>>24289100
There is so much more to this than just that, anon.

There are some significant doctrines for Christianity in those last twelve verses. For example, this is the place in the four Gospels where the specific command is given to go into all the world and preach the Gospel.

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
- Mark 16:15-16

Yes, the ending of Matthew is similar, "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". But Mark is where the command "preach the Gospel" is found.

Aside from the above, the part about surviving venom from snakes, as well as the other signs of supernatural healing and speaking in tongues were fulfilled in the book of Acts. The snake venom in particular refers to when Paul was bitten by a serpent in Acts 28:3 and survived.

Every single one of signs mentioned by Jesus at the end of Mark all happened later in the New Testament. It's the same with speaking in tongues, casting out devils, and healing. In the last verse, we learn the following:

"And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen."
- Mark 16:20

So according to Mark 16:20, those "signs" – like miraculous healing and speaking in tongues – had to do with "confirming the word," which the apostles gave and wrote. Those were signs that followed those who wrote the New Testament, in other words, legitimizing what they did. That is why those miraculous signs (the "sign gifts") like speaking in tongues do not happen anymore. Because the New Testament isn't still being written.

This helps show you how relevant Mark's ending really is to other parts of the Bible. And people who do snake handling and pretend to speak in tongues and the like are simply misunderstanding what the Gospel is saying here.

Now as for the question of whether these twelve verses at the end of Mark are authentic, they are no less authentic than the rest. More than 99% of all ancient manuscripts of Mark contain those twelve verses. Only two (2) out of thousands do not include it. And then there are references to the ending of Mark in other writings (see pic) that easily predate the only two that are missing it. There are people in the 2nd century writing about it, very clearly saying that it is found at the end of Mark. The ending of Mark is also clearly found in the Diatessaron, which was an ancient harmony of the Gospels that attempted to combine all of the Gospels into one narrative. The Diatessaron is also older than the two sources lacking the ending as well. This proves conclusively that the ending existed before those sources and it seems to be just as old as the rest of the Gospel of Mark.

Those who promote the modern view usually just ignore these inconvenient facts, as they do with many other things.

Video volume

Video muted

Loop video

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

I legitimately fucking love Mark. There are times I think it's my favorite Gospel. I love how fast things move, how immediate things are, how…