S
SpoonJuly
Guest
no your still here because we are long-suffering LOL
So we can agree on something.
One must be longsuffering to remain on a forum with so much name calling and false teaching being promoted.
no your still here because we are long-suffering LOL
Tongues are not a prayer language. No evidence in the bible to say that anyone ever prayed in tongues. Jesus never prayed in tongues. Your indications that you are not an expert on the subject is well founded. Your desire not to have any contradictory information posted finds its roots in that your position cannot be supported from the bible.You have the audacity to call others hateful and ignorant. You attack me because I point out that Jesus never taught the apostles to speak in tongues or to pray in tongues. You take a misunderstanding of 1 Cor 12-14 and make doctrine that conflicts with the rest of scripture and act like you have the truth. You continue to build you unsound doctrine on Mark 16 the long ending. Sorry two errors do not make sound doctrine.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
So we can agree on something.
One must be longsuffering to remain on a forum with so much name calling and false teaching being promoted.
Not hardly. Just many men will not understand Paul's teachings in light of the word of God. The use of hyperbole is not an admonition to act in a specific manner. Any interpretation that contradicts other scripture needs to be realigned to harmonize with all of scripture.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
to 4 joel 2, 28-29 which Peter quotet, can only be a parttimefullfillment.
If you take the context of those verses.
Then you find out it has to do with the folk of Israel. And, before Joel2, 28-29 will take place, Israel will have peace and will be free from any ocupation.
This not happem till now.
But you take this prophecie for christians and not for the folk of Israel.
This is a very questionable view!
to 5 from where you get this?
gift of speaking in tongues is gift of speakig in tongues. Everthing else is speculation.Paul nowhere taught different types of the " gift of speaking in tongues".
So the most of your teachings base on speculation and questionable interpretation of the word of God.
Don't you folks just love it when a mod resorts to name calling.
You have the audacity to call others hateful and ignorant. You attack me because I point out that Jesus never taught the apostles to speak in tongues or to pray in tongues. You take a misunderstanding of 1 Cor 12-14 and make doctrine that conflicts with the rest of scripture and act like you have the truth. You continue to build you unsound doctrine on Mark 16 the long ending. Sorry two errors do not make sound doctrine.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
You are to nice to meit's too bad we don't have an emoticon to express how wrong and misinterpreted your understanding is. in fact, the more you try, and I've seen many of your posts on this subject of course, the worse it seems to be getting
I found this one though
![]()
Banning for an different biblical view? Thats then not far from an cult.this is another of your false understandings of scripture Roger
the Holy Spirit did not descend until AFTER...AFTER DUDE AFTER...Jesus ascended
honestly, can you not be truthful at least where scripture is point blank forward about events and no interpretation needed?
and by the way, I'm not sticking up for CS1 as much as I am really ashamed for both of you that you think so little of a moderator that you openly attack them
thing is, the problem with CS1 is that he gives you back your own medicine
poor little boys. should we send you a box of Kleenex and onions to help you cry?
ANY other forum would have banned you and your friend eons back
I know that, because I have been on quite a few in years gone by
in most forums you are not even allowed to contradict a mod
Banning for an different biblical view? Thats then not far from an cult.
This thread claimes to have some truth about the Holy Spirit.
The only records you have for your truth that baptism with the Holy Spirit is always combined with speaking in tongues is acts 2,8,10,19.
Acts 8,10 and 19 can easily be interpretet different rhen you do, if you simply read the text as it is written.
You have to construct texts together which are written down to an different time (John,acts, 1.Cor.) for to get your doctrine. Which was in churchhistory not practised before Agnes ozman in 1900.
Even it was not taught in the letters to the church.
But you sell it as truth.
No gift to day seems more important today as the gift of speaking/praying in tongues. Paul called this gift the lowest gift. But showed an greater one. 1.Cor 13.
I wonder that we dont find so much about this gift love, but to an gift which supports in first way the person self and not others.
The other thing is that you treat children of God which are do not speaking in tongues as not real christians, as christians which deny the power of God. Ore something else.
This is what I cant find in my bible.
Thats why I cant believe that this doctrine is true.
Personel expieriences had also the montanists from the 2nd century, ore the JW ore Irvin and the New apostolic church. But this is for me no proof.
Our expieriences can be right, but the source of it can be wrong.k
no
banning for being argumentative with a moderator and not only argumentative but pointedly and directly insulting at the same time. that is not disagreeing. that, is actually a personal attack
common sense
believe what you want but I don't know why you constantly have to tell everyone that you don't believe
we believe you already that you don't believe
and I don't have a clue what this is about : Our experiences can be right, but the source of it can be wrong.
that's like saying you can drink poison if it tastes good. it's still poison. don't confuse seeking an experience with seeking God
I know in your eyes i am now an unbeliever. Finaly our Lord judges and we are responsible to Him.
I mean that the bible says that satan can show himself as angel of light. And that he will decive even believers in Christ.
I understand, that he will do what looks like right and from God, but is not.
So you can make expieriences which feeling right, but the source of this is false.
It is f.e. strange when I read from some that they are driven to speak in tongues about hours. Who has then the controle if you even dont know what you are saying/praying?
tell you what
if you can find a post where I said you are not a believer,
I will make a public apology to the entire forum
you know very well I was referring to the fact you do not believe in tongues and not your salvation
I mean don't you think that is a little low to say that to me?
shaking my head
No worry , you said i am an dont believer not an unbeliever. This is different. Sorry.![]()
You are to nice to me![]()
Hi Wolfwint, I'm finally getting the chance to get back to you. My answers will be brief, but not spiteful. Feel free to ask for more examples or greater detail.Hi Kelby, thank you for your clear response.
I will react to your answers to the same number.
Which church history are you following? Please remember, if a church doesn't have or teach "speaking in tongues", they would also exclude documents that support 'speaking in tongues' from their church records.To 1. If this is an elementary teaching of the bible, then it is not understandable that we cant find this teaching during the church history. Even, when the so called church fathers didn't taught this. Some mentioned it, but did not practice it self.
I honestly don't track histories of churches, but this quote seems to show that 'speaking in tongues' was indeed still present, but not in the church/churches you follow.After 400 ad till 1900 you find the practice of speaking in tongues mostly among cults( RCC, MORMONS, NEW APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC CHURCH, JW. )
Did the Bible say Acts is not for doctrine?? Or was it man that told you that? (Please be honest) Because the Bible says "ALL scripture... is profitable for doctrine". Acts = Scripture, so Acts = profitable for doctrine.Teachings to the church we find almost in the epistels, but not in a report book likes acts which goal is to report the history of first christianity and not to teach doctrines.
Well, thats good. Give me some time, then i will response to your post.Hi Wolfwint, I'm finally getting the chance to get back to you. My answers will be brief, but not spiteful. Feel free to ask for more examples or greater detail.
Which church history are you following? Please remember, if a church doesn't have or teach "speaking in tongues", they would also exclude documents that support 'speaking in tongues' from their church records.
I honestly don't track histories of churches, but this quote seems to show that 'speaking in tongues' was indeed still present, but not in the church/churches you follow.
On a separate note, speaking in tongues isn't a doctrine. It is something a person either receives or doesn't receive. That's why it is not limited to one church or another. Anyone who seeks God can receive it...even if the preacher doesn't expect them to receive it, and/or doesn't tell them they are supposed to receive it. (As the Acts 10 account shows.)
Did the Bible say Acts is not for doctrine?? Or was it man that told you that? (Please be honest) Because the Bible says "ALL scripture... is profitable for doctrine". Acts = Scripture, so Acts = profitable for doctrine.
I'm struggling to find words to convey how distasteful it is that churches disregard the book of Acts (the word of God) so they can tell their congregations "Please don't base your ideas about the Holy Ghost on what God put in the book of Acts, but instead on what we teach."
One reason we need books like Acts, and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, where we can SEE the fulfilling of scriptures, is so we cannot deny what it actually looks like when it arrives. Because what we THINK it should be (by trying to understand the scriptures) often bears little resemblance to what it ACTUALLY is when it arrives. To see an example of this, one only has to look at the Jewish scholars and church leaders when the Messiah actually arrived. They studied and studied the scriptures...but couldn't even recognize Him when he was standing in their midst. So it is with the Holy Ghost. Did you or I (by reading Matthew-John) expect that the Holy Ghost would come with speaking in tongues??? And if not, when we saw it in Acts 2, did we then understand and expect it to be given to Cornelius and his group in Acts 10? or again in Acts 19? If it wasn't for the word of God (book of Acts) RECORDING it for our observation, we would likely have missed it altogether.
I'll address the points from the rest of your quote in another posting, but I kinda want to see how you react to this much first. However, I may post more before you get a chance to respond.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
Dear Kelby, when i speak from church history, then i speak from the whole churchhistory and not from an specific denomination. According some defination churchhistory is all what happend about christianity after the biblical evidence.Hi Wolfwint, I'm finally getting the chance to get back to you. My answers will be brief, but not spiteful. Feel free to ask for more examples or greater detail.
Which church history are you following? Please remember, if a church doesn't have or teach "speaking in tongues", they would also exclude documents that support 'speaking in tongues' from their church records.
I honestly don't track histories of churches, but this quote seems to show that 'speaking in tongues' was indeed still present, but not in the church/churches you follow.
On a separate note, speaking in tongues isn't a doctrine. It is something a person either receives or doesn't receive. That's why it is not limited to one church or another. Anyone who seeks God can receive it...even if the preacher doesn't expect them to receive it, and/or doesn't tell them they are supposed to receive it. (As the Acts 10 account shows.)
Did the Bible say Acts is not for doctrine?? Or was it man that told you that? (Please be honest) Because the Bible says "ALL scripture... is profitable for doctrine". Acts = Scripture, so Acts = profitable for doctrine.
I'm struggling to find words to convey how distasteful it is that churches disregard the book of Acts (the word of God) so they can tell their congregations "Please don't base your ideas about the Holy Ghost on what God put in the book of Acts, but instead on what we teach."
One reason we need books like Acts, and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, where we can SEE the fulfilling of scriptures, is so we cannot deny what it actually looks like when it arrives. Because what we THINK it should be (by trying to understand the scriptures) often bears little resemblance to what it ACTUALLY is when it arrives. To see an example of this, one only has to look at the Jewish scholars and church leaders when the Messiah actually arrived. They studied and studied the scriptures...but couldn't even recognize Him when he was standing in their midst. So it is with the Holy Ghost. Did you or I (by reading Matthew-John) expect that the Holy Ghost would come with speaking in tongues??? And if not, when we saw it in Acts 2, did we then understand and expect it to be given to Cornelius and his group in Acts 10? or again in Acts 19? If it wasn't for the word of God (book of Acts) RECORDING it for our observation, we would likely have missed it altogether.
I'll address the points from the rest of your quote in another posting, but I kinda want to see how you react to this much first. However, I may post more before you get a chance to respond.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby