How many Christians actually believe they can drink poison like Jesus said in Mark 16?

Question

Would you ever drink cyanide for Christ?

Mark 16:17-18

"And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Is there no such thing as a real Christian (meaning one who could drink cyanide) or is this part wrong and/or fictional?

Answer 1

you have to believe first

Answer 2

If you have enough faith and love in Christ, than yes, all of this is true. But remember this to, it also says in the bible that a man can shorten his days by doing stupid stuff, and also, testing god, and also remember this- God gives us protection, he does not give us the right to be stupid and frivelous. And if someone were to do something like drink cyanide specifically to test this verse, than he is therefore testing god and therefore shortening his day, or days. and laying hands on the sick, that is so very true, and exists, ive done it before, ive seen it done before, and its a wonderful thing that the lord does through his people who belive.

Answer 3

Jesus was the Metaphor of Truth; there were many like him in other times and cultures and had many different names.

In your referneced passage there was a large Symbolic meaning and this is what the TRUTH(Jesus) was:

I teach you of your Origins as they are one of Spirit and not physical; we are one and the same and of the same spirit (God, the collective "ALL") ;

In Truth all the Demons you creat are yours alone and you may rid yourself of each at anytime;

You must see Truth first. To believe in demons is to harbor them and give them truth and in this is a lie for they have no power over you. By "drinking" poison is to "take in" something to harm you, a path that leads to no truth is one that leads away from God.

It was NOT literal, it has always been Spritual in nature.

The problems with religions is they teach LITERAL events and deeds and not much is taken in the SPRITUAL sense as was intended.

Answer 4

there are people in a town called Jollo
who actually practice this thing of handling snakes and drinking poisons

many are still living and have been for many years

BUT

snakes are not the serpents that are refered to here
and drinking poison is not what was meant

I myself was poisoned and it didnt harm me....did i do it to myself NO
was it given to me yes...God watches out for those who are His......

and i have chased snakes and killed them and picked them up

But i have chased serpents and watched them flee

and i have the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and have spoken in tongues as the spirit of God gave the utterence
and i have laid hands on sick and they have recovered..
"Jesus said Greater works shall you do "
Jesus is the Holy Ghost
BUT it also is Written
""DONT TEMPT the LORD thy GOD"

"God gave man not the spirit of fear , but of love and a Sound Mind "

And NO that scripture DOES NOT MEAN
handling snakes or puposely drinking poison

and in one scripture it says
" I give my angels charge of thee less thy dash they foot against a stone "

Would i jump off a building or bridge saying this scripture ?
NO

If HE told me to saying that scripture
YES

There is a BIG DIFFERENCE

HOPE YOU SEE THAT

Answer 5

I believe that all of these things have happened and can happen; however, I don't think it is wise for believers to go about the practice of testing God.

You know, Satan used a very similar approach with Christ when he tempted Him... it didn't work then either.

Answer 6

The particular verses you refer are known by several Bible scholars to be spurious.
In other words, they were added later to the Bible, and not truly inspired.

First of all, there is the telling fact that two of the oldest and most highly regarded Bible manuscripts, the Vatican 1209 and the Sinaitic, do not contain this section; they conclude Mark’s Gospel with verse eight. There are also a number of ancient manuscripts that contain a short ending of just about one verse beyond eight; and other manuscripts contain both conclusions. So, some manuscripts end with verse eight, others have a short ending, others have a long ending, and some even give both endings. In addition to this testimony of the Greek manuscripts, all of which combines to cast doubt on Mark’s having written anything beyond verse eight, there are a number of the oldest versions (or translations) that do not contain the verses in question. Among such are ancient Syriac, Armenian and Ethiopic versions. No wonder that the noted manuscript authority Dr. Westcott states that “the verses which follow [9-20] are no part of the original narrative but an appendage.” Among other noted scholars of the same opinion are Tregelles, Tischendorf, Griesbach and Goodspeed.

Supporting this testimony of the Greek manuscripts and versions are the church historian Eusebius and the Bible translator Jerome. Eusebius wrote that the longer ending was not in the “accurate copies,” for “at this point [verse 8] the end of the Gospel according to Mark is determined in nearly all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark.” And Jerome, writing in the year 406 or 407 C.E. said that “nearly all Greek MSS. have not got this passage.”

Quite pertinent here is what the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1966), Volume 9, page 240, has to say about these verses: “The manuscript tradition indicates that the Gospel originally ended at 16.8, but that the longer ending that is incorporated in the Vulgate was later added, becoming widely accepted in the course of the 5th century. . . . Its vocabulary and style differ so radically from the rest of the Gospel that it hardly seems possible Mark himself composed it. . . . Mark 16.1-8 is a satisfactory ending to the Gospel insofar as it declares Jesus’ Resurrection-prophecy to be fulfilled.”

Mark’s Style?

Note that the New Catholic Encyclopedia argues that the vocabulary and style of Mark 16:9-20 differ so radically from the Gospel of Mark that it hardly seems possible that Mark himself wrote those verses. Yes, Mark’s style is plain, direct; his paragraphs are short and the transitions are simple. But in this ending, as the Encyclopedia observes, “we have a carefully arranged series of statements, each with its proper introductory expression.” Well has it been likened to a piece of torn satin attached to a roll of homespun.

There is also the matter of vocabulary. There are words used in verses 9 through 20 that do not appear elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel, some words that do not occur in any of the other Gospels, some that do not occur elsewhere in the Christian Greek Scriptures. These verses consist of 163 Greek words, and, of these, 19 words and 2 phrases do not occur elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel. Or, put otherwise, in these verses there are 109 different words, and, of these, 11 words and 2 phrases are unique to these verses.

But most conclusive of all that Mark could not have written these verses and that they are no part of the inspired Word of God is their content. As has already been noted, there is no evidence that Christ’s followers were to be able to drink deadly poison without being hurt, as stated in verse 18. Even in the matter of handling snakes it is very apparent that those handling them do all they can to keep the snakes from biting, and they handle them only for five minutes at a time.

Further, these questionable verses state that the eleven apostles refused to believe the testimony of two disciples whom Jesus had met on the way and to whom he revealed himself. But, according to the account in Luke, when the two disciples found the eleven and those with them, these said: “For a fact the Lord was raised up and he appeared to Simon!”—Luke 24:13-35.

So in view of all the foregoing what do we conclude? That Mark 16:9-20 is not part of God’s inspired Word, and that for the following reasons: (1) These verses are not found in two of the oldest and most highly regarded Greek manuscripts as well as others. (2) They are also not found in many of the oldest and best Bible translations or versions. (3) Such ancient scholars as Eusebius and Jerome pronounced them spurious. (4) The style of these verses is entirely different from that of Mark. (5) The vocabulary used in these verses is different from that of Mark. (6) And, most important of all, the very content of these verses contradicts the facts and the rest of the Scriptures.

Regarding these questionable verses, it might be noted that not only did the ones adding them do a very poor job but it may well be that they proceeded on a wrong premise. How so? In that Mark actually may have ended his Gospel with what is now verse eight. Noting that this could well be, especially in view of Mark’s abrupt style, are Eusebius, Jerome and the New Catholic Encyclopedia as well as Aid to Bible Understanding.

Answer 7

The snakehandlers in the deep South. Those are a small number of Christians who are to most of us Christians crazy.

Answer 8

"and if they drink anything deadly" = it doesn't literally mean you can drink something deadly and nothing will happen. to me it means that if danger approaches you will not be harmed; because he will protect you.

Answer 9

That would be tempting God, it means if you were poisoned against your will, it wont hurt you.

Answer 10

There are ones who do that "will take up serpents" part... They get a lot of bites.

Answer 11

That was for the Apostles to show that the power of God was with them. We don't need proof anymore. We have the Bible and th Born-again believer.