Snake-handling Pentecostal pastor

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

If people are handling snakes and trusting God to protect them, they are wusses. If they really want to trust God they need to find the tallest cliff they can and do a swan dive off of it -and trust Him to break their fall.

we dont have scripture for that though

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by acerrak

we dont have scripture for that though

We technically don't have scripture for snakes either other than is being used as an example of what God can protect us from. One of many.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

We technically don't have scripture for snakes either other than is being used as an example of what God can protect us from. One of many.

i actually like what jesus said to satan. when The devil said throw your self off the cliff, for it is written he will not let your foot hit the rocks. Jesus said its better to not tempt God.

I mean i would rather say that than pick up a snake ...

[Sam]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

If people are handling snakes and trusting God to protect them, they are wusses. If they really want to trust God they need to find the tallest cliff they can and do a swan dive off of it -and trust Him to break their fall.

sounds like something that satan challenged Jesus to do, Matthew 4:5-7

[tv1a]

Jesus's words in Mark doesn't indicate any limitations on snake handling. Many interpret that scripture based on their own biases.

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

We technically don't have scripture for snakes either other than is being used as an example of what God can protect us from. One of many.

[Sam]

only time we ever see an example of a believer "handling" a snake is in Acts 28:1-6.

I don't know of anyone drinking poison in the Bible and can only think of one time when people ate something poisonous and that was in 2 Kings 4:38-41.

In each of these cases there was no deliberate handling of a snake or deliberate ingesting poison. Each time it was God protecting them after they had been snake bitten or had eaten something poisonous.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Sam

only time we ever see an example of a believer "handling" a snake is in Acts 28:1-6.

I don't know of anyone drinking poison in the Bible and can only think of one time when people ate something poisonous and that was in 2 Kings 4:38-41.

In each of these cases there was no deliberate handling of a snake or deliberate ingesting poison. Each time it was God protecting them after they had been snake bitten or had eaten something poisonous.

maybe mark 16:16 had some figurative refference to it? going back to the snakes in the wilderness. maybe poison of false religion, then again it could all be literal..

[deafdriscoll]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Maybe it was a TRINITARIAN Pentecostal church. If so, maybe that's why it happened.

ha ha ha always assuming.
wow so I am a snake handler now.
thou shall not temp the lord your God.
hey, I never would go to such a place.

[Bro. Robbins]

I know that many of you are having a lot of enjoyment taking pop shots at one another, and some even some shots at these folks who we have more in commone with than differences in the article.... but if I may interrupt the nastiness for a moment to ask some questions about the Scriptures at the heart of the practice here.

The "signs following" beleivers consider Mark 16:16-18 to be commands. They believe they are fulfilling a mandate from Jesus.

But consider this for a minute. What if Jesus' words here were being not a mandate, but actually prophetic. That he was saying in more literal terms, there will be true believers of me that will do various things in their expression of their relationship with me. And yes, even some of them will take up serpents....etc.

What if Jesus is actually foretelling, not mandating, or even saying it's something that should be done, but that He's stating it's something that will be done in His name?

Could it be? And if that were the appropriate approach to this Scripture, would that change your thinking of this practice?

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Bro. Robbins

I know that many of you are having a lot of enjoyment taking pop shots at one another, and some even some shots at these folks who we have more in commone with than differences in the article.... but if I may interrupt the nastiness for a moment to ask some questions about the Scriptures at the heart of the practice here.

The "signs following" beleivers consider Mark 16:16-18 to be commands. They believe they are fulfilling a mandate from Jesus.

But consider this for a minute. What if Jesus' words here were being not a mandate, but actually prophetic. That he was saying in more literal terms, there will be true believers of me that will do various things in their expression of their relationship with me. And yes, even some of them will take up serpents....etc.

What if Jesus is actually foretelling, not mandating, or even saying it's something that should be done, but that He's stating it's something that will be done in His name?

Could it be? And if that were the appropriate approach to this Scripture, would that change your thinking of this practice?

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

lets get even deeper.

Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand. The Gospel is obviously incomplete without these verses, and so most scholars believe that the final leaf of the original manuscript was lost, and that the ending which appears in English versions today (verses 9-20) was supplied during the second century.

discuss....