Godless Wonder

I was thinking about Mark 16:18 Now deliberately drinking poison to test this would not be such a smart thing to do, but it does seem like there should be a disproportionately low number of Christians calling poison control due to accidental poisonings or snakebite who subsequently die or suffer permanent disability from it, compared with those calling and ultimately dying or suffering permanent disability due to poisoning or snakebite who profess no, or other faiths, if Mark 16:18 is actually true. I wonder if anyone has looked into it from that angle.

If God doesn't like to be tested by a person who looks at such records, and He refuses to honor the Bible;s claim in Mark 16:18 if such records are examined (or are even kept, and thus might one day be examined) then it would seem such record keepers would possess the power of thwarting God. (Or maybe God just destroys such records before they can be examined?)

(Maybe someone can get a grant from the Bush administration to look into this faith based approach to poison control to see if it's viable. Such an approach might be a valuable asset in the war against terror if it proves true, after all. And it might prove a boon to the privacy of medical records. After all,we wouldn't want to thwart God by keeping unnecessary records which could be used to test Him. )

(Not sure if this belongs in Biblical Criticism, Science Skepticism, Humor or Elsewhere.)

NearNihil Experience

"If God doesn't like to be tested by a person..."


An educated Christian would say that Mark 16 is an interpolation and is not to be taken seriously....though there goes the ressurrection out the window too, in Mark at least.

An uneducated Christian would say this is not a sanction to test God, but to test one's faith in God.

" You see that guys drop dead after he drank that pison\bit by that snake?"
"Yep."
" Must not have had True Faith(tm)."


Looking through hospital records for non-faithful poison and snake bite recovery stories....I suspect everyone of them who survived will credit the ER. The Truly Faithful(tm), wouldn't go to the hospital. So, we are probably talking about numbers and information that doesn't exist.
God doesn't destroy records that might prove his ill intentions towards man...he uses sociopathic child neglecters and modern day flaggelates (read:snake handlers and Christian Scientists) to provide positive cases of recovery and not not risk negative instances by staying away from hospitals.

Nectaris

I have read several apologists explain this away as not being part of the original Mark, stating that only the first eight chapters of Mark are actually part of the original document(s). Whether this is true or not, I'm not sure how the questionable authorship would devalue the statement. Since it appears in the New Testament, does the question of "who is the author?" really matter? IOW, if the passage is not authentic, why continue to include it as such. . .

Dave

MortalWombat

I think they meant the first eight verses in the last chapter of Mark. Anyway, even if this is the case, then they have the additional problem that the resurrection of Jesus (which is the cornerstone of Christian belief) would have been left out of the original Mark as well.

judge

Remember biblical literalism is only true sometimes

Kinda like Shakespeare is only literal sometimes.

Compare Mark 16 with Psalm 91...

If you make the Most High your dwelling-
even the LORD , who is my refuge-
10 then no harm will befall you,
no disaster will come near your tent.
11 For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways;
12 they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
13 You will tread upon the lion and the cobra;
you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

These things are figures of speech and not meant to be taken literally, it means you will have success over adversity

Mageth

So, how do you distinguish what should be taken literally from that which should be taken figuratively? For example, should John 3:16 be taken figuratively or literally? Perhaps "eternal life" is not literally "eternal life"? How about the resurrection accounts?

I suppose the answer might be that, if the verse seems to be a bit extreme (e.g. drinking poison or stomping on lions and cobras), then obviously it is not to be taken literally? (I would argue that eternal life and resurrection from the deat fall in this category )

judge

If a literal interpretation agres with my preconceived doctrine then it is to be taken literally.

Marduk

There are Christian sects that play this to the max (mostly in the South) they handle poisonous snakes and drink strychnine as part of their service. However there must be a reason they always use strychnine as the poison of choice, I have NEVER seen or read about any group trying this stunt with cyanide.

Mageth

I think (hope) you left a off there by accident.

Godless Wonder

If Mark 16:18 is not meant to be taken literally, it seems a little irresponsible for a Jesus who really healed people by miracle, and really performed various other miracles to go around and tell people that they could now drink poison safely, yet only mean it to be taken as a metaphor, yet not make it clear that it was meant as a metaphor. How is anyone to know that the heretofore reliable miracle worker's statement that it was now possible to drink poison safely was not meant in earnest? How can they know that? By trial and error? (I'm reminded of Larry, Derrell and Derrell from "Newhart" playing, "Let's see if this is edible!")

Anyone not believing that the words about drinking poison are meant in earnest sounds like they've got a (commendable) lack of faith. Or, if they were meant as metaphor, it seems the only way one could know they were not meant to be taken litereally is if prior miracles were also well known to be exaggerrated or metaphoric and not really to be believed. But seeing as how this supposedly happens immediately following Jesus' appearance after the Resurrection, and how seriously most Christians seem to take that and the rest of the miracles, that interpretation seems unlikely to be popular.

Edit to add:

Hmmm. I just realized that it makes quite a bit of sense if, between Mark 16:18, and Mark 16:19, you insert

Mark 16:18.5 "Upon saying this, Jesus uncorks a big ol' bottle of poison, raises it to his lips and takes a big swig to demonstrate his point."

Mark 16:19 "So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God."

That is, he up and died.