conversations for the gospel ... when a demon has control of the intellect -

[Stravinsk]

Why? Because we dont tempt God by doing it deliberately? I believe that God can and will protect us if it is done in ignorance or necessity but to just do it to prove it no I dont think God will honor that, I believe it would be called lack of faith since you are testing to see if it triue

Do you mean "test", Bill?

Why would it be a temptation or test to simply believe what those words say in that passage and do it?

If one believes it, and it's true - then no harm will come.
If one believes it, and it's not true - and harm comes - then it's false doctrine, probably added by a scribe as the notes in one of my study bibles indicates. "Not part of the original manuscripts".

 

[Alithis]

Why not? I'm not ready to drink deadly poison or pick up snakes to prove some sort of integrity of belief to a whole book of books based on someone's definition of a faithful one. (Mark 16:18)

Many "whole bible" Christians will likewise fail this challenge and have to admit they are also pickers and choosers.

what on earth? no one is commanded to drink poisen..

 

[Stravinsk]

what on earth? no one is commanded to drink poisen..

Not a command, but certainly a firm affirmation of something as true.

The passage clearly links real believers with certain things, namely:

-driving out demons
- speak in new tongues
- pick up snakes
- drink deadly poison, and not be hurt by it at all.
- place their hands on sick people who will get well.

All these attributes are preceded by "And these signs will accompany those who believe". They are all lumped together as signs of believers.

Why single out one and say it's "testing" or "tempting" God, or treating it like a command when the others are done? Is it testing or tempting God, or being faithful to a command to drive out demons? Speak in tongues? Place hands on sick? Some Christians do these all the time.

But all of a sudden when "drinking deadly poison" comes into play - then a different standard applies?

The passage is bullstuff, in my view. I don't believe Mark is reliable anyway, but even if it were - this passage in particular is suspect, and for good reason - it's not even part of the original manuscripts.

 

[Alithis]

Not a command, but certainly a firm affirmation of something as true.

The passage clearly links real believers with certain things, namely:

-driving out demons
- speak in new tongues
- pick up snakes
- drink deadly poison, and not be hurt by it at all.
- place their hands on sick people who will get well.

All these attributes are preceded by "And these signs will accompany those who believe". They are all lumped together as signs of believers.

Why single out one and say it's "testing" or "tempting" God, or treating it like a command when the others are done? Is it testing or tempting God, or being faithful to a command to drive out demons? Speak in tongues? Place hands on sick? Some Christians do these all the time.

But all of a sudden when "drinking deadly poison" comes into play - then a different standard applies?

The passage is bullstuff, in my view. I don't believe Mark is reliable anyway, but even if it were - this passage in particular is suspect, and for good reason - it's not even part of the original manuscripts.

wow you really think it means you should go and "drink ' poison or go and purposely pick up snakes ? that's just plain dumb activity .

.. no wonder you have problems believing the text .

this occurred to paul but paul in no way went with intent to get a snake bite .it came out of the fire and bit his hand .. and he did not die nor have any ill effect . so that part of the verse has been
proven .
when the enemy attacks it is possible by gods protection to be utterly unharmed

the old testament says " you shall walk through the fire and not be burned " does that mean we all go jumping in fires ? that's just nuts .

 

[Rens]

Not a command, but certainly a firm affirmation of something as true.

The passage clearly links real believers with certain things, namely:

-driving out demons
- speak in new tongues
- pick up snakes
- drink deadly poison, and not be hurt by it at all.
- place their hands on sick people who will get well.

All these attributes are preceded by "And these signs will accompany those who believe". They are all lumped together as signs of believers.

Why single out one and say it's "testing" or "tempting" God, or treating it like a command when the others are done? Is it testing or tempting God, or being faithful to a command to drive out demons? Speak in tongues? Place hands on sick? Some Christians do these all the time.

But all of a sudden when "drinking deadly poison" comes into play - then a different standard applies?

The passage is bullstuff, in my view. I don't believe Mark is reliable anyway, but even if it were - this passage in particular is suspect, and for good reason - it's not even part of the original manuscripts.

That's just like the text in the O.T. that His angles will protect you, so you won't dash your foot against a stone, the text satan came up with when he said that Jesus should jump off the building. Then He said you shouldn't tempt God.
And I think, like you say, they do the other things too, it may be in the first place spiritual, pick up demons and cast them out maybe. Picking up snakes sounds like trample lions and snakes in the same psalm, I don't think that's meant literal:


*For He shall give His angels charge over you,
To keep you in all your ways.
12*In*their*hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.
13*You shall tread upon the lion and the cobra,
The young lion and the serpent you shall trample underfoot.

 

[psalms 91]

I believe God when He says He will protect us but I also believe that we should not tempt Him by deliberately doing things

 

[Stravinsk]

That's just like the text in the O.T. that His angles will protect you, so you won't dash your foot against a stone, the text satan came up with when he said that Jesus should jump off the building. Then He said you shouldn't tempt God.
And I think, like you say, they do the other things too, it may be in the first place spiritual, pick up demons and cast them out maybe. Picking up snakes sounds like trample lions and snakes in the same psalm, I don't think that's meant literal:


*For He shall give His angels charge over you,
To keep you in all your ways.
12*In*their*hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.
13*You shall tread upon the lion and the cobra,
The young lion and the serpent you shall trample underfoot.

It's hard for me to imagine that the passage is mixing symbolic representation with non symbolic representation and that the only difference between the two comes when a "sign of a believer" is dangerous to actually do. A different standard is applied to the "drinking poison" bit in particular as compared to the rest. Whether that it's symbolic, or a test or temptation or command or whatever - no one claims these things of speaking in tongues or driving out demons or healing the sick - but like I said, when it's applied to drinking poison, then all the qualifiers come out.

I don't play these mental games anymore with such biblical passages in order to get them to somehow fit or make sense in my mind. I think it's just more honest to call it out for what it is. False.

 

[Alithis]

It's hard for me to imagine that the passage is mixing symbolic representation with non symbolic representation and that the only difference between the two comes when a "sign of a believer" is dangerous to actually do. A different standard is applied to the "drinking poison" bit in particular as compared to the rest. Whether that it's symbolic, or a test or temptation or command or whatever - no one claims these things of speaking in tongues or driving out demons or healing the sick - but like I said, when it's applied to drinking poison, then all the qualifiers come out.

I don't play these mental games anymore with such biblical passages in order to get them to somehow fit or make sense in my mind. I think it's just more honest to call it out for what it is. False.

these 'signs ' will follow them that beleive ..(not be preformed to prove they beleive lol ) paul was bitten by a snake through NO choice of his own .. and was unharmed ..it was a sign to those who did not know the gospel just as it was a sign that the poison from its bit did him no harm at all ,a sign that the gospel is truth.there is nothing symbolic about it . neither is there command to go and purposely pick up snakes .

 

[Stravinsk]

these 'signs ' will follow them that beleive ..(not be preformed to prove they beleive lol ) paul was bitten by a snake through NO choice of his own .. and was unharmed ..it was a sign to those who did not know the gospel just as it was a sign that the poison from its bit did him no harm at all ,a sign that the gospel is truth.there is nothing symbolic about it . neither is there command to go and purposely pick up snakes .

The two signs mentioned are different signs. They are listed as "picking up snakes" and "drinking deadly poison". Did Saul/Paul drink deadly poison? Or get bitten by a snake according to the story? According to the story he was bitten by a snake and not the latter. You can't mix them up and pretend they are the same.

And besides that - it's not intellectually honest to just associate it with Saul/Paul's "snake bitten" bit in Acts with a sign that his gospel was truth. In Acts 28 - is that the conclusion that the people of Malta come to when, according to the story, Saul/Paul is bitten by a snake then shakes it off with no ill effect?

Their reaction when he was bitten: “This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, the goddess Justice has not allowed him to live.”

Their reaction when he suffered no ill effects: The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

Thought he was a god? Hardly proving the gospel.

Third and finally - the passage in Mark refers to believers. Believers with a big S. So it's plural, and Saul/Paul is only one man.

Sorry, your apologetic fails on multiple levels.

 

[Alithis]

The two signs mentioned are different signs. They are listed as "picking up snakes" and "drinking deadly poison". Did Saul/Paul drink deadly poison? Or get bitten by a snake according to the story? According to the story he was bitten by a snake and not the latter. You can't mix them up and pretend they are the same.

And besides that - it's not intellectually honest to just associate it with Saul/Paul's "snake bitten" bit in Acts with a sign that his gospel was truth. In Acts 28 - is that the conclusion that the people of Malta come to when, according to the story, Saul/Paul is bitten by a snake then shakes it off with no ill effect?

Their reaction when he was bitten: “This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, the goddess Justice has not allowed him to live.”

Their reaction when he suffered no ill effects: The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

Thought he was a god? Hardly proving the gospel.

Third and finally - the passage in Mark refers to believers. Believers with a big S. So it's plural, and Saul/Paul is only one man.

Sorry, your apologetic fails on multiple levels.

that's just nitpikky unbelief .. sorry .there is no intellectual argument or apologetic against unbelief ..it just sin ,something that must be repented of .
can you tel me how snake venom in the blood veins and poison in the stomach is better or worse ? it isn't, the end result is that it can kill you but it did not harm him .
it is not an instruction to go out and do something .
it is a sign that follow those that already DO believe ..as sign to those who do not believe .

the point is .. "signs and wonders" follow those who DO believe .. not those who disbelieve and doubt .
if he were to list every sign and wonder possible, it would be one extremely long extensive list .. its a rather abbreviated list .

 

[Stravinsk]

that's just nitpikky unbelief .. sorry .there is no intellectual argument or apologetic against unbelief ..it just sin ,something that must be repented of .

Ya, I know. I need to repent of "unbelief". I need to be sorry that I just don't accept things that either contradict or make no sense or fail to line up and need a thousand twists of meaning to get them to jive.

What a sorry way to come to conclusions about things. Blind faith. Don't investigate. Don't use your brain. Just believe. This argument is common to many religions. Any outsider cannot be convinced with it.

can you tel me how snake venom in the blood veins and poison in the stomach is better or worse ? it isn't, the end result is that it can kill you but it did not harm him .
it is not an instruction to go out and do something .
it is a sign that follow those that already DO believe ..as sign to those who do not believe .

It doesn't matter how they may be different. The point is, they are listed as two different things in the "signs of a believer" in Mark. You have tried to tie the story of Saul/Paul in Acts as a proof text by combining them. I've already shown how this is faulty, just from the text.

But if we really want to get down to it - you, as a believer, need to drink some poison to show you are "true blue". Now don't get me wrong - I'm not personally asking you to, please don't - you will harm yourself if you did that. But that is what that passage says is one of the signs. You can say "I won't test God!!", but I think you are being dishonest about your reason. As stated before - the other signs - such as speaking in tongues and healing the sick and so on aren't considered "tests" or "tempting God" - but when it comes to drinking poison all the excuses and qualifiers come out.

Such thinking is DISHONEST. The passage is bogus, and most likely added by a scribe. Mark's not reliable in any case but this passage really shows it.

 

[Alithis]

the passage is not bogus .paul was bit by a snake and was unharmed there fore the passage was not bogus .
when we pick out a piece and choose to disbelieve it, where do we stop ?
how about at the cross..? or the resurrection ?-without either there is no salvation and we are of all men most miserable .

repent of your unbelief ..it is hardly a mater of jest

 

[Rens]

Ya, I know. I need to repent of "unbelief". I need to be sorry that I just don't accept things that either contradict or make no sense or fail to line up and need a thousand twists of meaning to get them to jive.

What a sorry way to come to conclusions about things. Blind faith. Don't investigate. Don't use your brain. Just believe. This argument is common to many religions. Any outsider cannot be convinced with it.



It doesn't matter how they may be different. The point is, they are listed as two different things in the "signs of a believer" in Mark. You have tried to tie the story of Saul/Paul in Acts as a proof text by combining them. I've already shown how this is faulty, just from the text.

But if we really want to get down to it - you, as a believer, need to drink some poison to show you are "true blue". Now don't get me wrong - I'm not personally asking you to, please don't - you will harm yourself if you did that. But that is what that passage says is one of the signs. You can say "I won't test God!!", but I think you are being dishonest about your reason. As stated before - the other signs - such as speaking in tongues and healing the sick and so on aren't considered "tests" or "tempting God" - but when it comes to drinking poison all the excuses and qualifiers come out.

Such thinking is DISHONEST. The passage is bogus, and most likely added by a scribe. Mark's not reliable in any case but this passage really shows it.

I don't know. You might be right. Maybe it's added. It's nowhere else in the Bible. I'm glad you don't pick 'em up in blind faith.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EbChj26dMzI

Hmm I think you're right.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html

 

[Alithis]

I don't know. You might be right. Maybe it's added. It's nowhere else in the Bible. I'm glad you don't pick 'em up in blind faith.



Hmm I think you're right.

those guys are nutz and have taken it so far out of context it is ridiculous .
but it is found in scripture as it speaks of the redemptive power ..
recall the serpents in the wilderness and the serpent on the pole ..- who ever looked upon it was saved from death .
and that is the whole point .. those who beleive walk in that redemptive power and as a sign to those who do not beleive certain things happen .

don't be so easily swayed by every hot aired wind of teaching
this would lead you as far away from faith as it can ... this attitude of unbelief is simply insidious .

 

[Rens]

I don't know. You might be right. Maybe it's added. It's nowhere else in the Bible. I'm glad you don't pick 'em up in blind faith.



Hmm I think you're right.

those guys are nutz and have taken it so far out of context it is ridiculous .
but it is found in scripture as it speaks of the redemptive power ..
recall the serpents in the wilderness and the serpent on the pole ..- who ever looked upon it was saved from death .
and that is the whole point .. those who beleive walk in that redemptive power and as a sign to those who do not beleive certain things happen .

don't be so easily swayed by every hot aired wind of teaching
this would lead you as far away from faith as it can ... this attitude of unbelief is simply insidious .

If they have proof that it wasn't in the original manuscript I couldn't care less. Not planning on picking them up anyway. We only have them in the zoo here. There's more texts between [ ] that were added. They gave me poison and it almost killed me. Even blessed it like my food.

 

[Rens]

I want to know now.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/

 

[Alithis]

it makes no difference

l;uke writes "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you,

he never claims to be writing an exact account but and orderly account ..AND he writes of things which have been fulfilled ..things that have already happens.
as as this is something that had been witnessed as having already happened ,it remains true ,because it happened and continues to happen .
a Burmese friend of mine gives account of his pastor who when younger need to call on the lord as he came in from working in the heat and grabbed the wrong container (thinking it was lemon cordial and swallowed down copious gulps of it before the taste hit him and he realized he had just taken 2 or 3 greedy swallows of "Glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine"
you know it as weed killer ..
realizing the danger that now faced him ,they cried to the lord in prayer .. as the time past no effect occurred what so ever -the lord saved him .
he did not go out and test the lord .he did not intend to partake of that poison, but we see that it happened and that God delivered him .
so whether or not the text is correctly recorded , it in no way contradicts the grace nor the POWER of God .nor does it sit in disharmony to the entirety of the scripture (unlike other doctrines like the pope and idolizing Mary or seeking gold dust and angel feathers which have no scriptural backing )there is full scriptural account for poison waters to be made drinkable and snake bites to be healed .we need but read exodus and the accounts of Elisha .
you see anything in the new testiness is built upon the shadow of the old testament for it was the foretelling of the coming new covenant which we are now in...

we also know of Paul's account with the snake
we also know of the account of millions with tongues and healing .. such signs do follow those that believe.. and many more signs also that are not listed .

you will find, that it is often the case , that this one text is used to decry the things of the power of god.
they are not really decrying snakes and poison -their aim is to discredit the things of the holy Spirit for they do not speak in tongues or heal the sick and so want to strip away faith from all others as well ..

it is an insidious attack against the faith, unwholesome talk and unedifying and thus does not originate in the Spirit of God .it encourages doubt and unbelief and is thus wholly destructive and a spiritual wickedness on every level .