The Catholic Church.

[Walpole]

Mark 16:9-20 not found in older manuscripts (story of Mary Magdalene) so some question its authenticity.

It's not found in SOME older manuscripts.

(The story of Mary Magdalene in Mark 16:9 is also recounted in Luke 24:10.)

 

[Fastfredy0]

Mark 16:9-20 not found in older manuscripts (story of Mary Magdalene) so some question its authenticity.

(The story of Mary Magdalene in Mark 16:9 is also recounted in Luke 24:10.)

Agreed.

 

[jaybo]

Have you now removed Mark 16:18 from your canon of Scripture?

There is nothing to be removed. Those verses are not considered to be in the canon of Scripture but a later addition by an unknown scribe or scribes. BTW, I haven't removed them as I have no desire to mutilate the Bible with scissors.

 

[jaybo]

Mark 16:9-20 not found in older manuscripts (story of Mary Magdalene) so some question its authenticity.

The "long ending of Mark" are verses 9-20. Because the story of Mary Magdalene appears in these verses doesn't change the fact that they are considered by most scholars to be later additions to the gospel. In fact, that is reasonable evidence that they were added at a later date.

 

[Fastfredy0]

The "long ending of Mark" are verses 9-20. Because the story of Mary Magdalene appears in these verses doesn't change the fact that they are consider by most scholars to be later additions to the gospel. In fact, that is reasonable evidence that they were added at a later date.

Agreed. That's what the experts I've heard say.
The crux of the matter is whether these verses inclusion or exclusion changes doctrine and I don't think it does with the exception of a few 'nut jobs' who take verse: 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will get well.” ... and actually try it. Personally, my faith is a little weak, so I might like see how my brother does with the snakes before saying NO THANKS.



Aside: Picture is for HUMOR. I apologize if any brother on this site believes he can withstand poisonous snake bites.

 

[for_his_glory]

I have a very difficult time understanding the CC belief in Mary. She was just a random teenager selected by God to give birth to Jesus in human form and apparently did a good job of raising Him. She is not and never will be divine.

Mary was not just some random teenager selected by God. This is why God chose Mary.

Mary's descent comes through David's son Nathan, Luke 3:31. To fulfill God's promise to establish David's throne forever, God honored Nathan by making him the ancestor of the promised King (Messiah) who would sit on David's throne throughout eternity, Luke 1:31-33. Mary having no brothers to inherit the throne the inheritance would come to her first son being Jesus.

This is why God found favor only in Mary as still being a virgin before she married. Joseph descent from David was broken in being heir to the throne of David as one of his ancestors named Jeconiah (Coniah) was so evil God cursed him and his descendants from ever sitting on the throne of David, Matthew 1:1-17; Jeremiah 22:24-30; 1 Chronicles 3:17. This doesn't mean that Joseph was evil, but means none of his children could ever sit on the throne of David.

 

[jaybo]

Mary was not just some random teenager selected by God. This is why God chose Mary.

Mary's descent comes through David's son Nathan, Luke 3:31. To fulfill God's promise to establish David's throne forever, God honored Nathan by making him the ancestor of the promised King (Messiah) who would sit on David's throne throughout eternity, Luke 1:31-33. Mary having no brothers to inherit the throne the inheritance would come to her first son being Jesus.

This is why God found favor only in Mary as still being a virgin before she married. Joseph descent from David was broken in being heir to the throne of David as one of his ancestors named Jeconiah (Coniah) was so evil God cursed him and his descendants from ever sitting on the throne of David, Matthew 1:1-17; Jeremiah 22:24-30; 1 Chronicles 3:17. This doesn't mean that Joseph was evil, but means none of his children could ever sit on the throne of David.

The genealogies in both Matthew and Luke, although they differ, are about Jesus' male ancestors; they have nothing to do with Mary. If there is a place in Scripture where it says that Mary's descent comes through David please let us know.

You wrote, " Jeconiah (Coniah) was so evil God cursed him and his descendants from ever sitting on the throne of David," But Jeremiah 28:4 says, "I will also bring back to this place Jehoiakim’s son King Jeconiah of Judah and all the exiles who were taken to Babylon.’ Indeed, the Lord affirms, ‘I will break the yoke of servitude to the king of Babylon.’”
The genealogy in Matthew says, "This is the record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah (by Tamar), Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz (by Rahab), Boaz the father of Obed (by Ruth), Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king.

David was the father of Solomon (by the wife of Uriah), Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

After the deportation to Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud, Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ."

Notice that Jeconiah is mentioned in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. Biblical descent is reckoned through the males, not the females. Mary is mentioned only parenthetically as Joseph's wife.

 

[for_his_glory]

The genealogies in both Matthew and Luke, although they differ, are about Jesus' male ancestors; they have nothing to do with Mary. If there is a place in Scripture where it says that Mary's descent comes through David please let us know.

You wrote, " Jeconiah (Coniah) was so evil God cursed him and his descendants from ever sitting on the throne of David," But Jeremiah 28:4 says, "I will also bring back to this place Jehoiakim’s son King Jeconiah of Judah and all the exiles who were taken to Babylon.’ Indeed, the Lord affirms, ‘I will break the yoke of servitude to the king of Babylon.’”
The genealogy in Matthew says, "This is the record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah (by Tamar), Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz (by Rahab), Boaz the father of Obed (by Ruth), Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king.

David was the father of Solomon (by the wife of Uriah), Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

After the deportation to Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud, Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ."

Notice that Jeconiah is mentioned in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. Biblical descent is reckoned through the males, not the females. Mary is mentioned only parenthetically as Joseph's wife.

I have showed with scripture how the lineage of Joseph had been corrupted if you study the history of Jeconiah and how it was through Nathan that Mary became the one to give birth to the Christ child who will sit on the throne of David. You can accept history or reject history. Only showing why God chose Mary. Nothing more, nothing less as I am not going to argue nor debate this.

 

[jaybo]

I have showed with scripture how the lineage of Joseph had been corrupted if you study the history of Jeconiah and how it was through Nathan that Mary became the one to give birth to the Christ child who will sit on the throne of David. You can accept history or reject history. Only showing why God chose Mary. Nothing more, nothing less as I am not going to argue nor debate this.

Okay, don't argue nor debate this -- even though, as I have already shown, it's wrong. The genealogies in both Matthew and Luke, although they differ, are about Jesus' male ancestors; they have nothing to do with Mary.

 

[jaybo]

I have showed with scripture how the lineage of Joseph had been corrupted if you study the history of Jeconiah and how it was through Nathan that Mary became the one to give birth to the Christ child who will sit on the throne of David. You can accept history or reject history. Only showing why God chose Mary. Nothing more, nothing less as I am not going to argue nor debate this.

You can accept history or reject history. I won't discuss this with you any longer. God's word, specifically Matthew's gospel, clearly shows the lineage of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 1:10-12, "Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. After the deportation to Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel."

I am not going to argue nor debate this as I believe what the Bible says, not your interpretation. You are clearly trying to exalt Mary not follow God's word.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

You can accept history or reject history. I won't discuss this with you any longer. God's word, specifically Matthew's gospel, clearly shows the lineage of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 1:10-12, "Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. After the deportation to Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel."

I am not going to argue nor debate this as I believe what the Bible says, not your interpretation. You are clearly trying to exalt Mary not follow God's word.

Mary worship is a hard thing to shake.
And we all have something.
I've learned to live with it.
Talk about Jesus instead, leave her out of the conversation.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

This is truly a beautiful song.
It's easy to see how people will/would worship her.

 

[Walpole]

There is nothing to be removed. Those verses are not considered to be in the canon of Scripture but a later addition by an unknown scribe or scribes.

Who decided they are not considered canonical? Can you slap down a name, date, council or anything which authoritatively made this declaration?

BTW, I haven't removed them as I have no desire to mutilate the Bible with scissors.

That's good given the penchant some Christians had for not only removing a few verses here and there, but entire books from the canon.

 

[Walpole]

Okay, don't argue nor debate this -- even though, as I have already shown, it's wrong. The genealogies in both Matthew and Luke, although they differ, are about Jesus' male ancestors; they have nothing to do with Mary.

Nothing to do with Mary???

"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." - Matthew 1:16

Once again, I'm surprised Protestants don't just rid their Bibles of Mary and be done with her once and for all. The only explanation for the hostility toward her is simply her association with Catholicism.

Satan hates Mary too.

 

[jaybo]

I have showed with scripture how the lineage of Joseph had been corrupted if you study the history of Jeconiah and how it was through Nathan that Mary became the one to give birth to the Christ child who will sit on the throne of David. You can accept history or reject history. Only showing why God chose Mary. Nothing more, nothing less as I am not going to argue nor debate this.

I am not going to argue or debate this either. You can rationalize all you want to but that's between you and God. I believe what the Bible clearly and unequivocally says. Sola scriptura.

 

[Walpole]

Mary worship is a hard thing to shake.

Not really, as I don't know any modern Collyridians. (They were condemned by the Catholics in the fourth century.)

And we all have something.
I've learned to live with it.
Talk about Jesus instead, leave her out of the conversation.

Once again, I'm surprised Protestants don't just remove Mary from their Bibles. They can be done with her once and for all.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Not really, as I don't know any modern Collyridians. (They were condemned by the Catholics in the fourth century.)

Once again, I'm surprised Protestants don't just remove Mary from their Bibles. They can be done with her once and for all.

You are very hostile right now.
Where is that in the Bible?

 

[for_his_glory]

I am not going to argue or debate this either. You can rationalize all you want to but that's between you and God. I believe what the Bible clearly and unequivocally says. Sola scriptura.

Study the history as sometimes you have to go outside that which is condensed in the Bible. But will walk away from this.

 

[for_his_glory]

You can accept history or reject history. I won't discuss this with you any longer. God's word, specifically Matthew's gospel, clearly shows the lineage of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 1:10-12, "Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. After the deportation to Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel."

I am not going to argue nor debate this as I believe what the Bible says, not your interpretation. You are clearly trying to exalt Mary not follow God's word.

Nope not exalting Mary as our worship only belongs to the Lord. Just showing why Mary was the one God chose. Please do not read into something that is not there.

 

[for_his_glory]

Not really, as I don't know any modern Collyridians. (They were condemned by the Catholics in the fourth century.)

Once again, I'm surprised Protestants don't just remove Mary from their Bibles. They can be done with her once and for all.

No one is saying they are hostile against Mary or hate her, but only trying to show that she is not to be worshipped as in bowing down to her like a godly idol as the Catholics do, including the Pope who bows down to her. Our worship needs to be before the Lord.