>
>Clarence Hogan wrote to Mark Bloss about MARK 16.18
 BE> -the divinely inspired Matthew and Luke did not repeat it is pretty
 BE> -good evidence that God had second thoughts about Mark 16.18.
 
 >Ah.  "Second thoughts".  Got it AFU the first time, eh?
 
 MB> There is even good support for this from the Bible itself - where
 MB> Paul writes "let every fact be established by two or three
 MB> witnesses", being also found as part of the Law of Moses (and
 MB> therefore fits the rule in itself); and implies that for every facet
 MB> of the scripture - whether it is to be rendered more or less reliable,
 MB> must be stated twice or three times to _establish_ it as reliable or
 MB> important, as each instance is considered a "witness" to it.
 CH> Excellent observation brother Mark and I couldn't agree more!
 CH> And in regard to Mr 16:18, might we not consider Lu 10:19 and
 CH> Ps 91:13 also?  And was this not fulfilled in Acts 28 by Paul
 CH> and the viper?  IOW's, are we to think/believe that we are to
 CH> tempt Yahweh by taking up serpents or by drinking any deadly
 CH> thing in order to prove to someone that we are believers?  IMHO,
 CH> NO, but when it is seen by Yahweh to be of benefit to others as
 
 Right!  And these two other scriptures are witness to Mark 16:18,
 even though the section was added by, most probably, a later source,
 it is supported by two witnesses, Ps 91:13 and Lu 10:19, therefore
 can be accepted on that basis - which is precisely why it _was_
 left in when the Canon was established.  Much else was not left in;
 and other things added later still; what is extant as the Canon is
 a montage.
 CH> in the case of Paul and the viper or if our enemies should make
 CH> us drink any deadly thing, our Father will see to it that it will
 CH> do us no harm as a testimony to those who do not believe!  For He
 CH> is the one in control and not us and therefore it is not up to us
 CH> to take it upon ourselves to make such showings but to leave the
 CH> time and the circumstances of the trial in His hands, right?
 It's not up to us to "prove" with poison - but to trust when it happens
 accidentally, as in the case of Paul and the snake on the island of
 Malta.  This faith will also void food poisoning, as I can attest.
 And it's the reason we are to bless the food before we partake of it -
 not to make God feel better about it - but I've found out I'm supposed
 to pray over it to bless _it_; now I won't eat without praying over
 my food first!  ;-)
 CH> And finally, are we not admonished to use discretion, wisdom
 CH> and understanding in our doings and not to be foolish in them?
 CH> IOW's are we anywhere in The Scriptures directed to go out and
 CH> start picking up deadly snakes and drinking poisons and if not
 CH> are we to be so foolish as to do so without a direct command
 CH> from Him as in the case of Moses and his staff?
 It nowhere says anything about picking up deadly snakes on purpose,
 to demonstrate anything.  They are to be avoided, just as bee stings
 and pot holes.  ;-)
 CH> Say hey to your folks for me.......abe.......
 I will!  
 
... Windows: Will Install Needless Data On Whole System
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------