Featured power to tread on serpents...

Do you speak in tongues in your church , or do you interprete when others do that?

 

OK, let's.
I will discuss Luke 10 with you provided you stay with the text.

However, if you want to scatter all over the place I will go back to my post where I posted four unrelated verses that tied into one parcel of advice, just like you interpret Scripture. I did post Scripture. Each one of those are verses straight out of the Bible. Why do you reject them?

 

That is absolutely false! You have been shown over and over how many times tongues was involved. So, I am going to require that you answer truthfully. How many times? Will you answer honestly? Those who have been reading know, and you do, too, but I bet you won't answer honestly. I dare you to do so. I don't think you have the integrity. So, come on, how many times?

 

Why don't you take your own advice.
This thread is about power to tread on serpents. In a very recent post you said:

That has nothing to do with treading on serpents.
Your allegorical treatment of the passage has nothing to do with treading on serpents. Please understand that in Joshua 9, no one tread on any serpent. That is all speculation, and has nothing to do with the OP.

 

So you are saying that Jesus meant that we had authority iover the "serpents" in our lives, and you take that to mean bad things happening, illness etc? Not literally meaning snakes that bite you, but smnake in sense of illness, bad things happening etc? works of the evil one have authority over?

 

Perhaps I should start deleting your posts every time you stray from the OP.
This post has nothing to do with the OP; nothing to do with treading on serpents.

 

That is because serpents, like scorpions, are one of the many enemies that the disciples would need protection from. That doesn't mean scorpions are of the same species and genus. They are not the same animal. The third clause then says "all the power of the enemy." That indicates not just serpents and scorpions but all power of all enemies that they would be confronted with.
So the real question is not with the third clause, but with the first just the first one. What do the "serpents and scorpions" mentioned refer to? Since previously he told them that they would have to walk through the land barefoot, and there are many such animals indigenous to that area, he was speaking of the actual literal animals that he would give them protection from. No need to allegorize anything.

 

Yes, serpents is one, scorpions is another, and all other enemies. What is difficult about that? That doesn't take away from the literalness of a serpent being a serpent, etc.
The context of the passage is that they went out barefoot. They would need protection over the enemy, even the natural enemies of the land--thorns, thistles, predators, serpents, scorpions, etc. If you can't see that, then you are blind to the Scriptures.

Why did Jesus tell his disciples to arm themselves with a sword.
Later he told Peter to put up his sword. Why did he tell them all to take a sword if he rebuked Peter from using it? He also said that they use the sword shall perish by the sword, so why did he tell every man to have a sword??

Luke 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

 

That is an odd response since in never gave you "my interpretation" of the above verses. I simply questioned you. You don't read very carefully.
Let me draw you a timeline.
First, he sends them out in Luke 19, barefoot, without swords, but with the promise of divine protection against serpents and scorpions.
He rebukes Peter for using his sword on the way to Calvary for that would impede him from doing His Father's will and dying for the sins of the world.
In Luke 22 he told them all to take a sword, presumably for their own protection as they would be scattered and would have fare for themselves as they wander from place to place. Divine protection is not necessarily given here. They would fend for themselves using their swords for protection. Thus the contrast that Christ Himself gives to the previous time he sent them out in Luke 10.
In Mark 16 they would still go out with their swords and depend on the grace of God. But they would be given signs and wonders, as evidences that they were the apostles of Christ. They would have the power to pick up snakes without harm and drink any poisonous substance. This was protection from very antagonistic enemies of the gospel. The apostles especially made fierce enemies. All, but John, were martyred for their faith. If you read of the missionary journeys of Paul, you see how many times Paul faced death; how many times they tried by various means to kill him. He was even stoned and left for dead. He testified that "he fought with beasts" at Ephesus. God gave him grace. God delivered him from the onslaught of these enemies and sometimes miraculously so.
Serpents, poison, and all other types of enemies, Paul was protected from them all until it was time for him to leave this earth.

 

And that is your problem. With a non-literal approach to scripture you can make the Bible say anything you want it to say. In one of your posts, with your non-literal approach to John 3:14-16, a very well known passage of Scripture, you even denied salvation--that Christ went to the Cross to die for the sins of mankind.
Shameful!

 

Jesus himself gave the interpretation of the reason that the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness. He interpreted the passage. You deny HIS interpretation. You deny the words of Christ and insert your own interpretation. Yours is a denial of salvation itself.