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

[DeafManHealing]

To drink poison on purpose would be crazy. Let's say for example, a man's wife wants to poison her husband for insurance money then the innocent husband who has loved his wife all the days of his life uses Jesus Christ's Name and recovers at the emergency room.

I can see where that makes sense but to be at church and drink poison is just crazy. I remember in the 1970's , some famous dude who was a cult personality preacher of some sorts ? He had everybody in the church dip poisonous drinks from the punch bowl and if someone who had used Jesus Christ's name with authority, power and spirit. I can see where that would have saved their lives but they still would need emergency room care to make sure they are really okay.

I think that passage is talking about persecution for the sake of Jesus Christ and someone slips poison in their drink or food. They know that person should be dead but he or she is a genuine christian calling on the name of Jesus Christ in 1st century Israel or in Italy or somewhere else in those biblical days. I am sure there are some examples of real life persecution today in the 21st century that goes on and this would be a case where using the name of Jesus Christ would make sense but still seek emergency room care.

[Rocky]

THE VERSE WITHOUT ANY HUMAN COMMENTARY SAYS

V18 THEY SHALL TAKE UP SERPENTS take up means take them up....AND IF THEY DRINK ANY DEADLY THING IT SHALL NOT HURT THEM.that means drinking poison.

it sounds like people here are trying to wiggle out of the plain commands of the Bible.

Are we defending this Billy?

[Justaned]

My question is why would you want to ?

If you really believe you can be bitten by a snake and/or drink poison with impunity why would you need to test it?

If you weren't sure I could see you being tempted to test it but to what end. If you die you wee right and had valid reason to test it. If you lived what did you prove because you had doubt going in, now your doubt is going to be doubled, did you drink enough, or did the snake inject enought venom.

So my question is why would want to do this?

[branham1965]

THEY THINK THAT THEY ARE RENDERING OBEDIENCE TO MARK 16.

My question is why would you want to ?

If you really believe you can be bitten by a snake and/or drink poison with impunity why would you need to test it?

If you weren't sure I could see you being tempted to test it but to what end. If you die you wee right and had valid reason to test it. If you lived what did you prove because you had doubt going in, now your doubt is going to be doubled, did you drink enough, or did the snake inject enought venom.

So my question is why would want to do this?

[Justaned]

Billy
First of all it is real iffy whether Mark 16:18 was even inspired. Many manuscripts do not contain this passage. The ones considered most reliable do not contain it.
But even if the passage is inspired it contains no command or directive that it is to be tested or exercised. So it isn't out of obedience to Mark 16 but rather for some other reason. I submit the reason is testing of God inspired word and God said not to do that.
I see no valid reason to do any of this.

We see the snake part in action with Paul Acts 28:3-6. However what most people overlook in that passage was Paul was in God's will and serving God, Paul was not simply testing a scripture to see if it were accurate of not.

THEY THINK THAT THEY ARE RENDERING OBEDIENCE TO MARK 16.

My question is why would you want to ?

If you really believe you can be bitten by a snake and/or drink poison with impunity why would you need to test it?

If you weren't sure I could see you being tempted to test it but to what end. If you die you wee right and had valid reason to test it. If you lived what did you prove because you had doubt going in, now your doubt is going to be doubled, did you drink enough, or did the snake inject enought venom.

So my question is why would want to do this?

[Rocky]

Many treat it as an old ritual that the church still does. I once saw a preacher allow his 3 or 4 year old daughter distribute communion almost as a tea party.

I see nothing wrong with that.

How many realize the significance of the bread and wine in relation to the Passover?

Its about the Crucifixion of Jesus, the blood that was shed there, and his broken body,not the Passover..

How many really reflect on what Christ was doing and saying when he instituted communion?

How many reflect on what Christ did for us when we are taking communion..

[victoryword]

Billy
First of all it is real iffy whether Mark 16:18 was even inspired. Many manuscripts do not contain this passage. The ones considered most reliable do not contain it.

Man, have you been shopping at Cessationists-R-Us? Only TWO manuscripts out of 4200 do not contain the passage. When an AoG pastor begins questioning or casting doubt upon the authenticity of Mark 16 it lets me know that death has entered within that denomination and why you can't really tell anymore if they are genuine Pentecostals.

I highly recommend anyone doubting this read chapter 5 of my book, "Miracles are for Today: Confronting the Powerless Gospel with God's Word"

[Rocky]

Billy
First of all it is real iffy whether Mark 16:18 was even inspired. Many manuscripts do not contain this passage. The ones considered most reliable do not contain it.

Man, have you been shopping at Cessationists-R-Us? Only TWO manuscripts out of 4200 do not contain the passage. When an AoG pastor begins questioning or casting doubt upon the authenticity of Mark 16 it lets me know that death has entered within that denomination and why you can't really tell anymore if they are genuine Pentecostals.

I highly recommend anyone doubting this read chapter 5 of my book, "Miracles are for Today: Confronting the Powerless Gospel with God's Word"

I see this more and more victoryword now days. If someone don't agree with something in the Bible they say it was added. This is done with 1 John 5:7 and many others as well. The NIV and other new translations try to discredited this verse by saying it was added or is not in any old manuscripts, oh they put it in there, but this is said in the footnotes, so the seed of doubt can be sown about this passage in Mark 16. Some scriptures are even completely taken out of some new translations. I am really starting to get aggravated with some of the new Bible translations that are out there, this is the kind of stuff that it creates.

[Justaned]

Billy
First of all it is real iffy whether Mark 16:18 was even inspired. Many manuscripts do not contain this passage. The ones considered most reliable do not contain it.

Man, have you been shopping at Cessationists-R-Us? Only TWO manuscripts out of 4200 do not contain the passage. When an AoG pastor begins questioning or casting doubt upon the authenticity of Mark 16 it lets me know that death has entered within that denomination and why you can't really tell anymore if they are genuine Pentecostals.

I highly recommend anyone doubting this read chapter 5 of my book, "Miracles are for Today: Confronting the Powerless Gospel with God's Word"

First of all you don't know what you are talking about. There are many manuscripts that end at Mark 16:8 or have a very shortened passage following.
The Catholic Church in 1546 declared the existing ending of Mark 16 to be one true ending. And you have already stated the Catholic church is of Satan.

Most Alexandrian copies contain Mark 16:9-18 but even a few of these contain a shorter version. Many question the Alexandrian manuscripts because of the coptic and gnostic influence in the region.

Second the truth contained in Mark 16:9-18 was already cited elsewhere in scripture but not as practice (which Mark 16 is often mistakenly taken for as proved by the snake handlers) but rather as God's divine protection for those that about His business.

Don't you worry about my theology worry about your own, please. The only thing that renders the gospel powerless is people misusing it, trying to profit from it.

[victoryword]

Ed

I am afraid that for all your desire to correct it is YOU that don't know what you are talking about. I am going to do you a favor and cite some of the sources from my own research that I quoted in my book (linked above in case you want to purchase a copy and get YOUR theology straight).

• “The remaining unmutilated Greek manuscripts, versions, and fathers overwhelmingly support the LE. It is present in all Greek MSS save two.” (Maurice A. Robinson, Senior Professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, "The Long Ending of Mark as Canonical Verity" in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 Views, Edited by David Alan Black (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2008), p. 77
  
  "….discrepant as the testimony of these two MSS. is throughout, the yet, strange to say, conspire every here and there in exhibiting minute corruptions of such unique and peculiar kind as to betray a (probably not very remote) common corrupt original. These coincidences in fact are so numerous and so extraordinary as to establish a real connexion between those two codices; and that connexion is fatal to any claim which might be set up on their behalf as wholly independent witnesses." (John W. Burgon, Dean of the Church of England, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to Mark, p. 156)

So thanks for your "Catholic" sources, seeing how credible this organization has been, but I will believe those who actually dug into this matter without bias and prejudice, and found the "longer ending" of Mark 16 to be authentic.