear that no works (e.g. baptism) are required to become children of God and obtain salvation. It is all by grace through faith. Therefore, to teach that “Whoever believes AND is baptized” is saved, is teaching false doctrine. Baptism is not a means to salvation. Baptismal regeneration, as taught in Mark 16:16, is contrary to Scripture. See John Piper’s article, ‘What is baptism and does it save?’ See also, ‘Twisting Acts 2:38 – The question of baptism by water for salvation’ by Watchman Fellowship; and Robin Brace, ‘Baptismal regeneration refuted’.

Snake handlers and drinking deadly poison seem to be in the realm of the ridiculous.

You stated: "The possibility that the end of Mark was a later addition is the product of modern scholarship based on modern archaeological finds". That statement is incorrect, based on the following information:

“The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.” Such marginal notations, however, fail to convey to the reader the larger picture that the external evidence provides, including additional Greek manuscript evidence, to say nothing of the ancient versions and patristic citations.

Additional evidence for omission includes the absence of the verses from various versions: (1) the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, (2) about one hundred Armenian manuscripts (see Colwell, 1937, pp. 369-386), and (3) the two oldest Georgian manuscripts that are dated A.D. 897 and 913. [NOTE: Many scholars list the Old Latin codex Bobiensis from the fourth/fifth century as evidence for the omission of the verses. However, as indicated by the critical apparatus of the UBS Greek text (see Aland, et al., 1983, p. 189), Bobiensis (k) contains the “short ending”—deemed by everyone to be spurious. Its scribe could have been manifesting his concern that something (i.e., verses 9-20) was missing and so settled for the “short ending”.]

Among the patristic writers (i.e., the so-called “Church Fathers”), neither Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 215) nor Origen (A.D. 254) shows any knowledge of the existence of the verses. [Of course, simply showing no knowledge is no proof for omission. If we were to discount as genuine every New Testament verse that a particular patristic writer failed to reference, we would eventually dismiss the entire New Testament as spurious. Though virtually the entire New Testament is quoted or alluded to by the corpus of patristic writers (Metzger, 1978, p. 86)—no one writer refers to every verse.]

Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 339), as well as Jerome (A.D. 420), are said to have indicated the absence of the verses from almost all Greek manuscripts known to them. However, it should be noted that the statement made by Eusebius occurs in a context in which he was offering two possible solutions to an alleged contradiction (between Matthew 28:1 and Mark 16:9) posed by a Marinus. One of the solutions would be to dismiss Mark’s words on the grounds that it is not contained in all texts. But Eusebius does not claim to share this solution. The second solution he offers entails retaining Mark 16:9 as genuine. The fact that he couches the first solution in the third person (i.e., “This, then, is what a person will say...”), and then proceeds to offer a second solution, when he could have simply dismissed the alleged contradiction on the grounds that manuscript evidence was decisively against the genuineness of the verses, argues for Eusebius’ own approval. The mere fact that the alleged contradiction was raised in the first place demonstrates recognition of the existence of the verses (Is Mark 16:9-20 inspired? Dave Miller)​

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

I am interested in Mark 16:9-20 because of some of the false teaching promoted.

People have used scripture to come up with all kinds of false teaching since before the NT was completed. Paul warned about being tossed by every wind of doctrine. (Eph 4:14) An Peter warned about false prophets and teachers. (2Pe 2:1)
The TV is crowed with them peddling their miracle oil and healing water from the Jordan.
It's not the fault of the scripture; it's the fault of the Simonists and frauds as well as some silly people who handle snakes and drink poison. (Interestingly, for the most part, they don't get bitten or sick from the poison!)

jim

 

[OzSpen]

People have used scripture to come up with all kinds of false teaching since before the NT was completed. Paul warned about being tossed by every wind of doctrine. (Eph 4:14) An Peter warned about false prophets and teachers. (2Pe 2:1)
The TV is crowed with them peddling their miracle oil and healing water from the Jordan.
It's not the fault of the scripture; it's the fault of the Simonists and frauds as well as some silly people who handle snakes and drink poison. (Interestingly, for the most part, they don't get bitten or sick from the poison!)

jim

Jim,

That's not the point. When we are warned in Scripture about false teaching, false prophets, tossed by every wind of doctrine, etc., those warnings are not accompanied by Scripture that teaches doctrine that conflicts with other Scripture, i.e. false teaching.

If I accept Mark 16:9-20 as God-breathed Scripture, I'm accepting at least 3 false doctrines. In its teaching, Scripture does not promote falsehood like that in Mark 16:9-20. There is some teaching in this passage that agrees with other Scripture, but not baptismal regeneration, snake handling, and drinking deadly poison.

That's why making sure of whether Mark 16:9-20 is in the canon is important.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

If I accept Mark 16:9-20 as God-breathed Scripture, I'm accepting at least 3 false doctrines.

I don't think so.

 

[OzSpen]

I don't think so.

Jim,

So are baptismal regeneration, snake handling theology and drinking deadly poison doctrine considered orthodox biblical teaching by you?

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

Jim,

So are baptismal regeneration, snake handling theology and drinking deadly poison doctrine considered orthodox biblical teaching by you?

Oz

Baptismal regeneration is the teaching of the Bible. Ro 6:2-8
"Snake handling" and "drinking poison", as practiced by some fringe group Pentecostals, is NOT at all what Mark was referring to.
Presenting those fringe groups' behaviors as what is taught by Mark 16:9ff is a straw man fallacy. (Naughty! Naughty! )

Blessings abound to you

jim

 

[OzSpen]

Baptismal regeneration is the teaching of the Bible. Ro 6:2-8
"Snake handling" and "drinking poison", as practiced by some fringe group Pentecostals, is NOT at all what Mark was referring to.
Presenting those fringe groups' behaviors as what is taught by Mark 16:9ff is a straw man fallacy. (Naughty! Naughty! )

Blessings abound to you

jim

Jim,

Rom 6:2-8 does NOT teach baptismal regeneration. It teaches being "baptised into Christ Jesus" (v. 3). Not a word is stated in this passage that states anyone must be baptised in water to be saved.

You seem to know what Mark was talking about with snakes and deadly poison. Please inform us.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

Jim,
Rom 6:2-8 does NOT teach baptismal regeneration. It teaches being "baptised into Christ Jesus" (v. 3).
Oz

It says that we die and are buried with Christ and then raised to newness of life.
A death and a resurrection is regeneration.
It is a movement from being "in Adam", in whom all die, to being "in Christ" in whom is life.
That is a movement from life to death in Christ to raising to new life in Christ.
That is regeneration.

You seem to know what Mark was talking about with snakes and deadly poison. Please inform us.

It should be obvious to you, Doctor.
Obviously Mark was NOT talking about some wacko, fringe group, Pentecostals in the 20th & 21st century, back woods, hills of Kentucky and Tennessee who go out of their way to put themselves in peril to demonstrate their faith. It is my guess that he had something more in mind of when Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake and not only didn't die but didn't show any ill effects whatsoever.

 

[OzSpen]

It says that we die and are buried with Christ and then raised to newness of life.
A death and a resurrection is regeneration.

The analogy is to baptism - believers' baptism. However, nowhere in Rom 6:2-8 is there a statement that this is referring to baptism by immersion as a requirement for salvation.

Jim, you know that would be works salvation, which is forbidden in Scripture. Anything we DO to earn salvation is contrary to Eph 2:8-9 (NIV).

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

The analogy is to baptism - believers' baptism. However, nowhere in Rom 6:2-8 is there a statement that this is referring to baptism by immersion as a requirement for salvation.

That's not an analogy.
Jesus said that, in order to enter the Kingdom of God one needed to be born again of water and spirit.
Baptism, as described by Paul at Ro. 6 is being born again in water.
Unless your personal theology forbids you to see the obvious.

Jim, you know that would be works salvation, which is forbidden in Scripture.

No where is what the modern, western, reformed, Protestant calls "works salvation" forbidden in scripture.

Anything we DO to earn salvation is contrary to Eph 2:8-9 (NIV).

Why do you stop at verse 9?
You know that the verse numbers are not inspired; they're a 16th century addition as a convenience,
WHy don't you read the next verse?
"For we are His workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus for good works,
which God prepared beforehand
that we should walk in them."

God prepared good works for all of us to make our manner of life. ("walk in them")
IF that is what God wants us to do, how can you say that we don't have to honor God by doing His will?
How can you say that anyone can be saved who refuses to honor God by doing His will?
Why would you promote a theology that says we do NOT have to honor and obey God in order to be saved?

Jesus said (John 3:36 )
He who believes in the Son has eternal life;
he who does not obey the Son shall not see life,
but the wrath of God rests upon him.

Obedience requires that a person DO what Jesus said to do and doing Jesus' commands is doing good works.

No one is saved by good works BUT, a dead faith, one without works, does not save anyone.

By teaching that good works are not essential to the Christian's Faith, you are teaching that a Christian is under no obligation to obey God.

Why would you do that?

 

[OzSpen]

That's not an analogy.
Jesus said that, in order to enter the Kingdom of God one needed to be born again of water and spirit.
Baptism, as described by Paul at Ro. 6 is being born again in water.
Unless your personal theology forbids you to see the obvious.

Jim,

You are a brave man trying to make John 3:5, born of water and the spirit, mean water baptism is necessary for salvation. See "Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?"

In John 3:5, the preposition "of" governs both "water" and "spirit," so the most natural way is to see the phrase as a unity of concept, i.e. there is a water-spirit source that stands as the origin of being born from above (regeneration).

What does Jesus say to Nicodemus in John 3:10? He berates him as a teacher of Israel that he does not understand these things. He was like a senior teacher of the Scriptures yet he did not understand these things.

These things must refer back to the OT if Nicodemus as a Jewish teacher should have understood it. There is no full example of the phrase "born of water and of the spirit" in the OT, but the foundation is there. If we read Ex. 4:22; Deut. 32:6; Hos. 11:1, we see an example of Israel as the covenant community and the potential of God "begetting" people. These kinds of verses should have enabled Nicodemus to understand that with Jesus, the arrival of eschatological times had come with people becoming God's children.

Of more importance is the OT understanding of "water" and "spirit," The "spirit" is God's principle of life, even from the beginning in creation (see Gen. 2:7; 6:3; Job 34:14). On the other hand, there were OT writers who looked forward to the time when God's "spirit" would be poured out on human beings (Joel 2:28) and there would be blessings of righteousness and justice (Isa. 32:15-20), and there would be an inner renewal which cleansed God's covenant people from their idolatry and disobedience (Ezek. 11:19-20).

When we go to the OT and see the figurative use of water, it regularly refers to renewal or cleansing, especially when used with spirit (see Num. 1-17-19; Ps. 51:9-10;Isa. 32:15; 44:3-5.

Thus, to be "born of water and spirit" does not refer to new birth and baptism, but it is a sign of one new begetting/beginning, which is one new birth that cleanses and renews, which is the eschatological cleansing and renewal that was promised by the OT prophets (with assistance from D A Carson's commentary on the Gospel of John).

By teaching that good works are not essential to the Christian's Faith, you are teaching that a Christian is under no obligation to obey God.

Why would you do that?

That's a straw man Jim. Nowhere have I ever suggested that good works AFTER salvation are not essential for those who live the Christian faith (see James 2).

I didn't do that. You invented what you accused me of doing.

I wrote that works must not be associated with obtaining God's favour to earn salvation (or words to that effect).

By teaching that good works are not essential to the Christian's Faith, you are teaching that a Christian is under no obligation to obey God.

You asked: "Why would you do that?"

I didn't!

Nowhere in Rom 6:2-8 is the word, 'baptism', even used.

Sounds like you have a pro-baptismal regeneration agenda.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

In John 3:5, the preposition "of" governs both "water" and "spirit," so the most natural way is to see the phrase as a unity of concept, i.e. there is a water-spirit source that stands as the origin of being born from above (regeneration). etc. etc. etc.

Obfuscation.
Romans is clear that, in water baptism, one is buried with Christ into His death.
And that one is raised again into newness of life in Christ.
That's dying and being born again.
Jesus said that one must be born again of water AND spirit, two separate births.
If you don't want to see it that way then enjoy your modern, western, revisionist theology.

I'll stick with what the original church has taught since the beginning.

Justin Martyr (100 – 165 AD) The First Apology, Chapter LXI, “Christian Baptism”
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean;...”


And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; …… The illuminand is also washed in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets foretold everything about Jesus.

Sounds like you have a pro-baptismal regeneration agenda.

It's not an "agenda." It's what the church has always taught until modern times and the rise of anti-Catholic nonsense.
1 Pe 3:21 Baptism, …, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

St. Basil on Baptism as being born again of water and spirit
Hence it follows that the answer to our question why the water was associated to the Spirit is clear: the reason is because in baptism two ends were proposed; on the one hand, the destroying of the body of sin, that it may never bear fruit unto death; on the other hand, our living unto the Spirit, and having our fruit in holiness; the water receiving the body as in a tomb prefigures death, while the Spirit pours in the quickening power, renewing our souls from the deadness of sin into their original life. This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead is effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit.
Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Vol 8, St. Basil, "On the Spirit", Ch. XV (My underline)

Chrysostom on Baptism, Homily XXV
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 14, p. 89

That the need of water is absolute and indispensable, you may learn in this way. On the occasion, when the Holy Spirit had flown down before the water was applied, the Apostle did not stay at this point, but, as though the water were necessary and not superfluous, observe what he says; “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”

What then is the use of the water? ........ In baptism are fulfilled the pledges of our covenant with God; burial and death, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once. For when we immerse our heads in the water, the old man is buried as in a tomb below, and wholly sunk forever; then as we rise again, the new man rises in its stead. ........ To show that what we say is no conjecture, hear Paul saying, “We are buried with Him by Baptism into death”: and again, “Our old man is crucified with Him”: and again: We have been planted together in the likeness of His death.” (RO vi.4-6) And not only is Baptism called a “cross” but the “cross” is called “Baptism.” “With the Baptism,” saith Christ, “that I am Baptized withal shall ye be baptized” (Mark X.39): and “I have a baptism to be baptized with” (LK xii.50) (which ye know not); for as we easily dip and lift our heads again, so He also easily died and rose again when He willed,...

Nowhere have I ever suggested that good works AFTER salvation are not essential for those who live the Christian faith

You fooled me!
You certainly sound as if you are teaching that good works are not essential to salvation.

 

[ezra]

Jim,

You are a brave man trying to make John 3:5, born of water and the spirit, mean water baptism is necessary for salvation. See "Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?"

In John 3:5, the preposition "of" governs both "water" and "spirit," so the most natural way is to see the phrase as a unity of concept, i.e. there is a water-spirit source that stands as the origin of being born from above (regeneration).

What does Jesus say to Nicodemus in John 3:10? He berates him as a teacher of Israel that he does not understand these things. He was like a senior teacher of the Scriptures yet he did not understand these things.

These things must refer back to the OT if Nicodemus as a Jewish teacher should have understood it. There is no full example of the phrase "born of water and of the spirit" in the OT, but the foundation is there. If we read Ex. 4:22; Deut. 32:6; Hos. 11:1, we see an example of Israel as the covenant community and the potential of God "begetting" people. These kinds of verses should have enabled Nicodemus to understand that with Jesus, the arrival of eschatological times had come with people becoming God's children.

Of more importance is the OT understanding of "water" and "spirit," The "spirit" is God's principle of life, even from the beginning in creation (see Gen. 2:7; 6:3; Job 34:14). On the other hand, there were OT writers who looked forward to the time when God's "spirit" would be poured out on human beings (Joel 2:28) and there would be blessings of righteousness and justice (Isa. 32:15-20), and there would be an inner renewal which cleansed God's covenant people from their idolatry and disobedience (Ezek. 11:19-20).

When we go to the OT and see the figurative use of water, it regularly refers to renewal or cleansing, especially when used with spirit (see Num. 1-17-19; Ps. 51:9-10;Isa. 32:15; 44:3-5.

Thus, to be "born of water and spirit" does not refer to new birth and baptism, but it is a sign of one new begetting/beginning, which is one new birth that cleanses and renews, which is the eschatological cleansing and renewal that was promised by the OT prophets (with assistance from D A Carson's commentary on the Gospel of John).



That's a straw man Jim. Nowhere have I ever suggested that good works AFTER salvation are not essential for those who live the Christian faith (see James 2).

I didn't do that. You invented what you accused me of doing.

I wrote that works must not be associated with obtaining God's favour to earn salvation (or words to that effect).

By teaching that good works are not essential to the Christian's Faith, you are teaching that a Christian is under no obligation to obey God.

You asked: "Why would you do that?"

I didn't!

Nowhere in Rom 6:2-8 is the word, 'baptism', even used.

Sounds like you have a pro-baptismal regeneration agenda.

Oz

Baptism follows salvation the water can represent the word my self i have read and heard so much about signs solar eclipse will unleash judgment..Jesus said no sign would be given ---
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah.” And He left them and departed.
they missed it and many others are missing it .other than that i have no dog in this discussion

 

[OzSpen]

Obfuscation.
Romans is clear that, in water baptism, one is buried with Christ into His death.
And that one is raised again into newness of life in Christ.
That's dying and being born again.
Jesus said that one must be born again of water AND spirit, two separate births.
If you don't want to see it that way then enjoy your modern, western, revisionist theology.

I'll stick with what the original church has taught since the beginning.

Jim,

You are the who accuses me that my view of Rom 6:2-8 is obscure, unclear, or unintelligible (i.e. meaning of obfuscation). To the contrary, I'm the one has shown that baptism in water is nowhere mentioned in this passage, but it does use the symbols of:

* 'baptized into Christ Jesus' (v. 3);
* 'baptized into his death' (v. 3);
* We were buried therefore with him by baptism' (v. 4).

The analogies and symbols of death, burial and resurrection are in these statements, but not a word that it refers to baptism in water.

I'm heading north for a reunion of radio DJs. I had my first radio job at 4MB and this is the 85th anniversary of the start of the station. I'll write more later re ECF (early church fathers) that did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

Oz

 

[Roro1972]

Haven't heard of any churches taking up serpents or drinking deadly things during Sunday services but plenty of places do tongues and laying hands on the sick. Not all the sick recover but some do. No point me giving exact names or places. Don't they do that sort of stuff in any churches local to you?

Watching Thomas

church handling snakes

 

[Jim Parker]

Baptism follows salvation the water can represent the word

Hmmmm....that's not what scripture says

 

[Jim Parker]

Jim,

You are the who accuses me that my view of Rom 6:2-8 is obscure, unclear, or unintelligible (i.e. meaning of obfuscation). To the contrary, I'm the one has shown that baptism in water is nowhere mentioned in this passage, but it does use the symbols of:

* 'baptized into Christ Jesus' (v. 3);
* 'baptized into his death' (v. 3);
* We were buried therefore with him by baptism' (v. 4).

The analogies and symbols of death, burial and resurrection are in these statements, but not a word that it refers to baptism in water.

I'm heading north for a reunion of radio DJs. I had my first radio job at 4MB and this is the 85th anniversary of the start of the station. I'll write more later re ECF (early church fathers) that did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

Oz

I suggest that you read what the very early church said about baptism. It accurately reflects the teaching of the apostles rather than modern speculations and that application English grammar to the ancient Koine Greek.

Here's a sample:
Justin Martyr (100 – 165 AD) The First Apology, Chapter LXI, “Christian Baptism”
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean;...”

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; …… The illuminand is also washed in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets foretold everything about Jesus.

Theophilus (Ca.180)
The things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this could be a sign of men destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and bath of regeneration - as many as come to the truth and are born again.

Irenaeus (Ca. 180)
When we come to refute them (the Gnostics) we will show in its proper place that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God. They have renounced the whole faith…..For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins.

But there are some of them (Gnostics) who assert that it is unnecessary to bring persons to the water. Rather, they mix oil and water together, and they place this mixture on the heads of those who are to be initiated…this they maintain to be redemption…Other (heretics), however, reject all these practices and maintain that the mystery of the unspeakable and invisible power should not be performed by visible and corruptible creatures. …These claim that their knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself perfect redemption.

Tertullian (Ca. 198)
Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life… we, like little fishes, after the example of our ichthus, Jesus Christ, are born in water.

Now, the teaching is laid down that “without baptism, salvation is attainable by no one.” This is based primarily on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one is born of water he has not life.” However, when this is laid down, there immediately arise scrupulous (or rather, audacious) doubts on the part of some.

“Unless a man has been born again of water and spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of the heavens.” These words have tied faith to the necessity of baptism. Accordingly, all thereafter who became believers were baptized. So it was too, that Paul, when he believed, was baptized.

 

[ezra]

Hmmmm....that's not what scripture says

your entitled to believe your way same as i am..maybe you should post what scripture says .....
The Baptism of Jesus
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”



look at verse 15 15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this { to fulfill all righteousness.”} Then John consented. .

there is way to much emphases placed on baptism and not enough on salvation.... Baptism follows salvation no body really knows what the water represents . the Blood is the payment for sins not water

 

[Roro1972]

All right, inspiration of Scripture may not be the correct language but God-breathed = theopneustos is biblical (2 Tim 3:16 NIV).

I am interested in Mark 16:9-20 because of some of the false teaching promoted.

Take Mark 16:16, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved”. This promotes the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration that a person needs to be baptised to be saved. What does the rest of the Bible teach?

• ‘But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God’ (John 1:12 ESV).
• “’And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” ‘(Acts 16:31).
• ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast’ (Eph 2:8-9).
• ‘Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom. 5:1).
• ‘and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith’ (Phil 3:9).

These Scriptures are very clear that no works (e.g. baptism) are required to become children of God and obtain salvation. It is all by grace through faith. Therefore, to teach that “Whoever believes AND is baptized” is saved, is teaching false doctrine. Baptism is not a means to salvation. Baptismal regeneration, as taught in Mark 16:16, is contrary to Scripture. See John Piper’s article, ‘What is baptism and does it save?’ See also, ‘Twisting Acts 2:38 – The question of baptism by water for salvation’ by Watchman Fellowship; and Robin Brace, ‘Baptismal regeneration refuted’.

Snake handlers and drinking deadly poison seem to be in the realm of the ridiculous.

You stated: "The possibility that the end of Mark was a later addition is the product of modern scholarship based on modern archaeological finds". That statement is incorrect, based on the following information:

“The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.” Such marginal notations, however, fail to convey to the reader the larger picture that the external evidence provides, including additional Greek manuscript evidence, to say nothing of the ancient versions and patristic citations.

Additional evidence for omission includes the absence of the verses from various versions: (1) the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, (2) about one hundred Armenian manuscripts (see Colwell, 1937, pp. 369-386), and (3) the two oldest Georgian manuscripts that are dated A.D. 897 and 913. [NOTE: Many scholars list the Old Latin codex Bobiensis from the fourth/fifth century as evidence for the omission of the verses. However, as indicated by the critical apparatus of the UBS Greek text (see Aland, et al., 1983, p. 189), Bobiensis (k) contains the “short ending”—deemed by everyone to be spurious. Its scribe could have been manifesting his concern that something (i.e., verses 9-20) was missing and so settled for the “short ending”.]

Among the patristic writers (i.e., the so-called “Church Fathers”), neither Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 215) nor Origen (A.D. 254) shows any knowledge of the existence of the verses. [Of course, simply showing no knowledge is no proof for omission. If we were to discount as genuine every New Testament verse that a particular patristic writer failed to reference, we would eventually dismiss the entire New Testament as spurious. Though virtually the entire New Testament is quoted or alluded to by the corpus of patristic writers (Metzger, 1978, p. 86)—no one writer refers to every verse.]

Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 339), as well as Jerome (A.D. 420), are said to have indicated the absence of the verses from almost all Greek manuscripts known to them. However, it should be noted that the statement made by Eusebius occurs in a context in which he was offering two possible solutions to an alleged contradiction (between Matthew 28:1 and Mark 16:9) posed by a Marinus. One of the solutions would be to dismiss Mark’s words on the grounds that it is not contained in all texts. But Eusebius does not claim to share this solution. The second solution he offers entails retaining Mark 16:9 as genuine. The fact that he couches the first solution in the third person (i.e., “This, then, is what a person will say...”), and then proceeds to offer a second solution, when he could have simply dismissed the alleged contradiction on the grounds that manuscript evidence was decisively against the genuineness of the verses, argues for Eusebius’ own approval. The mere fact that the alleged contradiction was raised in the first place demonstrates recognition of the existence of the verses (Is Mark 16:9-20 inspired? Dave Miller)​

Oz

If Jesus took the time to get baptized in water in front of a crowed shouldn't we do like Jesus?

 

[ezra]

If Jesus took the time to get baptized in water in front of a crowed shouldn't we do like Jesus?

i support baptism provided 2 things are not connected to it . 1. to be baptized saves you. 2. re baptizing just to join another church ,,baptism follows salvation..i talked with a lady today said her former pastor called her 2 kids up .asking them if they wanted to be saved.they said yes and was baptized ..they only got wet .the one has denounced Christ and no claims to be pagan