Pentecostalism's sketchy origins
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I want discussion, of course I want a discussion, but not a debate or argument; I'm afraid you're very wrong sir.
Discussions have no winners or losers. Discussions are a search for the truth. Debaters are the only ones concerned about winning.
Maybe you should go back and read my OP. I said not one word about Azusa. Other people, who also probably skimmed my post, started posting about Azusa.
Discussions have no winners or losers. Discussions are a search for the truth. Debaters are the only ones concerned about winning.
Maybe you should go back and read my OP. I said not one word about Azusa. Other people, who also probably skimmed my post, started posting about Azusa.
S
oh my lands
are you playing games? this has been gone over so many times I guess you fell asleep reading it
but you do have a Bible, right? I know if I am sincere about something you betcha I will RESEARCH it for myself. Actually, that is how I did receive the gift of speaking in tongues
huh. years ago
are you playing games? this has been gone over so many times I guess you fell asleep reading it
but you do have a Bible, right? I know if I am sincere about something you betcha I will RESEARCH it for myself. Actually, that is how I did receive the gift of speaking in tongues
huh. years ago
Yes, i have a bible, Kjv, Elberfelder, Luther, New Genver, And in non of them I can read that it was taught to believers that speaking in tongues is the proof that someone has received the Holy Spirit.
In history I first found it taught from topeka and Azusa.
I know you useing Acts 2,8,10 and 19 for to defend this man made theologie. But you then takeing this out of the context and miss the purpose why its written down.
In 1. Cor. 12-14 you cant find this teaching. And these are the chapters you would expect to find it.
In comparing between speaking in tongues and prophecie Paul is prefering that someone
Should rather search to prophecie then speaking in tongues.
Further Paul is telling that speaking in tongues is justva gift like others. And it is not given to all believers, like the other gifts also not given to every believer.
So I wonder how people can claim that this is taught in the bible that speaking in tongues is the proof that someone is given the Holy Spirit.
In history I first found it taught from topeka and Azusa.
I know you useing Acts 2,8,10 and 19 for to defend this man made theologie. But you then takeing this out of the context and miss the purpose why its written down.
In 1. Cor. 12-14 you cant find this teaching. And these are the chapters you would expect to find it.
In comparing between speaking in tongues and prophecie Paul is prefering that someone
Should rather search to prophecie then speaking in tongues.
Further Paul is telling that speaking in tongues is justva gift like others. And it is not given to all believers, like the other gifts also not given to every believer.
So I wonder how people can claim that this is taught in the bible that speaking in tongues is the proof that someone is given the Holy Spirit.
Just because you are a mod, doesn't mean you can break every forum rule to be kind to others in the forum, or more important, to love our neighbour as ourselves, and to forgive others, not 7 times, but 7 x 77 times. You are supposed to show leadership in this forum, not hatred. You are also escalating! You are getting more and more angry - which is a sin, according to Gal. 5:19-21.
"The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
I did not read Aidan calling you a "Devil" because you speak in tongues, but I might have missed it. Still, he speaks in general terms, and he checks out the bible, (in context) as I do. You can do whatever you want if it is appropriate in your church, but that does not make it Biblical. Tongues was dead from the end of the first century AD, till the beginning of the 20th century. If it is so true that tongues are biblical, then why did tongues die out? Are tongues really for today, or is this just another fad or band wagon, where people delude themselves they are closer to God because they speak in tongues? Because everyone else is!
I am sure you have read my story, and concluding that after 15 years in Pentecostal churches that tongues was no longer for today. Partly that was the cacophony, the other part was the shallowness of the doctrine of what was being taught. Someone earlier said something about evangelicals, really Reformed, need to teach doctrine to Pentecostals. I totally agree with that. One of the reasons I concluded that tongues was wrong, was because I read the Bible from cover to cover every year. So, when I went to church, I was not hearing preaching that covered much more than Acts 2, and associated verses. When I moved to evangelical churches, I suddenly heard the whole Bible and all doctrine being taught.
Having a one time experience with the Holy Spirit, is simply not what the Bible teaches about sanctification. It is a progression, the Holy Spirit leads us, and we follow those instructions, and grow closer to God in knowledge and love. (And remember, in the NT, the Bible was not even written in Acts, and tongues were given for people who had no way of learning about God!)
"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12:2
"Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit."
In Romans 12:2, the key word is μεταμορφοῦσθε, or metamorphousthe, which is the present, imperative passive. it means "to be transformed in your innermost nature" It is the permissive passive and the theological passive meaning "Let yourselves be transformed by God" In other words, we are commanded to let God change us - we are commanded to cooperate with God.
In 2 Cor. 3:18, the key word is μεταμορφούμεθα or metamorphoumetha, which is present indicative passive, and means "to transform, to change the inward reality to something else.
Notice that both words in bold in these two passages are from the same root word, μεταμορφόω, from which we get our English word "metamorphosis" which also means to transform, going from one form to another. That is simply not accomplished in one day, by the so-called "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" (the Bible never uses the noun "baptism" with the words "of the Holy Spirit." Rather the verb form of "baptizing" is what is always used.) The Pentecostal churches I attended never taught that. It was all about a one time, when supposedly you spoke in tongues, and you get a greater portion of the Spirit. But by saying it is a one time thing, it literally destroys the ideas that we have the Holy Spirit from the moment we are saved, and that same Spirit leads, guides, encourages, and is our advocate in transforming who we are. Romans 12:2 also points out that we must "renew our minds" which means reading the Bible, and learning to think the thoughts and the ways that God has given for us.
That is why Pentecostals seem to be shallow, at least to me. I don't see a mechanism for real growth, without emphasizing the important disciplines like Bible reading, prayer, meditation on the Word of God, fellowship, mentorship, etc. Those are the things that renew us, and transform us into the image of God. That is what the Bible commands, when Paul is talking to us, not when Luke is writing down his observations, in Acts. So basically, I do not think the theology of this "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" is solid, and it actually turns people away from the real way to be closer to God, and grow in the Christian faith. And that is transformation!
You may think I am just supporting Aidan because we agree on theology. In fact, we disagree completely about women in ministry. We argued extensively in a thread, and he gave me a run for my money! Yet, not once did either of us call the other one a name, or even insult one another. We kept it a Bible Discussion, and shared Bible verses, in context. The problem with all the verses people love to quote as supporting the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" is that they are out of context. They may be within a passage, but the context of who these verses were written to - Theophilus - and the NT church. It never says it is talking to the church 2000 years in the future, but rather, Luke says "about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen" Acts 1:1-2. In other words, it is a history lesson, with no instructions even to do the things mentioned in the book, but more to keep a record for his friend, who was not there, like the book of Luke. There is no mention of a church in far away countries and 2 millennia of years in the future.
Finally, I would really appreciate it, CS1, if you would stop using your position as a mod, to berate people, and call them names. Even if you think they called you names, first, when they were just generalizing. Learn to forgive, and act like a mature Christian, rather than a mean, hostile person in this forum. Be an example to the new Christians, and those of us who have been Christians most of our adult lives. The verses after calling out what the sins are in Galatians 5, are the fruits of the Holy Spirit. You would do well to memorize the following passage, and try to practice it.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, goodness, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." Gal. 5:22-23
"The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
I did not read Aidan calling you a "Devil" because you speak in tongues, but I might have missed it. Still, he speaks in general terms, and he checks out the bible, (in context) as I do. You can do whatever you want if it is appropriate in your church, but that does not make it Biblical. Tongues was dead from the end of the first century AD, till the beginning of the 20th century. If it is so true that tongues are biblical, then why did tongues die out? Are tongues really for today, or is this just another fad or band wagon, where people delude themselves they are closer to God because they speak in tongues? Because everyone else is!
I am sure you have read my story, and concluding that after 15 years in Pentecostal churches that tongues was no longer for today. Partly that was the cacophony, the other part was the shallowness of the doctrine of what was being taught. Someone earlier said something about evangelicals, really Reformed, need to teach doctrine to Pentecostals. I totally agree with that. One of the reasons I concluded that tongues was wrong, was because I read the Bible from cover to cover every year. So, when I went to church, I was not hearing preaching that covered much more than Acts 2, and associated verses. When I moved to evangelical churches, I suddenly heard the whole Bible and all doctrine being taught.
Having a one time experience with the Holy Spirit, is simply not what the Bible teaches about sanctification. It is a progression, the Holy Spirit leads us, and we follow those instructions, and grow closer to God in knowledge and love. (And remember, in the NT, the Bible was not even written in Acts, and tongues were given for people who had no way of learning about God!)
"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12:2
"Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit."
In Romans 12:2, the key word is μεταμορφοῦσθε, or metamorphousthe, which is the present, imperative passive. it means "to be transformed in your innermost nature" It is the permissive passive and the theological passive meaning "Let yourselves be transformed by God" In other words, we are commanded to let God change us - we are commanded to cooperate with God.
In 2 Cor. 3:18, the key word is μεταμορφούμεθα or metamorphoumetha, which is present indicative passive, and means "to transform, to change the inward reality to something else.
Notice that both words in bold in these two passages are from the same root word, μεταμορφόω, from which we get our English word "metamorphosis" which also means to transform, going from one form to another. That is simply not accomplished in one day, by the so-called "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" (the Bible never uses the noun "baptism" with the words "of the Holy Spirit." Rather the verb form of "baptizing" is what is always used.) The Pentecostal churches I attended never taught that. It was all about a one time, when supposedly you spoke in tongues, and you get a greater portion of the Spirit. But by saying it is a one time thing, it literally destroys the ideas that we have the Holy Spirit from the moment we are saved, and that same Spirit leads, guides, encourages, and is our advocate in transforming who we are. Romans 12:2 also points out that we must "renew our minds" which means reading the Bible, and learning to think the thoughts and the ways that God has given for us.
That is why Pentecostals seem to be shallow, at least to me. I don't see a mechanism for real growth, without emphasizing the important disciplines like Bible reading, prayer, meditation on the Word of God, fellowship, mentorship, etc. Those are the things that renew us, and transform us into the image of God. That is what the Bible commands, when Paul is talking to us, not when Luke is writing down his observations, in Acts. So basically, I do not think the theology of this "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" is solid, and it actually turns people away from the real way to be closer to God, and grow in the Christian faith. And that is transformation!
You may think I am just supporting Aidan because we agree on theology. In fact, we disagree completely about women in ministry. We argued extensively in a thread, and he gave me a run for my money! Yet, not once did either of us call the other one a name, or even insult one another. We kept it a Bible Discussion, and shared Bible verses, in context. The problem with all the verses people love to quote as supporting the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" is that they are out of context. They may be within a passage, but the context of who these verses were written to - Theophilus - and the NT church. It never says it is talking to the church 2000 years in the future, but rather, Luke says "about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen" Acts 1:1-2. In other words, it is a history lesson, with no instructions even to do the things mentioned in the book, but more to keep a record for his friend, who was not there, like the book of Luke. There is no mention of a church in far away countries and 2 millennia of years in the future.
Finally, I would really appreciate it, CS1, if you would stop using your position as a mod, to berate people, and call them names. Even if you think they called you names, first, when they were just generalizing. Learn to forgive, and act like a mature Christian, rather than a mean, hostile person in this forum. Be an example to the new Christians, and those of us who have been Christians most of our adult lives. The verses after calling out what the sins are in Galatians 5, are the fruits of the Holy Spirit. You would do well to memorize the following passage, and try to practice it.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, goodness, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." Gal. 5:22-23
-
1
-
1
- Show all
This is long, but please bear with me!
In the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, Mark’s Gospel ends with verse 8. Such an abrupt ending has perplexed readers for centuries. Many argue that Mark would have not left the narrative hanging and must have continued with a fuller picture of what happened next. They point to several problems with this ending:
1. It seems unusual, if not impossible in Greek to end a paragraph, let alone a book with the conjunction “for” or ἐξελθοῦσαι γαρ “for they were afraid.”
2. It seems unusual to end the story with the women paralyzed by fear and failing to carry out what the angel commissioned them to do.
3. It seems peculiar that Mark would not include some account of Jesus’ meeting his disciples in Galilee since the resurrection appearances were a basic element of Christian preaching from the beginning (see 1 Cor. 15:5)
These objections do not carry the verdict, however. The grammar may be thought to be graceless, like ending an English sentence with a proposition, but Mark is not known for his elegant style, and verse 8 is a complete thought. The shorter and longer endings of Mark have the women informing the disciples about what they have seen, which appears to contradict the statement that “they said nothing to anyone.” The restoration of the “scattered disciples” occurs beyond the narrative of the Gospel.
Convincing arguments tell against the longer ending (16:9-20) as the longer ending to Mark. The 2 oldest manuscripts omit it, along with many versions and the early church fathers show no knowledge of its existence. The longer ending’s vocabulary and style differ strikingly from that found in the rest of Mark, and are immediately recognizable. The transition between 16:8 and 16:9 is also awkward. In 16:8, the women are the subject. The subject suddenly switches to Jesus in 16:9, when he appears to Mary Magdalene, completely ignoring the other 2 woman. Mary Magdalene is specifically identified as the one from whom Jesus had cast out 7 demons (see Luke 8:2), although she had already been introduced in 15:40, 47, and 16:1 without any such description. Why would the 4th mention of Mary Magdalene suddenly introduce this background? It serves as a tip-off that a later scribe, drawing on other traditions, has added this section.
Moreover, all of the material in 16:9-20 appears to be garnered from accounts found in 3 other gospels, the appearance to Mary Magdalene, (16:9-20; cf John 20:14-18); the appearance to 2 disappointed disciples in the country (Mark 16:12-12; cf Luke 24:13-35); the commissioning of the disciples, (Mark 16:14-16; cf Matt. 28:16-20); speaking in tongues (Mark 16:17; cf Acts 2:4-11; 10:46; 19:6); handling snakes (Mark 16:18aw; cf Luke 10:19); laying on of hands (Mark 16: 18b; Acts 3:1-10; 5:12-16; 9:12, 17-18; James 5:14-15) the ascension of Jesus (Mark 16:19; cf Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-11). That a later scribe compiled these excerpts from the other Gospels to provide an orthodox and more satisfactory conclusion to Mark’s Gospel is the most likely explanation. Even the longer ending has been subject to tinkering. Sixteen lines of text that describe Jesus’ upbraiding of his disciples and his outlining an eschatological scheme have been appended to 16:14 in on ancient fragment.
In other words, the longer ending of Mark adds nothing new. It could easily have been patched together by a later scribe, using the existing manuscripts.
Further, the manuscripts of the books of the New Testament, are normally show remarkable agreement of the text. The notorious exception to this rule, is the ending of Mark, which presents the gravest textual problem in the NT. The two oldest and most important manuscripts of the Bible, Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (א) omit 16:9-20, as do several translations or early versions, including Old Latin, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts. Neither Clement of Alexandria nor Origen or shows any awareness of the existence of the longer ending, and Eusebius and Jerome attest that vv-9-20 were absent from the majority of the Greek copies of Mark known to them.
The inclusion of vv9-20 in many manuscripts is accounted for rather by the fact that the longer ending, which must have been added quite early, was naturally included in subsequent copies of the Gospel of Mark. Many of the ancient manuscripts that do contain the longer ending, however, indicate by scribal notes or various markings that the ending is regarded as a spurious ending to the gospel. External evidence thus argues strongly against the originality of the longer ending.
Internal evidence notes that in vv. 9-20 Jesus is for the first time in Mark referred to as “The Lord Jesus” or simply “The Lord” v. 20, rather than Mark’s custom of calling Jesus by his given name. Such reverential nomenclature likely derives from later Christian worship. Particularly noticeable is the number of new words that appear nowhere else in Mark. In the so-called shorter ending of Mark, nine of the 34 words are new, and in the longer ending, there are an additional 18 words that otherwise do not appear in Mark, plus several unique word forms and syntactical constructions. Several of Mark’s signature stylistic features are likewise absent from the longer ending. The longer ending also includes themes peculiar to itself, some of which contradict Markan themes. This includes:
1. The repeated chastisement of the disciples for their “disbelief” (vv 11, 24, 16)
2. The gospel proclamation (Greek Kerygma; vv. 11, 13, 14, 15, 16-18, 20) is unique to the longer ending.
3. The prominence given to charismatic signs in vv. 17-18 stands in stark contrast to the reserve of Jesus in Mark with regard to signs and sensations (cf Mark 8:11-13).
External and internal evidence necessitates the conclusion that 16:9-20 is not the original ending of Mark, but rather a later addition to the Gospel. The longer ending is a patchwork of resurrection appearances (or summaries) taken from the three other Gospels, the chief theme of which is the unbelief of the disciples. Although this longer ending is clearly written later, it is still very old. It is likely dated to the first decades of the 2nd century.
In conclusion, these are the arguments for what is the virtually unanimous verdict of modern textual scholarship, (examining manuscripts) that the authentic text of Mark available to us ends at Mark 16:8. w
Therefore, Mark 16:9-20 is a later, and in some cases, incongruous addition to the Gospel.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Edwards, James R. The Gospel According to Mark: The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Williams B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2002.
France, RT. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: NIGTC: The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2002.
Garland, David E. The NIV Application Commentary of Mark, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan, 1996.
Rogers, Cleon Jr & Rodgers, Cleon III. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Interesting!
So what Jesus taught is just temporary.
I guess NONE of us are saved then.
Didn't we base our Salvation on what Jesus said?
According to you, it's only a temporary time frame.
None of us are saved then
God's Word is not forever from your post you wrote
So what Jesus taught is just temporary.
I guess NONE of us are saved then.
Didn't we base our Salvation on what Jesus said?
According to you, it's only a temporary time frame.
None of us are saved then
God's Word is not forever from your post you wrote
Aidan never said we were temporarily saved. He believes, I know, because he is Reformed, that God saves us, and the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in us from the moment God saves us. And that is forever.
I dislike intensely when tongues are tied to salvation. First, because that is heretical! Certainly all the people between the 1st century AD and the 20th century were saved, even though no one spoke in tongues. Second, just because a fad started at Azusa Street in 1906, doesn't mean it supersedes Scripture. It is an experiential mov't, not based on good exegetical hermeneutics of the actual text of the Bible.
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”" Matt 25:46
"As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Mark 10:17
"26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”
27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
28 Then Peter spoke up, “We have left everything to follow you!”
29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life." Mark 10:26-30
Not one of the Scriptures in the Bible, including Acts, ever say you must speak in tongues to be saved. You are twisting words that Aidan did not say! Nor the rest of the non-charismatics.
I am Reformed, I believe in eternal security. I've been saved 41 years. I went to charismatic and Pentecostal churches and lay organizations for 15 years. Once I had read the Bible over 15 times, I realized how shallow and lacking Pentecostal doctrine was. But, I have never said a charismatic is not saved, and certainly the only way to judge salvation is by the confessing of Jesus to the world.
"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved." Romans 10:9-10
This passage in Romans 10 sums it up. Besides, this thread is arguing tongues, not soteriology. No idea why you ever brought it up, when most of the Reformed people I have met believe that the above passage is what is needed to be saved, and that God quickens this to our hearts!
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I have not broken any forum rules. Just because you can't take the truth of what I said without filters that on you. I really don't care what you think. You don't know Greek and you don't know the context of 1cor chapters 12 through 14. Your friend who has in many other thread on the gifts of the Holy Spirit has attacked many and trolls this topic all the time.
I have seen him many times speak ill to younger Christians like a bully and none of you said anything to him or others you AGREE WITH BIBLICALLY That makes you a hypocrite. So please spare me the self-righteousness ok, it is most taxing. Being a mod has nothing to do with my comments there are many very good mods who share your point of view who are able to make the point without call those like me a devil or practicing pagan which is ok for those who agree with you to do to me and others?
Where I was speak ill like a bully to younger Christians?
I have never attacked you personly, but I am against false teaching and i am saying this.
I never attacked people. And i am not trolling. I have serious questions, and make it not for fun.
I never deney that God is working today ore has stopped healing and doing miracles.
The only thing is, I questioned the pentacostal teaching, because this splittet christianity more then any denomination Twist. I saw how this teaching was destroying believers and churches. And today i see that this teaching is an engine for the ekomene.
Is it then Prohibitet to ask questions? And to proof with the scripture?
This teaching is claiming that every believer who is not speaking in tongues is not baptised with the Holy Spirit. Is this your believe too? Then Show me the scripture for that!
Btw, your Posting and reaction to Angela, is a bad witness for an mod on a Christian page.
If I am wrong, you are free to Bann me.
I have never attacked you personly, but I am against false teaching and i am saying this.
I never attacked people. And i am not trolling. I have serious questions, and make it not for fun.
I never deney that God is working today ore has stopped healing and doing miracles.
The only thing is, I questioned the pentacostal teaching, because this splittet christianity more then any denomination Twist. I saw how this teaching was destroying believers and churches. And today i see that this teaching is an engine for the ekomene.
Is it then Prohibitet to ask questions? And to proof with the scripture?
This teaching is claiming that every believer who is not speaking in tongues is not baptised with the Holy Spirit. Is this your believe too? Then Show me the scripture for that!
Btw, your Posting and reaction to Angela, is a bad witness for an mod on a Christian page.
If I am wrong, you are free to Bann me.
-
1
- Show all
Do you need me to show you my Master's degree credits for Koine Greek first year and second year? I have read the NT in Greek several times, from cover to cover. In first year Greek I got Outstanding student for having the top mark that year, well ahead of the men in my class!
That is utter slander. You have just conclusively called me a liar. Plus, I have never seen Aidan being mean or calling anyone names, so I have to believe that is another lie by you!
What kind of mod are you, that tells lies about forum members? As far as context, how many Greek commentaries do you have? I have 4 for each book of the NT. I also have other tools, like "Rogers and Rogers The Linguistic and Exegetical study of the NT;" Bauer, (BDAG) the best lexicon there is. I have books on morphology, and second year texts, including Bill Mounce's, Daniel Wallace and A. Kostenburger (missing the umlaut in the "o" because my phone doesn't have it!)
I studied at the Canadian Southern Baptist seminary for first year Greek and Hebrew. I did private study with Bill Mounce, who wrote the best 1st year Greek text for Master's study, and I was accredited by Faith University in Washington State.
Where did you study Greek? I don't believe you did. Your spelling is appalling in English, I can't see how you could get through participles, let alone easy things like noun cases and verbs as aspect, not time.
I am against tongues because I saw it as a terrible delusion in the Pentecostal & charismatics churches I attended for 15 years. For 26 years, I have attended Baptist churches, and been fed by the pastors. One pastor in Edmonton, when we lived there, had a PhD in Preaching from a North American Baptist Church. He literally had the best understanding of the Bible I have ever heard. My best friend was from Peru, and was ESL. She got the same strong message I did, with all my fancy training and languages. He simply was everything a preacher should be.
After I moved from Edmonton, my friend got involved with a lot of charismatics, guaranteeing healing from depression. Instead, she became more depressed, and oppressed. Now, I know not all Pentecostals are like that, but I had to pray and counsel her, and pull her away from that insane faith healing she was being seduced by! And she realized when she pulled away, how evil these people in this giant charismatic church were. They did not know the Bible, and used verses ripped out-of-context to make doctrines that weren't Biblical.
At any rate, I will keep on reporting your outrageous anger at members, the lies you tell about members, and your terrible abuse of power to RoboOp. An apology will be accepted if you admit you know nothing about Greek, or the status of my Greek! I really have studied Greek intensely, and read the NT in Greek daily, along with English and German. At the least, you could have said you don't know my status with learning Greek, rather than slandering me.
I've got news for you CS1! Every member who has been around here for a while, or longer than you, knows I read Greek. You just made yourself a liar in this forum!
That is utter slander. You have just conclusively called me a liar. Plus, I have never seen Aidan being mean or calling anyone names, so I have to believe that is another lie by you!
What kind of mod are you, that tells lies about forum members? As far as context, how many Greek commentaries do you have? I have 4 for each book of the NT. I also have other tools, like "Rogers and Rogers The Linguistic and Exegetical study of the NT;" Bauer, (BDAG) the best lexicon there is. I have books on morphology, and second year texts, including Bill Mounce's, Daniel Wallace and A. Kostenburger (missing the umlaut in the "o" because my phone doesn't have it!)
I studied at the Canadian Southern Baptist seminary for first year Greek and Hebrew. I did private study with Bill Mounce, who wrote the best 1st year Greek text for Master's study, and I was accredited by Faith University in Washington State.
Where did you study Greek? I don't believe you did. Your spelling is appalling in English, I can't see how you could get through participles, let alone easy things like noun cases and verbs as aspect, not time.
I am against tongues because I saw it as a terrible delusion in the Pentecostal & charismatics churches I attended for 15 years. For 26 years, I have attended Baptist churches, and been fed by the pastors. One pastor in Edmonton, when we lived there, had a PhD in Preaching from a North American Baptist Church. He literally had the best understanding of the Bible I have ever heard. My best friend was from Peru, and was ESL. She got the same strong message I did, with all my fancy training and languages. He simply was everything a preacher should be.
After I moved from Edmonton, my friend got involved with a lot of charismatics, guaranteeing healing from depression. Instead, she became more depressed, and oppressed. Now, I know not all Pentecostals are like that, but I had to pray and counsel her, and pull her away from that insane faith healing she was being seduced by! And she realized when she pulled away, how evil these people in this giant charismatic church were. They did not know the Bible, and used verses ripped out-of-context to make doctrines that weren't Biblical.
At any rate, I will keep on reporting your outrageous anger at members, the lies you tell about members, and your terrible abuse of power to RoboOp. An apology will be accepted if you admit you know nothing about Greek, or the status of my Greek! I really have studied Greek intensely, and read the NT in Greek daily, along with English and German. At the least, you could have said you don't know my status with learning Greek, rather than slandering me.
I've got news for you CS1! Every member who has been around here for a while, or longer than you, knows I read Greek. You just made yourself a liar in this forum!
-
1
- Show all
