Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Do you obey the WHOLE Gospel?

[victoryword]

Oh so you summarily impeach anyone that doesn't agree with you as unbelieving? That shows great scholarship and a lot of in-depth critical thinking.

I don't impeach someone who disagrees with me. I impeach people who destroy faith by questioning any portion of God's Word via their scholarship. When "scholarship" questions the authenticity of any portion of God's Word then I most certainly will impeach THAT. The serpent in Genesis chapter 3 was a real scholar too. Very intelligent and educated.

The fact that these truths work for you proves nothing. Every Mormon if asked would testify that their religion or religious views work for them also.

Scripture is not based on experiential validity but rather by the fact it is God inspired.

THanks, you have made my point even clearer that so-called scholarship is a demonic substitute for experiencing the vital reality of God's truth. Scholars want to spend their time disputing over the authenticity of this passage or that passage, especially those passages that represent the supernatural power of God being available to BELIEVERS!!! Satan has done a great job using scholarship to cast doubt on the very portion of God's Word that Jesus said explicitly would work experientially for those who BELIEVE it. He did not say analyze it, dispute it, question its authenticity, etc. He said BELIEVE IT!!!

When someone happens upon scripture that is suspect in origin you must first decide if it is presenting a new doctrine or is it restating something that uncontested scripture has already established as truth.

When someone simply does not want to believe some portion of God's Word then they can claim it as suspect.

As I said and you just fluffed off is the truths listed in Mark 16 are in fact found elsewhere in scripture. But they are so stated in a way that does not invite the testing thereof by snake handling. Nor are they all encompassing. Many have tried to cast out demons and as Jesus disciples found they require more than will but require a prayed up, holy ghost filled person that is walking in close relationship with God. Likewise we see Paul bitten by a snake but paying it no mind got about the business of the Lord. He did not do it as a demonstration or testing of God’s power.

As far as drinking poison I believe many missionaries have had people try to poison them and without even knowing of the poison survived to see the next day. Again they did not drink poison to demonstrate or test God’s word.

To me Mark 16:9-18 is a passage most often abused by people that want to put God’s truth to a test. Again God has clearly stated we are not to test Him.

Cessationists and "scholars" are often crying abuse. You been reading a little too much MacArthur my friend. However, no one says that someone whould drink poison or pick up snakes anymore than they should jump from the pinnacle of a temple to see if Psalm 91 is true. When Satan quoted Psalm 91 to Jesus, He never disputed its authenticity or its validity. He simply balanced Satan's abuse of the passage with another passage of Scripture from Deuteronomy.

INstead of countering abuse of Mark 16 with questioning its authenticity, why not just simply handle its abuse the way Jesus did when Satan was abusing Psalm 91.

[Rocky]

LOOK AT FIRST JOHN CHAPTER FIVE VERSE SEVEN. 1 JOHN 5:7.

HOW ODD THAT WHEN THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WERE FIGHTING OVER THE TRINITY AND ETERNAL SONSHIP NOT ONE USED 1 JOHN 5:7.NO ONE.SURELY IF IT WAS AUTHENTIC ATHANASIUS WOULD HAVE USED IT AGAINST ARIUS.HE DID NOT.HE JUST POISONED HIM INSTEAD. HE COULD NOT REFUTE HIM SO HIS FOLLOWERS KILLED HIM.
SERVETUS WAS BURNED AT THE STAKE BY JOHN CALVIN FOR DENYING THE TRINITY DOCTRINE.

1 JOHN 5:7 WAS ADDED TO THE TEXT BY SOMEONE HUNDREDS OF YEARS AFTER THE APOSTLE JOHN THE DIVINE PENNED IT AS HOLY WRIT.

MARK 16:9-20
THESE VERSES ARE QUESTIONABLE.

Come brother now you are tying to discredit the word of God to fit you own beliefs. Do you see how insane this is????? What else are you going to take out to make the bible fit your beliefs? When some one does this is not this haressy? Billy you sure have some strange beliefs.

[Justaned]

Oh so you summarily impeach anyone that doesn't agree with you as unbelieving? That shows great scholarship and a lot of in-depth critical thinking.

I don't impeach someone who disagrees with me. I impeach people who destroy faith by questioning any portion of God's Word via their scholarship. When "scholarship" questions the authenticity of any portion of God's Word then I most certainly will impeach THAT. The serpent in Genesis chapter 3 was a real scholar too. Very intelligent and educated.

The fact that these truths work for you proves nothing. Every Mormon if asked would testify that their religion or religious views work for them also.

Scripture is not based on experiential validity but rather by the fact it is God inspired.

THanks, you have made my point even clearer that so-called scholarship is a demonic substitute for experiencing the vital reality of God's truth. Scholars want to spend their time disputing over the authenticity of this passage or that passage, especially those passages that represent the supernatural power of God being available to BELIEVERS!!! Satan has done a great job using scholarship to cast doubt on the very portion of God's Word that Jesus said explicitly would work experientially for those who BELIEVE it. He did not say analyze it, dispute it, question its authenticity, etc. He said BELIEVE IT!!!

When someone happens upon scripture that is suspect in origin you must first decide if it is presenting a new doctrine or is it restating something that uncontested scripture has already established as truth.

When someone simply does not want to believe some portion of God's Word then they can claim it as suspect.

As I said and you just fluffed off is the truths listed in Mark 16 are in fact found elsewhere in scripture. But they are so stated in a way that does not invite the testing thereof by snake handling. Nor are they all encompassing. Many have tried to cast out demons and as Jesus disciples found they require more than will but require a prayed up, holy ghost filled person that is walking in close relationship with God. Likewise we see Paul bitten by a snake but paying it no mind got about the business of the Lord. He did not do it as a demonstration or testing of God’s power.

As far as drinking poison I believe many missionaries have had people try to poison them and without even knowing of the poison survived to see the next day. Again they did not drink poison to demonstrate or test God’s word.

To me Mark 16:9-18 is a passage most often abused by people that want to put God’s truth to a test. Again God has clearly stated we are not to test Him.

Cessationists and "scholars" are often crying abuse. You been reading a little too much MacArthur my friend. However, no one says that someone whould drink poison or pick up snakes anymore than they should jump from the pinnacle of a temple to see if Psalm 91 is true. When Satan quoted Psalm 91 to Jesus, He never disputed its authenticity or its validity. He simply balanced Satan's abuse of the passage with another passage of Scripture from Deuteronomy.

INstead of countering abuse of Mark 16 with questioning its authenticity, why not just simply handle its abuse the way Jesus did when Satan was abusing Psalm 91.

I agree with this statement.

INstead of countering abuse of Mark 16 with questioning its authenticity, why not just simply handle its abuse the way Jesus did when Satan was abusing Psalm 91.

And it were just a matter of abuse I would totally agree but it goes beyond that. It becomes a mindset to many people. Sort of like Simon in Acts 8 not that they try or even think to buy the power but in their focus it isn't about serving God it is what is in it for them. Many Pentecostals have no desire for God aside from seeing miracles, demons being cast out, healing and things similar to snake handling.

This passage in Mark 16 is one of the few that lists the various things the Christians will do. And its focus is not on God, not the Holy Spirit, not on Jesus but rather on what the Christian will do. That gives it the appearance that it was added by an over zealous scribe that got caught up in what he was writing. Had it said and these signs will follow those that witness Jesus to the world then I would be more inclined to not to question it.

However let me repeat the truths this passage contains are listed elsewhere in scripture pertaining to witnessing Jesus to the world so they aren't inventions of someone.

Notices how in Acts 1 we are clearly told the Holy Spirit is given to empower us to be Christ's witnesses, not for the sole purpose of doing healing, not simply to cast out demons, not to be handling snakes and drinking poison tempting God. But the power that comes from the Holy Spirit is for one thing witnessing Jesus to the world.

Unlike the cessationists I believe all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are available to us today, I just don't see their valid use confined to a church sanctuary. Indeed I see these gifts being used outside the church not to give church people warm fuzzies but to witness Jesus to the world.

Most healing services are held where? In a church or before people who believe in healing. Yet the healing of the disciples and Jesus was before people that didn't know what to believe. It wasn't done to make the life for the saved easier it was to bring unsaved to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

I think we have beat this subject enough in the future I will endeavor to refrain from casting question on Mark 16:9-18 so as not to offend those that get upset when these types of things are mentioned.

Since I obviously offended you by bringing this up I apologize and ask for your forgiveness and prayers. I don't believe questioning how this passage was written makes one a pagan or threatens the validity of scripture, however I agree to new Christians that could view this discussion it could send to them the wrong message.
That was not my intent nor my desire. I only want to strengthen the body of Christ.

[branham1965]

really??? everything i stated here was the truth.

LOOK AT FIRST JOHN CHAPTER FIVE VERSE SEVEN. 1 JOHN 5:7.

HOW ODD THAT WHEN THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WERE FIGHTING OVER THE TRINITY AND ETERNAL SONSHIP NOT ONE USED 1 JOHN 5:7.NO ONE.SURELY IF IT WAS AUTHENTIC ATHANASIUS WOULD HAVE USED IT AGAINST ARIUS.HE DID NOT.HE JUST POISONED HIM INSTEAD. HE COULD NOT REFUTE HIM SO HIS FOLLOWERS KILLED HIM.
SERVETUS WAS BURNED AT THE STAKE BY JOHN CALVIN FOR DENYING THE TRINITY DOCTRINE.

1 JOHN 5:7 WAS ADDED TO THE TEXT BY SOMEONE HUNDREDS OF YEARS AFTER THE APOSTLE JOHN THE DIVINE PENNED IT AS HOLY WRIT.

MARK 16:9-20
THESE VERSES ARE QUESTIONABLE.

Come brother now you are tying to discredit the word of God to fit you own beliefs. Do you see how insane this is????? What else are you going to take out to make the bible fit your beliefs? When some one does this is not this haressy? Billy you sure have some strange beliefs.

[branham1965]

EVERYTHING I SAID IS THE TRUTH.ITS THE TRUTH.ITS ALL HISTORY.
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF BISHOP EUSEBIUS???
HE WROTE THE VERY FIRST CHURCH HISTORY.
YOU SIR NEED TO DIG DEEPER

LOOK AT FIRST JOHN CHAPTER FIVE VERSE SEVEN. 1 JOHN 5:7.

HOW ODD THAT WHEN THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WERE FIGHTING OVER THE TRINITY AND ETERNAL SONSHIP NOT ONE USED 1 JOHN 5:7.NO ONE.SURELY IF IT WAS AUTHENTIC ATHANASIUS WOULD HAVE USED IT AGAINST ARIUS.HE DID NOT.HE JUST POISONED HIM INSTEAD. HE COULD NOT REFUTE HIM SO HIS FOLLOWERS KILLED HIM.
SERVETUS WAS BURNED AT THE STAKE BY JOHN CALVIN FOR DENYING THE TRINITY DOCTRINE.

1 JOHN 5:7 WAS ADDED TO THE TEXT BY SOMEONE HUNDREDS OF YEARS AFTER THE APOSTLE JOHN THE DIVINE PENNED IT AS HOLY WRIT.

MARK 16:9-20
THESE VERSES ARE QUESTIONABLE.

Come brother now you are tying to discredit the word of God to fit you own beliefs. Do you see how insane this is????? What else are you going to take out to make the bible fit your beliefs? When some one does this is not this haressy? Billy you sure have some strange beliefs.

[branham1965]

this is a fact.Athanasius never once quoted that spurious text from 1 John.it would have helped his case.the reason he did not because it was not in there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!it was forged into the text by a priest of rome trying to prove the Trinity doctrine.Arius could refute him.there were many early Christians who were Arians.

LOOK AT FIRST JOHN CHAPTER FIVE VERSE SEVEN. 1 JOHN 5:7.

HOW ODD THAT WHEN THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WERE FIGHTING OVER THE TRINITY AND ETERNAL SONSHIP NOT ONE USED 1 JOHN 5:7.NO ONE.SURELY IF IT WAS AUTHENTIC ATHANASIUS WOULD HAVE USED IT AGAINST ARIUS.HE DID NOT.HE JUST POISONED HIM INSTEAD. HE COULD NOT REFUTE HIM SO HIS FOLLOWERS KILLED HIM.
SERVETUS WAS BURNED AT THE STAKE BY JOHN CALVIN FOR DENYING THE TRINITY DOCTRINE.

1 JOHN 5:7 WAS ADDED TO THE TEXT BY SOMEONE HUNDREDS OF YEARS AFTER THE APOSTLE JOHN THE DIVINE PENNED IT AS HOLY WRIT.

MARK 16:9-20
THESE VERSES ARE QUESTIONABLE.

Come brother now you are tying to discredit the word of God to fit you own beliefs. Do you see how insane this is????? What else are you going to take out to make the bible fit your beliefs? When some one does this is not this haressy? Billy you sure have some strange beliefs.

[Rocky]

Billy Billy Billy, Wow, do you not see what you are saying? Now you are taking scriptures and versus out of the Bible to support your arguments, not even Ed goes that far, at least Ed uses scripture. Sorry Ed

[branham1965]

WHAT IN THE NAME OF SAINT PETER ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?????
IM TELLING YOU HISTORICAL FACTS AND YOU CANNOT ANSWER SO YOU ARE GIVING ME THE BILLY BILLY BILLY DEFENSE.
ROCKY
WOULD NOT HAVE ATHANASIUS USED 1 JOHN 5:7 TO REFUTE ARIUS???HE DID NOT.NOW WHY COULD THAT BE I DONT THINK YOU KNOW WHO THESE MEN ARE.
I GAVE YOU NEARLY 10 POINTS IN ANOTHER POST.YOU DID NOT ANSWER .....ONE.NOT ONE.

Billy Billy Billy, Wow, do you not see what you are saying? Now you are taking scriptures and versus out of the Bible to support your arguments, not even Ed goes that far, at least Ed uses scripture. Sorry Ed

[DeafManHealing]

I think obeying the gospel should be done with common-sense and discerning in the Holy Spirit.

Please go easy on me as it is almost my bedtime & I am tired and not feeling very well. Here are some main points to think about ...

For example , the O.T. Command to stone a disobedient child. That was clearly for in ancient Israel.

As the centuries & years went by at the time of Psalms & Proverbs writings, the verse says to train up a child in The Lord and he will not depart from The Lord in his old age. ( paraphrasing here don't have exact KJV verse )

By the time Jesus Christ was here 2,000 years ago, Love your parents & obey them and fathers are to not provoke his children to anger but to instruct the children in the ways of The Lord.

If you follow these timeline with biblical background in mind then you will never go wrong with the doctrinal debate.

Another one is for Halloween , many people are familiar with the verse " Put a witch to death " while that was true. In Jesus Christ's time, the 12 disciples with the son of Sceva ? A scorercy warlock or one who consults in witchcraft. Notice Paul or Peter ? Did not put the scorcery man to death but talked to him about Jesus Christ and that money is not right as this is a free gift from God and he spoke to the devil worshipper about getting his heart right with God. All of this was done with the help & cooperation of the Holy Spirit.

You have to take these things into account. Think about what is normal or not normal and how this verse applies to the 21st century which is our century and look at real world situations and what the Holy Bible has to say on a particular topic with discernment from the Holy Spirit. Have a good night & God Bless

[Rocky]

WHAT IN THE NAME OF SAINT PETER ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?????
IM TELLING YOU HISTORICAL FACTS AND YOU CANNOT ANSWER SO YOU ARE GIVING ME THE BILLY BILLY BILLY DEFENSE.
ROCKY
WOULD NOT HAVE ATHANASIUS USED 1 JOHN 5:7 TO REFUTE ARIUS???HE DID NOT.NOW WHY COULD THAT BE I DONT THINK YOU KNOW WHO THESE MEN ARE.
I GAVE YOU NEARLY 10 POINTS IN ANOTHER POST.YOU DID NOT ANSWER .....ONE.NOT ONE.

I think it is just erroneous for someone to go ahead and take Verses out of the bible to try and prove their ideas and theology. I am simply trying to point out this fact that you are doing this. Plus I don't indulge in these kinds of debates. I am not going to argue or debate about about the authenticity of bible verses. That's why I didn't address any of your 10 points you made in your post. I am already aware of the conspiracy theories of Anti-Trinitarians. Now I will debate the meaning of versus like I have Ed and others in the past on here. But when one starts to erase total versus out of the bible what is there left to debate?. I'll give an example when you say "there is no trinity" and I point to you 1 john 5:7 then you say that was added, that tells me that this inividual is willing to now erase scripture to fit some theology, so to me there is no where else to go with that just believe it or not.