Falling back slain in the spirit?

[garee]

Do you know anyone with the gift of interpretation going to the United Nations to interpret?

Other than the Holy Spirit...no. I think they would throw out John the Baptist today and give him a prescription take two and call in the morning. or another example.

When God gave over the apostate Jew to that which they should not of because of their jealously of the surrounding Pagan nation .Not wanting to walk by faith . The peoples choice was Saul having all the right looks and mannerism but failed to love the word of God.

Then it was God's choice choosing David the beloved one as to the meaning of his name to be used as a type of Christ, coming as our bloody savoior. And Samauel went to the house of Jesse but the 11 brothers had threw out David sent him out to tend the stinky lambs. as it would seem they might of been embarrassed, the guy David writing all these poems seemed like a religious fanatic . they needed what they hoped was separation from the church and state (impossible) God knew one of the 12 was missing.

Do you know anyone that has been healed hundred or thousands of thousands of times from different aliments throughout their lives and end of dying in the end? Or do all die not receiving the promise of a new incorruptible body therefore we have a living hope that will not disappoint us coming from the peace of God that surpasses all human understanding a hope that rising above all hope?

Need a sign? Believe God.

 

[stonesoffire]

Also very fortunate the walking man knew how to do resuscitation.

You missed the miracle. The man was a heavenly being. Possibly angel.

 

[stonesoffire]

Self healing?

No man can visually see demons, as lying spirits. They have no form but can take on the form of men.

I have a eye ache when I look at the old man in the mirror it removes all doubt that I am going on 13 again and again .

I would think the warning in Colossian 2:18 would apply in respect to those things which he did not see. We walk by the unseen (faith the gift of God) the eternal not after our fleshly imaginations (2 Corinthian 4:18)

Christ as the Son of man gives us an example in Mathew 4 informing us that experience is not the validator of the unseen spiritual matters of God. Again and again three times he informs us what that authority of faith is . It is written again and again the devil disappeared

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath "not seen", vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,Colossian 2:18

Sometimes these posts give me a headache too.

 

[Dino246]

I would call it a different idea in respect to hermeneutics.

Bad hermeneutics is bad hermeneutics, not "different" hermeneutics. Again, you don't find the truth of a principle by looking for examples where it is not used. You get the understanding of a word by looking at where it is used.

If you are looking for the words "blasphemy violates the first commandment" verbatim I am sure you will not find those words in that exact order in the Bible. But it does most certainly ring true . The works of Blasphemy is violate of the commandments. The two work together as one action to form one thought.

Please don't spin what I wrote and waste your time responding to what I didn't write. Blasphemy is not mere "violation of the commandments". That idea simply doesn't appear in Scripture.

Committing blasphemy is to violate all the commandments making them to no effect.

No, it isn't. Again, that idea doesn't appear in Scripture. The closest thing is the passage you quoted from Numbers, but there the concept is defiant, intentional sin, not merely "violation".

Blasphemy defined with no other meaning attached is "to speak evil or act evil" .

Not in Scripture it isn't.

Mathew below show those who refused to hear and believe the word of God. The faithless ones accusing the Son of man of Blasphemy correctly . ...

Matthew 26:64-66 King James Version (KJV)Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

They used the term "blasphemy" correctly in this case, but they applied it incorrectly as Jesus was not committing blasphemy. The context demonstrates that their use of it was based on Jesus' self-identification as God.

Revelation 2 adds to the witness Blasphemy violates the commandments .There we are inform that some were masquerading as inward born again Jews but they were from the synagogue of Satan also called legion as in many gods. this reflect on the first commandment to have no goods before our living God.

Revelation 2:8-10 King James Version (KJV)8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan..

This passage does not add "to the witness [that] blasphemy violates the commandments". That idea simply isn't in the text.

If Peter did not blaspheme the Son of man by violating the first commandment by trusting or putting the god of this world, Legion (gods) or called Satan before eternal God then what would you call the work of Peter led by the spirt of the antichrist... a slip??

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.Mathew 16

Peter was forgiven of His blasphemy .Today it is unforgivable against the holy Spirit not seen.

Again, "blasphemy" is not in that passage. You can't use a passage to define a word where that word isn't in the passage. You can't defend any statement about blasphemy using this passage, because such is an argument from silence.

 

[garee]

"What applies to those disciples as apostles applied to us today " is not a true statement because we at this time are post resurrection.

Those words were in context spoken to the Apostles alone.

Those sent alone? Giving rise to the one meaning of the word apostle?

Yes the word of God, prophecy was sent by the sent ones (apostle) alone as God worked in the to both will and do his good pleasure they performed His will . Its interesting that in context to that he says don't murmur Because it is God who does work in us .it would seem to be to humble mankind not to eat to much honey but swallow some pride.

Using your logic, then we would be breaking God's 613 Laws if we did not build a fence around the edge our roofs.

Deuteronomy 22:8 Good News Translation (GNT)“When you build a new house, be sure to put a railing around the edge of the roof. Then you will not be responsible if someone falls off and is killed.

Deuteronomy 22:8 King James Veirsion (KJV)8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

I would think we world use His Logos as a perfect law. Yes laws are needed to protect oneself as well as others . God's law is love. His gospel is peace.

The law of the faith of God protects and defends us as it is written I would think it would be why apologist defend the faith that does defend us like the sword of His Spirit.

 

[garee]

Bad hermeneutics is bad hermeneutics, not "different" hermeneutics. Again, you don't find the truth of a principle by looking for examples where it is not used. You get the understanding of a word by looking at where it is used.

Well how is it used with Peter in Mathew 16:22 -23?

 

[garee]

No, it isn't. Again, that idea doesn't appear in Scripture. The closest thing is the passage you quoted from Numbers, but there the concept is defiant, intentional sin, not merely "violation"

.

Intentional sin like that of Peter addressed as Satan.? "Peter get behind me" you are to have no gods before me.

Some say Peter is the it in which the gates of hell could never prevail against in Mathew 16 . Is that what Mathew 16 :22 -23 is trying to convey ?

 

[garee]

Again, "blasphemy" is not in that passage. You can't use a passage to define a word where that word isn't in the passage. You can't defend any statement about blasphemy using this passage, because such is an argument from silence.

From whose silence?

 

[louis]

You missed the miracle. The man was a heavenly being. Possibly angel.

If as you imagine the man was a heavenly being, he then would not have needed to drive the tractor, he could have just moved it at will.
He also would not have needed to perform CPR.

 

[stonesoffire]

If as you imagine the man was a heavenly being, he then would not have needed to drive the tractor, he could have just moved it at will.
He also would not have needed to perform CPR.

The wife said they offered the man money, a ride into town, something to eat, and the man said he was on a schedule but it was based upon him walking. They said they watched him walk down the road, which goes down a slight incline and you can see for what appears for miles, and he just vanished. They hopped into the wife's car and drove to where they thought they last saw the man, and then drove past another mile or so. They never saw the man again.

Smh

 

[louis]

The wife said they offered the man money, a ride into town, something to eat, and the man said he was on a schedule but it was based upon him walking. They said they watched him walk down the road, which goes down a slight incline and you can see for what appears for miles, and he just vanished. They hopped into the wife's car and drove to where they thought they last saw the man, and then drove past another mile or so. They never saw the man again.

Smh

I can see if it were a man, that he would then attempt to drive the tractor, as that is all a human can be expected to do.
An angelic heavenly being, however, is not restricted by the laws of science, and as such would have been able to move the tractor at will, and would have been able to tell an injured or dead individual to rise without performing CPR.

 

[Dino246]

Bad hermeneutics is bad hermeneutics, not "different" hermeneutics. Again, you don't find the truth of a principle by looking for examples where it is not used. You get the understanding of a word by looking at where it is used.

Well how is it used with Peter in Mathew 16:22 -23?

It isn't!

Here is the passage. If you can find the word, "blasphemy" in there, in any form, you quote it back, highlighted.

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

 

[Dino246]

.

Intentional sin like that of Peter addressed as Satan.? "Peter get behind me" you are to have no gods before me.

Some say Peter is the it in which the gates of hell could never prevail against in Mathew 16 . Is that what Mathew 16 :22 -23 is trying to convey ?

Peter's sin was NOT intentional in that situation. It's irrelevant.

 

[Dino246]

From whose silence?

An argument from silence is a fallacy; it means that the source material being referenced, in this case the Bible, does not say anything about the subject being addressed.

So, the answer to "whose silence?" is "God's!"

 

[stonesoffire]

I can see if it were a man, that he would then attempt to drive the tractor, as that is all a human can be expected to do.
An angelic heavenly being, however, is not restricted by the laws of science, and as such would have been able to move the tractor at will, and would have been able to tell an injured or dead individual to rise without performing CPR.

Don't you think that even heavenly beings can do things too in and on the earth? I have had angelic encounters. They can look like men, speak like men, and act like men. And then again they may not. They all are restricted to the will of God!

 

[obedienttogod]

Also very fortunate the walking man knew how to do resuscitation.

Hahaha, agreed!!

But in my view of miracles, I do not believe the result (the miracle) has to be immediate to the action (prayer + faith). It can be. But God has a way of doing things that not only glorifies Himself, but leaves a lasting impression on everyone with knowledge to what God did.

In my opinion, the true miracle was this farmers sudden and urgent desire to seek Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.

But the lasting impression, is this farmer should be dead, but obviously God had His angel prepared, to save this farmer (for not just this farmers sake (which the farmer will relate to as accepting God to this miracle and it will become a stronghold in his faith and walk in God) but for those of us in the congregation to hear the farmer and his wife claim what had happened).

So I definitely believe when the pastor/believers with faith lays hands upon those requesting prayer, the miracle does not always have to be instant (but there are times it will be and has been), but generally, the miracle was sparked and takes place later on.

And to me, this is just the same as had the miracle been instant!!

 

[obedienttogod]

I can see if it were a man, that he would then attempt to drive the tractor, as that is all a human can be expected to do.
An angelic heavenly being, however, is not restricted by the laws of science, and as such would have been able to move the tractor at will, and would have been able to tell an injured or dead individual to rise without performing CPR.

I believe the reason the tractor was driven and the man claimed he had never been around a tractor, but did it perfectly, was to be a resounding point directly to the farmer himself. This man just gave his life to God. And then from nowhere, someone with no knowledge like the farmer possessed (operating farm equipment), operated the farm equipment to save his life. Only those of us who live on farms and operate such equipment understand using the clutch, placing it in gear, is literally nothing like you use a clutch and shift gears in a car. So, it resonates more by having someone never around such equipment, but had excellent knowledge to operate in order to save the farmers life.

 

[Lanolin]

It is a miracle this thread has gone on so long and nobody has fallen asleep out of the window.

I just saw one post that explained what eisigesis meant.

I thought it meant Easy Jesus.

 

[TheLearner]

Satan also has the meaning of adversary which I think best fits the context.

 

[dcontroversal]

I have heard on various occasions that during the great depression there were revivals which did perform actual healings.
Of course there were also Satans revivals at the time who performed fictitious healings for the dough.

I have also heard that we came from monkeys, little green aliens exist, the word is flat and politicians tell the truth............and the point is obvious.........