Handling snakes

[Alive in Christ]

The only snake handling I intend to do is shoot them.

Me too.

Although I've never owned a gun, so I would have kill it some other way.

The only good snake is a dead snake.

 

[Old Union Brother]

Here is my take on serpents and drinking any deadly thing......

(Mar 16:18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Serpents-- we handle them every day...people who spew out unsound doctrine... a serpent is defined as a snake, figuratively (as a type of sly cunning) an artful malicious person, especially Satan: - serpent.

drink any deadly thing---that is if we listen or read the rotton doctrine these people spew out it won't hurt us....

 

[righteousdude2]

One Should . . .

So for the sake of arugment, we will assume it is not a command - is it wrong to handle snakes to prove your faith?

. . . Not have to PROVE anything, other than their initial public confession of Jesus as their Savior and following Him in public baptism. Anything else, is nothing more than "showing" off! It's like conducting a spitting contest, so to speak.

As for that verse, I've always thought of the serpent as the devil, and that becomes an entirely different directive. We are not to fear the serpent (devil) because Jesus is in us, and we have all power over the devil and his attempts to tempt and trip us up as we make our way down the narrow path to the narrow gate. When I think of a path, I get a picture of all kind of creatures coming across our path, and I'm sure the wiley deciever sill be one slithering by on a regular basis!

Salty, you always come up with some neat issues and topics. The Lord is surely using you to keep us on our spiritual feet. Blessings to you and your family! raying:

Pastor Paul :type:

 

[kyredneck]

Here is my take on serpents and drinking any deadly thing......

(Mar 16:18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Serpents-- we handle them every day...people who spew out unsound doctrine... a serpent is defined as a snake, figuratively (as a type of sly cunning) an artful malicious person, especially Satan: - serpent.

drink any deadly thing---that is if we listen or read the rotton doctrine these people spew out it won't hurt us....

Now that's an interesting take; and there sure are alot of those snakes around.

 

[freeatlast]

So for the sake of arugment, we will assume it is not a command - is it wrong to handle snakes to prove your faith?

Yes it is wrong as there is no command to handle snakes.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Here is my take on serpents and drinking any deadly thing......

(Mar 16:18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Serpents-- we handle them every day...people who spew out unsound doctrine... a serpent is defined as a snake, figuratively (as a type of sly cunning) an artful malicious person, especially Satan: - serpent.

drink any deadly thing---that is if we listen or read the rotton doctrine these people spew out it won't hurt us....

Well, all I can say after that is "AMEN"!

 

[Scarlett O.]

So for the sake of arugment, we will assume it is not a command - is it wrong to handle snakes to prove your faith?

"prove your faith"

To whom are required to prove it? I don't believe we ARE required to prove it. The Bible says that faith is being sure of what we hope for and absolutely certain of what we do not see.

When my brother was dying a slow and painful death in the hospital a few years ago of kidney failure, I was SURE of what I hoped for. I hoped for his healing. And I was absolutely CERTAIN that God would either (a) deliver him from his affliction and restore him or (b) take him home.

Either way, I way at peace. I was at peace while holding his head while he vomited. I was at peace rubbing his face with a cold rag while he labored for breath. I was certain of my faith. I wasn't happy. I wasn't wanting any comfort from brothers and sisters in Christ - but I was at peace.

I didn't have to prove my faith to anybody. Not the devil, not the doctors, not my parents, and not my God. God was the one who gave me faith to believe in the first place. That's all that mattered.

Today, my brother is quite well and we claim a victory for that. I would have claimed a victory has God taken him as well.

I think we need to exercise our faith, but not prove it.

Here's what Spurgeon says about our faith.

"Little faith can accomplish great things; but great faith can accomplish even greater things. What matters most is what our faith is in, the object of our faith. "The eye cannot see itself. Did you ever see your own eye? In a mirror you may have done so, but that was only a reflection of it. And you may, in like manner, see the evidence of your faith, but you cannot look at the faith itself. Faith looks away to itself to the object of faith, even to Christ." (Spurgeon)

Snake handling, or any other manner of "proving" one's faith, is testing God. And it's focusing on yourself. It's "Hey! Look at me and my faith!!".

I think it's a sin. Sin of self-centeredness and pride.

 

[righteousdude2]

That's a Big DITTO!

Now that's an interesting take; and there sure are alot of those snakes around.

I totally agree with this, and have preached a similar thought process on that verse!

I vote to close the post based on this exceptional interpretation/take! Nothing else can be said, as our brother said it all! :thumbsup:

 

[Benjamin]

The only snake handling I intend to do is shoot them.

I'll shoot them…
I'll shoot it…
…the only good snake is a dead snake.

:laugh:

I live on 5 acres in the desert and encounter snakes quite often in the warmer months. If they are poisonous I kill them with whatever is available nearby because they are too dangerous to have around, if not poisonous I leave them alone.

I’ll never forget when a bunch of guys from the church came out in a pickup truck to help load cabinets. On the way out they saw a snake, stopped to look and were all excited and speculating on whether it was a rattler. I knew it was a bull snake but got out and put on an act as if it was a rattler and then captured it by grabbing it behind the head to all their astonishment, then I brought it back to the truck and pretended I was going to throw it in the back. I will tell you what, none of these guys had much faith in the situation at all, tripping over each other, bailing out of the truck and running into the desert in terror.
:laugh: :laugh:

 

[Allan]

I think we need to exercise our faith, but not prove it.

Sister, if there is not anything else that has given me pause today to sit back and say "Wow. What an awesome God I know", regarding truth from His word, this right here did.

You struck the nail with precision and in one shot, nailed it clean and proper.

Well said!

 

[Allan]

I live on 5 acres in the desert and encounter snakes quite often in the warmer months. If they are poisonous I kill them with whatever is available nearby because they are too dangerous to have around, if not poisonous I leave them alone.

I’ll never forget when a bunch of guys from the church came out in a pickup truck to help load cabinets. On the way out they saw a snake, stopped to look and were all excited and speculating on whether it was a rattler. I knew it was a bull snake but got out and put on an act as if it was a rattler and then captured it by grabbing it behind the head to all their astonishment, then I brought it back to the truck and pretended I was going to throw it in the back. I will tell you what, none of these guys had much faith in the situation at all, tripping over each other, bailing out of the truck and running into the desert in terror.
:laugh: :laugh:

Now that right there was FUNNY! :laugh: :thumbs:

 

[Tom Butler]

There is a debate over Mark 16:9-20, and whether it ought to be in the canon.

One on side, scholars say that those verses are not found in the oldest manuscripts, such as the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

One the other side, scholars point out that these verses were being quoted by theologians in the second century.

I would hesitate to build a doctrine around a disputed passage.

I don't see these verses as a command to drink poison or handle snakes in order to prove your faith.

 

[Scarlett O.]

There is a debate over Mark 16:9-20, and whether it ought to be in the canon.

One on side, scholars say that those verses are not found in the oldest manuscripts, such as the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

One the other side, scholars point out that these verses were being quoted by theologians in the second century.

I've always heard both sides of that argument and don't really know where I, personally, stand on it.

I know that I quote David Guzik alot (and I don't agree with everything that he says), but here is his presentation of the two camps.

B. Preface to Mark 16:9-20: Do these verses belong in our Bible?
1. In many Bibles, this last portion of the gospel of Mark is footnoted in some way, indicating that it did not exist in the earliest Greek manuscripts of the gospel of Mark. This has troubled many Christians regarding the reliability of God’s Word - does this passage belong in our Bible?
2. The argument against including Mark 16:9-20 in our Bibles.
a. The two oldest existing Greek manuscripts (dated from 325 and 340 a.d.) do not contain this section; neither do about 100 other ancient manuscripts translated into other languages. A few ancient manuscripts put asterisks next to Mark 16:9-20 to indicate they are additions to the original text.
b. According to their writings, almost all the Greek manuscripts known to Eusebius (who died in 339) and Jerome (who died in 419) did not have these verses.
c. There are two other endings - one shorter, one with some additions - in a few other manuscripts.
d. About one-third of the vocabulary is totally different from the rest of the Gospel of Mark and there is a very awkward grammatical transition between Mark 16:8 and 16:9.
e. Most contemporary scholars reject these verses as original.
3. The argument for including Mark 16:9-20 in our Bibles.
a. Many very early Christian writers refer to this passage in their writings, which shows that the early Christians knew it was there and accepted it.

• Papias refers to Mark 16:18. He wrote around a.d. 100
• Justin Martyr’s first Apology quotes Mark 16:20 (a.d. 151)
• Irenaus in Against Heresies quotes Mark 16:13 and remarks on it (a.d. 180)
• Hippolytus in Peri Charismaton quotes Mark 16:18 and 19. In his homily on the heresy of Noetus he refers to Mark 16:19. He wrote while he was Bishop of Portus (a.d. 190-227)
• Vicentius, Bishop of Thibari, quotes from 2 of the verses in the 7th Council of Carthage held under Cyprian (a.d. 256). Augustine, a century and a half later, in his reply, recited the words again
• The apocryphal Acts of Pilate contains Mark 16:15-18 (thought to be in the 200’s a.d.)
• The Apostolic Constitutions clearly allude to 16:15 in two places and quote Mark 16:16 outright (thought to be in the 200’s or 300’s a.d.)

b. The overwhelming majority of ancient manuscripts do include this passage.
4. Thoughts on the problem of including or not including.
a. It is highly unlikely that Mark’s gospel ended so abruptly at Mark 16:8, with the women simply being afraid, but seeing no concrete evidence of a resurrected Jesus, but only of an empty tomb. However, it is possible that the original ending of Mark’s gospel could have been lost rather early.
i. Noted Greek scholar A.T. Robertson wrote, “It is difficult to believe that Mark ended his Gospel with verse 8 unless he was interrupted. A leaf or column may have been torn off at the end of the papyrus roll.”
b. But importantly, the earliest testimony we presently have, from writers like Irenaeus and others, argues that the earliest Christians accepted it as genuine.

 

[Logos1]

The rapture vs snake handling

I'm not a believer in either the rapture or snake handling, but when I read this topic the entertaining thought occured to me that there is more support in the bible for snake handling than there is the rapture.

 

[Allan]

There is a debate over Mark 16:9-20, and whether it ought to be in the canon.

One on side, scholars say that those verses are not found in the oldest manuscripts, such as the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

One the other side, scholars point out that these verses were being quoted by theologians in the second century.

I would hesitate to build a doctrine around a disputed passage.

I don't see these verses as a command to drink poison or handle snakes in order to prove your faith.

It is hard to be disputed when early church fathers of the second century were quoting those passages, long before the so-called Oldest Manuscripts were created

 

[Crabtownboy]

It is hard to be disputed when early church fathers of the second century were quoting those passages, long before the so-called Oldest Manuscripts were created

I am curious, not arguing ... how do you know the early church fathers were quoting these verses?

When you say early church fathers, do you mean those early Christians in Cappadocia?

 

[convicted1]

Here is my take on serpents and drinking any deadly thing......

(Mar 16:18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Serpents-- we handle them every day...people who spew out unsound doctrine... a serpent is defined as a snake, figuratively (as a type of sly cunning) an artful malicious person, especially Satan: - serpent.

drink any deadly thing---that is if we listen or read the rotton doctrine these people spew out it won't hurt us....

AMEN!!!! :thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

Man goes to a church, but doesn't know its a snake handling church. He is behind the pultpit, in the corner. Out comes the snakes!! He asked them where was the back dooor due to the fact that he was hemmmed in the corner. They told him the have no back door, and then he asks them where did they want one!!

 

[convicted1]

TRUE STORY

A dear friend of mine told me this years ago. An old man used to go to any church at least once, just to get an experience of that church. His son took him to a snake handling church, and he set up front. When the part of the service where the handling snakes and drinking the stryuchnine started, they trampled all over his feet!! When they started that, he yelled to his son, "Come and get me, this ain't no place for an one-eyed man!!" They asked him a day or two later if he wanted to go back(some of his friends teasing him, that is), and he said no, that was enough for him.

 

[David Lamb]

My first thought is that a church that does practice snake handling (and they also do drink poison) - the snakes could bite anyone - not just the individual holding it - but the poison will not harm someone else unless they actually partake of it.

I must live a very sheltered life, as I have never encountered a church that practices snake-handling or poison-drinking.

I certainly don't see the words as a command. Deliberately to put oneself in unnecessary danger would seem to come under the category of putting God to the test.