| Author |
Message |
    
arron
Intermediate Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 109
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.34.187
| | Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 11:43 am: | 
|
what is your opinion on THE BAPTISUM OF THE HOLY GHOST nad the eveidence of tongues |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 101
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.208.12.98
| | Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Mr. Arron:
My opinion on anything is worth as much as your opinion is . . . absolutely nothing! The crapology of your religion can not be found in the Bible, period. That is the end of the conversation. |
arron
Intermediate Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 111
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.34.187
| | Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 12:53 pm: |
|
and your lies can not be found in the bible ...not....for that is your name |
jayshawn
Junior Member
Username: jayshawn
Post Number: 48
Registered: 4-2007
Posted From: 211.179.30.67
| | Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 8:50 pm: |
|
well according to scripture it sure isn't the crap that most of those "tongue" believing churches are doing..that's for sure! The "tongues" spoken about in scripture were definitely real languages and not a bunch of bable supposedly being the "heavenly language" nonsense. BUT then again what do I know...I'm just a FOOL of an unbeliever...hehehe! |
arron
Intermediate Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 126
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.34.187
| | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 8:18 am: |
|
tongues are a SPITITUAL GIFT that is given (1 cor) the bible tells us they are to be used as edification of the church or the person |
ezekiel_37
Junior Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 30
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 64.231.172.158
| | Posted on Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 10:12 pm: |
|
you're right jayshawn and TATM
It is funny to me that people who claim the babbyl tongue, are mostly Pentacostals, yet they do not use the scriptures on the day of Pentacost as their proofs???
ALL understand perfectly when God speaks.
Arron claims that God speaks through him in this perverse babbyl language.
I wonder what God will say to him about this???
When God speaks, all understood.
The evidence of tongues is not a prayer language, nor babbyl, but a pastors ability to spread the Gospel to people who speak a language other than hebrew or greek. It is about translators, not babyl speach.
Arron has been told this but refuses to test the spirits, he is hooked 100% for now. I pray that you come out of your babbyl arron, before it is too late!!!! Evil spirits mocking God!!!!! |
hillariousharry
New member
Username: hillariousharry
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 86.139.15.200
| | Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 6:35 am: |
|
Jayshawn & Ezekiel
Be a little cautious I say about being too cocky in your remarks. Whilst I have reservations too, it is unwise to despise lest you one day be proved to be "grieving the Holy Spirit" ( who is so gentle and easily grieved).
Lets remember....we can share our opinions but be careful not to rubbish another's belief.
Like me, J and E you are human and your interpretations of scripture are only you peerceive them to be.
And E...I could take you to task on your mention of "evil spirits". Be careful lest you band such quotes around as casulally as I might dish up k and fips.
Keeping true to your beliefs...thats ok....but where the things of the Holy Spirit are under question, then watch yer language lest yer come to regret.
HH |
hillariousharry
New member
Username: hillariousharry
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 86.139.15.200
| | Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 6:39 am: |
|
Jayshawn & Ezekiel
Be a little cautious I say about being too cocksure in your remarks. Whilst I have reservations too, it is unwise to despise lest you one day be proved to be "grieving the Holy Spirit" ( who is so gentle and easily grieved).And then what an utter prat you will feel
Lets remember....we can share our opinions but be careful not to rubbish another's belief. So often the hallmark of Churchianity today. True Xians are more careful.
Like me, J and E you are human and finite and some of your interpretations of scripture are only what you perceive them to be.
And E...I could take you to task on your mention of "evil spirits". Be careful lest you band such quotes around as casually as I might dish up kish and fips.
Keeping true to your beliefs...thats ok....but where the things of the Holy Spirit are under question, then watch yer language lest yer come to regret.
HH
posted again cos the first one i wished to edit wont let me. And the moderators dont reply to me. |
hillariousharry
New member
Username: hillariousharry
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 86.139.15.200
| | Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 6:45 am: |
|
arron - keep posting. A shame that your reader here, apart from being respected for their beliefs, choose to show no respect for you; furthermore they may well be on dodgy ground in potentially grieving the Spirit of God.
There was no need for use of the language used....shows em up for what they may really be like inside...possible biblical knowledge which got stuck in the windpipe and got no lower into the heart. Sadly so many so called Xian are like that.
HH |
hillariousharry
New member
Username: hillariousharry
Post Number: 20
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 86.139.15.200
| | Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 12:36 pm: |
|
EZ 37 said
I pray that you come out of your babbyl arron, before it is too late!!!! Evil spirits mocking God!!!!!
So you are sure your prayer line to God is in place. But maybe an arrogant attitude messes that line up.
"I pray" - what arrogance. Get off yer spiritual pedestal...u aint got nothing more than Arron.
HH |
ezekiel_37
Junior Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 31
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 64.231.242.191
| | Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 6:54 pm: |
|
harry, harry, harry,
I have said that to Arron before. He is biblically illiterate, as you are IF you even think that it is possible to babbyl a prayer to God, or think that He babbyls answers to folks.
Sometimes you just got to tell it like it is.
Arron claims........GOD IS SPEAKING THROUGH HIM by way of BABBYL!!!!!!!!
I pray for him many times. I actually like him, and hope that he will SNAP out of his delusion. We are TAUGHT to test the spirits, for good reason.
Your counterfeit godly language is NOT the Holy Spirit, and I defy you to prove it to me. It is nonsense and/or demonic.
It has NOTHING to do with God or His Holy Spirit....When God speaks.....all understand...
show me an example of God babyling to someone in scripture.
Intercessory prayer is not arrogance, It is what we are taught to do!!!
And E...I could take you to task on your mention of "evil spirits". Be careful lest you band such quotes around as casulally as I might dish up k and fips.
I don't have a clue what you are saying here. k and fips????
and speaking of watching "language", think about that for a second....who should be watching their language?....it should be those who speak babbyl and call it God!!!!!!!
I have shown Arron plenty of respect, and have spoken with him on many occasions. We both believe the same about the MILK of the word, as I assume that you do HH,
sometimes it is necessary to grab someones hair by the roots and drag them out of the furnace. Nice-nice doesn't always work.
Now if you really want to learn what happens when the Holy Spirit speaks, we can discuss that, but as for incoherent babbyl, it is NOT of God and I will mock this falsity as much as I want with NO fear of repercussion.
What are the tongues that we see today. They are mocking God.
Either a preacher conning peoples,
or (as I assume with your family-from earlier discussions)folks getting caught up in it, even if they don't know what they are doing...keeping up with the Jones'...do what your neighbour does,
or demonic forces.
take your pick!!!!
When I pray, it is coherent and I am sure that God understands me. Can the same be said for arrons babyl prayer, or when arron supposedly speaks Words from the Holy Spirit...lol.
Arrogance......is calling things of Satan, God's Holy Spirit.
I pray just as we are taught. Do you or do you mumble????
My pedestal???
Re-read your posts and see what you have inferred about me!!! Get the log out of your eye harry!!!
Maybe then you will see strait and then leave no room for the fake gifts. Been there done that!!!!lol
always in His service
c |
hillariousharry
Junior Member
Username: hillariousharry
Post Number: 26
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 86.139.15.200
| | Posted on Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 11:03 am: |
|
I note ur comments Ez37.
No intention of replying with further thoughts. on the topics ...a waste of time.
Sadly in my view your communication leaves much to be desired and indicative perhaps of the "I'm right...no one else is" syndrome.
Please dont waste space replying. I have now left this forum for good. Mainly because of the inability of so called Xians to realise their equality with those of a different persuasion. Sadly the forum is riddled with them....enough to put one of church fellowship for good. Thankfully I dont attend one for those very reasons which ensures safety of mind.
My quiet gardening calls which is as edifying as the topics discussed. lol
Bye
HH |
ezekiel_37
Junior Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 33
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 64.231.173.120
| | Posted on Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Good bye harry,
But on the off chance that you do read this, YOU called ME out on this thread.
Do I know it all???
No.
Do I know the difference between babbyl tongues and Spirit filled prayer??
Absolutely.
Should I care enough to tell people???
Yep!
Do I want otherwise good Christians to go down that road of deception???
Nope!
Do I know how we are to KNOW if God is actually speaking???
Yes!!!
Is Arron God???
nope!
Can Arron speak for God???
No Way!
Is there a connection between babbyl tongues and demonic forces???
Oh Ya!!!
Am I judging Arron or others that speak to God or (supposedly) FOR God in this way???
No, just discerning and commenting, debating and using scripture to prove the truth.
Do I honestly believe that babbyl tongues and rapture belief will lead so called Christians to the devil???
Yes I do, and that is the point. I don't want Arron or You to go down that wide road.
I am glad that you enjoy gardening, but edifying my fellow Christians (and being edified myself) is very satisfying.
I will TRY not to let my emotion punch the keys on my keyboard, but I am human and that sometimes occurs.
The lasting thought that I will leave you with, if you are reading, is.....
IF I am right about this, and Arron (and your family) are wrong, what a scary thing it would be to go in front of God and have to explain why you taught others that 'it' was OK or, really from our Father.
That's just a BIT of adding to the Word! WOE, WOE, WOE!
Good luck.
PS> when you use "X" instead of "Christ", you are effectively taking the name of CHRIST out of the equation. People do enough of that already. IMO, it shows a lack of respect.
in His service
c |
arron
Intermediate Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 169
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.34.187
| | Posted on Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 5:46 pm: |
|
ezekiel... i have never claimed to SPEAK FOR GOD , when i speak in tongues and it is interperted ,, that is GOD SPEAKING TO THE CHURCH AS IS THE TONGUES HE IS USEING OUR VOICES TO DO SO |
ezekiel_37
Junior Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 37
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 69.158.182.80
| | Posted on Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 7:25 pm: |
|
Arron, God doesn't babbyl, and YOU cannot speak for Him.
You will believe what anyone says YOUR (supposed)message means. That is sooooo dangerous.
I really do like you, and I am trying to help.
1Cor14 teaches us how to spread the Gospel to other nations by way of Gifted interpreters.... people that know more than one language. From english to french...etc.
not babbyl to english....
it has nothing to do with unintelligible babbyl.
to spread the Gospel to people other than Jews.
ALL can receive Salvation.
If I (being an english speaking person) taught the Gospel of Christ in China, to chinese speaking people, they would not understand me, unless I had an interpreter who spoke THEIR language.
The whole Pentecostal church position is built on a mis understanding the 1st Letter to Corinth.
IMO, you should get back to your baptist church. I say this with honesty.
in Jesus Christ's service
c |
xman3
Junior Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 39
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 9:03 am: |
|
IF I am right about this, and Arron (and your family) are wrong, what a scary thing it would be to go in front of God and have to explain why you taught others that 'it' was OK or, really from our Father.
Works both ways there. I'm surprised this topic has not been dissected in depth elsewhere, and I'm surprised more people don't support Aaron's general view in this thread, but perhaps it can be attributed to previous interactions which didn't go well. There are literally millions of Christians who believe in speaking in tongues and practice it so it's not some strange unheard of belief at least.
I speak in tongues every day. I believe I have ample scriptural basis to believe it is not demonic, but from the Holy Spirit. I have also experienced several incredible things involved with tongues both personally, and corporately. I have also spoken discernable languages that have been interpreted (Spanish and Russian) that I do not know.
Actually, I don't even think the Bible is murkey on the subject, as Paul himself stated that one who speaks in tongues speaks to God, so who cares what language it is because its not always for the benfit of others, but often for personal edification. I'm not interested in arguing with anyone who wants to call me names or suggest I am filled with demons, but good discussion could be productive. |
ezekiel_37
Junior Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 45
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 64.231.174.64
| | Posted on Monday, May 28, 2007 - 12:29 am: |
|
Hi xman3.
We have in the past discussed the entire chapter 1Cor14.
Here is the link to the expose/study that I started.
It is in Doctrines aswell.
http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/30034.html?1176519845
Have a nice day,
in His service
c |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 149
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.208.12.98
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 5:14 pm: |
|
M(r)(s). Xman3:
May I have the pleasure of addressing your concerns? The number one reason no one here shares Mr. Arron’s and your belief is the fact it can not be found in scripture. Please do not misunderstand me. The Rev. Turtle tried before fizzing out. The Rev. Turtle and another pentecostal preacher slammed me for being a female preacher. I am not sure why Ms. Turtle overlooked her own gender. Mr. Purification7, an Assembly of God preacher, tried but ran head long into problems attempting to redefine Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost. Mr. Mhead66, claiming to be Southern Baptist, also tried to sell the Assembly of God’s filtholgy. Unfortunately, Mr. Mhead66 wound up calling God a liar. Mr. Arron simply blames his deceased wife for his position.
Is it possible to have a meaningful conversation? Allow me to rephrase that, “Is there any chance you are willing to admit you are wrong?” If, there is no chance of you being wrong, then no meaningful discussion can take place. In fact, I am willing to bet my little boy booties that before any real discussion can take place, you will run and hide behind pentecostalism’s gated communities. Nevertheless, I am willing to waste my time answering your concerns.
Quoting: “IF I am right about this, and Arron (and your family) are wrong, what a scary thing it would be to go in front of God and have to explain why you taught others that 'it' was OK or, really from our Father.”
End quote.
You are absolutely right. Millstone came into my mind first. The only problem I see is “are you man enough to face the music?”
Quoting: “Works both ways there. I'm surprised this topic has not been dissected in depth elsewhere, and I'm surprised more people don't support Aaron's general view in this thread, but perhaps it can be attributed to previous interactions which didn't go well.”
End quote.
Go well? Did spending forty-years in the desert ‘go well?’
Quoting: “There are literally millions of Christians who believe in speaking in tongues”
End quote.
I must break that sentence in two. I agree fully with your assessment. “Tongues” are taught in the Bible, primarily in the historical Book of Acts of the Apostles. Let us look at the second half of your statement.
Quoting: “There are literally millions of Christians . . . practice it so it's not some strange unheard of belief at least.”
End quote.
I would give my eye teeth to meet one!
continued. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 150
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.208.12.98
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Quoting: “I speak in tongues every day.”
End quote.
So do I. In fact, that is the primary means of communications between humans.
Quoting: “I believe I have ample scriptural basis to believe it is not demonic, but from the Holy Spirit. I have also experienced several incredible things involved with tongues both personally, and corporately. I have also spoken discernable languages that have been interpreted (Spanish and Russian) that I do not know.”
End quote.
Your claim is simply mendacious. No, my friend, you misunderstood me. Can you say “baptized?” Congratulations you just spoke in Greek. Does that prove ‘faked infantile gibberish?’ Unlike many on this board, I have been around the world seven times. Along the way I have visited more than one hundred countries and all fifty states. The language we use here in the United States is often referred to as English. But that is misleading. We have incorporated many elements into our language. Rio Grande is an example of Espanola found in our language. For a foreigner speaking broken English to hear you falteringly speak their language is not “tongues.”
Quoting: “Actually, I don't even think the Bible is murkey on the subject, as Paul himself stated that one who speaks in tongues speaks to God, so who cares what language it is because its not always for the benfit of others, but often for personal edification. I'm not interested in arguing with anyone who wants to call me names or suggest I am filled with demons, but good discussion could be productive.”
End quote.
Perhaps you could enlighten me. May we begin with a simple question? God commanded I take up an apologetic ministry ministering to those caught up in the pseudo-christian cult of pentecostalism. At that time, I knew nothing of your religion. I acquired, personally, or read from the internet, every writing from your religion. There are hundreds of period newspaper articles dealing with the foundation of pentecostalism. There are many more dealing with the sexuality of the founder of pentecostalism. I have or have read every copy of the “Apostolic Faith” newspaper by Charles Fox Parham, founder of white pentecostalism (Assembly of God). I have or have read every copy of the “Apostolic Faith” newspaper belonging to William Seymour, founder of black pentecostalism (Church of God in Christ).
I have a copy of your religion’s Bible (Dake’s Bible) and your religion’s guide book (Dake’s Plan for Man). You may add David Bernard’s “Oneness Theology” to that and a copy of “Who is who in pentecostalism,” both may be found in my storage building. In addition to those, I have or have read several histories written by your religion. Keep adding, I have or have read every doctrinal statement available from your religion.
My first question is “How is it that I know more about your religion than you?” Please think for a moment before answering that. Would you join the Lions’ Club and not know what it stood for? Would you join Bassmasters thinking you are entering the PGA? Let us say you unwittingly joined a supremacy group (white, black, Hispanic, Asian, male, female, pick your own poison). Once you discovered what the group stood for, would you leave it? If so, why are you still in pentecostalism? |
xman3
Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 88
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Hello tatm (for short)
I am a mr. if that matters just so you know. I interact with a lot of women here on factnet, sometimes without knowing it, and that doesn't mean anything to me. The issue isn't women pastors or teachers or the like , but tongues. I will answer a few of the things you said and see how it goes.
“Is there any chance you are willing to admit you are wrong?” If, there is no chance of you being wrong, then no meaningful discussion can take place. In fact, I am willing to bet my little boy booties that before any real discussion can take place, you will run and hide behind pentecostalism’s gated communities. Nevertheless, I am willing to waste my time answering your concerns.
I've changed a few of my beliefs since I've been around facnet, and there is always room for changes in my theology because I am no theologian and I've found a lot of people around here know more than me about a lot of stuff. Maybe you are one of them maybe not. I think I'm pretty reasonable, but I'll leave that up to you.
Are you willing to change? It again works both ways. Meaningful discussion must work both ways, not only as if you are straightening me out. Maybe I think I have to straighten you out. Lets just say whatever you say about me and accuse me of before it even happens (the gated communities remark) apply it to yourself also and we should be fine. We can both be willing to face the music.
From the outset, you have set yourself up as someone who brags about all of your deep study and knowledge of "my religion" which I will deal with momentarily, so you don't sound like someone who will do what you expect me to do, but I could be wrong.
As for my personal speaking in tongues and my experience(s) we'll set them aside for now because your comments are so erroneous and off the wall that they don't apply to me at all.
Now to your 1st question. “How is it that I know more about your religion than you?”
You obviously don't. I never read Dake's Bible, never read Dake's plan for Man, or any of those other things. They are irrelevant to me because I don't base anything I believe on anything other than my understanding of scripture, and my experiences as a christian. I have no religion, other than Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior, I believe the Bible is good for everything it says it is and is God's Word for us, and that I have faith inChrist and love people. The rest is kind of gravy for me.
Whatever you think pentacostalism is, is no label that means anything to me. To me speaking in tongues is just one of the benefits of Christianity, but certainly not a religion unto itself. Its a very, very, small part of things to me and far less important than the principles of faith and love.
Bottom line is i believe and practice what I do, just like you do. I am always willing to change things in my life and beliefs if I am convinced that they are wrong, but obviously I am starting here from the perspective that I act and believe just as the Lord wants me to.
I do not have an apostolic command from God to take up an apologetic ministry here at factnet. I just like it and find it a good source for discussion and friendship etc... so lets see how you proceed. If you would just stop right now with any assumptions and generalizations you have in your head about me, and start totally from scratch as if I actually have my own mind, you might just convince me some things I believe are wrong. If you don't do that, then it will, of course, be impossible because you are starting out with a very false premise- that I adhere to something you call a pentacostal religion. |
arron
Intermediate Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 178
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.34.187
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 8:53 pm: |
|
tatm ...not///
i do not blame my deceased wife for anything you smart mouth i was in holiness before i met her
also "my religions bible the dakes and the guide book GODS PLAN.. are in no way my bible or my plan. the dakes bible is a kjv which version i use. but it is not the bible of my religion as you call it also i have read the book GODS PLAN but it is not my guide book . my guide book is the kjv bible you are a liar and a person who has it in for pentecostal you might remember that you cant hate any one. and if a person is saved by THE BLOOD OF JESUS they are all right regardless of their religion |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 151
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.208.12.98
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Hello again, Mr. Xman3:
Having been around pentecostals for eighteen years, I guessed your response dead on. I am, by the way, a one hundred percent disabled combat veteran and very male. You may call me Sandy, Doctor or Reverend or &*&%%**#!! as you choose. I have been called worst by pentecostal preachers. My ears are no longer virgin.
As to the comment that you belong not to pentecostalism but some unrecognized religion called Christianity. I would allow that. Oops! You did not think I would? I will allow that the Roman church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and several others identify themselves as Christian(ity). These religions also teach tongues and faith healing. Do two wrongs make a right?
You claim never to have read Dake’s. So where, pray tell, did you find your religious conviction? Dake’s Bible, by the by, is the only Bible in the world that supports ‘tongues.’ You have never read any of your religion’s guide books? Have you ever sat through one of your religion’s sermons? Do you see a connection here?
You have the burden of proof, not I. You must prove by a preponderance of the evident that your utterances are supported by the Bible. Preponderance of the Evidence - The standard of proof which is met when a party's evidence on a fact indicates that it is more likely than not that the fact is as the party alleges it to be.
Allow me to get some exculpatory evidence out of the way. Exculpate means to show innocence or limit guilt.
1. An article in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation entitled "An Ethnological Study of Glossolalia(Speaking inTongues)" by George J. Jennings, March 1968. Jennings observes that glossolalia is practiced amoung the following non-Christian religions of the world; the Peyote cult among the North American Indians, the Haida Indians of the Pacific Northwest, Shamans in the Sudan, the Shango cult of the West Coast of Africa, the Shago cult in Trinidad, the Voodoo cult in Haiti, the Aborigines of South American and Australia, the aboriginal peoples of the subarctic regions of North America and Asia, the Shamans in Greenland, the Dyaks of Borneo, the Zor cult of Ethiopia, the Siberian shamans, the Chaco Indians of South America, the Curanderos of the Andes, the Kinka in the African Sudan, the Thonga shamans of Africa, and the Tibetan monks.
continued |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 152
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.208.12.98
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 9:24 pm: |
|
2. The “vision” of the homosexual Charles Fox Parham (in three parts with discussion). The practice of “Glossolalia” by various religions calling themselves Christian(ity) is based exclusively on this “vision.” I am willing to permit the inclusion of this material as it stands.
Parham claimed God told him that “God would restore biblical ‘tongues’ for the express purpose of expediting the transition time from altar call to the mission field thereby ushering in the latter-day rains.
A. “God would restore biblical ‘tongues.’
Biblical tongues were, first, a sign gift to unbelieving Jews. We know that from the historical Book of the Acts of the Apostles. All five times ‘tongues’ are mentioned there were unbelieving Jews present. Second, biblical ‘tongues’ are known language (Acts2).
B. “For the express purpose of expediting the transition time from altar call to the mission field.”
It does not get any better than this. Today, a missionary must spend between ten-years and thirty-years learning the language and customs of a country before moving to the mission field. Then once the missionary get to his chosen or called area, (s)he must spend another five to ten years learning the local dialect and peculiar customs. Reducing that time would be truly a God sent blessing.
C. “Thereby ushering in the latter-day rains.”
As anyone who has read the Bible will tell you, there are no latter-day rains. That is purely a doctrine of the charismatic religion.
Unfortunately, your religion was not able to consummate the ‘vision.’ I will be happy to add more evidence as we move a long. The burden of proof is on your shoulders. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 153
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.208.12.98
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 9:30 pm: |
|
Mr. Arron:
Is there any chance you might engage brain before starting to type? I have no way of knowing if your wife is living or dead. Nor can I say that you are male or female. I am simply quoting you. If that information is incorrect, why did you say it in the first place? |
arron
Intermediate Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 179
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.34.187
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 11:00 pm: |
|
where did i ever blame my wife for any thing. and yes i am a male a real man not some homo |
stillrecovering
Junior Member
Username: stillrecovering
Post Number: 31
Registered: 7-2005
Posted From: 76.64.79.240
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 11:23 pm: |
|
"and yes i am a male a real man not some homo"
and just what the hell is that remark supposed to mean? |
xman3
Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 94
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 1:33 am: |
|
Hello again MR tatm-
When you said you were slammed for being a female preacher, you led me to believe you were a female. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I will call you tatm to make it easy.
Looks to me like you guessed my response dead wrong, but whatever you say. You don't claim to be a prophet.
Nice lip service you start with there. You immediately lie and say you will accept what I said about my "religion", and jump right back in about my religions books, sermons, etc... Can you read? The Bible is my guidebook. I read multiple versions but primarily use NAS, KJV, NIV, and the amplified bible. My main Bible is the NAS revised.
I have no religion and find your spin on that term distasteful enough that I immediately lay claim to being part of no "religion"
All the points you made about "glossolalia" are irrelevant to me once again. Couldn't care less about any of that and it has no impact whatsoever on anything I believe. Why don't you put your pre planned little messages aside and actually read what I said and respond accordingly.
I will keep it simple, and try and only make 1 or 2 points at a time and see if there is any point at discussing them further.
First, I will tell you why I believe as I do. Just as an example I will use healing to help explain something. If I am sick and someone prays for me to be healed in the name of Jesus, and I am clearly healed as a result, I would thus have an experience that I believe is supported by scripture that no one would ever be able to take away from me. To me, I would have the Bible, my experience, and multiple witnesses of said experience and that would be very important to me. I'm not big on doctrine but for lack of a better term, my doctrine would be supported by scripture and born out by my experience. My experience would not be the basis for my doctrine.
So it is with tongues. I believe (erroneously you claim) that scripture supports speaking in tongues. I have the experience of speaking in tongues. I have the testimony of both my experience, and many witnesses to it being born out. Any doctrine I would hold to concerning this issue would be based on the Bible, a catch-all term I use for any number of versions I am happy to use. You won't be able to discount my experience, though you can label it any way you want as it does not matter to me what others think about it.
Now understand this, I am ONLY telling you this here so you understand why I believe as I do. We can discuss the particulars as we move forward, but this is simply information to explain my perspective. I will in my next post deal with some specifics.
xman3 |
xman3
Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 95
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 1:50 am: |
|
tatm- First we ought to make sure we are talking about the same thing(s). Because I am not religious, I am not real picky about the words I use. When I am talking about tongues, I am referring to speaking both in known languages, and in an unknown language or unknown languages (how would I know if its only one if they're unknown?) through some kind of "unction" that is spiritual in nature, rather than some mental or physical babbeling.
I say both known and unknown because I believe scripture supports both as does my experience. I suppose I couldn't say for sure that I speak in an unknown language because I don't know all the languages and dialects of the world now and through history.
The key in all of this for me in initial definition of terms is that I believe it is inspired by the Holy Spirit within, and comes from my spirit. It really doesn't matter for now whether they are human languages or not as it has no bearing on what it accomplishes and can be discussed later.
Now are we on the same page here and can we not get bogged down in a bunch of religious terminology that I don't understand or care about. I'm not hiding anything here, as you can see, but what's important if I must support what I believe is that we both know what I'm talking about. Not what you think or want to believe or assume I'm talking about. Other people's or groups beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with what I just said. |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 132
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 208.61.5.114
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 8:40 am: |
|
Xman, I'll simply point out that your rationale is no different then anyone else who supports their interpretation of the scriptures with an "experience". The Mormons do it, the J-Ws do it, all the cult preachers and followers do it. The problem is, experiences are a dime a dozen and one must be able to discern both psychological phenomena and subtle spiritual deception.
While I don't agree with TATM on most things, I do agree that Biblical "tongues" are actual languages, not "angelic" or "prayer" languages (Paul is engaging in a bit of hyperbole in the passage in 1 Cor 13 that is more about the necessity of love than about "tongues" per se) and certainly not what is practiced in modern Pentecostalism/Charismaticism.
You should try to get a hold of a book by a anthropologist and linguist name William Samarin titled Tongues of Men and Angels. Samarin did a rather extensive study of people who practiced modern glossolalia and found not one instance where anything remotely similar to a language was being "spoken". He writes in his book
quote:There is no mystery about glossolalia. Tape-recorded samples are easy to obtain and to analyze. They always turn out to be the same thing; strings of syllables, made up of sounds taken from among all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but which nevertheless emerge as word-like and sentence-like units because of realistic, language-like rhythm and melody. Glossolalia is indeed like language in some ways, but this is only because the speaker [unconsciously] wants it to be like language. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia is fundamentally not language. All specimens of glossolalia that have ever been studied have produced no features that would even suggest that they reflect some kind of communicative system.
What Pentecostals/Charismatics practice has been, and is, seen in numerous other ecstatic religions and is not, for the most part, supernatural at all, but just a psycho-linguistic phenomena that anyone can learn to do. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 154
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.208.12.98
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 9:27 am: |
|
Top of the morning, Mr. Xman3:
As you can see several will join the conversation as it progresses. Seems I have been this way before. Quoting: “I immediately lay claim to being part of no "religion" End quote. That is exactly the same claim made by atheism, secularism, humanism, liberalism, etc., etc. The statement is simply bogus.
Religion :1 a : the state of a religious *a nun in her 20th year of religion* b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary.
As you can see any way you try to define your belief system, it constitutes a religion in and of itself.
I accept your opening statement. I also agree that we must first begin by defining the term ‘tongues.’ As stated in exculpatory, pentecostal ‘tongues’ are not biblical ‘tongues’ for the reasons given. I defer to you, the expert in pentecostal ‘tongues,’ to define that enigmatic babel. Biblical ‘tongues’ are well defined in the Bible, to which I also defer expertise. Further more, I accept your quote, unquote “feel” as expert testimony, provided you extend the unquestioned expert witness status to thousands of theologians and academicians I intend to call as witnesses. We will discuss documentary evidence later.
I, too, speak in ‘tongues.’ I speak fluently in ‘unknown’ tongues, thank God. The first time occurred when I was two or three-years-old. I had my first zipper accident. I think even Mr. MCMSTAFF78 would agree, praise God there was not an interpreter there to tell my mammy what I really said!
You may begin by defining your terminology.
<sidebar> I am going to a 'great debate' this weekend. I will be out of town for at least a week, possible longer. If, the motel has internet connections, I will keep up as time permits.</sidebar> |
xman3
Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 96
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 2:00 pm: |
|
I kind of expected you (mcm) in on this one I suppose. I don't know all your beliefs, but I figured I was holding on to more than a few you would see differently. Of course I am overmatched in theological discussions with you guys, but I certainly can say what I practice and believe in my own simple way. I think mcm can vouch for the fact that I definitely listen and consider everything presented and don't hold things that are not essential too tightly. He does intimidate me a little though in these kind of things cause I always like what he has to say and its usually well founded.
All of us claiming to be Christians have religion, but I don't accept any label as to a particular religion other than I am a Christian. That's all I mean, and when someone says I am of the pentacostal religion or any other, and does so in a disparaging way based on what that term means to them in what they've seen in others, then I want no part of it because I am my own man.
I will have to do a little work here and figure out how to make my case based on what I see in the Word, because it's not anything I've spent much time studying up on for years. It's just a part of my life now, and I kind of just take some of these things for granted rather than worry about thinking I might have to actually prove it to someone else. I figure I better have my materials handy here because I'm not one to come up with some earth shaking new theories so you fellows are probably better prepared than me.
As Arnold Schwartzneger would say, I'll be back. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 156
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.208.12.98
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Mr. Xman3:
Quoting: “As Arnold Schwartzneger would say, I'll be back.”
End quote.
The correct phrase is “I be back.” Thank you for making my next point. I wish to revise and extend exculpatory to include addition evidence not provided the first time.
"READ EVERY TEXT IN CONTEXT WITHOUT A PRETEXT!"
That should go without saying. Unfortunately, your religion (Christian[ity]), is simply overpopulated with those who add to God’s (w)Holy Inspired Inerrant Word for the Ages. From the Roman church to Jim Jones to David Koresh to thousands of pentecostals preachers, coercing the Word of God to say what you want is rampant. The Bible is written in paragraphs and pages just like any other letter. The same rules of grammar apply to the Bible. Look for paragraph marks (pillcrow) in your Bible (try this site http://www.paratype.com/help/term/terms.asp?code=256). Or get a Bible divided into paragraphs. I also suggest you read some commentaries to verify your thinking. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/) This website will help you. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 157
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.208.12.98
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 2:56 pm: |
|
More unnecessary exculpatory:
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20,21 (KJV)
1. Scripture is of no private interpretation ..........
I can not hold scripture to mean one thing and you hold scripture to mean something else. Once again, the Holy Ghost leads us in our understanding of scripture. He can not possible lead us in different directions.
2. Scripture is of no private interpretation ..........
The Pope is not the only one who can read and interpret scripture.
David Koresh, of the Branch Davidian, comes to mind first. He held a private interpretation of the book of Revelation. That interpretation may well have setup the massacre that took place in Waco.
3. Scripture is of no private interpretation ..........
No single verse of scripture can be used to form doctrine. The Bible was written in paragraphs and pages just as books are today.
Couple quick examples, I am sure you will agree with. The Snake Handlers took a single verse from Mark chapter 16 to create the call to Take up The Serpent. By the middle of the last century thirty-eight states had passed laws prohibiting snake handling in religious services and YES with good reason.
Another one that comes to mind is the Mormon call to baptize the dead. Yes that is mentioned one time in scripture.
4. Again I remind you scripture is of no private interpretation, I can not have one meaning and you another, the Holy Ghost is not that confused. I do not hold a private license to interpret scripture and force you to believe me or else. Nor, can we use a private(single) verse to form our doctrine.
That is not my work, but I agree fully. Scripture is of no private interpretation. I will also add my favorite John Calvin saying.
“Such veneration,” he (John Calvin) says, “we ought indeed to entertain for the Word of God, that we ought not to pervert it in the least degree by varying expositions; for its majesty is diminished, I know not how much, especially when not expounded with great discretion and with great sobriety. And if it be deemed a great wickedness to contaminate any thing that is dedicated to God, he surely cannot be endured, who, with impure, or even with unprepared hands, will handle that very thing, which of all things is the most sacred on earth. It is therefore an audacity, closely allied to a sacrilege, rashly to turn Scripture in any way we please, and to indulge our fancies as in sport; which has been done by many in former times” (English Translation, Grand Rapids, 1947, p. 27) |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 134
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 24.99.130.74
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Xman, I pretty much know what you're going to say about tongues. I was Charismatic for 20 years or so. I spoke in tongues. I did all that stuff. It really doesn't matter what individual scriptures say, but what do they mean within both the context of scripture and the history of the Church. Until the late 19th century, "tongues" as practiced by modern Pentecostals/Charismatics was considered a sign of demonic activity not the Holy Spirit. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 160
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.208.12.98
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 5:41 pm: |
|
Mr. MCMSTAFF78:
Would you address the Roman church's use of 'tongues.' |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 137
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 24.99.130.74
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 6:30 pm: |
|
TATM, I wouldn't know about the "Roman church's use of 'tongues'." |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 161
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.208.12.98
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Mr. MCMSTAFF78:
You may try any of these websites or find your own.
http://www.catholic-jhb.org.za/articles/charismatic.htm
http://ccc.garg.com/
http://religion-cults.com/spirit/charismatic.htm
http://www.catholic-jhb.org.za/articles/charismatic3.htm |
xman3
Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 98
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 9:01 pm: |
|
You are right mcm. I won't come up with anything new probably, because there aren't that many scriptures about tongues anyway and I'm not going to invent any new ones. Like I said, its only a small part of my beliefs and pales in light of things such as faith and love.
tatm- The correct phrase is I'll be back. I have the gift of interpreting Arnold's tongues. From "Terminator" 1984.
I agree with the notion there is no private interpretation of scripture. Of course with over 1000 supposedly Christian groups and denominations out there. many believing far different things, it's not always as cut and dry as you want to think as to what interpretation is correct. We all think ours is correct, or we wouldn't hold to it.
I'm pondering what approach to take here right now because I know no matter what I say half of Christianity will disagree with it, including you most likely, and I don't want to start arguing just for the sake of arguing and factnet busy work. I waste enough time on less serious matters around here as it is and rarely, if ever, go into detail about my personal doctrinal beliefs, especially ones that bring out the worst in people's responses.
Enjoy your great debate this week. We'll have plenty of time to discuss this or anything else when you return, or if you get access.
xman |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 163
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.208.12.98
| | Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 7:15 am: |
|
Mr. Zman eh? bman? yman? ah? How am I to address xman if I can't remember his name?
The ‘Great Debate’ is an event for the Church of Christ. Alexander Campbell founded that religion in 1825. His favorite saying was “a good debate is worth a thousand sermons.” The debate is less of great and more debacle. The CoC holds to the Roman doctrine of ‘Baptism = regeneration.’ That theory has been blown out of the water so many times it ain’t funny. Generally speaking, when a doctrine has a name it is false (Baptism = regeneration; easy believerism; The Roman Road, etc. are all false doctrines).
I must beg you, please stay away from the Gospel According to Peter. You know, the only book in the Bible written in Latin. The one labeled as the most contentious book in the Bible, hearsay as it would be called in the modern courtroom. Distance yourself as much as possible especially from the Roman added longer ending. Mr. MCMSTAFF78 became udderly belligerent when he found out someone had read the Bible enough to understand his religion had added to the Word of God.
Besides all of that Mark 16:17 does not support your religion’s claim. I, personally, agree with John Wesley on the subject. The longer ending to Mark simply is worthless. If YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST leave it in the Bible, you MUST label it as prophecy. That prophecy was fulfilled in the Book of Acts of the Apostles. Period. |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 138
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 208.61.5.114
| | Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 8:35 am: |
|
TATM, I wonder why it is that you insist on either not reading what people write or deliberately engaging in misrepresentation and falsehood.
First, you have never dealt with "my religion" in one single post. Second, think anyone who reads our discussion regarding the Gospel of Mark will first of all see who was "belligerent" as well as who had the facts on his side.
Honestly, your method of argumentation appears to simply be 1) make an assertion; 2) provide some semi-ambiguous reference that half-way implies something similar to what you're saying; 3) when confronted, retreat to ad hominem attacks.
Really, quite sad and you do yourself and your cause no favor because as best as I can tell, all you do is alienate people even when they happen to agree with one of your positions.
May God have mercy on us all. |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 139
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 208.61.5.114
| | Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 8:38 am: |
|
TATM, in response to your post 161 above, once again, I'm not "Roman", I'm not "Latin", I am in no way aligned with the Pope of Rome and so am not overly concerned with Latin positions on issues.
Grace and peace to you. |
arron
Intermediate Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 181
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.34.187
| | Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 9:08 am: |
|
tatm..not.... so you dont believe in the bible as it is written you dont believe in the book of peter which one? 1 or 2 you have shown yourself many times to ba na unbeliever and that just did it for me |
oneway
Junior Member
Username: oneway
Post Number: 42
Registered: 1-2007
Posted From: 69.30.157.124
| | Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 10:27 am: |
|
"EZ 37 said
I pray that you come out of your babbyl arron, before it is too late!!!! Evil
spirits mocking God!!!!!
So you are sure your prayer line to God is in place. But maybe an arrogant
attitude messes that line up.
"I pray" - what arrogance. Get off yer spiritual pedestal...u aint got nothing
more than Arron."
I fail to see what right ezekiel thinks he has to condemn and mock others for their beliefs, yet he believes and teaches that satan had sex with Eve and Cain is the literal son of satan.
Ezekiel, you need to wake up. If you haven't already blasphemed the Holy Spirit of God, you're not far from doing so. |
stillrecovering
Junior Member
Username: stillrecovering
Post Number: 35
Registered: 7-2005
Posted From: 74.13.127.56
| | Posted on Saturday, June 02, 2007 - 12:23 am: |
|
arron, you seem to have avoided responding to an issue I have attempted (rather unsuccessfully) to bring to your attention. It was concerning the following comment.
"i am a male a real man not some homo"
Not only was this written in ignorance; but, as a male homosexual I found it extremely offensive because such a remark implies that male homosexuals are not “real men”. Do you get where I’m coming from?
I also seriously doubt that God Almighty who created man and woman would share your unflattering point of view.
Furthermore you ought to be careful not to accuse someone else (such as in your previous post) of being an "unbeliever" without taking a good look at yourself.
Jesus says in 1 John 4:20
If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.
arron, I take God’s word very seriously, and I sincerely hope you do too. |
arron
Intermediate Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 182
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.34.187
| | Posted on Saturday, June 02, 2007 - 7:46 am: |
|
still recovering... what are you recovering from? the sin of homsexuals? religion itself
when i answerd tatm i answerd him by what i know about him he is a liar as he has made staements about the church that are not so and have no bibl or historical value or truth in them he just said he does not belive in the book of peter 1 o 2 i dont guess he also doesnt beleive that mark part of it is rue and you are accusing me when you are doing the same thing you SAY i am doing. i read ands tudy the kjv every day and i dont just read it i study it i do take it serously. now do you? then get out of homsexualality althigether . yes i love GOD nd i love the sinner man but not their sin. i love you but if you were to approach me for sex .. forget that |
stillrecovering
Junior Member
Username: stillrecovering
Post Number: 36
Registered: 7-2005
Posted From: 74.14.16.77
| | Posted on Saturday, June 02, 2007 - 9:13 am: |
|
arron I appreciate you taking the time to respond. For the record, I've been celibate for over 10 years, and have not been in any relationship.
"if you were to approach me for sex .. forget that"
Interesting comment.
Arron, do you actively approach people for sex? I would expect your answer to be a definite "NO". So why would you imply that I would approach people for sex? or is this just your general assumption about all homosexuals?
If your comment about "love" is genuine, you
sure have a funny way of showing it by the words you choose.
btw, and because you asked, my username SR was selected 2 years ago when I joined in the discussion on the YWAM thread. |
stillrecovering
Junior Member
Username: stillrecovering
Post Number: 37
Registered: 7-2005
Posted From: 74.14.16.77
| | Posted on Saturday, June 02, 2007 - 11:06 am: |
|
I do apologize for hi-jacking the thread. I've finished posting my comments concerning the inappropriate comments made earlier - unless arron wishes to discuss it further.
Otherwise, please continue your discussion concerning the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and tongues being "the" initial evidence of this Baptism. As a former Pentecostal, I will undoubtedly find the outcome of this discussion very interesting. |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 107
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 6:38 am: |
|
No problem still recovering. Whatever Aaron's beliefs are, that was an uncalled for comment. I don't see why he'd want to defend it. I haven't had enough time to respond to tatm yet anyway being busy as we all are at times. |
arron
Intermediate Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 183
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.34.187
| | Posted on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 8:19 am: |
|
well excuse me xman i did not mean to imply that still recovering were homosexual as i dont know i do pray that they are saved. if they are that easily offended why are they if they know they are free from sin then thats it
and to still recovering. no i do not and dont . i am not a homosexual i am i guess what they call striaght. i a, sorry for any thing i amy have said that you took the wrong way. i donot beleive that homosexuals should take part in the pastoring of a church.
i am pentecostal and love THE LORD. i speak in tongues and use the gofts as GOD has gvien to me our church believes in this and that is our way of worshiping THE LORD JESUS we obey HIM |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 164
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.61.181.21
| | Posted on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 2:17 pm: |
|
M(r)(s). stillrecovering:
I agree fully with Mr. Arron's statement on homosexuals. Real men take responsibility for their actions. I have yet to meet a homsexual willing to acknowledge a harding of their hearts to God. Also, Mr. Arron is near right. God dictates that I not even wish you Godspeed, sorry. I am historic orthodox Christian. I do not rely on Modern scholarship for my understanding of the Word of God. That is why I reject both pentecostalism and homosexuality, neither are related to God.
1 John 4:20 is not an endorsement of homosexuality, again sorry.
On the funny side, the founder of pentecostalism was a homosexual. The world's largest quote, unquote "GAY" church is also pentecostal. |
stillrecovering
Junior Member
Username: stillrecovering
Post Number: 44
Registered: 7-2005
Posted From: 74.14.22.28
| | Posted on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Thank you arron, of course I accept your apology. Enjoy your Sunday afternoon all! |
stillrecovering
Junior Member
Username: stillrecovering
Post Number: 45
Registered: 7-2005
Posted From: 74.14.22.28
| | Posted on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 3:34 pm: |
|
In response to you TATM
"M(r)(s). stillrecovering:"
TATM, I have made it very clear who I am, so what would motivate to include both an (r) and (s) when addessing me - oh c'mon now let me guess, the love of Jesus Christ?
"Real men take responsibility for their actions. I have yet to meet a homsexual willing to acknowledge a harding of their hearts to God."
This is a sweeping generalization: a statement that cannot be backed up with facts.
"God dictates that I not even wish you Godspeed, sorry. I am historic orthodox Christian."
...but God also commands that you love your neighbour as you love yourself. As an orthodox Christian, I'm sure you are aware of this. You can perhaps begin demonstrating this love by showing a little more respect "for a change" to the people you converse with everyday on this messageboard.
"On the funny side, the founder of pentecostalism was a homosexual. The world's largest quote, unquote "GAY" church is also pentecostal."
Interesting, I did not know that, but it does not change my view on Pentecostalism. |
stillrecovering
Junior Member
Username: stillrecovering
Post Number: 46
Registered: 7-2005
Posted From: 74.14.22.28
| | Posted on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 4:03 pm: |
|
"i am a male a real man not some homo"
No, I am resolved to stand by my initial response - without apology.
This is an unfair generalization that that seeks only to justify prevailing negative stereotypes of homosexuals.
There is nothing you can tell me that will pursuade me otherwise. |
jayhernandez
Junior Member
Username: jayhernandez
Post Number: 37
Registered: 4-2006
Posted From: 64.198.236.246
| | Posted on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 4:43 pm: |
|
stillrecovering said "There is nothing you can tell me that will pursuade me otherwise."
I think it's good your admitting it's a matter of persuasion. This translates that you were once persuaded, and now nothing 'anyone' else can say, but yourself, could reverse it. Something or someone persuaded you once, or overtime, but now the same vehical from which the persuasion came from has been cut off by you.
The point I'm trying to point out is that you've made a choice on account of being persuaded. And convinced enough upon it that you now defend it. We all do it (defend what we believe) but the bubble buster is this:
My question to any person of any "life"-syle is whether your belief holds you, or do you hold the belief? Does it sustain you, or do you sustain it? Does it choose you, or you it? |
jayhernandez
Junior Member
Username: jayhernandez
Post Number: 38
Registered: 4-2006
Posted From: 64.198.236.246
| | Posted on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Remember that anything that doesn't produce a healthy lifestyle can not be consided life giving- hence 'life'style. Anything not life producing could be considered, even for the sake of word clarity, death producing- hence, 'deathstyle'. Everyone uses lifestyle for anything and it's been made generic. Consider though the words purpose- what does it communicate? Then what does your choice in living communicate? |
stillrecovering
Junior Member
Username: stillrecovering
Post Number: 47
Registered: 7-2005
Posted From: 74.13.128.87
| | Posted on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 5:30 pm: |
|
"This translates that you were once persuaded, and now nothing 'anyone' else can say, but yourself, could reverse it."
Not necessarily jay, perhaps it was simply a poor choice of words in the heat of the moment.
Certainly if there was sufficient evidence to prove something that contrdicts a particular viewpoint, there would be opportunity for reconsideration. |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 109
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 9:25 pm: |
|
I agree with still recovering. It is true that in a crass way someone could say they were a real man because they were not a homosexual which they don't consider a real man. My problem is that it was just presented in an insulting way out of the blue. Homo is used derogatively, it had no place in this discussion, and I just think its mean. I don't have to advocate a lifestyle to think it was a mean statement.
Aaron's entitled to his beliefs on homsexuality and that has nothing to do with why I think that was unessesary. That's my last word on it though, as this is about tongues. |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 110
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 9:27 pm: |
|
Tatm-
Hope you’re enjoying the “great debate”. In trying to keep it simple here, I will not yet get into the issue of what you or I believe tongue are, but rather establish that they are from the Holy Spirit. Whatever the practice or actual experience of anyone else who prays in tongues is or is not I can’t say, but I can comment on myself. I will tell you my experience and then support it.
I was saved too many years ago. On the day that I became a Christian, several men explained something to me called the baptism of the Holy Spirit and explained that once I received it I would speak in tongues. This is the first time I had ever heard of it and I knew nothing about it. They prayed and nothing happened as far as I knew. Later that day, on a long drive home, I prayed and decided to attempt on my own to somehow speak in tongues.
However I began, quickly it is clear to me that I began to speak in tongues. It was a clear and distinct language in its sound, the most awesome I had ever heard, and I prayed for over 2 hours. I spontaneously sang songs in tongues which were clearly of worship, and have continued ever since. I did not even know that singing in tongues was possible, as I said I never heard of it previously. Take this for what you will, but I have always had a unique language of tongues that is just different and more legible than most and has been interpreted in distinct languages I do not know multiple times, though generally is not interpreted.
Now experience is just that, unless supported by scripture to some extent. All I want to support here is that I believe it is from the Holy Spirit.
The verses in Mark, which are perfectly acceptable to me, don’t address this fact anyway. They merely claim it will be done in Jesus’ name.
Acts 2:4 They were speaking in tongues as the Spirit was giving utterance.
Acts 10: 44-46 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with peter were amazed because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the gentiles also. For they were hearing them speak with tongues and exalting God.
Acts 19: 6 And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
1 Cor 12: 10-11 … to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things distributing to each one individually just as He wills.
Now I don’t claim to have all the terminology down, but I simply claim that on the day of my salvation I received the gift of tongues. I use gift, but it doesn’t matter what its called. All I know is since that day, and never before, I have spoken in tongues and I believe it is from the Holy Spirit. And that my experience is supported by scripture and is similar to others written about in the Bible. That’s more than enough to start, I’m sure.
xman3 |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 165
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.61.181.21
| | Posted on Monday, June 04, 2007 - 7:08 am: |
|
Mr. Xman3:
Experiences are like . . . you know? The Bible tells us the heart is deceitful above all things. The first red flag came when reading that someone had to tell you about the ‘gift’ then pray that you receive it. If these men had not implanted the suggestion in your mind, would you have received the ‘gift’? Did these men give you the impression that the ‘gifts’ were critical to ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit’? Important? Just a remote possibility? I hope you see my point.
Which verse would you like to start with? OOPS, sorry. Is there any possibility there were unbelieving Jews with you that afternoon? If you read the Bible, you will find there were unbelieving Jews present during each time ‘tongues’ are mentioned. Did you ask for an example? If I told you, “you can be saved by following the Roman Road,” would you believe that? I don’t. In fact, I can easily disprove it (Acts 8:12).
Next, of course, is the discussion of the Book the Acts of the Apostles. Is that book, prophetic or historic? What exactly is the “baptism in the Holy Spirit?” Can you show me a single example of anyone in God’s (w)Holy Inspired Inerrant Word for the Ages, who quote, unquote “asked for” or quote, unquote “sought after” quote, unquote “baptism in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues?” Can you show me a single example of anyone in God’s (w)Holy Inspired Inerrant Word for the Ages who had a quote, unquote “second” or quote, unquote “subsequent” quote, unquote “experience in the Holy Spirit?” Wait, that last question assumes that the Holy Spirit is, in some way, involved in salvation.
Is there any chance, you took the Bible and simply searched out the word ‘tongues’ to discover your defense? I can take the Bible and prove just about anything. Charles Fox Parham (father of the modern charismatic movement), Jim Jones (People’s Temple), David Koresh (Branch Davidian), Ellen White (Adventist Movement), Charles Taze Russell (founder of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society), the Roman Church, are, all, excellent examples of people who (ab)used the Bible to defend their system of doctrine.
The Bible tells us of three types of doctrine.
1. The doctrines of men.
2. The doctrines of the devil.
3. The doctrines of God.
Are you willing to discover which the modern charismatic movement belongs to? Pick a verse to start our discussion.
<sidebar> I refuse to take any responsibility for typo’s, grammatical errors or misrepresentations. All I brought with me was a laptop. My arms are too short to reach the keys! That is the bad news, the good news is I can still reach the table. On the serious side, the debate is on expedients. I will start a new thread along that line later. </sidebar>
continued. |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 112
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Monday, June 04, 2007 - 9:09 pm: |
|
tatm-
First, experience(s). They are like.... essential. Without experience, what is there? Like I said, I don't base doctrine on experience. My experience is supported by scripture, not creating it. Had I not experienced it, then I would have greater reason to doubt it, not the other way around.
I understand your theory regarding suggestion, but that isn't the case here. After all these years, the suggestion aspect is irrelavent. Also far more occurred than was suggested. Additionally, preaching the Word, or suggestion as you call it, is how one gets saved. How shall they hear without a preacher? It is God's way, through the foolishness of preaching that we are taught many things. There is nothing wrong with it at all. The fact some one preached something to me you disagree with carries no merit here. You must show it is erroneous, not merely that it was done. Regardless, the suggestion is not what I base my belief or practice on. I base it on the Word which I quoted.
To my knowledge, there were no unbelieving Jews present. My short testimony above is just that. Telling what happened. The doctrine of the Baptism of the holy Spirit evidenced by speaking with tongues as a seperate experience is not important at this point. As I pointed out, I received "both" the same day, so I have no need to seperate them yet.
Yes,I did use the Bible to support my claim. As I said to MCM, there aren't a whole lot of scriptures dealing with this topic so I won't come up with 15 new ones. I could easily use many other more obscure scriptures to support my beliefs, but they are principly based and work for me, but don't specifically deal with my point.
As for the rest, you have said essentially nothing and I could care less about the Roman Road, whatever that is, or any of those fellows mentioned. As I said, I speak for myself.
All in all I supported my claim that tongues is from the Holy Spirit, not what it is or whether it is a seperate experience. That is my point. That is the first point I am arguing here. At this point, I conclude I am correct as you have given me no reason to think otherwise, while I have given 4 seperate scriptures to support it, and my experience lines up with it. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 167
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.61.181.21
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - 8:57 am: |
|
Good morning Mr. Xman3:
Hot Dogs & Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer! I will post that topic soon. Look forward to your comments on the subject. First, we shall discuss the topic at hand. You seem to be unfamiliar with the operation of a debate or court. You have to prove your point from a preponderance of evidence, not a conclusion. As is done in court, you presented your list of witnesses. I ask which do you want to begin with? You responded and I quote: “I conclude I am correct as you have given me no reason to think otherwise.” That ain’t the way it works. Call your first witness. I am waiting to cross examine that witness.
You dismissed every questions I posed. Those questions must be dealt with first and foremost. Allow me to assist you with an example of how a debate works.
“But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” Acts 8:12 (KJV)
Based on your understanding of salvation, were these people saved or lost?
We know they, in fact, are lost. Scripture (witness) please.
“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Romans 8:9 (KJV).
“Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.). Acts 8:15, 16 (KJV).
This is how debate works. You pick your first witness and let us examine it in light of the Word of God. Again, I strongly recommend you answer the questions previous asked. It is your duty as accuser to address those questions as part of discovery. (Discovery takes place before the trial.) If, we settled for conclusions, mine is jest as good as your’in’s. How many falsely accused would be in prison or executed IF conviction was based on the conclusion of the accuser? Please call your first witness, Mr. Prosecutor. |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 118
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 10:11 pm: |
|
hello tatm,
I have gone over the previous posts and I do not see any questions pertinant to the discussion you've asked that I haven't answered. I guess you'll have to re-ask them in a more clear fashion for me.
As for the "debate" itself. I originally posted that I speak in tongues every day and was challenged as to whether my belief in tongues was really correct, or just part of my charismatic religion. I first dealt with the issue of my "religion", and have maintained that I do not hold to any particular label or religion other than my claim to be a Christian. All of my beliefs are my own, and I base them primarily on scripture, and not at all on what any other religion, person, or denomination believes or teaches.
Given this fact, I have secondly shown that tongues is from the Holy Spirit. It does not originate anywhere else. That, I believe, is very important in this discussion. I believe I am following a very orderly and simple train of argument here, and see no need to answer any question or deal with anything that some other group or person believes. It is, as I've said, irrelevant to me.
Perhaps we already agree that tongues is from the Holy Spirit, and it is merely an issue as to whether you perceive that what I do when praying in tongues is the Holy Spirit. If that is the case, then we will address that after we determine the initial statement I make- that tongues is from the Holy Spirit. I didn't make this conclusion up. I supported it with scripture and await your view on the matter.
xman |
ihavesinned
Junior Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 47
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 71.197.218.14
| | Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 10:13 pm: |
|
Why would the holy spirit waste it's holy time with a bunch of rubbish that nobody can understand?
If there was a holy spirit, why wouldn't it magically make a recipe for cold fusion or something useful, instead of causing people to jabber incoherently? |
ihavesinned
Junior Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 48
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 71.197.218.14
| | Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 10:15 pm: |
|
Why would the holy spirit waste it's holy time with a bunch of rubbish that nobody can understand?
If there was a holy spirit, why wouldn't it magically make somebody recite the recipe for cold fusion or something useful, instead of causing people to jabber incoherently? |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 119
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 10:30 pm: |
|
In the grand scheme of things you seem to make a good point. It could apply to the Holy Spirit's involvement in almost any of the things we seemingly waste our time with with Christianity though, and not just the Holy Spirit's part in tongues. That concept is a topic unto itself.
As for the incoherant jabber, I believe some times what we call tongues is just jabber, sometimes it is merely a language we don't recognize and sounds like jabber, and sometimes is a language that scripture says is something between us and God alone, for our own benefit. There is a time and place for these things, and often we choose the wrong time and the wrong place and it can really seem foolish. You apparently don't believe in the Holy Spirit so it would be unrealistic to expect that you would understand Him if He exists, though your logic does expose one of the many dilemnas of Christianity and a belief in God. |
ihavesinned
Junior Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 50
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 71.197.218.14
| | Posted on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 2:51 am: |
|
Right,
I could walk into any pentecostal church in the country and fake this stuff to everyone's satisfaction. It is all a performance by people who want to feel special somehow.
I liken it to the football fans who take off their shirts in freezing weather and paint messages on their chests. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 169
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 75.111.157.152
| | Posted on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 6:21 am: |
|
Good morning Mr. Xman3:
I am on the highway this morning, so I will drive and type a quickie. Your "tongues" are not associated with the Holy Spirit in any way I can find. The first three verses (Acts) you used are historic, and do not impact your claim in any way. The fourth verse (1 Corinthians 12:10, 11), does not say what you want. Now kindly, pick your favorite one and let us examine each verse in light of scripture.
By the by, an article in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation entitled "An Ethnological Study of Glossolalia(Speaking in Tongues)" by George J. Jennings, March 1968. Jennings observes that glossolalia is practiced amoung the following non-Christian religions of the world; the Peyote cult among the North American Indians, the Haida Indians of the Pacific Northwest, Shamans in the Sudan, the Shango cult of the West Coast of Africa, the Shago cult in Trinidad, the Voodoo cult in Haiti, the Aborigines of South American and Australia, the aboriginal peoples of the subarctic regions of North America and Asia, the Shamans in Greenland, the Dyaks of Borneo, the Zor cult of Ethiopia, the Siberian shamans, the Chaco Indians of South America, the Curanderos of the Andes, the Kinka in the African Sudan, the Thonga shamans of Africa, and the Tibetan monks. Would you say, the 'tongues' of Tibetan monks or any other religion is from the Holy Spirit? |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 162
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 65.208.110.253
| | Posted on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 8:01 am: |
|
Xman, I'd just point out that your arguments are circular. You use your experience to interpret scripture (e.g. "sometimes it is just language...between us and God alone" - nowhere in scripture is this explicitly written") and then you use that interpretation to justify the practice.
Again, there are no examples of what is commonly termed "prayer language" or "tongues" among modern pentecostals having been identified by linguists as a real language. Language, even one never heard by anything, has recognizable features. Modern "tongues" displays none of them. Again, try to find something by William Samarin on the subject.
Also, just because someone doesn't believe in your interpretation of few scriptures, doesn't mean he doesn't a) believe the scriptures; or b) believe in the Holy Spirit. I most specifically believe in the Holy Spirit, but don't believe either modern Pentecostalism/Charismaticism/Tongues is sourced in the Holy Spirit. |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 122
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 7:21 am: |
|
mcm- That response was just my opinion and not anything more. Actually, to me, it's no different than you or tatm saying anyone's (including my own) tongues aren't from God. Just opinion as far as I'm concerned. It's outside this debate written to someone with a particular view who posted somewhat contentiously. I didn't want to ignore him/her and spoke to that view from my opinion, looking for agreement rather than contention.
I don't want to jump ahead and deal with the issue of tongues being a communication to God, though I can't see why you would quibble with such a clear scripture. That's for later though.
Finally, I have interpreted nothing yet. All I'm establishing, and I believe I have done so, is that tongues (whatever anyone thinks they are or are not) is from the Holy Spirit. I have used 4 scriptures to prove it, and have not had even 1 scripture presented to even hint that is wrong, much less prove it is wrong.
I will not go any further until this is either proven wrong or acknowledged. As I've said multiple times, I am not dealing with charismania at large or any one else. I am dealing with me and my beliefs, and not one thing either of you have said has anything to do with me.
Once either or both of you agree with scripture which clearly says tongues are from the Holy Spirit, then we can move on to whether what I practice is the same thing, similar, or from the Holy Spirit. I see no sense in continuing if no scripture is used there remains a refusal to deal with what I have posted. If I am shown tongues is not from the Holy Spirit, then there would also be no sense continuing and I will acknowledge you guys are right.
All scripture is historical in the sense it was written in the past and about the past. One simple statement that the first 3 verses I used are historical menas absolutely nothing. It is Bible. That's good enough for me. I pass no judgenment on those who interprate scripture differently. I stand on those verses until proven othwerwise. |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 163
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 24.99.130.74
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 8:31 am: |
|
Xman, you confuse, I think, what we're saying, at least what I'm saying. My position is that modern glossolalia, as practiced by Pentecostals and Charismatics is not the biblical "gift of tongues". Tongues ("glossa", tongue, i.e. language) in the scriptures are actual languages - the miracle is either that the hearer hears words spoken in one language in his own native tongue, or that the speaker speaks a language he has never learned.
There is no such thing as a "prayer language" - this is something made up out of whole cloth in the last 75 years or so through a hermenutic "leap" equating "pray in the spirit" with "tongues" in a twisted fashion. "Tongues of angels" is simply the Apostle's hyperbole in trying to communicate to the Corinthians the importance of love over everything else.
This is the historic position of the vast majority of Christian traditions prior to the late 19th Century, early 20th. Only the Montanists, who were clearly heretics, held to anything remotely similar to modern Pentecostal theology on "tongues" in the history of Christian faith.
The verses you "stand on" are simply disparate verses taken out of context and pieced together to support a position that was never before known in the christian teaching. |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 123
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 9:11 am: |
|
I am not confused. I understand that is your take on modern tongues. I want to establish that tongues is from the Holy Spirit, not that modern tongues is from the Holy Spirit. Once that is established or disproven, then I will move on to my modern version of tongues. Once there, perhaps I will be shown that what I practice is not the same, but for now I am avoiding that area.
I do not agree that the verses I use are out of context. They are clear to me and most assuredly contextual. Simply saying I am taking them out of context doesn't equate to my taking them out of context. I am not using them to establish anything other than what they are referring to as tongues is from the Holy Spirit. I do not necessarily believe that they are all referring to the same thing even, just that tongues as a Bible subject and as adressed by scripture are from the Holy Spirit.
I have still seen nothing to lead me to believe otherwise, just references to my misapplying scripture with no basis for it other than the accusations themselves from my view. I am not using this initial point to support modern charasmatic tongues, although I may later.
I am doing this on the fly so I take it slowly. I haven't actually had to defend most of my beliefs for years, so its not like I have a ready made set of arguments. I am quite open to adjusting my view here, if I am given good cause though. I am growing in my appreciation for what the church historically taught or believed, even though I am ignorant of a lot of it, but I do not think just because they believed and taught something that that makes it right. |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 166
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 24.99.130.74
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 2:51 pm: |
|
Then perhaps I am confused. I've already acknowlegded that "other tongues (languages)" is a charisma. Honestly, I don't know anyone who has asserted that it is not. The question is not what the scriptures say, but what they mean. When the scriptures say "and [they] began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" what was that experience? The scripture is pretty explicit that these are real, human languages - "hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born" (Acts 2:8). "Tongue" = "language" - plain and simple. |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 167
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 24.99.130.74
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 2:53 pm: |
|
Oh, and since the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). I think we can pretty well trust that new and "unique" teachings that have never been known to her before are outside of the Apostolic faith. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 170
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 3:36 pm: |
|
OK, Mr. Xman3, you may have it your way. We both agree God reversed the Tower of Babel curse as a ‘sign’ gift to unbelieving Jews. We, both, further agree the ‘sign’ gift was given exclusively to unbelieving Jews (Acts). Further we, both, agree the ‘sign’ gifts ceased in 70 AD when God ceased to deal with the Jew. Allow me to spell out our agreement.
1. God reversed the curse of the Tower of Babel as a ‘sign’ gift to unbelieving Jews. That reversal was for the establishment of the Church age.
2. The ‘sign’ gifts were only displayed in front of unbelieving Jews.
3. The ‘sign’ gifts were given to evangelize unbelieving Jews, not gentiles.
4. When God ceased to deal with the Jew, the ‘sign’ gifts ceased.
5. The ‘sign’ gifts were twofold, first “known languages” and second the “hearing” of those languages.
6. The ‘sign’ gifts were only practiced by those touched by an apostle or an apostle.
7. The exercise of this ‘gift’ took place at the moment of salvation only.
Quoting: “I pass no judgement on those who interprets scripture differently.”
End quote.
I find that statement interesting. Had Jesus enough sense to make that statement, he would have lived to a ripe old age! By the by, all scripture is not historic. The book of Revelation is prophetic, for example. The book of the Acts of the Apostles is historic as it only contains the actions of the Apostles. I will revise and extend my remarks as needed. At the moment, I must run to the store. You would not believe what we are out of here at home! Of all things not to have after a road trip . . . .
ps. OOPS! I forgot, 'tongues' are not from the Holy Spirit but God. God chose to reverse the Tower of Babel, not the Holy Spirit. Mr. MCMSTAFF78, I recommend you read some Christian(ity) writings. |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 168
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 24.99.130.74
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 6:26 pm: |
|
quote:I forgot, 'tongues' are not from the Holy Spirit but God. God chose to reverse the Tower of Babel, not the Holy Spirit.
Hmmmm, "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."
But what you say regarding Pentecost and the Tower of Babel is correct. As in the hymn...
When the most High came down and confused the tongues,
He divided the nations;
But when he distributed the tongues of fire
He called all to unity.
Therefore, with one voice, we glorify the All-holy Spirit!
While I would also agree that the "sign gifts" have generally ceased, there are still times when they have been evidenced in the life of holy men and women. God, being God, is not bound to our attempts to systematize His workings in His creation. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 172
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 7:43 pm: |
|
Come, Mr. MCMSTAFF78, were I to say it is light outside, would you agree? or Just disagree for the sake of disagreeing? Did the Holy Spirit usurp God's authority? or Would you say the Holy Spirit was simply the agent of God?
For example, you sell your home. Did you really sell your home? or Did a Real Estate agent sell your home? Perhaps more correct, did your home sell your home? Who made the decision to sell? You? or Your agent? |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 124
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 8:41 pm: |
|
Interesting stuff. I don't know about any of that stuff so I will reserve comment except to say I do not agree with 2-7 in relation to tongues as you and mcm might.
mcm has agreed that tongues is from the Holy Spirit. That will help move on to modern stuff, or more particularly my stuff in this case. You tatm, seem to still quibble. You seem to be particular in seperating God and the Holy Spirit so I do not understand your version of God and/or the trinity. All I know is all the verses I said referred specifically to the Holy Spirit. You may call Him God if you want.
As for other's interpretations, well I am not quite as astute as Jesus or as confident in my being correct, so I will still reserve judgement on others such as yourself who interprate scripture differently. I do think you are mistaken however, but if so, it is your loss and not mine.
Please expound a little on this tower of Babel thing with the scriptural basis for it. I find it interesting but haven't heard much about it except in passing. Perhaps an understanding of this belief will help me see where you both are coming from. Actually, the theology you have outlined is quite complex and will require a lot of commentary as it is quite different than mine.
If it is true that either or both of you understood my theology as well as you think, you are at a distinct advantage in that I do not understand yours. On the surface, I find it to be problematic in that we could take almost all of the New Testament and start specifically applying it ONLY to those to whom it was originally written and claim almost nothing as true for us today.
I find your (mcm) statement concerning gifts being evidenced in the lives of God's holy men and women interesting. What does that mean exactly? Could I be one of these men? This sounds like the possibility of tongues operating as I claim in my life is there to me, but its a mere mention really so I ought not assume anything. |
ezekiel_37
Junior Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 48
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 67.71.85.175
| | Posted on Sunday, June 10, 2007 - 1:33 am: |
|
My opinion is that the charismatic ecstatic tongue was never mentioned by Paul, nor was any form of chanting language used by others.
I believe that the tongue spoken of is language.
Not a prayer language, and certainly not God speaking for you.
It is a teaching on how to spread the good news to the nations of people, who did not speak Greek or Hebrew...through gifted interpretors...bilingual people.
practice of the charismatic ecstatic tongues today, is IMO, people getting caught up in the emotion of what they think is the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit does indeed baptize with emotion, but there is absolutely no confusion, and THAT IS THE PROOF.
in His service
c |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 173
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Sunday, June 10, 2007 - 7:20 am: |
|
Mr. Xman3:
Quoting: “If it is true that either or both of you understood my theology as well as you think, you are at a distinct advantage in that I do not understand yours.”
End quote.
I have repeatedly stated in the past that God commanded I take up an apologetics ministry ministering to those caught up in the pseudo-christian cult of pentecostalism. Only a fool would go off half cocked! I have read extensively on your religion, thus the claim “I know more about your religion than you.” I have spend hundreds of hours listening to your theology. Many more hundreds of hours being told what to believe by authorities such as yourself. I have the distinctive of being the most ‘wrong’ person living according to your religion.
I find it rather hilarious that YOU are absolutely correct and the rest of the world is wrong. You should study ‘millstones.’ But alas, your religion relies heavily on double-speak. Been there, done that, wore out the tee shirt I got for it already.
Quoting: “On the surface, I find it to be problematic in that we could take almost all of the New Testament and start specifically applying it ONLY to those to whom it was originally written and claim almost nothing as true for us today.”
End quote.
You are desperately trying to convert the book, “The Acts of the Apostles” to prophecy. If, Acts is not prophecy, your religion begins to unravel. The book of Acts Of the Apostles is an historic recording of the actions of the apostles, primary Paul and Peter. The book of Revelation remains a book of prophecy for all generations. I would suggest you take the time to read the Book of Acts (the entire Bible?). You will find ‘tongues’ mentioned five times in Acts, all five times unbelieving Jews were present. All five times, ‘tongues’ were spoken at the time of salvation. Had you addressed my original questions, you would have known this. |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 169
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 24.99.130.74
| | Posted on Sunday, June 10, 2007 - 9:35 am: |
|
TATM, I'm curious, do you acknowledge the Trinity? Is God one essence in three Persons?
Xman, when I speak of "holy" I am not speaking of something this "positional" or juridical, but of men who have truly been purified of passions and illumined in heart and mind.
Tongues is not some gibberish, "prayer language", but something that God might use to communicate to someone with whom one might otherwise not be able to communicate some essential truth needed for that moment. |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 125
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 2:11 am: |
|
tatm- I still do not see any questions to address. You have made some statements but asked no questions that I haven't answered. Once again I would ask you to repeat them for me. I already told you there were no unbelieving Jews present.
I've read the book of Acts a few times and find it in the Bible, so it is scripture. You can call it whatever you want but I am not too desperate for it to be anything but Bible, which it is. I have no problem comparing my life with the book of Acts or Acts of the apostles which is merely a title someone put on it.
Perhaps alone it is not enough to support tongues for some of the reasons you suggest, but in conjunction with Corinthians and principles sufficient for me throughout the word I have no reason to extrapolate from Acts that the religion you are purporting is correct.
I am wondering if you have confused your so called command to the apologetic ministry against pentacostalism with a ministry to argue against the Holy Spirit. I say this for 2 reasons. First, you make that strange distiction concerning gifts which scripture says come from the Holy Spirit are really from God. Second you attack pentacolstalism in general which revolves around the Holy Spirit when it comes down to it, rather than simply keeping things to the topic at hand which is tongues. I mean Jesus attacked the religious establishment without attacking the Holy Spirit and I'm getting confused, as I said, about your view if Him.
Now for myself, on the day I was saved and spoke in tongues, tell me what it was. I never did before, and I did that day. Things occured which I later found quite scriptural that I had never heard of. If the sum total of your argument is that it was the power of suggestion, then it has no merit to me whatsoever. I was there, you weren't, and I know what was "suggested". I claim that I received the Holy Spirit and that I spoke with tongues, exactly as I see in the Bible.
It is true, some of my experiences have not been based on anything I had read in the Bible, but for my satisfaction till now, I have found support in the Bible for them after the fact. I know you guys have a real low opinion of experience, but I don't. It's important the experience lines up with the Bible for the most part, but there's a whole lot in life the Bible doesn't specifically address. That's where I personally operate by principles I see in scripture at times that seem important to me but less important to others. Regardless, my "doctrine" is based on the Bible, not my experience and fortunately my experience with tongues seems quite Bible based to me, though I realize not to some others.
As for the gibberish comment. We both know you call it gibberish, and the few scriptures I would use to support a prayer language between me and God, so please tell me why your take is more true than mine. From my viewpoint, I am merely accepting what I clearly see in scripture, while you are arguing that what I see actually means something else. I read the discussion on 1Cor 14 elsewhere and was not impressed. Why does it not mean what I think? I do believe that supports my praying in tongues personally, along with other scriptures. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 174
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 7:59 am: |
|
Good morning, Mr. Xman3:
Is there any chance you might be wrong? None, just as I thought. I find it interesting that you know 100% of the answers to 100% of the questions 100% of the time, while everyone else who ever lived is a bungling idiot. Unfortunately or fortunately (you decide), your religion mandates absolute ‘faith’ in its manmade doctrine. Mind control is a powerful tool, regardless of the religion.
Quoting: “I have no problem comparing my life with the book of Acts or Acts of the apostles which is merely a title someone put on it.”
End quote.
Again, the book entitled “Acts of the Apostles” is historic, not prophetic. It does not apply to the subject at hand.
Quoting: “I know you guys have a real low opinion of experience, but I don't.”
End quote.
“I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of Spirit.” Ecclesiastes 1:16, 17 (KJV).
It was God, not me, who said the heart is deceitful above all things. Kindly point your finger at him from now on.
Quoting: “I am merely accepting what I clearly see in scripture.”
End quote.
“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” 1 Corinthians 15:29 (KJV).
Should I take this passage literally as you have with every mention of ‘tongues’? Or are you the only one capable of rendering scripture correctly? Also many passages in the Old Testament deal with human sacrifices, should I practice human sacrifices? Or is it only your “SIGHT” that is 20 - 20? |
arron
Intermediate Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 197
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.34.187
| | Posted on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 8:06 am: |
|
tatm.. where you going to spread your lies when factnet closes |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 177
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Mr. Arron:
http://members.boardhost.com/cults/
As soon as I receive an email with your user name and password, you can start posting. Of course, everyone else is invited. This is a new board, so the get-going part will have to be worked out. we can adjust format, color and whatever as needed. |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 172
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 24.99.130.74
| | Posted on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 6:09 pm: |
|
TATM, to repeat my earlier question which you've ignored, do you acknowledge the Trinity? Is God one essence in three Persons? |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 128
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 1:34 am: |
|
Hello tatm- There is still a chance I could be wrong. You have proven nothing yet, however. You have made many interesting statements but you have only presented them as your spin on scripture or theology. You haven't actually given me any reason to accept any of your conclusions.
For example, your statement concerning the book of Acts. For some reason, you seem to think you have apologetic veto power. You simply make a sweeping statement concerning the book of Acts, that it is historic, and summarily discount it's value in the discussion. Well, I don't view it as you do, and millions of others don't either, and you must come up with something a lot better than that to negate the scriptures. Given your statement versus the Bible' statement that all scripture is good for just what it says it is, and that it is your words versus the Bible's words, I still choose the Bible.
Now, each verse you quoted in response to my opinion of experience ought to be self applied also. You are the one claiming the mystical command from God to an apologetics ministry. You are the one clearly presenting nothing but your own theology, though claiming I am the one who won't change.
You also haven't addressed my questions concerning the Holy Spirit or my comments. If you have some sort of problem with the ministry of the Holy Spirit or who He is, then it is appropriate for this discussion.
As for the literal interpretation of every verse. There are a lot of factors to consider in which verses to interprate literally or not. That isn't the overall issue. To me, those verses are clear. That's not the case with every verse, including the one you chose.
I believe you should take that scripture and use it for whatever it is intended to be used for. I don't understand it fully (I'm not entirely convinced Paul wasn't just being a little sarcastic here), though I've read some opinions on it. Stuff like end times theology aren't very clear to me either.
There's lot's of rich stuff in the Bible I don't understand, but there's a lot I do understand also. Some things seem clear, and some don't. In this case, these things I've said so far seem clear to me.
The verses I used prove tongues is from the Holy Spirit, historical or not. They do not prove my tongues are from the Holy Spirit and I do not take them as some prophetic mandate. I do take them, however, as an example in the Bible of people who have had experiences similar to mine, clearly from the Holy Spirit. They are also examples of several (not only the laying on of an apostle's hands) ways they experienced this. Without 1 Corinthians in particular, and a few others, they could probably be explained away easier with your theology. They do not stand alone however, so that isn't the case. |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 129
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 2:08 am: |
|
mcm- I have been pondering some of your comments. In this discussion so far, the one thing that does intrigue me is what the early church taught concerning tongues. Please allow me to ramble a little, and ask a couple of questions.
I don't necessarily believe that the early church, no matter how close to the apostles, had it all right. I believe we ought to know more about a lot of things that were in their infancy back then. I do think that a lot of things, particularly I suspect, some significant doctrinal issues have gone astray to an extent. The proliferation of denominations and teachers out there all teaching different things could be quite confusing. The more I hear about the earlier views, the more comfortable I am with some of them versus some of the currently taught stuff, but not always.
What I'm trying to grasp in my thinking currently is a timeline of sorts concerning the canon of scripture and the apostle's themselves, including the "succesors" in keeping things close to their teachings as possible after their deaths.
My weak understanding of the thing has me thinking that there were different books, letters, or whatever that almost made it into the Bible, but didn't for one reason or another. In general, I guess I think there was an influence there by what their current theology and such was, and I am wondering how close it was to the apostle's teachings themselves, and how we would know that, outside of the writings chosen for scripture.
That's where all those sources you know of are important and intriguing and thus far are the basis for the only argument presented here that I can't take as simply someone else's interpertation of scripture or view of the Bible.
I know a few quotes and sources probably won't instantly change my view unless I clearly see it in scripture, but it is a sort of springboard for any further research I might do to see how true that stuff is and learn about the sources quoted more so I might grow to appreciate who they were and where they fall into the timeline of things.
Anyway, its a valid direction to consider (what the earliest views were) but I've had reason to fight against that view in the past that make me somewhat skeptical. I've always found the way you present this stuff to me pretty palatable though (though sometimes I think your laughing at me as another one of charismaniacs) and it gets me thinking a bit.
It's not easy to even consider changing views we've been steeped in for several decades, much less actually change them. Factnet is really helping me understand much better some other viewpoints I used to laugh off myself in my arrogance, and some I am not convinced of, and others I've had to admit had more actual merit than my own.
Anyway, there must be a question or 2 in there somewhere, so any comment is appreciated. |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 130
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 2:26 am: |
|
One final comment for today for either of you. It's kind of a little dilemna I find when I re-read my posts. On the one hand, I am asking mcm about the early churches teachings and views. On the other hand, I have tatm telling me the earliest teaching and view which is the book of Acts is not good enough to use, even though it is scripture. The closer one gets to the writer of Acts, that's as close as we're getting I would think.
The dynamics of going from Acts, to any of those sourced later, either will be that things are exactly the same or involve some change or progression. This, to me, exemplifies in a short term fashion the "evolution" of doctrine or belief that must come as new aspects of the way God and the Holy Spirit are working now in the church and body of Christ come to light.
I mean Peter had to have a vision to understand gentiles could be saved, and he was one of Jesus' best buddies. These guys, and every one thereafter had to learn a lot of stuff they were unfamiliar with and I'm sure progressively formed their doctrine and practice.
If one considers all of this, and concludes as many have done, that all has been perfected or completed in these matters once scripture was canonized, then there would be no reason to go any earlier than that time, because everything up till then was working for that fullfillment. You know, part of the progression, full of successes and failures I'm sure.
Anyway, I see several dilemnas in there, but I'm not sure how close you 2 are in your view on early writings and practices. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 179
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 7:12 am: |
|
Come, Mr. Xman3, get it straight.
Quoting: "On the other hand, I have tatm telling me the earliest teaching and view which is the book of Acts is not good enough to use, even though it is scripture."
End quote.
The only book I have spoken against is the book of Mark. Mark was cannonized on the premises of hearsay. The book of Mark (Gospel According to Peter, as it was first called) is the transcribed sermons of Peter. Mark had no first hand knowledge of his writings. Will I use the Book of Mark in a sermon? You can bet your life on it. Will I use the Book of Mark to build a doctrinal statement? Not on your life!
The historical Book of the Acts of the Apostles is useful in many ways. As prophecy? No. Does the Book of Acts give us an indication of when salvation became available to the gentiles? Yes. Does it record the early days of the church? Yes. Can the Roman Church use Acts 2:38 for their salvic plan? No, they cannnot for the same reason you cannot use it to support your claims.
Quoting: "You are the one claiming the mystical command from God to an apologetics ministry."
End quote.
Would you say St. Paul's ministry to the gentiles was mystical? or Is it just those ministries that contradict your illusions?
Quoting: "You have proven nothing yet, however."
End quote.
You are a real quick learner. That is exactly how a court system works. The defendant has absolutely nothing to prove. You must prove with a preponderance of the evidence that I am wrong.
I was listening to a story on the news this morning concerning two investment companies scamming miltary people. One of the ladies interveiwed say "If it sounds too good to be true, it is." What a novel idea! |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 180
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 8:30 am: |
|
Addendum 1
Quoting: “I do take them, however, as an example in the Bible of people who have had experiences similar to mine, clearly from the Holy Spirit.”
End quote.
Please pardon my second response. As I was typing the first, I heard a higher calling . . . higher? Louder? After many years, I have learned to recognize the voice of authority. Around my house, when that voice of authority screams ‘breakfast’ you go eat right then or do without. So it was this morning. Unfortunately while eating an otherwise solemn meal, I began to laugh uncontrollably. We will get to the joke later.
First, allow me to dispel a minor myth. We can say several things, factually, about ‘tongues’ in the Book of Acts. We can also compare your stated ‘claims’. First, every instant of ‘tongues’ in the Bible are known languages. Second, every instance of ‘tongues’ in the Book of Acts, unbelieving Jews were present. Third, every instance of ‘tongues’ in the Book of Acts, they were spoken at the moment of salvation.
Now let us compare that to your own claims. 1. You admit your ‘tongues’ took place in private, and are unverifiable. 2. You admit your ‘tongues’ are unknown languages (i.e., gibberish). 3. You admit there were no unbelieving Jews present. I fail to see any similarity between the two experiences.
Quoting: "You are the one claiming the mystical command from God to an apologetics ministry."
End quote.
What was so funny at breakfast this morning? The above statement is simply hilarious. Why so facetious? I do not doubt the ‘vision’ on which your religion was founded. Though, anyone with any Bible understanding should doubt God using a homosexual to start a totally new religion, I do not object. In fact, I can find no reason or need to object. Let us look again at that ‘vision’.
According to the homosexual Charles Fox Parham, founder of white pentecostalism, he received a ‘vision’ from God. Writing in his Apostolic Faith Newspaper, Parham claimed God would restore biblical (known languages) ‘tongues’ for the expressed purpose of speeding the transition time between altar call and the mission field, bringing in the latter-day rains. Unfortunately, your religion has been unable to consummate that ‘vision’. However coma, as the old saying goes, being enthralled by the clanging of the cash register bells your religion was willing to invent faked infantile gibberish. Do I doubt or object to the ‘vision’ on which your religion hangs? Why would anyone object or doubt it? Your religion has discredited it for me!
To your question on the Roman Church, I would add only one thing. Over its one-thousand-years of existence, the Roman Church (like pentecostalism) has been (is) infatuated with anything likely to generate a buck. That infatuation includes ‘tongues’ and healings. |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 175
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 208.61.5.114
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 9:02 am: |
|
Xman, the biggest problem I see is that you read your experience into the scriptures because you view the scriptures from a perspective warped by the modern Pentecostal experience. For example, demonstrate for me where a scriptural passage, in context, teaches a "prayer language"? |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 176
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 208.61.5.114
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 9:07 am: |
|
BTW, I would take just about anything TATM writes with a huge grain of salt. I can only infer from his silence regarding my question on the Trinity that he does not accept this foundational doctrine. This puts him outside of historic Christian faith. Additionally, I have a difficult time discerning why he keeps bringing up "the Roman Church". As far as I can see in searching this thread, he is the only one who brings it up and you never asked a question regarding it. Curious. |
friend
New member
Username: friend
Post Number: 15
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 66.162.203.195
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 9:57 am: |
|
Mc, not trying to be a pain but you seem not to follow your own logic with these two statements:
"For example, demonstrate for me where a scriptural passage, in context, teaches a "prayer language"?"
and
"I can only infer from his silence regarding my question on the Trinity that he does not accept this foundational doctrine. This puts him outside of historic Christian faith."
Neither "prayer language" nor "trinity" are found explicitly in the Bible. However, the may be inferred, but both doctrines are on thin ice if we are looking for verses that support these ideas.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I do not believe in God in three persons or that I believe in a "prayer language". I just think that we have to be careful that we are consistant in our evaluations. |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 177
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 208.61.5.114
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 11:04 am: |
|
Friend, you are correct, to an extent. However, I would suggest that there are several passages that, in and of themselves, support the doctrine of the Trinity. Christ's Baptism, the Great Commission and, to a lesser extent, His Theophany.
However, the teaching on "prayer language" is not found in a single passage, but on several passages taken out of context and lumped together. Even the individual passages are interpreted based on unsupported assumptions (presuppositions). For example, that "praying with (or "in") the spirit" means praying in "tongues".
The Church has always taught the Trinity even if its explication culminated in Nicea. But "tongues", as practiced by modern Charismatics and Pentecostals, was essentially unknown to Christiandom for 1900 years. Even the Montanists didn't believe and practice quite what those who adhere to "tongues" do today.
It is not enough to simply find references to a practice and then equate it to something done today because it is given the same name. That is what Xman is having trouble with. Simply because the Acts of the Apostles, or 1 Corinthians, records something about "speaking in tongues" does not mean it's the same practice as Charismatic/Pentecostal "speaking in tongues". I would assert it is emphatically not the same.
Do a google on "william Samarin" and "tongues" and see what you come up with. It will be illuminating. |
arron
Intermediate Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 200
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.34.187
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 11:34 am: |
|
the GIFT OF TONGUES as taught in i cor is a gift from THE HOLY GHOST any one who believes the bible knows that there is a TRINITY. i have the gift of tongues. there is a tongues that angels speak and a tongue that man speaks the two should not be confused at all |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 183
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Mr. MCMSTAFF78:
Talk about going from the fat to the fire. I found the reference you gave on a Seventh Day Adventist site. Your source discredited itself before the book cover was opened! hehehehehehe |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 178
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 208.61.5.114
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Show me where there is a "gift of tongues of angels" taught in the scriptures. Again, you're simply doing what other Pentecostals do, you assume your position to prove you position. Additonally, 1 Cor. 12 specifically teaches that not all will speak in tongues...
quote:Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 1 Corinthians 12:29-30
The obvious answer to the Apostle's rhetorical question is "no". Yet Pentecostals insist that all will speak in tongues.
1 Cor. 13:1 is hyperbole regarding "tongues of...angels". The Apostle isn't asserting a gift of "tongues of angels", he's demonstrating the superiority of love so that even if (grk. "ean", a conditional particle; in case that, provided, etc.; often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty) one were to speak in the language of an angel but had not love one would be but a noisy gong. Yet Pentecostals assert that just about everyone speaks in a "tongue of angels" since no one can demonstrate an actual human language being spoken as "tongues". |
arron
Intermediate Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 201
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.34.187
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 12:31 pm: |
|
no i beg your pardon we do not say all will speak with tongues. there is a gift of tongues and not all have that . we do insist that they will speak with tiongeus when they receive the baptisium of the HOLY GHOST but that is a different movement of GODS SPIRIT that the gift of tongues and the bible does speak of the tonuges of men and of angels. how do you know there is no tongues of angels? are you a god? |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 180
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 208.61.5.114
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Per usual, TATM, you don't take the time to understand what someone is saying, you simply attack what you think s/he is saying. Neither of those links had anything that dealt with my point vis. modern "tongues". Assertion that one "believes" in tongues is not the same as asserting one believes/practices Pentecostal/Charismatic "tongues".
Arron, there is only one place where "tongues of angels" is mentioned in the scriptures, that is 1 Cor. 13:1. It is mentioned only in a hyperbolic fashion and not as something someone actually does. The Apostle wrote if.
However, you are correct in that not all (probably only 95%) of Pentecostal/Charismatics view "tongues" as the evidence of being "filled" with the Holy Spirit. See, I was speaking hyperbolically. |
arron
Intermediate Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 203
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.34.187
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 2:47 pm: |
|
i did not say that we did not believe that the evidence of THE HOLY GHOST IS speaking in tongues for we do believe that if one receives THE HOLY GHOST THEY WILL SPEAK WITH TONGUES. but not every one has the gift of tongues. dont change what i said. yes one WILL speak in tongues when one receives THE HOLY GHOST BAPTISIUM but the gift of tongues is a work or a gift of THE HOLY GHOST AND not all have that as they do not all have the other gifts. they may have some i dont know anyone who has every gift but some that have more than i do |
friend
New member
Username: friend
Post Number: 17
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 66.162.203.195
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 4:09 pm: |
|
This just about says it all, yes?
-------
1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 187
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Mr. Arron:
Why not tell the truth? Every preacher in your religion must certify that (s)he is fluent in 'tongues' in order to be licensed. |
arron
Intermediate Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 208
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.34.187
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 4:16 pm: |
|
that is not so. each person who is ordianed as a minister in our church must have THE BAPTISIUM OF THE HOLY GHOST WITH THE EVIDENCE OF TONGUES but does not have to have THE GIFT OF TONGUES as that is seperate from the evidence. so quit your lying. agin i have proved you to be a liar |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 181
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 24.99.130.74
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 5:53 pm: |
|
More parsing not found in scriptures or the teaching the Apostles. Additionally, the Apostle Paul does not write "do all have the gift of tongues", he writes "do all speak in tongues". You can't have it both ways here (though you will, of course, try).
BTW, TATM, would you please learn not to post URLs that cause the page to widen? You can create a simple link rather than just the raw URL and it won't make the page a hassle to read, which this one now is. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 188
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 8:46 pm: |
|
Mr. MCMSTAFF78:
Perhaps you need to check your browser settings. The links given wrapped on my monitor. OOPS, I am using a lap top, if that makes any difference. |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 135
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 2:24 am: |
|
tatm- You can say what you want about Acts being historic versus prophetic, but the bottom line is that it is one of the few books in the Bible that specifically mentions tongues and is integral to the discussion. It can not be so summarily dismissed.
As I also said, it does not stand alone in dealing with the subject. As for the stuff about unbelieving Jews I say so what. There were also others present who were not unbelieving Jews. As far as I'm concerned, you are making an assumption that because unbelieving Jews were supposedly always present that there must always be unbelieving Jews present and I don't buy it.
As for proving anything, well I disagree with your take there. I merely claimed that I speak in tongues every day, and that I have spoken in tongues many times in more public settings where they have been interpreted in known languages I do not know in a very specific and verifiable fashion. This is in addition to any unknown tongues I might "pray" in which I don't know if it is a real language or not.
To me, the burden of proof is not on me, but on you. You claim that what I practice and have experienced is not from God. I claim it is, and basically apply the common scriptures being discussed. Thus far, you have presented your theology about what acts is referring to, and about a little of the other verses also. Fine. I hear what you are saying, and some of it is worth considering, but have not been given any compelling reason to accept that view as superior to my own.
With your refusal to even acknowledge that tongues as spoken of in Acts is from the Holy Spirit or answer any questions concerning your view on the Holy Spirit, I have reason to believe you have exalted your opinion above scripture and allowed your view of the Holy Spirit to taint your view of what you call the pentacostal religion and it further discredits your interpretation to me.
I have heard these arguments before, and you have heard most of mine perhaps, and I haven't seen anything compelling to get me to change my views or practice. I understand why some are opposed to it a little better now, but I am still fine with what I see and do.
I'm a simple man with simple beliefs. I base what I practice and believe on the Bible. The verses being referred to, may be open to different interpretations as demonstarted here thus far, but I haven't been at all convinced mine is wrong.
As for experience, without it, the words are just words. If I did not speak with tongues and did not have the experiences I have had concerning tongues and the Holy Spirit, then I would have reason to believe that what I had seen and heard was wrong, not the other way around. Since I am satisfied my experience is supported by scripture, it must be shown that my understanding of the scripture is wrong. That has not been done.
Lots of opposing views on what those scriptures actually say or mean, but as I said, nothing compelling. My take seems to me to be that they say what they mean. The other take seems to me to say they actually mean something different than what they say, moreso in Corinthians than Acts.
I will agree with mcm that I personally do take the leap and equate praying in the Spirit with praying in tongues for the most part.
It is very obvious to me that tongues are from the Holy Spirit, are sometimes for a sign, are equal to prohecy when interpreted in the church, are something we are told to pursue, are distributed as the Spirit wills, are a communication of sorts between me and God that edifies me, and are subsequent to receiving the Holy Spirit and more. Just for the record, I don't think tongues is THE evidence of what we call the baptism of the Holy spirit. Whatever taht is, I think lots of people have "it" and don't speak in tongues, by choice or by lack of knowledge, or perhaps,by better knowledge. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 190
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 7:44 am: |
|
Mr. Xman3:
Again, you are offering your conclusions as factual and convicting. Neither is the case. You have to prove 'tongues' with a preponderance of the evidence. You have failed miserably. As I said from the beginning, in your own mind, you hold the absolute truth and everyone else is just an idiot. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 191
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 7:48 am: |
|
Come Mr. Arron:
Quoting: "that is not so. each person who is ordianed as a minister in our church must have THE BAPTISIUM OF THE HOLY GHOST WITH THE EVIDENCE OF TONGUES but does not have to have THE GIFT OF TONGUES as that is seperate from the evidence. so quit your lying. agin i have proved you to be a liar."
End quote.
Explain the difference! What exactly is the 'evidence of tongues'? The 'gift of tongues?' |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 137
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 8:29 am: |
|
tatm- I can only assume that since you continue to ignore all questions posed to you, you are afraid to reveal what you truly "believe", because even you know how it will be viewed.
Your statement about me holding absolute truth and thinking everyone else is an idiot is contrary to what I have repeatedly stated, and just plain a lie, from God's own apologist. I don't think everyone else is an idiot, but I am wondering a bit about what you are.
I only hope people will read this entire thread and thus they will see how you have now resorted to lying and accusing (I say now, but you've done it from the beginning) to avoid answering anything. You have a canned presentation against what you call pentacostalism, and when it fails the test you have nothing left.
I will stop now, untill you address those things I've asked, and the comments I've made. Frankly, this has been a one way discussion with me providing evidence and detailing why I believe as I do, and you repeating the same stuff which is merely your opinion. If you are supposed to be an apologist for God, you ought to go back in training for awhile because you have failed miserably to convince me of anything except I that discussing something with you is like talking to a wall. |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 182
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 208.61.5.114
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 9:01 am: |
|
Xman, I will simply observe that your rationale for equating your personal experience of "tongues" with the biblical testament is almost exactly the same as used by those who reinterpret scripture to justify their homoerotic actions.
"Tongues" in scripture in every instance is clearly a real, discernable, understandable (to some human being) language. Private "prayer language" is not taught in the scriptures, but is inferred from a few scriptures taken out of context in light of personal experience.
I don't "believe" in Pentecostal/Charismatic tongues, but I can still do it. Doesn't mean it's the Holy Spirit, just means my brain learned to short circuit a normally cognitive function. People really should look at the linguistic and psychological research into this practice.
BTW, TATM, I had missed you post 183 above. Since I didn't provide a link just something to google on, you're the one that settled on the reference. Samarin's work is quoted by a number of people. I found it many years ago before there were so many references. IIRC, someone had scanned a bunch of stuff in and sent it to me. Fascinating reading. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 193
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 11:31 am: |
|
Mr. MCMSTAFF78:
I do not use google, period. When I got this Dell, google spyware was already installed. I paid a Geek Squad expert to remove their trash. I recommend you stay away from Google. Their website installs spyware on your computer that tells them every website you visit, how long you stay and what action you took while there. They also record every purchase you make online.
Quoting: "Samarin's work is quoted by a number of people."
End quote.
So is mine. Does that mean I am creditable? hehehehehe |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 184
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 208.61.5.114
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Well, google hasn't installed any spyware on my computer and I don't need anyone from the Geek Squad to help me up - I'm geeky enough as it is.
Samarin is not credible because he is quoted by a number of sources, he is quoted by so many sources because he is credible. He is (or was, can't find out much personally by him) a noted linguist and professor of linguistics. He has written many works on linguistics and the study out of which arose his "On Tongues of Men and Of Angels" is considered the most comprehensive of its kind. If you don't like Google, simply use any other search engine of your choice with the key words "william j. samarin" and "tongues".
BTW, Xman, you might find this paper interesting as you were asking about early Church fathers' views on tongues. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 195
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 4:19 pm: |
|
You know, Mr. MCMSTAFF78, the one thing I have always liked about pentecostals is their arrogance. You are one of the few people I’ve met who has more supercilious arrogance than any pentecostal who ever lived. Since I left the computer industry in the early nineties little has changed. A small improvement in miniaturization has been gained from use of SMD’s, but that is it. (SMD – Surface Mount Devices, for the un-electronic types).
On the positive side, even the Geek guy had a hard time getting rid of Google. They had to restore everything on the computer, then spend the day down loading updates. Then they had to start over again because the updates eight Internet Explorer. Then we got the internet back, the DVD player would not work. To add insult to injury, when I installed Master Christian Library Adobe Reader re-installed Google. Now that I have gotten rid of that problem, every day Adobe Reader tries to update to 8.1 and reinstall Google. I will never own another Dell computer. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 196
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Come Mr. Xman3, you have to prove your doctrine with a preponderance of evidence. My belief, or lack thereof, has no bearing on your claims. Either your religion’s teachings can be found in the Bible or they cannot, period!
Allow me to refresh your memory again.
“Tongues” is used in the Book “The Acts of the Apostles” five times. Each time several things happened.
1. Each time, unbelieving Jews were present.
2. Each time, ‘tongues’ were in the form of praise, not partitions.
3. Each time, ‘tongues’ were known languages, not gibberish.
4. Each time, ‘tongues’ were spoken at the moment of salvation, not prior or subsequent to.
5. Each time, ‘tongues’ were spoken once, never did the same people speak or use ‘tongues’ a second or subsequent time.
6. Each time, ‘tongues’ were spoken, the individual was touched by an apostle.
7. Each time, ‘tongues’ is mentioned, no one asked for or sought after them.
Now let us compare your claims.
1. You were, and continue to be, instructed(power of suggestion) to seek ‘tongues’.
2. You began speaking in gibberish, not a known language.
3. You began to speak ‘tongues’ in private.
4. You freely admit your ‘tongues’ are partitions, not praise.
5. You were not touched by an apostle.
6. You claim to have begun speaking in ‘tongues’ subsequent to salvation.
7. You claim to have spoken ‘tongues’ more than once.
8. You claim to have asked for or sought after ‘tongues’.
Again, my belief system or lack of a belief system is not on trial. You have to prove your religion’s doctrine with a preponderance of the evidence. All I have to do is create doubt. You did that for me, thank you, in giving your own ‘experiences’. Now kindly find some evidence that supports your claim or admit failure. |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 138
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 1:04 am: |
|
Google is a search engine, not software. There is software from google, such as the google toolbar which contains things one could consider spyware, but when someone says google something, it does not involve adding any software. If you use google with a properly secured computer, you should never have a problem, even though some of the links contain malicious code which you also encounter in any web browsing.
"Acts of the Apostles" is a man made title.
1. Unbelieving Jews always present. False. Supported by I corinithians. Perhaps not supported by Acts, but so what. We don't infer doctrine from that fact anyway. At least I don't.
2. tongues were always praise. False. Supported again by 1 Corinthians.
3. Each time they were known language. That is inferred and in my opinion not true. Regardless, I don't necessarily claim I don't speak in a known language anyway. Just that I don't always know it.
4.Tongues were always at the moment of salvation. False. Again supported by 1 Corinthians.
5. Never used a second time. False, again supported by 1 Corinthians.
6. Touched by an apostle. False again evidenced both in Acts and 1 Corinthians.
7. No one asked for them. Maybe so, but we are told to pursue spiritual gifts and tongues is specifically mentioned.
My claims.
1. Already addressed.
2. Maybe.
3. Yes
4. Don't know what that means.
5. True, who cares.
6. Impossible not to be after salvation or more appropriately receiving the Holy Spirit, since I have proven they are from the Holy Spirit.
7. Yes, and I still do.
8. You can say that, but I didn't have to ask twice or do much seeking, but so what. it is scriptural.
mcm- great article and quite interesting. Thanks for the info. Worth considering much of what the author concludes to be sure. |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 139
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 1:49 am: |
|
tatm- Your last response contains at least 15 different points. I can not possibly deal with anything in any depth unless you limit the number of points per post and actually discuss it with me, rather than simply repeating your previous assertions. We are limited to 4 kb posts, and I can't possibly fully comment on that many things with those limitations.
I will be happy to further discuss any given matter one or two things at a time though. That is why I started with one simple assertion, that tongues were from the Holy Spirit. You have failed miserably in dealing even with that one point so far, and simply have resorted to overwhelming the topic with too many things to actually comment on. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 197
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 6:58 am: |
|
Mr. Xman3:
Admit your religion made up 'tongues'. I have disproved your claims from the book "The Acts of the Apostles."
Quoting: ". . . a properly secured computer, you should never have a problem,. . . ."
End quote.
hehehehhehehehehe |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 140
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 11:53 am: |
|
By half quoting me and reading what you said about google, I am not suprised you had to pay the geek squad to clean up your mess. You could use an apologetics geek squad if you think you have proven anything here. Keep at it though. It's making tongues look more credible all the time.
You have ignored every point I've made, every question I've asked, and basically used this thread as a soapbox for your own inflated idea of your "ministry", which has clouded your ability to actually debate even one point, much less prove anything. I'm sure it will only be a short time before you tell folks what a good job you've done disproving tongues once again, when all you've actually done is discredit the whole idea of apologetics.
I really only keep responding because I perceive that if I stop, you will once agin commit the sins of lying and pride by telling everyone how another person was disproven and ran from your empty words and I want to save you from yourself. Personally, I would rather be wrong about tongues which I have said is a very small thing to me, than who God is or the Holy Spirit is, or any of the other major doctrines that you err in.
Pick any one of my responses and debate it properly and you might convince me of something. I believe I have responded now to every point you've made and am willing to get in deeper, but you just keep repeating yourself and claiming you've done things you haven't. Go ahead, pick one. Can you do this?
I will pick the first obvious error that comes to mind. While he was speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon them. This emphatically disproves your contention that the Holy Spirit was received when tongues were present only through the laying on of an apostles hands. It only takes one incident to disprove a claim such as that and like quite a few of your pompous contentions, it is quite easy to do. Now you prove to me that an apostle laid hands on them for them to speak in tongue using scripture. I have proven once again using scripture that it just ain't so according to the passage I already quoted, Acts 10:44-46. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 200
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Mr. Xman3:
Quoting: "By half quoting me and reading what you said about google, I am not suprised you had to pay the geek squad to clean up your mess. You could use an apologetics geek squad if you think you have proven anything here. Keep at it though. It's making tongues look more credible all the time."
End quote.
Thank you for your vote of confidence. Unfortunately, I did not have anything to do with Dell or Google.
Quoting: "You have ignored every point I've made, every question I've asked, and basically used this thread as a soapbox for your own inflated idea of your "ministry", which has clouded your ability to actually debate even one point, much less prove anything."
End quote.
Ye do err! I did not set out to debate anything. Nor did I set out to prove or disprove anything. The burden of proof lies squarely in your corner as accuser. All I have to do is offer a reasonable doubt, which I have done.
Quoting: "I will pick the first obvious error that comes to mind. While he was speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon them. This emphatically disproves your contention that the Holy Spirit was received when tongues were present only through the laying on of an apostles hands. It only takes one incident to disprove a claim such as that and like quite a few of your pompous contentions, it is quite easy to do. Now you prove to me that an apostle laid hands on them for them to speak in tongue using scripture. I have proven once again using scripture that it just ain't so according to the passage I already quoted, Acts 10:44-46."
End quote.
Again, ye do err. I do not have to prove anything, just introduce reasonable doubt. The finding has to be 51% in your favor. It is not.
Oh! PS and by the by, hundreds have already disproved faked infantile gibberish. I do not need to even get involved. Even Mr. MCMSTAFF78 has offered an abundance of evidence against your position. |
ezekiel_37
Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 51
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 76.64.50.193
| | Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 2:42 am: |
|
xman, hello
would you agree that the 'tongues' in Acts were different than what you practice?
The 'tongues' in 1Cor is not the same thing, nor do I believe that it is communication with God. If you read 1Cor14 and substitute "foreign lanuguages" for "(unknown)tongues". The whole chapter is better understood that way.
but anyway, to my question?
in His service
c |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 142
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 12:25 pm: |
|
hello ez37,
There is room for doubt at least, in my mind, as to whether the the 2 are the same or connected. I haven't given much thought or study to the idea that either what we see in Acts was isolated into a specific time or moment,or whether what we see in Corinthians is a continuation of what started there. I definitely believe there are different kinds of tongues spoken of even within 1 Corinthians itself.
I don't feel foreign languages would fit all of the references, but definitely some of them. As for me, all I claim is that I don't interprate my own tongues well and they may or may not be foreign languages, tongues of angels, or whatever they could be. They change all the time in how thy sound to me and have been interpreted in foreign languages at various times but not usually.
I do not necessarily believe every time I pray or speak in tongues that is as much the Holy Spirit as other times. It seems to vary and I suppose I goof it up just like I do praying in English at times. Maybe sometimes it more like what's in Acts then others, or maybe not. |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 143
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 12:47 pm: |
|
tatm-
The obvious error I pointed out had nothing to do with anything I said. You, tatm, made the express claim that people only spoke in tongues when an actual apostle laid hands on them. I claimed that this was one example of a false statement you made. I then proved it using scripture. I certainly have no burden of proof to do anything other than give one example to negate that claim, and I have done so. How many other statement have you made which are false? (5 of 7 in the post I responded to). I could list others, but all I am doing is showing why your arguments are not persuasive. They aren't true. Some are though and those are food for thought. Nothing earthshaking yet though.
There are some things, however, where your argument that I would have to show a preponderance of evidence is true, but it would concern claims I make, not you. I have done so when I proved tongues is from the Holy Spirit. I haven't done so in my tongues being so, however. Just all these tongues in general, whatever kind the Bible is talking about at any given time.
Remember, I don't have an apologetics mandate from God to convince people to speak in tongues. I don't mind sharing my beliefs and experience, but its any one's own choice and loss in my opinion if they don't. You are required by your mandate, I would think, to stop me in my tracks if you can. I'm still waiting for that convincing argument to show me where I am wrong in anything I've said.
I remain totally open to any input, and I agree that mcm has prented some good EVIDENCE, something you haven't done yet. His claim is simply that the early church believed differently, and showed my what I asked for. You claim scripture says and means differently than I do, and I am not yet convinced it does at all. I know he believes similarly, but hasn't really entered into the discussion too much. |
xman3
Intermediate Member
Username: xman3
Post Number: 144
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 216.163.56.81
| | Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 12:54 pm: |
|
One more thing. The linguistic aspect of tongues or whether it's gibberish or not, is secondary to me to what I think the Bible has to say about it. If everyone else's tongues is gibberish, I am not here to say. I am saying my are tongues as talked about in the Bible.
If gibberish simply means that the hearer can't understand it then I have no problem if you want to use that term. It sounds dispariging though, so your bias comes through. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 201
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Hello Mr. Ezekiel_37:
Sorry, I have not got back to the discussion on origin sin. Hopeful, we shall have the opportunity to discuss this before the board closes. I agree fully many do dismiss origin sin. The Roman Church, for example, holds to the theory of free-will, i.e. man can be good enough on his own to get into heaven. John Wesley is often credited with teaching the same theory. Does it hold water?
You asked an important question. Is pentecostalism’s faked infantile gibberish “Sui Generis” (its own genus)? According to the vision on which pentecostalism was founded? Yes. According to the Word of God? Yes. But most important, Mr. MCMSTAFF78 sees them as unique. On the other side of the coin, many religions over the centuries have or continue to use glossolalia. The Roman Church has a long history of glossolalia. So, like I said, that is an interesting question.
The books of Corinthians, here again, the Roman Church has added to the Bible. “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” 1 Corinthians 13:1 (KJV). The Roman Church added/changed the wording from “a tongue” to “with the tongues.” Saint Paul spoke in Hebrew (Acts 26:14). We also know every time the angels spoke to man, the angels spoke in Hebrew. There is not a single recording of gibberish in the Bible.
I have read and heard some convincing discussion alluding to the idea Corinthians is actually four different letters. That idea, also, changes the way one reads the two books. But most important, Saint Paul was not teaching doctrine in the first book of Corinthians. Rather, he was issuing judgement. The first book of Corinthians is pure condemnation, while the second is praise and forgiveness.
1 Corinthians 11 is often used as the basis for the Lord’s Supper. It is not a doctrinal statement, nor an instruction. It is open condemnation for abusing the Lord’s Supper by partaking unworthily. Many religions take this passage to mean that, if, man takes part in the Lord’s Supper with sin in his life, he is damning himself. That is not what the passage said. Drinking so much of the wine that one became drunk, is the complaint Saint Paul was addressing. Eating so much bread that one became sick, that is what Paul was condemning.
Then we come to 1 Corinthians 12 – 14. Was Saint Paul issuing a doctrinal statement? Or was he continuing his upbraiding of an aberrant church? In fact, Saint Paul is clearly reprimanding the church at Corinth for the errors that had crept in.
Now, back to your original question, Is pentecostalism’s faked infantile gibberish “Sui Generis?” It will be interesting to see! |
mcmstaff78
Intermediate Member
Username: mcmstaff78
Post Number: 186
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 24.99.130.74
| | Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 7:20 pm: |
|
TATM once again makes spurious textual claims with absolutely no attributions or evidence.
TATM, provide your evidence to support your claims or please stop making outlandish textual claims.
Again, there was no "Roman church" in the sense you mean it when the canon of scripture was formulated. |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 203
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 8:31 pm: |
|
Mr. MCMSTAFF78:
Is that the best you have to offer? |
marta
Junior Member
Username: marta
Post Number: 48
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 24.15.28.105
| | Posted on Sunday, June 17, 2007 - 12:25 pm: |
|
We also know every time the angels spoke to man, the angels spoke in Hebrew.
How do we know this? |
the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Intermediate Member
Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries
Post Number: 205
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 12.215.207.115
| | Posted on Sunday, June 17, 2007 - 2:49 pm: |
|
M(r)(s). Marta:
Can you disprove it? Every time an angel spoke to man, the man spoke in Hebrew. We know that because that was the language of the tribe of Israel. I am more than willing to read any verse you can find that contradicts me. |
marta
Junior Member
Username: marta
Post Number: 49
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 24.15.28.105
| | Posted on Sunday, June 17, 2007 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Can you disprove it?
Is that the best you have to offer?
It's not up to me to make your case for you. You made a statement and presented it as fact.
You said "We also know ....". So, I asked the obvious question .... How do you (or we) KNOW this to be true?
If you have proof, give it.
If you can't prove your statement to be true, at least be honest enough to admit that you don't really KNOW this to be true. It's just your opinion. |
marta
Junior Member
Username: marta
Post Number: 50
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 24.15.28.105
| | Posted on Sunday, June 17, 2007 - 4:09 pm: |
|
By the way, I'll admit that I can't disprove your assumption that angels only speak Hebrew when speaking to men, but I can show proof that angels have spoken to men who are not of the tribe of Israel.
Acts 10:1-5 In Caesarea there lived a Roman army officer named Cornelius, who was a captain of the Italian Regiment. He was a devout man who feared the God of Israel, as did his entire household. He gave generously to charity and was a man who regularly prayed to God. One afternoon about three o'clock, he had a vision in which he saw an angel of God coming toward him. "Cornelius!" the angel said. Cornelius stared at him in terror. "What is it, sir?" he asked the angel.And the angel replied, "Your prayers and gifts to the poor have not gone unnoticed by God! Now send some men down to Joppa to find a man named Simon Peter. |
| </ | |
