There is no Good Friday: it was on a Wednesday

Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
3,820
Likes
1,354
#61
Hi everyone how are you doing today? Our Lord Jesus Christ knows us our sins our thoughts and feelings Hearts we shouldnt be debating between each other because this is how come Lucifer is laughing at these debates like these because Even though it's fine to do the Sabbath days it's just fighting against each other to know days it's wrong I'll be praying for everyone more peace out everyone.
There is no fighting here but just a dispute to determine a truth.

If nobody bother to stand up for a truth then only lies will be left.

And since i am alone in this and my one opponent is alone as well we can continue as long as we want.

You just stand back with the rest while i swing the sword of truth at the front.
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,496
Likes
741
#62
Yes, we were just having a discussion and so there is no cause for concern.

There's probably enough to think about for now though, if you ask me and really what needed to be said I believe has been said.

The Truth is important, and it is important to fight for it (for the Truth not for our selves) so discussions like this one are hopefully worthwhile.

As long as something of the truth is learned, then it has been worthwhile and not a waste of time.

It's about bedtime where this body is at though, so, that may be it for now.

Hope everyone is having a good day.
 





Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
3,820
Likes
1,354
#63
Mark 16:9-20 is not present in the original Mark and is the reason why this entire passage has been omitted in some Bibles.

So, since it is a known disputed passage (as to its genuineness) it therefore cannot be used as proof. And since it contradicts the other passages, it shows that it does in fact not belong, and that it should be omitted from the Bible, because it is not original (because it was added by catholics who wanted to try and reinforce and push their false dogma).
Mark 16:9-20 is not found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and so is not Scripture ? But why are those verses in all Bible versions ?

There is no doubt according to the Script that the women came to the tomb very early Sunday morning and there was an angel waiting for them inside the open tomb. Probably the same angel who removed the stone with a bang and frightened the Roman guards.

Do you suppose that angel waited in the tomb since the day before ?
 





Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
3,820
Likes
1,354
#65
Do you believe in picking up snakes with your hands and in the drinking of poison?
Yes of course not to test God but if a snake does bite and poison is served... that might not affect a man of God at all.


https://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html
Mark 16:9-20 is not found in Sinaticus and Vaticanus... but are not those two scripts forgeries ? Anything found in the Vatican Library i would take with a big bag of salt.
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,496
Likes
741
#66
Question: "Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?"

Answer: Although the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20, the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate because there were fewer generations of copies from the original autographs (i.e., they are much closer in time to the originals), and the oldest manuscripts do not contain vv. 9-20, we can conclude that these verses were added later by scribes. The King James Version of the Bible, as well as the New King James, contains vv. 9-20 because the King James used medieval manuscripts as the basis of its translation. Since 1611, however, older and more accurate manuscripts have been discovered and they affirm that vv. 9-20 were not in the original Gospel of Mark.

In addition, the fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all Greek manuscripts available to them lacked vv. 9–20, although they doubtless knew those other endings existed. In the second century, Justin Martyr and Tatian knew about other endings. Irenaeus, also, in A.D. 150 to 200, must have known about this long ending because he quotes verse 19 from it. So, the early church fathers knew of the added verses, but even by the fourth century, Eusebius said the Greek manuscripts did not include these endings in the originals.

The internal evidence from this passage also casts doubt on Mark as the author. For one thing, the transition between verses 8 and 9 is abrupt and awkward. The Greek word translated “now” that begins v. 9 should link it to what follows, as the use of the word “now” does in the other synoptic Gospels. However, what follows doesn’t continue the story of the women referred to in v. 8, describing instead Jesus’ appearing to Mary Magdalene. There’s no transition there, but rather an abrupt and bizarre change, lacking the continuity typical of Mark’s narrative. The author should be continuing the story of the women based on the word “now,” not jumping to the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Further, for Mark to introduce Mary Magdalene here as though for the very first time (v. 9) is odd because she had already been introduced in Mark’s narrative (Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1), another evidence that this section was not written by Mark.

Furthermore, the vocabulary is not consistent with Mark’s Gospel. These last verses don’t read like Mark’s. There are eighteen words here that are never used anywhere by Mark, and the structure is very different from the familiar structure of his writing. The title “Lord Jesus,” used in verse 19, is never used anywhere else by Mark. Also, the reference to signs in vv. 17-18 doesn’t appear in any of the four Gospels. In no account, post-resurrection of Jesus, is there any discussion of signs like picking up serpents, speaking with tongues, casting out demons, drinking poison, or laying hands on the sick. So, both internally and externally, this is foreign to Mark.

While the added ending offers no new information, nor does it contradict previously revealed events and/or doctrine, both the external and internal evidence make it quite certain that Mark did not write it. In reality, ending his Gospel in verse 8 with the description of the amazement of the women at the tomb is entirely consistent with the rest of the narrative. Amazement at the Lord Jesus seems to be a theme with Mark. “They were amazed at his teaching” (Mark 1:22); “They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves” (Mark 1:27); “He healed the paralytic, and they were all amazed and were glorifying God saying, ‘We’ve never seen anything like this’” (Mark 2:12). Astonishment at the work of Jesus is revealed throughout Mark’s narrative (Mark 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6, 15, 32; 10:24, 32; 11:18; 12:17; 16:5). Some, or even one, of the early scribes, however, apparently missed the thematic evidence and felt the need to add a more conventional ending.

-------

Mark 16:9-20 therefore stands out in plenty of ways as being odd and it does not fit, as well as contradicting the other passages (the final give away). So, it's really not hard to spot it and that it does not belong. It was added by scribes, as it says in the article above and therefore, it is not scripture and should not be in the bible (nor can it be used to prove anything).

The use of one single contradictory verse, found in a suspect passage that is well-known to be dubious and disputed as to its origins (and it is rather obvious that it was added later, similar to the "adulterous woman" story which was also added and not in the original Gospel of John) and that does not fit because it contradicts all the others, would therefore not be admissible as evidence in a court of Law and therefore, it is not evidence.

There are even two different versions, of the added supposed ending to Mark, neither of which was in the original... It's so blatantly obvious, once all of that is known, that you really would have to be blind to still not be able to see it.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,496
Likes
741
#68
That one author does not think Mark 16:9-20 should be in the Bible... but who is he ? Is he the pope ?L0L
I don't know who he is, but at least he is able to see it.

They also put a note in some of the published bibles now in order to let people know that the passage is not original.
 





Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
3,820
Likes
1,354
#69
I don't know who he is, but at least he is able to see it.

They also put a note in some of the published bibles now in order to let people know that the passage is not original.
The Gospel of Mark ended like this.... ?

Mark 16 8 So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.


That's no way to end an account about the Son of God.

So Mark 16:9-20 stays in the Script.

Mark 16 20 And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen.
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,496
Likes
741
#70
The Gospel of Mark ended like this.... ?

Mark 16 8 So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.


That's no way to end an account about the Son of God.

So Mark 16:9-20 stays in the Script.

Mark 16 20 And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen.
It's already been taken out.
 





Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
3,820
Likes
1,354
#71
It's already been taken out.
The whole Bible might be taken out one day... and that's just as well as most just abuse it anyway.

I noticed you didn't even get one Jesus chronology correct. Not the day nor the year of His crucifixion not even the day of His resurrection nor the year of His birth...

Every provable fact you got wrong.
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,496
Likes
741
#72
The whole Bible might be taken out one day... and that's just as well as most just abuse it anyway.

I noticed you didn't even get one Jesus chronology correct. Not the day nor the year of His crucifixion not even the day of His resurrection nor the year of His birth...

Every provable fact you got wrong.
You are delusional if that is what you believe.

And anyone who believes that Jesus saying three days and three nights is an idiom, is an idiot.
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,496
Likes
741
#73
This is an example of an idiom: playing "Devil's Advocate"

Which means, someone who is arguing the exact opposite just for the sake of arguing.

Like you do all the time.

Now you know what an idiom really is.
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,496
Likes
741
#74
It also means that whoever is doing it (whoever is playing "Devil's Advocate") is someone who is actually arguing for the Devil (the Opposer).
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
640
Likes
1,475
#75
These has been proven to be tampered with by the Gnostics by a lot of respected people in the field. These manuscripts have deleted many many verses, they are not respectable at all. Out of 60 000 manuscripts of the bible found is the 59 900+- correct or the 100 that has been tampered with and says something different than the others? O and BTW the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus has NO HEPTADIC STRUCTURE. it as been broken because it has been tampered with.
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,496
Likes
741
#76
These has been proven to be tampered with by the Gnostics by a lot of respected people in the field. These manuscripts have deleted many many verses, they are not respectable at all. Out of 60 000 manuscripts of the bible found is the 59 900+- correct or the 100 that has been tampered with and says something different than the others? O and BTW the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus has NO HEPTADIC STRUCTURE. it as been broken because it has been tampered with.
If we focus on the suspect ending of Mark, (which, as we have shown here is saying something different than all the other gospels) how can it be explained that there are two different endings existing in the later manuscripts, but that are not existing in the oldest known ones?

But even so, there are still many issues with it even if you completely leave the codexes out of it, like the article mentions that was quoted previously.

The disputed ending of Mark contradicts all the other Gospel accounts and so it stands alone.
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,496
Likes
741
#77
Jesus said the scripture cannot be broken. This is because God will show the mistakes and show how to correct them, so that it all says the same, with no contradictions.

--> King of kings' Bible
 





Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
3,820
Likes
1,354
#78
You are delusional if that is what you believe.

And anyone who believes that Jesus saying three days and three nights is an idiom, is an idiot.
This whole Jah ordeal is nothing but chrislam.

And so you are an agent provocateur... also known as a troll.
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,496
Likes
741
#79
This whole Jah ordeal is nothing but chrislam.

And so you are an agent provocateur... also known as a troll.
The topic of this thread is "There is no good Friday: It was on a Wednesday".

You can't stay on topic.

And no it is not Chrislam, it is "The Long-Awaited Truth of All Things on Planet Earth".
 





DUSTY

Established
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
221
Likes
163
#80
There is no Good Friday: it was on a Wednesday.
3 days AND three nights MEANS 3 days AND 3 nights
It was a Friday. Scripture is clear. And Jesus was dead 36 hours.
The Jewish IDIOM is that since he was dead touching three different days, then He was 'dead three days'.