Dateline exorsicm

[jason_stone (jason_stone)]

I saw this last night. I can not tell you if it is true or false. And, I wouldn't dare say it was for fear of blaspheming.

I have had a few expiriences with casting out devils and it was never in that type of setting. It was never pre-planned. We would be in a service with other things going on, and, someone would begin to "act up".

They dance and things just like the other people, but, you could tell it wasn't right. The Holy Ghost gives you joy. And, they would be in agony.

So we "church elders if you will" would begin to pray for them. And, they would begin to scream and convulse. So much to the poit their face was so contorted it was scary to the pastor.

That was once, another time was when someone had a "tormenting spirit". It is when they are constantly tormented night and day with all sorts of problems. I got anointed one night, and, the girl was right in the middle of an "episode". She didn't know a thing about casting out devils, and, this was my first expirience. I layed hands on her in the name of Jesus. Exactly the time i did, she vomitted up a mess of white mucus type stuff. Which I gathered up and burned.

I did not like how dateline portrayed the serpent handlers. Dewey Chaffin is a fine man. And, so are all the people at Jolo. I do not know the people at the alabama churches. So I can't say.

Dateline flat out lied when they said the poison wasn't strong enough to kill you. Betond Bizarre did a study of it and found it to be 100% strychnine.

And, not everyone gets bit all the time. Dewey( the man who was bit they were talking to). Is prabably been bit more than any serpent handler alive. He is almost famous for it. But, he handles them all the time. Anointed or not. That is why he has been bit so much.

If they would let him finish talking(they cut the tape) you would have heard him say people handle for thirty years and never get bit. I have never been bit. And, I know others who handled thiry years and never been bit.

I did not know Charles Prince. He seemed like a good man who was devoted to his beliefs. I hated he died. I hate when anyone dies.

Agian, dateline lied when they said we do it to test faith. It has nothing to do with testing faith. It has to do with being obedient to the Holy Ghost. When he leads you to do something(whatever it is) you do it.

Brother Elzie(the man in the b&w movie) was a good man. If they would have shown you the entire film you would see that. As well as many others who handled with perfect victory. Again they cut the clip to show what they wanted you to see. I have this movie. And, I have watched it many times. Elzie is handing the snake back to be put up. Becuase, he is feeling the anointing leave. When it comes you take it up, when it goes you put it up. Elzie felt it leaving and went to put it up. But, before he could it bit him. He had already handled few a good while. He handled it the whole time he preached.

As far Glenn Summerford goes. I don't know him or his congregation. So I can't say anything about them. Glenn i know was out of church and drinking as well as his wife. What he did was a black eye to the serpent handling community. Much like child abuse in the catholics, money scandlas on tv, and pastors going with under age girls in the baptist(SC).

[aravah (aravah)]

"I did not like how dateline portrayed the serpent handlers"

In that same verse of Mark 16:18 it also says "and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them" They arnt acting on that part of the verse, I wonder why..because they know it can kill them? why the need to play with serpents other to test G-d? Personally I feel the verse has got to be mistranslated from the koine greek much like what had happened to the Tanakh from Hebrew to English.

[jason_stone (jason_stone)]

Did you not see them drinking strychnine? Half the members drank some. They drink about every service. There have been other churches in this area with members who drank it by the gallon.

And, it is not "testing God". It is God that gives us the power to do it. He is the one doing the work. We are just being obedient to the word, and, to the Holy Ghost working with us to confirm the word.

I have read a few different translations and they all pretty mych mean to take up or pick up snakes with their hands.

[arron (arron)]

jason are you a snake handler?
are you crazy?

[doug (doug)]

Arron
Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Jason was never bit.

[jason_stone (jason_stone)]

I am a christian. Part of my beliefs is Mark 16:18. I prefer the term serpent.

I am not crazy. I am just one of the believers Jesus was talking about. And, I have never been bit. Not that people who have been are any less faithful.

You can only take up serpents when you are anointed. When it the anointing comes. The Holy Ghost will lead you to take up serpents(if you believe in it). You can feel it leave as well. So you put it up when it starts to leave. The anointing can also be broke(Peter walking on water,then sinking). So you have to keep your mind on the Lord when your under the anointing.

People get bit sometimes becuase they don't wait on the anointing. Or they keep handling after the anointing is gone. It doesn't mean they are sinners or less faithful or anything like that.

Again, I am not crazy, I am not stupid. I am just a christian who loves the Lord. And, will be obedient to the Holy Ghost in whatever he asks.

I would also like to share something about the Holy Ghost. If you have it, you will have the fruits. Some people say it is not the Holy Ghost that anoints us to take up serpents. But, one of the fruits(and gifts) is love. When the serpent handlers begin to take up serpents. And, a woman or someone who is not that expirienced comes to take one up. One of the more expirienced handlers will put his hand in between the serpent and the person. So if the person suddenly gets scared or loses the anointing. They will take the bite. They would actually risk their life to protect another member. And, Jesus said there is no greater love than that.

So there is fruits of the Holy Ghost. You also have word(Mark 16:18). And, you have a Holy Ghost demonstration. So it is pretty hard to prove it false. Becuase, it isn't. God Bless

You can read more about it in doctrine/beliefs/proofs under snake handlers and john 3:16 & mark 16:18 do you believe?

[sharon (sharon)]

jason_stone ...Never did it myself, only picked up grass snakes here in the frozen north. But I fully believe that it can be done by anyone who believes in the Lord. Faith can move mountians.

[labraid]

SO I CUT MY THROUGHT WITH A KNIFE BUT I BELEIVE GOD WILL SAVE ME FROM DIEING WILL HE DO IT OR HOW ABOUT THOSE SNAKE HANDLERS DEMONSTRAIT IT FOR US

[bachman]

This is so silly, Jason.

The apostle Paul experienced this supernatural protection from a viper when he was shipwrecked on the island of Melita (Acts 28:3-5). However, this is the only recorded example of this in the New Testament.

You're focusing on ONE SCRIPTURE and not even reading it correctly.

There is no record of the disciples picking up snakes just to prove they are believers. That would be tempting God (Lk. 4:9-12). This, as well as drinking any deadly thing, is a promise that if we pick up snakes ACCIDENTALLY or are FORCED into that position because of our stand for Christ, we can believe for supernatural protection.

If this was a "true sign" of a believer, then the book of Acts/other books would be filled with examples and stories of snake handlers.

To be bit---or not---has nothing to do with the "anointing" or lack there of.

Taking up serpents is not a sign of spirituality. Indian snake charmers have been around for hundreds of years. They are masters of handling poisonous snakes. The ability is intuitive or a skill, and has nothing to do with "the anointing."

Snake-handling churches constitute a narrow branch of Oneness Pentecostalism. The movement is predominantly a rural one. The potential for the movement to grow beyond a few hundred churches is small.

Remove snake handling from these churches and the only thing left is a lower middle class version of the United Pentecostal Church.

[arron]

if they want to prove their faith by doing something silly like drinking poson or handling snakes why dont they get on an air plane go way way way up in the sir and jump out with out a parachute if they land on the ground all right then see if they still believe

[bachman]

Good idea arron===doesn't the Bible say (once) that angels will catch them?

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Arron:

Quoting: "if they want to prove their faith by doing something silly like drinking poson or handling snakes why dont they get on an air plane go way way way up in the sir and jump out with out a parachute if they land on the ground all right then see if they still believe"
End quote.

How is one lunacy (snake-handling) different from another lunacy (faked infantile gibberish)?

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Stone:

Did anyone bother telling you that Mark 16:9 - 20 are not in the better manuscripts?

[arron]

tatm.. since i have never handeled a snake, nor seen any one who did nor have i heard of it in our churches i would not know, and as far as jumping out of a plane i would not do that even with a parachute. and i accept mark 16:9-20
and as far as lunacy is concerned you know more about that that i do since i am a sane person and you..... well

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Arron:

Quoting: ". . . i accept mark 16:9-20 . . ."
End quote.

I, also, accept Mark 16:9 - 20. It simply is not biblical. Unfortunately, you desperately need the passage in order to defend your lunacy. I, on the other hand, believe every single word in God's (w)Holy Inspired Inerrant Word for the Ages.

[bachman]

tatm:

You asked

"How is one lunacy (snake-handling) different from another lunacy (faked infantile gibberish)?"

Well, snake handling can kill you if a poisonous snake bites you (duh!)

And if you consider tongues to be "faked infantile gibberish", at least you won't die from it -- or put others at risk by encouraging them in receiving tongues.

My concerns over snake handling is taking ONE scripture waaaay out of context and building a "show around it."

If this is what we are called to do, then I would invite everyone to a "new wine" church where we can turn water into wine at each service.

Join me?

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Bachman:

Quoting: ". . . we can turn water into wine at each service."
End quote.

That is exactly what Jesus did. WWJD?

Quoting: "And if you consider tongues to be "faked infantile gibberish", at least you won't die from it -- or put others at risk by encouraging them in receiving tongues."
End quote.

Jesus said "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28 (KJV).

You need to see someone who deals in snakes. I don't recall anyone dying from a snake bite in the U.S. If you find one, it is a remote incident and not normal. Rattlesnake bites are not normally deadly to humans (especially given medical treatment today). As to building a "show around it" that is exactly what the pseudo-christian cult of pentecostalism did with Mark 16:17.

[arron]

tatm... then if you acept it and you know it is not in the bible as you say, then you are believing a lie. now before you say that i am believing a lie and take out of context what i have said which i fully expect you to do i acept mark as i acept all of GODS WRITTEN WORD THE BIBLE and i know there are no contrdictions , no untruths in the bible everything there happened just as GOD said and will happen as HE says it will yet to come. and as far as lunacy it it you who are a lunatic. and as far as saying as you did in the above post that you have never heard of any one dying from a snake bite in the u.s. and that rattlesnake bite are not normally deadly to humans well that shows you are completly out of your mind. and neither of what you say has anything to do with pentecostalism

(Message edited by arron on January 01, 2008)

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Arron:

What, pray tell are you babbling about?

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Speaking of snakes, as I suggested previously you should seek the advice of a herpetologist. Thirty-seven states have banned the use of snakes in religious services. All, but four states, have banned the use of animals in religious services. The most noteworthy of the four is West Virginia (home to most snake-handlers). Indiana recently made the news concerning a farm that sells goats (and other small animals) for use in sacrificial services held on premises. Mississippi has a strange twist in its laws which allow animals sacrificed in religious services to be used for human consumption. The Muslims travel to Mississippi and Indiana to sacrifice animals as sin offerings.

Having said that, the two best known venomous snakes native to the United States are the rattlesnake (pit vipers) and the coral snake (Elapidae). There are no"poisonous" snakes in the world, sorry. There are about 10-15% of snake species that are venomous. I make this point because it's a common misconception, poison can be injected, ingested, inhaled, and absorbed, venom can only enter through an open wound (i.e. bite or cut). Neither species of snakes are labeled as particularly deadly to humans. You are far more likely to have an infection secondary to the bite than a reaction to the venom.

Snakes do not care junk in the trunk. Think for a moment, a snake does not carry spare venom in cartridges on his/her belt (like you might carry bullets on your gun belt). Nor do snakes have the option of going back to the refrigerator to resupply themselves. Venom is made to order as needed. Have you ever wondered why a rattlesnakes eats occasionally and not three squares a day like you? The snake has to reproduce the venom (s)he used to get the last meal. If you are bitten shortly after the snake uses his venom (about two weeks), you will receive very little or no venom. Then of course, is the matter of timing. Most venom is found outside the puncture wound. Which creates a major problem for doctors treating you. The anti-venom may be more deadly than the venom itself. The decision to treat you with anti-venom is a very, very deep decision indeed.

As I said above, if you want to know something about snakes ask a herpetologist. In the meantime, do not believe all the old wives’ tails you hear.

[watchman_2]

Regarding the addition/ommission of Mar, 16:9-20, see Appendix 168 of the Companion Bible. Here is the link -

http://www.biblestudysite.com/cbapend.htm

[arron]

tatm... where you said you acept mark 16 9-20 in post number nine. you siad it was not biblical so therefore if you believe it and it is not biblical then you are believing a lie

[bachman]

TATM--more than sixty--60!--people have died from snake bites as the result of "picking up serpents." (As of 1989--I'm sure there are more by now.)

Five children were orphaned after both of their parents--their father in 1998 and their mother in 1995--died handling snakes during church services.

This story was published in 1999, as custody was split between the maternal and paternal grandparents, who were instructed by the court to keep the children away from church services where snakes were handled. The grandparents, however, "admitted that they have already taken the children to a snake-handling service."

According to the Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, 63 people died between 1913, when the practice of snake-handling began to take hold, and 1989, when the encyclopedia was published.

So I think listening to Talking Heads' album "Speaking In Tongues" remains MUCH safer than handling snakes.

But if people can turn water into wine, make mine a Pinot Noir!

[xman3]

TATM: Read watchman's link, and then please evidence your claim in respnse to why those verses ought not be there.

I'm sure all of the regular posters have heard that those verses don't belong, but I've never seen any definitive reason why. I've only heard it from people attempting to discredit tongues etc..., but never seen the evidence.

Ball's in your court again and it will have to be pretty good to offset what was in those notes.

Snake handling is weird and dangerous. I hope you get elightened and get out of that thing. I can't even imaginge the strange thought process that would come up with such stuff. Oh yeah, I can. Maybe one like a serpent might come up with it.

Doesn't make one not a Christian though. It just means some of them will see Jesus a little earlier than they expected. Or of course, with some, maybe a different father. I mean, they are playing with serpents after all. You (jason) sound like it's just an 'extra" aspect of your life though and I take your word you are a Christian. Dangerous practice though, and a real Bible stretch.

[easeltine]

Jason hasn't been around for almost 2 years.
The other thread where we talked about it with him is:

"You can read more about it in doctrine/beliefs/proofs under snake handlers and john 3:16 & mark 16:18 do you believe?"

Arron and I got blue in the face talking to Jason about about his snake handling and oneness beliefs. I mean to actually bring a snake box into church? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif

[xman3]

Oops. I didn't notice that.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/blush.gif

I was surprised a real believer in that appeared here at all.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Xman3:

I have presented several commentaries on the subject of Mark 16, including John Wesley. Mr. MCMSTAFF78 and yourself declared them to have been discredited, so be it. I see no point in continuously posting the same material.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Arron:

I have said in the past, and will repeat for your benefit, I agree with John Wesley. Mark 16:9 - 20 simply are not in the better manuscripts period. If one demands those verse be admitted to scripture, one must do so as prophecy. As prophecy, they was fufilled in the book of Acts. The problem is not, for yourself, Mark 16:9 - 20, but rather Mark 16:17. Without your quote, unquote "proof text" your religion falls on hardtimes.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Come, someone tell me "what is the difference in snake handling and faked infantile gibberish?"

[watchman_2]

IMO, Mark 16;9-20 are genuine as the omission thereof appears in later manuscripts/renderings.

Having no access to original manuscripts, leaves most everyone on the outside of this issue evaluating the writings of others. There is writings supporting inclusion and omission.

To me, the answer lies in motivation, which can be ascertained. Bullinger, author of the Companion Bible, addressed some of those motivations in the link that I provided above.

It is clear to me that the bastardization of these scriptures, as evident by the P/Cers today, is nothing new. The omission of these scriptures was also done as a result of 'literalist' interpretation long ago.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

MR. Watchman_2

Did I get it right this time? Anyway, everyone living, including theologians of every type, would gloriously agree to drop the book of Mark in its entirity . . . provided!! Exceptions 1. Those who teach baptism = regeneration need Mark 16:16; 2. pentecostalism needs Mark 16:17. These two verses are used as "proof text" to support their belief system.

Unfortunately, neither verse supports their belief systems. Even worst is the certainty that neither verse is repeated in the Bible.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

I would recommend you avoid the Companion Bible like the plague. Mr. Bullinger needed Mark 16:16 to support the Church of England's doctrine of baptism = regeneration. He also taught annihilation (that is there is no hell, the lost will be annihilated at death).

[mcmstaff78]

One might wish to ponder the presuppositions involved in textual criticism and why it is that in both the East and the West, the Byzantine, or Majority Text, was considered authoritative for more than 1800 years. While Protestantism has had a propensity for redacting the canon since Luther, modern biblical "science" has provided it with a presuppositional bias for doing what it might otherwise have been too shamed to do. It is a small conceptural step from this to the Jesus Seminar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar).

[watchman_2]

tatm,

Do you own a copy of the Companion Bible? If not, then how do you conclude from your analysis of this publication that Bullinger teaches baptism = regeneration therein the Companion Bible??

The fact is that there may be some beliefs of Bullinger that don't square with scripture [I can point to a few]; however, these beliefs may or may not be represented in the footnotes or Appendii in the Companion Bible.

With respect to Mark 16:16, his footnote regarding the word 'baptized' directs one to App. 115, I, 1. Here is the link -

http://www.biblestudysite.com/cbapend.htm

As one can see, this appendix simply addresses the 80 uses of 'baptize' in the NT. Nothing therein can remotely be attributed to a teaching that "baptism = regeneration".

So, your comment is found to be completely errant and reeks from lack of scholarly research. Like any of man's works, there are errors; however, the Companion Bible is a very good work and a valuable study tool.

(Message edited by watchman_2 on January 02, 2008)

[watchman_2]

tatm,
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Did I get it right this time? Anyway, everyone living, including theologians of every type, would gloriously agree to drop the book of Mark in its entirity . . . provided!!<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Obviously, those who cannonized this book believed it was authentic.

Frankly, those of you who continue to argue by reference to the so-called "theologian", whether pro or con on any issue, offer nothing of value to the discussion.

Most so-called "theologians" are simply religious hacks for their specific brand of heresy [unbiblical doctrine]. If they simply taught the Bible itself, instead of writing doctrinal papers supporting a sect's beliefs, these people would have more credibility.

There are few scholars more knowledgeable then Bullinger, who was the only Christian allowed by Ginsburg to proof the Massorah. If you own his work, he attests to the appropriateness of the Book of Mark.

As for the P/Cers, they routinely bastardize scripture and cannot be used a source for discrediting the Book of Mark. So, you will have to come up with something concrete scripturally as to why you believe the book is a fraud.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Watchman_2:

Kindly retract your fangs. They are not necessary.

Quoting: "Do you own a copy of the Companion Bible? If not, then how do you conclude from your analysis of this publication that Bullinger teaches baptism = regeneration therein the Companion Bible??"
End quote.

The doctrine of the Church of England is largely the doctrine of the Roman church. The greatest difference is the name of the pope. Prince Charles, as eldest patriarch of the Royal family, is the head of the Church of England. CoE holds to the same salvic formula as the church of Rome. That is how I know he taught Baptism = regeneration.

Quoting: "The fact is that there may be some beliefs of Bullinger that don't square with scripture [I can point to a few]; however, these beliefs may or may not be represented in the footnotes or Appendii in the Companion Bible."
End quote.

We can say the same thing for the Book of Mormons or the New World Translation (Watchtower Bible &amp; Tract Society) Bibles. To suggest that a person's doctrinal beliefs are not going to show up in his notes is simply ludicrous.

Quoting: "Obviously, those who cannonized this book believed it was authentic."
End quote.

The Book of Mark was canonized by the Roman church. Do you know why? Any idea what language they claim the book was written in?

Quoting: "Most so-called "theologians" are simply religious hacks for their specific brand of heresy [unbiblical doctrine]."
End quote.

Is it not reasonable to say the same for your chosen theologians (Ginsburg, Bullinger)?

Quoting: ". . . you believe the book is a fraud."
End quote.

Those, my dear friend, are your words, not mine. The only portion not in the original(??) manuscripts are verses 9 - 20 in chapter 16.

[xman3]

Come, someone tell me "what is the difference in snake handling and faked infantile gibberish?"

Yes. Snake handling is handling snakes. Faked infantile gibberish is baby talk.

Oh yeah. You don't want the comedy routine. The difference is one is based on 1 verse. One is based on many verses and the either correct or incorrect interpretation of many verses and the words of the apostle paul. One is practiced by millions, and the other by a few. One plays with a common symbol of the devil, a serpent, while the other is a private matter with many perceived benefits for ourselves and others.

IF gibberish was what tongues are, then in one sense, there is no difference, because it's just added useless religious activity. No one ever got bit by tongues and died though. I think that a tongue talker, should they be wrong, is no less or more a christian than I currently feel those who reject tongues as they are prcaticed is.

Bottom line is if I was to stop speaking in tongues, which may be unlikely of course, nothing changed except I decided to stop speaking in tongues. Big deal.

I know my views and such are not really what you are addressing because there are many who are far crazier and consumed with the crazy aspects of pentacostalism, but though my practice, experience, and view may not line up well with the prototype pentacostal you are either creating or attemting to reach, it doesn't change the core issue of my discussion as to whether tongues is gibberish or tongues. That part applies to my beliefs and theirs for the most part.

I mean I was talking to a "pastor" friend the other day and he was talking about people barking like dogs and some stuff that I've never seen. That is weird. I then asked him what his pastoral credentials are, like we ask you. He had no training but had a word from the Lord. That's not good either. there is weird stuff out there to be sure and there are indeed places and leaders that people ought to be "saved' from.

None of that is scriptural proof that tongues equals gibberish however. Just some of the many, many, examples of excess and flesh or soulishness that abounds in every denomination and arm of the modern church. Definitely not limited to p/c, as much as you want to believe it is, but more prevelant possibly.

I find your attitude and lack of personal credibility to be far stranger than tongues. It would be hard to overcome your bad attitude with a few answers, but you might gain a small measure of credibility if you would simply provide all the information asked for from you. You, at this point, are exactly the same as my friend who had no credentials and decided he was called and ready and jumped in with his 7 member church. It's as crazy for you to do it as a p/c, and unless shown otherwise, you are in the exact same boat reverand.

I could post a hundred insulting, inflexible, pompous things that have been said to me concerning tongues, all from the very people that keep claiming its the p/c who are like that. You might find 1 or 2 spots where I slipped and reciprocated, but when pointed out I follow with an apology as it's no better from either side.

When I reach impass, when what I believe and what they believe has basis, then I simply agree to disagree rather than try to insult my way to winning an argument with statements like "those anti-tongues folk don't listen to anyone while they just keep twistiung the word and blah, blah, blah...".

Christian character deals with people who intentionally twist scripture much different than those who innocently have misinterpreted scripture because of bad teaching, and poor study.

[oneway]

"I mean I was talking to a "pastor" friend the other day and he was talking
about people barking like dogs and some stuff that I've never seen. That is
weird."


xman3, check out this link. Take a look at some of these videos if you dare.
http://www.bible.ca/tongues-audio-video-documentation.htm

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Xman3:

Based exclusively on the numbers provided above, few people have dead of snake bites than have been killed by fake healers like Oral Roberts, Smith Wigglesworth, Benny Hinn and virtually every pentecostal preacher. Again I ask what is the difference in faked infantile gibberish and snake handling?

May I remind you?

"And <u>these signs shall</u> follow them that believe; In my name <u>shall they cast out devils</u>; they <u>shall speak with new tongues</u>; <u>They shall take up serpents</u>; and if they <u>drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them</u>; they <u>shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover</u>." Mark 16:17,18 (KJV).

Obviously, the emphasis is my own.

[spirit_fall_on_him]

Brother Oneway,

If all of us were in a church like that which one would make it to the door first. I think that TATM would not be the first one out. TATM would be laughing too hard and stay to pass out his scissor-cut Bibles to the needy.

[xman3]

tatm:

To my knowledge, and short of some evidence as usual with you, Oral Roberts, Smith Wiggelsworth, and Benny Hinn have never killed anybody. If you mean that some idiots took healing doctrine and chose to not get help despite their state and died, that is not only their fault, but is never preached by any of those mentioned. Possibly a blurb or two from a message could be twisted to say they did, but their real message includes the blessing of doctors and medicine. Given the things people like you accuse(who's that from) them of, they actually usually go out of their way to clarify that for your benefit.

[oneway]

"If all of us were in a church like that which one would make it to the door
first. I think that TATM would not be the first one out. TATM would be
laughing too hard and stay to pass out his scissor-cut Bibles to the needy.'


To be honest with you, I haven't viewed any of these videos, nor am I planning too. I read enough of the dialog to be very sad in my spirit. I found none of it amusing. These people, in the name of the Holy Spirit are mocking God. That is not good.
All of this is linked to the current times in the P/C circles.
I thank God with all of my being that he revealed the truth to me about the tongues I encountered some years ago. The enounter caused me to backslide, and during those backslidden years, satan literally tried to kill me twice. But thanks
to the Lord's mercy and grace, I was able to escape death both times.

[xman3]

oneway:

Unfortunately those are real player files and I do not have real player. I would like to see them though, but not by putting real player, a mild security risk on my computer. I'm kind of a computer security fanatic I suppose.

I personally have not determined the "Toronto blessing" is not of God or of God. I don't know. I'd just have to see the other stuff to make even a cursory judgement call on it, though that would be subjective to an extent. I don't adhere to any notion that God only manifests Himself in ways we see examples of clearly in the New Testament. Obviously, I also don't believe that every claimed manifestation is God either. I have my opinions, but that's primarily what they are.

[watchman_2]

tatm,

Kindly admit that you are wrong with your comment regarding the Companion Bible. Your 'fangs' comment is unwarranted since I simply proved you to be in error.

The subject was/is not the Church of England, so why bother switching topics. A simple acknowledgement that you were in error is all that is needed.

Did you notice that I did not use the word 'theologian' with respect to Bullinger?? A scholar he was -- and that is undeniable.

The case is yours to prove why the Book of Mark should not be part of the inerrant Word of God. I am aware there are those that believe it should not; but, I have yet to see a legitimate scriptural basis therefor.

I don't want to hear about a bunch of 'theologians' -- just your scriptural basis for rejection.

[xman3]

tatm:

I see your point. I already answered you of course, and as usual. This one scripture, along with 1 lonely example of Paul being bitten by a snake is all they use. There is a lot more about tongues both said, and which at least I use to support my beliefs. They are quite different, unless this is the only verse one has to use, which by the way, does say what it says to add to the discussion.

As a sideline, I have read several of Bullinger's writings as referred to here at factnet, and have found them real good whether I agree with all of the conclusions or not. I find them particularly well supported using scripture to support scripture which is an approach I like. I've only seen a small amount though, and don't know or really think it matters what all of his beliefs are.

[easeltine]

Oneway,

Re: http://www.bible.ca/tongues-audio-video-documentation
.htm

Please consider that the only people connected with a Pentecostal denomination on this site is the Brownsville Revival, which is Assembly of God.
Toronto Airport was excommunicated from Vineyard by John Wimber for good reasons.
Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland are Word/Faith, not connected to a Pentecostal denomination.
Kenneth Copeland and that Rodney laughing guy are really over the top for me.

This group does not represent Pentecostalism.

They are like Kim Clement falsely prophesying 2 years ago that Hillary Clinton would not run for the Office of President, that she would have a Christian testimony, and many people would be saved through her testimony. Deut. 18:21 - That's a false prophet.

[oneway]

"Please consider that the only people connected with a Pentecostal
denomination on this site is the Brownsville Revival, which is Assembly of God."

easeltine, please explain the difference between the Pentecostal denoms and the Charismatic movements.
Years ago I belonged to a non-denom Charismatic church. Even tho it wasn't labeled Pentecostal, it may as well have been, in my eyes. That church pretty much taught doctrines that Penecostals taught. That church believed in speaking in tongues, healings, prayer cloth annointings, etc.

I remember one time when they offered a healing class for 5 bucks per member. Stupid me actually went to that class. Thinking back now, it was pretty much a joke that one could learn from a course, how to heal, and for only 5 bucks. BTW, I never saw anyone healed in that class nor did I enounter anyone that learned how to heal anyone after taking that class.
I remember when they offered annointed prayer cloths to those present. It was like a stampede taking place, people trying to get to those prayer cloths before they ran out of them.
Like I already stated, I praise God in heaven that he opened my eyes to what was really going on.

[easeltine]

Oneway,

These groups cannot even be called Charismatic, they should be termed Neo-Pentecostal.
Pentecostalism grew out of the Welsh Revival in 1904 and more specifically the Azusa Street Revival of 1906. It was standard theology at the time to believe in the secondary experience after salvation called, "The Baptism of the Holy Spirit", "Baptisms of the Spirit" (Finney), and "Seeking for the Spirit" (Evans Roberts and Rees Howells). The evidence before Pentecostalism is defined in the books, "What the Bible Teaches" and "The Baptism of the Holy Spirit" by R.A. Torrey, which is Gifts of the Holy Spirit in operation. What set Pentecostalism apart is that they believed that when one takes into account John 20, Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10, and Acts 19 that one of the main evidences of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in the N.T. was speaking in tongues. That is really the defining element of Pentecostalism. Divine healing was a gift in operation before 1906 in the Holiness movements etc., speaking in tongues was the diffentiation.

The Charismatic Movement refers to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, and the Charismata Gifts of the Holy Spirit found in 1 Cor. 12-14 being in operation in a denominational church. The Charismatic Movement first began in 1960 om St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, CA with Episcopalian pastor Dennis Bennet receiving, "The Baptism of the Holy Spirit" , with the evidence of speaking in tongues. The defining book for a Charismatic describing the Gifts of the Holy Spirit by Pastor Dennis Bennett and his wife, Rita Bennett is, "The Holy Spirit and You." There are many denominational people that are still Charismatics today, many are Southern Baptist.

The Vineyard Movement is a group founded by John Wimber that grew from Calvary Chapel. Calvary Chapel is very dry now compared to what the churches were during the 60's and 70's. The Vineyard Churches believe in The Baptism of the Holy Spirit at salvation, not as a secondary experience, but they believe in the release of the Spirit and practice Spiritual Gifts.

The Toronto Blessing Movement was originally a Vineyard Church. The problem with these churches was not just people uncontrollably laughing, but they would allow anything unchecked, and had kids, unqualified people praying for others. They were excommunicated before John Wimber died.

I have a problem with spiritual gifts that are not found in Scripture. I have a load of problem with the bunch of false prophecy that is out there.

[xman3]

Oneway: Pardon me but that story is actually funny, though scary. 5 bucks for all that would have saved me a lot of grief over the years. My current favorite is the miracle spring water some guy is peddling. What a sad example we see.

Sadly, these ridiculous scams and charades detract from the reality that God really does heal yet today, though He does not need a vial of miracle spring water to do it.

I tend to agree with you that in general, charismatic churches and pentacostal churches are the same. Pentacostal somehow in my mind, indicates a sort of old time charismatic holy roller church, whereas charismatic seems to refer to a more modernesque version. Like every denomination, they both have their good and bad and their similarities. Semantically, they are exactly the same in many posts though.

easeltine; Good posts. To me, the toronto blessing equaled that holy laughter. I didn't know any of the other stuff since it just wasn't anything I ever personally encountered or thought about.

I agree with the prophecy thing. It's about as bad as the money abuse. I reserve judgement on some things that may not specifically be exampled in the Bible, but some of what I've heard here is way out there. It's just that though it may be out there, in my 20 + years as a pentacostal, I have only seen a very small amount of this personally, despite a wide variety of socialization and fellowship with thousands of charismatics and hundreds of churches. A church that shared all the excesses claimed here would be a place everyone should avoid.

Our group had some practices that were not very good. Though I don't agree with much of what went on in retrospect, I also saw only a small % of really crazy stuff. There was some though, and how much is subject to opinion as mcm and matt would certainly paint a far scarier picture. They would know too, because they were my leadershttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif. We saw lot's of "excorcisms". Why I'll bet each of us had at least 20 of them devils cast out of us back then.

Looking back, and even in it's current form, I see serious problems with prophetic manipulation however. It's not intentional or even insincere I suppose, but prophecies are supposed to actually come to pass. Even a pentacostal expects the important ones to occur at least a large % of the time.

Lots of lives were affected through "prophetic" words and ministry, and I may never know how significant this is untill the big day. I'm in a personal quandry as to how to balance these excesses and wrongs with my love and good memories I take from those years. I tend to not center on the bad, fondly remember the good, and refer to the sin in a generic sense rather than accusing any individuals. A lot of our problems were "cultural" anyway, which is not very supportive of my charismatic support here. They were, and are, a Christian group though.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Watchman_2:

Quoting: "The subject was/is not the Church of England, so why bother switching topics. A simple acknowledgement that you were in error is all that is needed."
End quote.

Nothing quiet like a little arrogant belligerence. Your theologian, Bullinger, was a theologian and pastor in the Church of England. I am sorry you didnot know who you were bragging about. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about him. "Ethelbert William Bullinger (December 15, 1837 - June 6, 1913) was an Anglican clergyman, Biblical scholar, and dispensationalist theologian." That is a direct quote from Wikipedia. Though, Wikipedia has been discredited on numerous occasions, you will be this information to be accurate.

Quoting: "The case is yours to prove why the Book of Mark should not be part of the inerrant Word of God."
End quote.

Again, my dear friend, those are your words, not mine. You prove the Book of Mark does not belong in the Bible. I said Mark 16:9 - 20 are not in the better manuscripts, period.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Xman3:

Think carefully and answer my question.

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; <u>they shall speak with new tongues</u>; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Mark 16:17,18 (KJV)

Did God say this, Yes or No?

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; <u>They shall take up serpents</u>; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Mark 16:17,18 (KJV).

Did God say this? Yes or No.

You claim you can show me one "verse" many times. Please do so . . . OK I will settle for just once. Show me either:

1. "they shall speak with new tongues;" or
2. "They shall take up serpents;"

Book, chapter and verse please.

[matt_hatter]

Ladies and Gentlemen:
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
DeeDeeDeeDee...DeeDeeDeeDee...

[xman3]

Yes, God said that.

I have no idea what you are talking about, this 1 verse mystery. I said they (snake handlers) base their theology on 1 verse. 2 if you count Paul getting ACCIDENTLY bit.

I have many verses and spend a lot of time on factnet already quoting them and talking about them so I think perhaps you've had too much sweet wine this morning like they thought those other apostles did.

[watchman_2]

tatm,

If you recall, I wrote nothing about agreeing or disagreeing with Bullinger's theology per se. I do find error in a few places in his footnotes in the appendii and footnotes in the Companion Bible. As a scholar, few surpass him.

However, the point to which I responded was your recommendation to not use the Companion Bible due to the inclusion of baptism = regeneration in Mark 16:16. No such teaching exists in the Companion Bible.

Now, I proved you to be in error regarding that point and expect you to have the common decency to admit your error.

His theology and the Church of England are not pertinent to your comment regarding the Companion Bible.

Sir, it is you that are quite arrogant! Just admit your error and go forward.

With respect to his theology, I will be happy to discuss that with you as well. But first, let's have your acknowledgement of error regarding the Companion Bible.

[arron]

i ma not in any way connected with the brownsville revival movement. neither is my church i have been and still am pentecostal. i di not believe in the jerking and shakinmg they do in the brownsville revival. we shout and praise THE LORD in our church. we speak in tongues and practice all the other gifts as THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD directs us too. we are in no way connected with the chrasmatic movement which teach you HOW to speak in tongues and HOW to dance. all that is not in THE SPIRIT and is not OF GOD and should be avoided.

[watchman_2]

tatm,

Regarding Mark 16:9-20, your point that the "better" manuscripts do not include these verses. Well, that point lacks foundation and proof.

The real question is whether these verses are an addition or an omission with later addition back into the manuscripts. Bullinger studied this and reported his findings in Appendix 168 of the Companion Bible.

Bullinger relied upon the work of Dean Burgon:

1. The oldest manuscripts are of the 4th century A.D. and do not include these 12 verses.

2. The oldest Bible version is the Syriac of the 2nd century, which predates all known manuscripts, and contains the 12 verses.

The Vetus Itala [2nd century], which was the precursor to the Vulgate contained them. The Egyptian Sahidic [3rd century] included them as well.

As for the church Fathers, there are many references to these verses that predate your "best" manuscripts. See the listing in Appendix 168.

So, the "best" evidence that we have today is that these 12 verses were in older manuscripts no longer extant, then omitted as of the oldest extant 4th century manuscripts, then later added back into the scriptures.

Unless you have proof of older manuscripts without these verses, can detail the conspiracy to add these verses, and can discredit all of the writings of the early Fathers whom directly quoted these verses, the viewers will likely conclude that your denial of these 12 scriptures is born out of a lack of scholarship due to your religious-hack beliefs.

So, it is up to you to substantiate your position so that the viewer does not conclude that you are just another religious hack -- just like those you refer to as the pseudo-christian cult of Pentacostalism.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Watchman_2:

Your religious hack (Bullinger) is no better than any other religious hack. I stand strongly by my recommendation to avoid the Companion Bible like the plague. Apparently, many scholars agree with me. I can find no one knowledgeable of scripture who supports Bullinger's Companion Bible. I would just as strongly recommend the use of the Open Study Bible for anyone looking for solid information.

The Companion Bible falls short in the very category you defined (religious hack). Dr. Bullinger is closely associated with Herbert W. Armstrong. That by itself is enough to convince most people to avoid his work. Nonetheless, the Companion Bible is the work of one man and as such is limited to the knowledge of one man. The Open Study Bible's notes, on the other hand, were written by different people. Then edited by several to insure the best and most uptodate information available.

Quoting: "No such teaching exists in the Companion Bible."
End quote.

You certainly will find Acts 2:38 in the Companion Bible. Or I would, again, highly recommend you throw that Bible away.

Quoting: ". . . there are many references to these verses that predate your "best" manuscripts."
End quote.

Please show me the dates of my "best" manuscripts. In fact, why not start by showing me a list of manuscripts I have identified.






























Oh. by the by, anyone with enough sense to read your post, clearly sees why no theologian worth his salt would built a doctrine on the longer ending to Mark.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Come, Mr. Xman3:

Did God really say it?

[xman3]

Well it's in my Bible so I say yes. You can believe what you want.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Xman3:

Tis not a question of what I believe. I believe every word in God's (w)Holy Inspired Inerrant Word for the Ages. So, now that you admit God said it, why don't you believe God? Oh, yeah! I am still waiting for one single verse of scripture.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. MCMSTAFF78:

Your 1800 year calculation is way off. I suggest you do some research outside the Roman church. I would, also, recommend you not place a great deal of faith in Wikipedia. But, then, I am not deseperate to defend my religion. So I will keep me mouth shut.

[saygoodnightgracie]

"But, then, I am not deseperate to defend my religion."

That's the first intelligent thing I've read that you wrote... careful, you might ruin your reputation.

[watchman_2]

tatm,

It appears that you are just another religious hack -- just like those you fondly label as the pseudo-christian cult of Pentacostalism. It is obvious that you cannot adequately document or support your positions so that the viewer can be impelled to believe you.

In addition, your effort to dance around your own ill-placed comment that was proven to be errant further damages what little credibility you might have here.

It seems that your ultimate argument on any issue is a reliance upon the ubiquitous concept of most 'theologians' or most 'scholars'. This argument lacks specifics and foundation and, hence, is meaningless. You will never convince anyone of any position with such vain arguments.

So, I will accord you another opportunity to show the viewer you are not a religious hack:

1. <u>Companion Bible</u> - You originally recommended that people avoid the Companion Bible because Bullinger taught therein that, in Mark 16:16, the word 'baptism' = regeneration. Did you tell the truth or did you lie?

2. <u>Mark 16:9-20</u> - You stated that the 'better' manuscripts delete these scriptures. I have provided information to the viewer that there were earlier manuscripts, no longer extant, that contained those scriptures. What manuscripts are you relying upon for your comment and how do you counter the writings of the early church Fathers?

Regarding your last post to me above, I never discussed the theology of the last 12 verses of Mark. So, spare me the 'theologian worth his salt' comment. It is ill-placed like most of your comments.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Watchman_2

You, my friend, are carrying on an ill-fated argument with thine self.

Quoting: "2. Mark 16:9-20 - You stated that the 'better' manuscripts delete these scriptures. I have provided information to the viewer that there were earlier manuscripts, no longer extant, that contained those scriptures. What manuscripts are you relying upon for your comment and how do you counter the writings of the early church Fathers?"
End quote.

Show me the manuscripts I quoted so I may determine whose manuscript is the earliest. Please provide exact information especially post number. Thank you.

[mcmstaff78]

T{not}ATM - you keep writing, but you make no sense. You really should try again. To the best of my recollection, you provided exactly one reference to support your belief that the Gospel of St. Mark is to be identified with the spurious "Gospel" to St. Peter, and even the reference you provided did not make the same case you make.

As for the 1800 years, please demonstrate for me where, prior to 1800, the Majority, or Byzantine, Text was not accepted as authoritative.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. mcmstaff78

Quoting: "As for the 1800 years, please demonstrate for me where, prior to 1800, the Majority, or Byzantine, Text was not accepted as authoritative."
End quote.

Let me get this straight . . . do you really think I am going to bother disproving your claim? So that you can declared "those sources have been discredited. Does been there done that mean anything to you?

[watchman_2]

tatm,
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

You, my friend, are carrying on an ill-fated argument with thine self. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Obviously, you are correct as you are incapable of carrying on an intelligent discussion. You keep writing; but, you make no sense.

I provided documentation that the oldest manuscripts date back to the 4th century, which did not include the last 12 verses of Mark. However, the early church fathers did quote these verses in their writings that predate these 4th century manuscripts. I also provided documentation of Bible renderings, which include these verses and also predate these manuscripts.

So, it is up to you to clarify your comment regarding 'better' manuscripts by documenting what manuscripts you are referring to and the date thereof.

Your continual commentary, unsupported with documentation, is meaningless. Either back up what you state or all will know that you belong to a pseudo-christian cult and are nothing but a religious hack.

Now, you did not address point 1 in my prior post. What is your answer?

[mcmstaff78]

T(not)ATM - as far as I can tell, you've never "bothered" disproving anyone's "claim" regarding the factual errors you make. You simply use ridicule and sarcasm and are dismissive of any evidence presented that is contrary to your little pet beliefs. Your biblical "scholarship" is laughable and I can find no reputable scholars, whether Protestant, "Roman", or otherwise, that support your position. As I wrote, even what you offer has not argued what you asserted it does. You demonstrate your inability to engage in honest intellectual discourse with every post and thread in which you participate. Your "engagement" with watchman-2 on this thread is just the latest example.

[xman3]

Obviously, you are correct as you are incapable of carrying on an intelligent discussion.

Now where have I heard that before tatm. Maybe if enough people tell you the same thing, you will consider it's validity and engage in real discussion. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif Right.

[easeltine]

Watchman,

The Quest Study Bible I have, and the NIV both state that there is a manuscript CA 200 AD that doesn't contain the 12 verses in Mark 16. Those footnotes have been there for 30 years. They don't tell me what the manuscript is.

I asked my grandfather a long time ago the question, "What do I say to the person that says that these verses in Mark 16 are not in the original manuscript." He said, "You tell them that these Scriptures are consistent with the rest of the Bible, and God left them in there for a reason."

That's coming from a Lutheran minister.

[mcmstaff78]

Please note that older doesn't necessarily mean "better" in terms of ancient manuscripts - "better" in this sense meaning closer to the original. Consider, scrolls and codices were handwritten and were quite expensive to produce. When mistakes were made, the work was not simply discarded, for the material might be used later, or the part that was not in error might still be considered worthwhile to keep. However, copies that were accurate were used, and these wore out. And equally valid presupposition (and some would argue far more valid based on the above) is that the older scraps of codices and scrolls that are extent are actually of copies in which errors had crept in and so they would placed to the side and not used. The question one must ask is if some of these older codices more accurately represent the original autographs, why are they not also the most numerous? No, there is very good and legitimate reasons for adhering to the authenticity and authority of the Majority or Byzantine text.

[watchman_2]

easeltine,

From information that I heard, there are extant 5,325 [not sure of these numbers] Greek NT manuscripts. The NIV comprises 45 manuscripts that were found in a trash bin in Egypt. As to the dating of these 45 manuscripts, I haven't a clue.

Also, I don't know when these manuscripts were discovered. Bullinger died about 100 years ago and relied upon the work of his predecessor, Burgon. These manuscripts that you refer to may have been discoverd after Bullinger's death.

Notwithstanding the oldest manuscript, mcmstaff's point above should always be considered in evaluating manuscripts. IMO, there are many other errors in the NIV as well.

Until TATM declares which manuscripts he considers to be 'better', we don't have a basis for discussion and/or resolution as to the last 12 verses of Mark. I believe they should be included; but, I don't agree with the p/c interpretation thereof.

Of course, there has been corruption of the OT as well.

[arron]

i thought the new year would bring a closer unity of people here of which i am a part and i will say that i too have argued with you at different times. i do take this time to wish you all , no i pray you all have a very happy new year lets do our best in 2008 to win souls to THE LORD JESUS that is after all what it is all about

[easeltine]

Everybody,

These posts remind me of the posts from the Textus Receptus, KJV-Only crowd. It's rather an interesting topic. This is why my favorite translation is the NKJV, since it uses a version of the Textus Receptus, and puts footnotes verses that are different in the older manuscripts. I also like the NKJV because it capitalizes the personal pronouns when pertaining to Deity, something that almost all the others do not, including KJV. NASB also does. I probably have too many different Translations of the Bible at home.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Watchman_2:

Quoting: "You, my friend, are carrying on an ill-fated argument with thine self.

Quoting: "2. Mark 16:9-20 - You stated that the 'better' manuscripts delete these scriptures. I have provided information to the viewer that there were earlier manuscripts, no longer extant, that contained those scriptures. What manuscripts are you relying upon for your comment and how do you counter the writings of the early church Fathers?"
End quote.

Show me the manuscripts I quoted so I may determine whose manuscript is the earliest. Please provide exact information especially post number. Thank you."

Mr. Watchman_2, sir, you are the one who keeps declaring yourself right and most holy. Now answer my question. Which manuscripts did I quote< post # please. I am more than capable of determining which is oldest. It is simple math. So the ball is in your court. Admit you made a fool of yourself, or show me the post.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. MCMSTAFF78:

May I apologize? I do believe you misunderstood my comment. The Byzantine, or Majority Text is, in fact, considered to be without error (with qualifications). What 'quaifications'? <font size="+2">IF</font> someone bows their knee to the pope of the Roman church. Outside your self, Mr. Pro610 is the only other poster who lives that religion that I am aware of.

[watchman_2]

tatm,

You are certainly a liar! Show me where I claimed to be 'holy' at all or "most holy" as you claim.

The fact remains that you cannot maintain an intelligent conversation. It is you that claimed the "better" manuscripts do not include the last 12 verses of Mark. We simply wish to know which manuscripts you are relying upon for your claim.

So, quit dancing around the issue and provide the answer. You also have not anwered my question as to whether you lied or told the truth regarding your claim that Bullinger teaches within the Comapanion Bible that the word 'baptism' in Mark 16:16 means 'regeneration'.

Let's get your acknowledgement that you are a liar!

[easeltine]

TATM,

You are truly incredible! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/blush.gif

[mcmstaff78]

T(not)ATM - what is it that you cannot understand when I write that I am not "Roman Catholic" and hold absolutely no allegiance or fidelity to the Latin Pope?

Watchman is correct, you cannot maintain an intelligent conversation, you cannot even maintain a coherent one. Honestly, I think you are probably just some adolescent boy (like TRS is an adolescent girl), and all your anecdotes are simple virtual flummery.

[easeltine]

I think that TATM is a real, pure Dispensationalist, a Fundamentalist that rejects all "Church History" from 70 A.D. until Protestantism 1517 A.D. when Luther nailed the 95 Theses. A belief that the entire "Church History" has been corrupted by the Catholic Church. There may not be an understanding of the meaning of terminology such as, "Majority Text", "Byzantine Text", "Textus Receptus", "Textual Critism", and even "Roman Catholicism" vs. "Eastern Orthodoxy".

It isn't a matter of maintaining a coherent conversation, it's a matter of not being sure what is and what is not the truth, since the Catholic Church has corrupted things.

[mcmstaff78]

I would agree that the "Catholic church", meaning the Latins, "corrupted things", but not nearly so early as many Protestants are wont to do. Luther certainly didn't believe so.

The Latin Church began its slide from Orthodoxy in the 6th century and really culminated it in the 12th. The ironic thing for Protestants is that many of the truly fundamental errors introduced in the West through the Frankish elevation of Augustinianism, continue on in Protestantism.

But I agree, it is difficult to discuss such things with those who either are ignorant of, or blatantly obfuscate historic facts as well as the common understanding of words and terms.