Snake-handling Pentecostal pastor

[Bro. Robbins]

Originally Posted by acerrak

lets get even deeper.



discuss....

I believe it was part of the original manuscripts.... and I believe it was prophetic in nature, not a mandate... therefore these folks, though sincerely in error, should not be maligned and persecuted.... especially by other Jesus Name believers.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Bro. Robbins

I believe it was part of the original manuscripts.... and I believe it was prophetic in nature, not a mandate... therefore these folks, though sincerely in error, should not be maligned and persecuted.... especially by other Jesus Name believers.

but there is many MS that doesnt have it in the originals and that there is 4 endings to mark.. discuss...

[Bro. Robbins]

Originally Posted by acerrak

but there is many MS that doesnt have it in the originals and that there is 4 endings to mark.. discuss...

I believe it to be canon... so for me, not much more to discuss... I just believe it's part of the Word.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Bro. Robbins

I believe it to be canon... so for me, not much more to discuss... I just believe it's part of the Word.

even disregarding factual evidence?>

[Bro. Robbins]

Originally Posted by acerrak

even disregarding factual evidence?>

disregarding what you call factual evidence. I don't find the "scholars" as non bias as you do.

Honestly, I'd much rather have someone answer me what they think about my presupposition. Could it be that Mark 16 is more of a prophetic word from Jesus as opposed to a mandate as interpreted by these signs followers churches?

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Bro. Robbins

disregarding what you call factual evidence. I don't find the "scholars" as non bias as you do.

Honestly, I'd much rather have someone answer me what they think about my presupposition. Could it be that Mark 16 is more of a prophetic word from Jesus as opposed to a mandate as interpreted by these signs followers churches?

well before we can get to your question should we not first validate the verses? I mean you lay the foundation before you build.

And one thing i have concerns about is that some people have exaulted the king james version so high, they feel it has no error, when in fact it does.

Im just wondering what do you considered more inspired the Greek or a translation from the greek.

Me i believe the greek, cause every one will go back to it to answer questions to see motives and understand more indepth meanings.

while i agree the kjv is sufficent for us to learn. These scholars as you say is just pointing out that there is several endings to mark and that this version in the kjv which is most excepted is not in the majority of the ancient transcripts begging to offer that it was a later addition.

Im trying to have a conversation with you about your subject that is all.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Sam

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

Originally Posted by acerrak

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 ...

Exactly. So if Satan had challenged Jesus to pick up a snake, we would have precedent to NOT do that.

Snakes = Yes
Jumping off a cliff = No no no!

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Bro. Robbins

I believe it was part of the original manuscripts.... and I believe it was prophetic in nature, not a mandate... therefore these folks, though sincerely in error, should not be maligned and persecuted.... especially by other Jesus Name believers.

I think Jesus was just saying that certain signs would follow His people.
They would expel demons.
They would speak with tongues.
They would be protected by the Lord.
They would have a hands on ministry and people upon whom they laid their hands would be healed.

Watch the people of God. Those signs follow them. They do not go seeking after signs.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Sam

I think Jesus was just saying that certain signs would follow His people.
They would expel demons.
They would speak with tongues.
They would be protected by the Lord.
They would have a hands on ministry and people upon whom they laid their hands would be healed.

Watch the people of God. Those signs follow them. They do not go seeking after signs.

So, they shouldn't intentionally take risks, and expect God to protect them? That makes sense.

And watching the people of God, and seeing if God protects them from dangers that they don't intentionally get into, makes sense. But the thing is, God doesn't (always) protect them, either. God's people have accidents, and sometimes die from them. They get sick, and sometimes die. Snakes sometimes bite them in normal circumstances -- while on a hike, or rummaging through a pile of wood, etc. -- not as a result of picking them up intentionally.

But wait a sec. It says "They shall take up serpents". Doesn't sound unintentional to me.

Nah. I think you better rework your interpretation, Sam.

[Timmy]

Or maybe true "people of God" are more rare than anyone thinks.