I’ve managed to borrow a laptop, so thought I would spend a little time here. I’ve been to Wales today, by the way, where I’ve discovered, thanks to bi-lingual signage everywhere, that “Allen” is Welsh for “Exit” ! (No hidden messages or inferences intended, I promise you !)

I am genuinely disappointed, with myself, for patently failing to convey the fact that I wasn’t “casting doubts on the authenticity of these verses”. (The irony is that I was trying to do just the opposite!)

I was keen to explain that although these verses are doubted by some (as being part of Mark’s original writings), I was not going to promote that line of thought. My preference was to address the verses square on, as part and parcel of the New Testament, and not avoid them or dilute them. I am very sorry that you feel I was trying to wriggle away from them. That was never my intention, and I can only apologise for inadvertently giving that unfortunate impression.

I am by no means the best apologist the New Testament will ever have, but I would at least always try hard to address verses such as these honestly.

To your point that Mark Ch. 16 refers specifically to the “taking up” (handling) of serpents:

You are of course quite correct to press me on those semantics. I stand by what I have previously written (with my references to Acts, etc), but I would add to all of that a reference to Amos Ch. 5 v. 19. (For context, you may wish to read Amos Ch. 5 from the beginning.)

In the geographical region of Jesus’ time on earth, it was commonplace for snakes to hide within cracks in walls (in order to be hidden and in order to find a cooler location, I think).

Bearing Amos Ch. 5 v. 19 in mind, then, it was also relatively common, in Jesus’ day, for people to be bitten unexpectedly, simply by resting their hand on a wall. (This is the context, although not the only meaning of Amos Ch. 5 v. 19.)

The need, therefore, in practical terms, was for people not only to be resistant to snake-bites (for which, see Paul in Acts, as previously quoted), but to enter homes and literally, physically, remove snakes from their hiding places in nooks and crannies.

My brother emigrates to Australia in August, and he has already been advised that the efficient removal of snakes from one’s home is a dangerous business. Amos Ch. 5 v. 19 would seem to endorse this, hence the “taking up” of serpents.

This is not, I stress, the dangerous and ridiculous snake-handing performed, in the name of Christianity, by some churches. It is nothing of the sort. The “taking up” of Mark Ch. 16 refers to the twin dangers of hidden snakes which should be removed, and the likelihood of a poisonous snake-bite otherwise, and God’s protection throughout (bearing in mind that Jesus’ disciples were called upon to engage in house-to-house visitation).

More, later, but someone else needs the laptop just now! Sorry, but I need to curtail this here.

Greetings, one and all.
Stephen

I really hate to disagree so thoroughly with such an agreeable person, but here goes:

You wrote:

The relevant Bible verses, from Mark Ch. 16, sit as they do smack bang in the gospels. There is a school of thought which claims they don’t rightly belong there (and that school of thought may actually have some merit). However, as there’s no denying those verses do sit where they do, I have no intention of trying to erase them by claiming they are misplaced, and not what Mark originally wrote.

My response:

Casting doubts on the authenticity of these verses now, I see. Can\\\’t blame you, really. I would, too, if I were you. They are very inconvenient, to put it mildly.

You wrote:

I would also stress that protection was promised, to those in the service of the gospel, should anything such as, for example, a snakebite occur accidentally.

My response:

Frankly, this is nonsense. The quote is \\\”They shall take up (emphasis mine) serpents.\\\” Jesus\\\’ disciples are instructed to take up, meaning to pick up, to handle, to hold, potentially poisonous snakes. This is far from an accident in which someone happens to stumble across or step upon a snake and is bitten.

You wrote:

With regard to poison, it does little violence to the text to suggest that the venom of a snake was commonly regarded as poison.

It does great violence, actually. The quote is \\\”and if they drink (emphasis mine) any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.\\\” Unless you wish to argue that people actually drank snake venom, it\\\’s an interpretation which isn\\\’t supported by the text.

You wrote:

Jesus would have been acutely aware of this practice, and it may have formed part of His thinking. He knew the disciples would encounter serious opposition, and couldn’t therefore rule out the administration of poison as part of that opposition.

My response:

Any New Testament or extra-biblical support for this particular speculation?

And finally, you wrote:

(Allen - I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for photographic evidence of Jesus!)

My response:

Why not? If Jesus ascended bodily, that is physically, into heaven, He should be able to be photographed as easily as any other physical being, should He desire to reveal Himself. Or are you saying that He can be, but doesn\\\’t choose to be, photographed?

Enjoy your holiday,

Allen

Troll much?

Good riddance.

Firstly, my apologies for taking such an age to respond to things here. Sorry about that. And my thanks for your patience.

Allen, if it’s not too late to return the the subject of handling snakes and drinking poisons, and all those other fun activities for Christian social evenings (I’m kidding - honestly!), I’d like to do so now …

The relevant Bible verses, from Mark Ch. 16, sit as they do smack bang in the gospels. There is a school of thought which claims they don’t rightly belong there (and that school of thought may actually have some merit). However, as there’s no denying those verses do sit where they do, I have no intention of trying to erase them by claiming they are misplaced, and not what Mark originally wrote.

Allen, I think you are, with respect, mistaken when you state that Jesus told His disciples to do “all these things” (the snakes, the poison, etc). The only thing Jesus actually told His disciples to do was to go into all the world and preach the gospel.

The other matters were not instructions, as you infer, but were to be regarded as evidences of authenticity when the gospel was preached internationally.

I would gently refer you to Acts Ch. 8 v. 7, 2:4, 28:3 - 5 and 28:8 as instances when “all these things” were put into practice - with the exception of drinking poison.

I would stress that the disciples were not told to do such things. They were told to preach the gospel “with signs following”. According to Acts, this seems to have happened.

I would also stress that protection was promised, to those in the service of the gospel, should anything such as, for example, a snakebite occur accidentally. (The “testing” of God by embarking upon deliberate snake-handling is foolhardy, and a misunderstanding of Scripture.)

In context, then, these verses appear more relevant. (Likewise, Luke Ch. 10 v. 19 [with a similar note of caution in v. 20]. Likewise, too, the stories of Daniel, and Isaiah Ch. 43 v. 2.)

The context in which the disciples in question were being asked to work was (literally) full of snakes and scorpions. Their bites were very real risks in that part of the world (unlike Scotland, where I preach nowadays!). To be offered protection from common or garden, everyday risks was not an out of place option. Serpents and scorpions were real threats, simply because of the geography of the setting.

With regard to poison, it does little violence to the text to suggest that the venom of a snake was commonly regarded as poison.

It was not uncommon, in Biblical times, for poison to be physically administered (drunk) as an ordeal (please see Numbers Ch. 5). Jesus would have been acutely aware of this practice, and it may have formed part of His thinking. He knew the disciples would encounter serious opposition, and couldn’t therefore rule out the administration of poison as part of that opposition. This was His cultural context.

Finally, please allow me to refer you to a quotation from Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39): “Justus surnamed Barsabbas, though he drank a deadly poison, suffered no injury, through the grace of the Lord.”

I’m away from home for three weeks now, folks. (Allen - I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for photographic evidence of Jesus!)

Warm greetings, one and all. Back in three weeks,
Stephen

You wrote:

Concerning the god who can’t be bothered to intervene in more serious cases of injury than a wounded ankle– 1.could there be a motive, yet the motive be hidden? Do we have to know everything concerning why this god does what he does, or can he, in the name of personal & relational contact concern himself with a thing like trust? 2. Is the real issue the injury, or are we missing what is beyond the surface?
Did something happen(or is something present) beyond the physical healing that would not have happened in the unhealed other scenarios?

In other words, “The Lord works in mysterious ways.”

You also wrote:

3(related to 2). Do people really want to have the suffering of the world alleviated, and sickness/injury healed, and if not, why should this god intervene? Before you ask ‘who wouldn’t want their suffering alleviated” remember the first question a psychiatrist asks a patient: “do you want to get well?”

My response:

I would say yes, most people would like to have suffering alleviated. On what basis would you conclude otherwise?

You also wrote:

It’s not so clear that the disciples are being encouraged to do these things. Don’t mistake indicative for imperative: “this will happen” is not “do this.”

It may not be clear to you, but it is to me: Jesus commands his followers to preach the gospel and perform death-defying miracles in His name. It really is tiresome when believers go to such lengths to distort and reinterpret passages in the Bible that they find distasteful or easily falsifiable.

If Jesus did appear to you one day, is there the possibility that even then, you still might not believe, but that you would pass it off as a dream or the effects of a tired mind, or the consequence of eating strong cheese or drinking too much good wine … ?

My response:

It is very difficult to predict what my reaction might be–I really have no idea. It would be helpful if there were objective photographic or other physical evidence to support such an appearance, of course.

And you wrote:

He did, after all, appear to hundreds of people after He rose from the dead, and the majority still walked away unconvinced.

While this may be the biblical account, I\’m not ready to concede it was a historical event, obviously.