Saul of Tarsus – because a good bone is worth chewing to the marrow

I found this argument on a thread.

Consider ….

There are two versions of the Gospel of Mark. Short ending and Long Ending.

Scholars know the long ending was tacked on to the end of the original as the short ending has no post resurrection appearances nor the Grand Commission.

Remember what ”Jesus” said in the long version?

Here we go  …

 “These signs will accompany those who have believed : in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues ; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover .” 19 So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.

Now we all know scholars consider this a forgery – or by now you should know – and it is important to bear this in mind when it comes to Paul whose letters are claimed to precede the gospels tales.

Corinthians is claimed to be a genuine Pauline letter , even though it has some problems of its own – namely 14:34–35, which is said to be a later insertion – interpolation – in other words, a forgery, although, like so much of Holy Scripture(sic) it is hotly debated. Some people simply really want to believe, I suppose.

Here’s the important part of Corinthians for this post.

1 Corinthians 14:18 NAS

”I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all.”

In the gospel of Mark, the Commission by Jesus predates Paul’s Talking in Tongues.

The Pauline Corpus is based on stories of Jesus after the short Mark was composed.

Do you see the problem?


Although It has been established that Acts is fiction I am going to include this bit to emphasize the point of the post.
Remember? From the long ending of gMark
18 they will pick up serpents, 

Acts 28 NAS

3 But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they began saying to one another, “Undoubtedly this man is a murderer, and though he has been saved from the sea, justice has not allowed him to live.” 5 However he shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm.

Just a thought ….



Here’s a link to the thread. There are some interesting points raised and lots of info.


42 thoughts on “Saul of Tarsus – because a good bone is worth chewing to the marrow

      1. Yes yes, you were right. It is in that chapter where Paul says it is better to prophesy than to speak in tongues and as such, the author of the Acts of the apostles couldn’t have been either a friend or companion of Paul.
        This is from a great work by William Cassels: supernatural religion

        Liked by 2 people

        1. That’s also the chapter where Paul says women should remain silent in church and ask their husbands questions when they get home because “it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church”.

          Liked by 1 person

  1. What does it mean, to “speak in tongues”?

    Before I attended Jesus 78 in Auckland I was promised that all the charismatics there (many hundreds, possibly thousands) would ‘talk in tongues’; and being of a pragmatic nature thought I’d witness such for myself, first hand.

    Alas, nowt.

    Afterwards I boned my host about it and he said, indignantly, “But they did!” I told him that I’d heard nothing, but at one stage in the proceedings (when the showman on the dais was leading the faithful in prayer) there had been a wash of muted hissing … and that, my friend said exultantly, was the Tongues!

    I’d always thought that it meant people could speak in foreign languages, fluently, without previously studying or experiencing them.

    Again, if we are to be pedantic, definition required … can anybody help here?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. It’s a “foreign language,” all right! Supposedly known ONLY by “God.” The rest of us hear it for what it really is … gibberish. What’s interesting is the “words” that are spoken are nearly the same for every person … so it MUST be “praises to Jesus.” I mean … what else??!?!


      1. In an Enid Blyton book I read many years ago the nasty policemann was trying to extemporise as Fatty had done, but all he could come up with was something like “Abbledy abbledy abbledy …” was he ahead of his time, religiously?

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I’d always thought that it meant people could speak in foreign languages, fluently, without previously studying or experiencing them.

      That’s what it is supposed to be. But because no case of “speaking in tongues” has been verified
      People fake it by speaking nonsense

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Interesting to think that fourteen thousand million years ago, God knew that the serpent would come out of those sticks to bite the guy on the hand—and with no thought of cruelty He set things in motion so that the innocent serpent would be thrown into the flames.

    The RSPCA should be told about this bloody sadist …


  3. Ark … I’m confused. It’s been my understanding that Paul wrote his meanderings several years ahead of the gospels. Your comment, In the gospel of Mark, the Commission by Jesus predates Paul’s Talking in Tongues seems to indicate otherwise. What am I missing?


      1. I have now. I left a rebuttal comment and pointed out (as I see you did also) that the original remark was made by Ken, not me. Of course to CS and others like him, the source doesn’t really matter. It’s the “blasphemy!”


        1. It is a funny post, isn’t it?
          I prefer to dialogue with people like Tricia, but they have a habit of bailing at the first sign of evidence. and almost never offer anything to support their initial apologetic style comments.


          1. The thing is … with CS, the scriptures are T.R.U.E. Period. No debate. So anything connected with them simply cannot be disputed. And if you try … YOU are the one who is misguided and foolish and mistaken and W.R.O.N.G.


  4. Interesting, I didn’t know that 14:34–35 was a later addition. I reckon it would’ve made a bit of a difference if it was left out, particularly in some of the churches I used to attend, not letting women preach or have any authority and what not. Of course, many other parts of the Bible are still oppressive towards women so maybe not.


    1. The history of the bible and its compilation is apparently full of such tidbits.
      The more one researches the more one comes across things that make you sit up and think: Wow! Really?
      And it has been there all along.
      But somehow it isn’t Kosher for the Preacher to stand at the pulpit and start his sermon with:
      ” Hey! Have I got some serious shit to tell you guys today!”

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Depending on the church, many pastors themselves don’t have a good understanding of their Bible either. And if they found something which made them uncomfortable, well sweep it into that closet over there instead of share it. That closet is getting hella full now.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I once had a back and forth with an evangelical minister who claimed there was archaeological evidence of chariot wheels on the floor of the Red Sea proving the Exodus. And he was preaching this in his church!
          After I explained this was a hoax put out by Ron Wyatt, he closed down the dialogue and a few days later deleted his blog.
          I had a similar discussion with another fundamentalist about 18 months later.
          I am ever amazed that crap like this still surfaces, even after Wyatt’s death, and people actually think that he was a genuine archaeologist and not the complete fraud he truly was.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. It seems people believe what they want at the end of the day… If evidence later comes along which contradicts that then the evidence is wrong to them. Interesting he deleted his blog, it almost seems like he had a good think about what you told him lol, maybe he doesn’t want to admit that?


          2. It was an odd conversation. At first he refused to name the archaeologist who had provided proof f the Exodus, but eventually he revealed the name of Ron Wyatt.
            I mean, seriously! In this day and age someone like him, a pastor had not even bothered to Google the name to confirm?
            Baffles the mind.

            Liked by 2 people

  5. Speaking of Bible verses which were ‘later added on’, Many books in the Bible have introductory sections which specify the author (Songs of Solomon and many of the Pauline letters come to mind). The thing is, most Bible scholars (and many Christians too) know that these authors didn’t actually write those books, so it is therefore wrong. Yet they still put these introductory passages into English translations of the Bible. To them the Bible might be Holy and flawless yet if mistakes are found they’re just left in?


    1. If the bible is supposed to be the Inspired Word of God, I’ve often wondered how Christians have traditionally dealt with the fact the Catholic Bible – the Original Version has less books than the Protestant counterpart?
      Did someone (Luther?) say that God had had a change of heart or His proof reader/editor advised Him to ditch them?
      I must research this some time.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Just found Ron Wyatt. He should have teamed up with Ken Ham, bless his heart, he’s got preacher hair that looks just like Charlton Heston, and one of those Tennessee preacher voices…It kinda reverberates inside the head for awhile…

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s