The thing is – what does John 3:14 – 18 say
……………so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”[g]
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned ……….
So John says Jesus said this.
so we are left with the possibilities
The bible is inaccurate.
Jesus Lied
Jesus told the Truth
In the first two cases – if you allow that this verse is wrong – then the verses on baptism can also be wrong – in fact it all can be wrong so there is not much point with ANYTHING in the bible – other than a historical footnote.
IF Jesus told the truth (and the bible reports on it accurately) then its worth noting there are NO CAVEATS there….
None like "if you believe in him AND ARE Baptised" for example.
We all know this verse and it says Whoever believes in him is not condemned.
Jesus does not tell us to get baptised to get saved. Greek- "baptisma" (Strong's number G908) although the word IS 112 times in the new testament.
Jesus on a number of occasions forgave the sins of people and/or healed them WITHOUT baptising them.
IF he thought it was important – then he would have said so. (He mentions faith 27 times for example – so we can deduce he thought FAITH is important) but he doesnt mention baptism.
Now some people refer to Jesus talking about Born of water and of flesh…. but if you read the entire exchange carefully – and look at the greek you will see that
1) Jesus does not use the word baptised (and if he meant that – why didnt he say that ?) AND
2) Nichodemus clearly understood it to mean born of a womans womb (So born of water means the amniotic fliud) as he says
"He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"
and Jesus replies
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "
So Jesus is saying the same thing again (a common teaching practise) – you must be born twice – once of the Flesh (your mother) and once of the spirit. He does not anywhere say this requires (water) baptism.
Jesus does give this command in Matthew 28
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
But note he doesnt say – that they must be baptised to be saved….
Now here it gets a bit more complicated
It also says
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16
However it should be noted that even here its not "but whoever does not believe OR IS NOT BAPTIZED will be condemned"
However there is another important point here… Mark verses 9 – 20 DO NOT APPEAR in the earliest copies of Mark that we have and there is a lot of debate (going back a LONG LONG time – as to whether these versus are Genuine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Mark_16:9.E2.80.9320_in_the_manuscripts_and_patristic_evidence
I give some analysis from different sources below – but the study of Canonisation is VERY VERY interesting – and complicated – but important (in this case) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
Anyway the belief that Mark 9 – 20 was written later – and is not original is not a modern thought and there are some references on the topic. below so its of dubious authority on this point.
Its also interesting to note that the nature of baptism has changed over time AND by denomination so that in itself tells you the bible is not that clear over it. If it WAS important for Salvation – dont you think the bible would have been clear about it (like Faith is mention 27 times for example) I think its a strong case to say that Water Baptism is not needed for salvation.
Having said that – its certainly NOT a sin or a problem to be baptised and there is a argument to say that a devout Christian would want to be "Born again" in what ever form their denomination thinks is appropriate because it is mentioned as something Jesus told the apostles to do.
What that exactly means however has been the point of long (and sometimes bitter) debate and study. Its certainly not clear – although many churches will say it is (in part to separate their doctrine from other churches with a different belief in this area.
The other thing to note was Pentecost Peter Quotes from Joel
17 “‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
Now there are number of denominations that believe that this is important.
See if we were in the last days then – we are in the last days for 2000 years – and that seems to be a problem – as that would be Significant percentage of written history (esp. Biblical written history). (It should be noted that the expectation of those that heard that would think that they would live to see the end – thats what LAST DAYS usually means in the bible)
Those churches believe that Peter was correct when he said that – and that the key point of the last days was the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70AD, They would argue that Gods Kingdom on earth WAS BORN at that time and so everything changed at that time…. (So they believe revelations were fulfilled in 70AD) Certainly THAT happened in the lifetimes of (some at least) of those who were at Pentecost.
For what its worth – its an interesting and contextually consistent interpretation of the bible (not saying what I believe – I am just noting there are complexities here). The point then is that they argue the kindgom of God is now here on earth now.
WHAT is not controversial – is belief and faith will save you. (and my argument is – God made the things he wanted to be clear – very clear. If its not clear – then that tells us its not important to God – no matter how obssesed some pastor or denomination might get over one verse or one word. The things he wanted us to know – appear many times – clearly. To believe otherwise is to call God a bad author and I am not prepared to do that).
For those interested – here some some example discussions on why MARK 9 – 20 is considered Suspect.
A Commentary on the Holy Bible, edited by J.R. Dummelow (New York: MacMillan, 1927), pages 732-33.
9-20. Conclusion of the Gospel. One uncial manuscript gives a second termination to the Gospel as follows: 'And they reported all the things that had been commanded them briefly (or immediately) to the companions of Peter. And after this Jesus himself also sent forth by them from the East even unto the West the holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal salvation.'
Internal evidence points definitely to the conclusion that the last twelve verses are not by St. Mark. For, (1) the true conclusion certainly contained a Galilean appearance (Mark 16:7, cp. 14:28), and this does not. (2) The style is that of a bare catalogue of facts, and quite unlike St. Mark's usual wealth of graphic detail. (3) The section contains numerous words and expressions never used by St. Mark. (4) Mark 16:9 makes an abrupt fresh start, and is not continuous with the preceding narrative. (5) Mary Magdalene is spoken of (16:9) as if she had not been mentioned before, although she has just been alluded to twice (15:47, 16:1). (6) The section seems to represent not a primary tradition, such as Peter's, but quite a secondary one, and in particular to be dependent upon the conclusion of St. Matthew, and upon Luke 24:23f.
The Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1948).
vv. 9-20. This section is a later addition; the original ending of Mark appears to have been lost. The best and oldest manuscripts of Mark end with ch. 16:8. Two endings were added very early. The shorter reads: "But they reported briefly to those with Peter all that had been commanded them. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them from the East even to the West the sacred and incorruptible message of eternal salvation." The longer addition appears in English Bibles; its origin is uncertain; a medieval source ascribes it to an elder Ariston (Aristion), perhaps the man whom Papias (c. A.D. 135) calls a disciple of the Lord. It is drawn for the most part from Luke, chapter 24, and from John, chapter 20; there is a possibility that verse 15 may come from Matthew 28:18-20. It is believed that the original ending must have contained an account of the risen Christ's meeting with the disciples in Galilee (chs. 14:28; 16:7).
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.
16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.
(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harelean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." All of these witnesses except it k also continue with verses 9-20.
(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 099 0112 f 13 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20. (του λογου του ισχυρου ον απο ιερουσαλημ οι αποστολοι αυτου εξελθοντες πανταχου εκηρυξαν).
(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: "And they excused themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now — thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, 'The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.' "
How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including ο αιων ουτος, αμαρτανω, απολογεω, αληθινος, υποστρεφω) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (δεινος, ορος, προσλεγω). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14.
|
