Voice of reason

The Lord Jesus gives this claim.

14Afterward (Q)He appeared (R)to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their (S)unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.
15And He said to them, "(T)Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

16"(U)He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

17"These signs will accompany those who have believed: (V)in My name they will cast out demons, they will (W)speak with new tongues;

18they will (X)pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will (Y)lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

19So then, when the Lord Jesus had (Z)spoken to them, He (AA)was received up into heaven and (AB)sat down at the right hand of God.

Very clearly in context it says THOSE WHO BELIEVE will be able to do these things. I have a nice glass of poison for any christian willing to show that Jesus spoke the truth.

I do not want weak rationalizations this is the word of God and your lord and saviour has spoken so it must be true.

Drink ANY DEADLY POISON and show that the Lord is real and has the power he tells you to prove it to us unbelievers.

All I ever hear is weak excuses and no proof at all I do wonder why perhaps it is all a great lie and even christians faith fails and they really do not believe as they claim they do.

Your great Lord has spoken He says and I quote " He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

This is used in apologetics constantly to show how unbelievers will be condemned BUT the double standard then arises as they try to rationalize away this further statement which is very clear.

17"These signs will accompany those who have believed: (V)in My name they will cast out demons, they will (W)speak with new tongues;

18they will (X)pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will (Y)lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

These signs will accompany those WHO HAVE BELIEVED you will drink ANY DEADLY POISON and it will not hurt you!!

Well any that wish to show the SIGN that the LORD Jesus said would happen I welcome I have a few concoctions ready that I am sure will not harm you Why Jesus said so.

When I show this to christians they run they cringe they make excuses and rationalizations so any christians wish to show that thier Lord speaks the truth ??

I have found none so far but weak apologists.

andrewcriddle

This passage comes in the 'long ending' of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) which is probably not part of the original text of Mark.

The most ancient manuscripts end Mark at 16:8

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

But isn't there a snake handling Christian sect, and me being an ex pentecostal was clearly taught I was doing the tongues bit! We had special healing services as well - as do Anglicans.

anthony93

I have been wondering about the long / short version for a while. Raymond Brown mentions it in "Introduction to the New Testament" but sort of glosses over it by pointing out that the "problem" was "noted in antiquity". Well, why does it end with the empty tomb? Was the gospel deliberatly written like that for petitioners, the "secret" of the ressurection only revealed at initiation/baptism? (ok, that's my pet theory) If this subject has been covered before, please excuse the digression.

As for the Snake handlers http://religiousmovements.lib.virgin...ms/Snakes.html

cognac

The challenge really is only meaningful to those inerrantists who believe the passage is original (as is pointed out above). So it makes no sense to call it a challenge to "Christians." Not all Christians, especially more liberal types, believe the passage.

The challenge is equivalent to a Christian's challenge to an atheist: "If you don't believe in God, why don't you just kill yourself, because if there's no God, then you only have despair and nothingness, and you might as well admit it and end it like Camus did, otherwise you're just inconsistent in your beliefs."

Either/or challenges based on absolutist theories that no one really adheres to do not serve to further dialogue, nor do they help anyone come to a better understanding.

anthony93

Right, well the point I am thinking of is the fact that the "take up serpents" passage ONLY occurs in Mark. It is not (i'm fairly sure) paralleled anywhere in the NT. So, if the "appendix" to Mark 16:9-20) is an addition, where did it come from? This particular ending (there is more than 1... http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;...ope&sbid=lc02a )
is the one that is included in the ASV ( and KJV, etc. ). So what's the source? I don't think it is overly contentious to say the appendix is not original. It is an historical "fact". But why does the gospel end with the empty tomb and what, if anything, does the appendix have to do with the original document, other than the fact that it fills in what is left out of Mark but provided by Matt. and Luke ( i.e the appearance of the risen Christ to MM, etc.)??? If the appendix is ( as I suspect ) a later addition by someone with no ties to the author ( or the originating community maybe ) then just where the hell did it come form? Or more importantly, what was the point of adding it, in the utilitarian sense. It's probably an unanswerable question, but important, I think, since people do have a tendancy to pick out a verse here and there (see the original post to this thread ).

Voice of reason

Well I do wonder if that passage which is in the bible is not supposed to be there what other passages are not supposed to be there? It is canonized?? Seems the bible is not worth the paper it is written on.

As soon as a passage shows up that PROVES beyond doubt christianity is fake it is claimed to be a false passage?? That does not belong??

This clearly show christianty to be a fake religion that strips what it does not like out of its HOLY scripture as it likes.

Voice of reason

I have plenty to live for it is a challenge for christians and christians are too weak in thier faith to listen to their Lord and Saviour who commands them to Drink any poison. Now it is claimed it does not belong?? Then why is it there?? And has been there if not supposed to be??

So much for the bible being the word of God and it is clearly the word of man.

cognac

Ok, if your purpose is to challenge Christians, why are you posting on this forum, where most are not Christians?

If your purpose is to understand, you might want to read up on how modern translations are compiled, and also do a little history on the ending of Mark. I suggest you start with a search here in the forum. The topic has been dealt with before.

Voice of reason

That is what I thought more rationalizations and excuses.