History? You really want to believe that Ciaphas did not know what the disciples were doing? Government today works in the same way.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Why is praying in tongues necessary?
- Thread starter TheLearner
- 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.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
So, let me get this straight...
You're asserting that because the government is suspicious today, that there were actually false believers with Peter when Cornelius was saved, despite there being absolutely no hint of such in Scripture?
Hogwash. Pure, speculative, groundless, biased hogwash.
Wow more lollipop religion. Acts 15 we see men from Judea who came in to promote legalism among the new believers. You know who these men represented don't you? Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Given that you did not provide any scriptural evidence for your assertion when I asked for it, but instead pointed to allegations of historical evidence with no sources, your characterization of my comments as "lollipop religion" is utterly hypocritical. It's also the kind of ad hominem garbage for which you are becoming known. When you can't support your position, you revert to childish personal attacks. Grow up.
To the rest of your post, that's Acts 15, not Acts 10. Read the Scripture and stop claiming that events in one passage took place in another passage, when the Scripture itself provides no support for such claims.
Thanks
So then are you suggesting that the it in the phrase; "as it is written" does not represent the unseen source of faith of God. . And the faith of Christ is not needed to work in a persons heart and then a person can believe.? If not of Christ's work of faith then where would their faith come from.... the imagination of ones own heart?
Natural man is considered as having no faith. Not little, none.
And unbelief "no faith" is the opposite of faith not "doubt" Believers do doubt as he helps us in our unbelief.
Romans 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Mark 9:24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief
When those in Acts 10 heard the gospel as God applied it to their hearts, having become a new creatures they also prophesied bringing the word of God..... Men of different languages communing with each us as prophecy .A sign against those who do not believe in God as it is written . A sign confirming they will not hear God but serve the imagination of their own faithless hearts which God calls fools..
No... nothing even remotely close. I was only addressing a grammatical issue.
Your words were, "to believe in the authority of as it is written." Correct English requires either punctuation or rewording, as in either of the following:
punctuation: "to believe in the authority of 'as it is written'" (treating the phrase "as it is written" as the quotation of Jesus it is); or
rewording: "to believe in the authority of Scripture as it is written".
Is this the natural progression of Pentecostalism? Acts 10 and Acts 15 are part of the greater context of the bible as a whole one does not exist without the other nor the inverse.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Your question is out of order, and your statement, while true, is being misapplied. You cannot import a statement from one part of Scripture to an event recorded elsewhere in Scripture. That's eisegesis.
Whew! Dino is using "big words." I had to look it up! LOL!
Eisegesis
Description
Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.
Thank you for helping me to improve my vocabulary!
The it represents the unseen faith of God. Our one true source without it no one could believe God.. It would seem you are struggling with the idea of no faith?
Just what exactly are you trying to say about Acts 10 .What's the bottom line? You keep re visiting it ?
isa 8
18 Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.
19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Matthew 6:7-8
"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. "So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
It would seem that you are struggling with understanding what I write. Did you read the part where I wrote that I was simply addressing a grammatical issue?
I keep revisiting Acts 10, because you haven't yet shown that you understand that it completely refutes your position on 'speaking in tongues'.
Your position, "tongues are a sign to those who reject prophecy," cannot possibly apply in the Acts 10 case, because when Cornelius and the others spoke in tongues, there were no people present who rejected prophecy.
It seems TheLearner is claiming that anyone who speaks in tongues are...
"... them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter..."
thus claiming we are demon possessed, and delving into the occult.
Demonstrating that nothing has been "learned" by the OP in eight pages.
That was never my idea. There were those there that heard prophecy and believed God .They themselves because they did believe spoke the word of God prophecy .Each heard the other perfectly in their own tongue. This is when God was still bringing new. Today we have the perfect or the whole .
There is no law that says there must be someone there to reject prophecy . Even if no one there to reject it, it still points as a sign to those who do not believe God. Just as it does today . The world is full of those who believe not God, not seen.
What is the grammatical issue? I see your point about no one rejecting prophecy in Acts 10
I did not have time to be complete.
The false religions surrounding the Bible, when they spoke in tongues were not human languages. They were just using gibberish, most likely of human origin. The Glossolalia given to Christians were in fact human languages not known to the speaker. Paul speaks of tongues being like musical instruments that makes distinct sounds which are understood. Acts 2, clearly says the people heard the Christians speaking in their languages. A great indicator if tongues today is from God is people speaking human languages that they do not know. If it is just gibberish odds are it is just of human source.
Ok, I see how you can think that. I think the gibberish is simply of human origin. Some of the cults and world religions have tongues that are the same as what is in Pentecostal churches today. thus of human origins too.
You're adding to Scripture once again, I see.
Just read the text and stop inserting your own definitions. The Scripture says "tongues", not "prophecy". Don't insert "prophecy" into the text. The text says nothing about anyone hearing in their own language... don't insert it. By inserting your own (unbiblical) definitions, you impair your ability to understand what it says.
Do you realize that this statement undermines your argument?
On a modern case where someone is speaking in tongues, the sign may still point to those who don't believe God, but that doesn't mean that anyone present doesn't believe God. So, your argument is irrelevant.