TONGUES TODAY
- Thread starter Major
- 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.
This conversation came up on another thread a while back. TOIS in 'them that believe' does NOT refer back to 'the eleven' grammatically. It is not a pronoun that refers back to a previous noun. Rather, it is a masculine plural definite article in the dative case. Tois goes with the participle which immediately follows it.
I recall that was one commentary written by someone in the 'Church of Christ' movement written by a man who did not have a very deep understanding of Greek grammar, apparently, but managed to get published in the early part of the 20th century. It is sad when people take such things as an authority.
If we were to apply this man's reasoning to similar grammatical structures in the New Testament, then one must insist that the men and brethren Peter addressed in Acts 1:16, the 120 in the upper room, were the soldiers who went with Judas to arrest Jesus.
As a rule of thumb, it is good to be skeptical of Greek grammatical rules that allegedly lead us to conclusions that are contrary to what most translations of the scriptures say. There are a lot of 'Greek myths' that show up in commentaries and sermons. The same is true of definitions. The diistinctions between agape and phileo and rhema and logos heard from many pulpits are not quite accurate. Dunamis does not mean explosive force in the original Greek of the New Testament. One of the former posters on the B-Greek list, which discussed Biblical Greek, warned about 'Baptist aorists.' He would sometimes comment on some of the false ideas he had heard about Greek from pulpits. He attributed some of the poor Greek skills learned in seminaries from the fact that they followed the educational techniques of the sophists, and in some cases the Greek instructor did not know the language well. He could name exceptions to that rule though among some seminarie professors he knew.
I recall that was one commentary written by someone in the 'Church of Christ' movement written by a man who did not have a very deep understanding of Greek grammar, apparently, but managed to get published in the early part of the 20th century. It is sad when people take such things as an authority.
If we were to apply this man's reasoning to similar grammatical structures in the New Testament, then one must insist that the men and brethren Peter addressed in Acts 1:16, the 120 in the upper room, were the soldiers who went with Judas to arrest Jesus.
As a rule of thumb, it is good to be skeptical of Greek grammatical rules that allegedly lead us to conclusions that are contrary to what most translations of the scriptures say. There are a lot of 'Greek myths' that show up in commentaries and sermons. The same is true of definitions. The diistinctions between agape and phileo and rhema and logos heard from many pulpits are not quite accurate. Dunamis does not mean explosive force in the original Greek of the New Testament. One of the former posters on the B-Greek list, which discussed Biblical Greek, warned about 'Baptist aorists.' He would sometimes comment on some of the false ideas he had heard about Greek from pulpits. He attributed some of the poor Greek skills learned in seminaries from the fact that they followed the educational techniques of the sophists, and in some cases the Greek instructor did not know the language well. He could name exceptions to that rule though among some seminarie professors he knew.
Right here !!
Please look at your own words!
You said: Post 363
Second, there is no explicit testimony which indicates that anyone other than the apostles possessed miraculous gifts for some time following Pentecost. If the claim be made that the expression “gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38) reflects such, we would insist that this is a point to be proven, not merely asserted.
That statement is unbiblical, not true and the Very Book of Acts says so.
Now You can leave friend, not me. You attack those here whom you disagree with and make comments that are untrue and when called on it you freak out. Maybe it's time for you to leave? Take A BREAK FROM cc FOR A BIT.
I WILL PROVIDE MORE PROOF FOR YOU OK?
"I enjoy responding to your opinions as you never seem o be able to post ANY Bible scripture to support anything you say"
That was a bald-faced lie. Many here have posted much scripture. And agreed with the error of those in the videos you provided.
BUT You are untruthful and unbiblical and because you said I have not posted any Bible scriptures to support anything I have said makes you unreasonable, unfriendly, and I bid YOU goodbye Please enjoy finding another Chat site. You are a troll.
God bless you
Please look at your own words!
You said: Post 363
Second, there is no explicit testimony which indicates that anyone other than the apostles possessed miraculous gifts for some time following Pentecost. If the claim be made that the expression “gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38) reflects such, we would insist that this is a point to be proven, not merely asserted.
That statement is unbiblical, not true and the Very Book of Acts says so.
Now You can leave friend, not me. You attack those here whom you disagree with and make comments that are untrue and when called on it you freak out. Maybe it's time for you to leave? Take A BREAK FROM cc FOR A BIT.
I WILL PROVIDE MORE PROOF FOR YOU OK?
"I enjoy responding to your opinions as you never seem o be able to post ANY Bible scripture to support anything you say"
That was a bald-faced lie. Many here have posted much scripture. And agreed with the error of those in the videos you provided.
BUT You are untruthful and unbiblical and because you said I have not posted any Bible scriptures to support anything I have said makes you unreasonable, unfriendly, and I bid YOU goodbye Please enjoy finding another Chat site. You are a troll.
God bless you
It is customary to read the whole chapter and surrounding verses before interpreting a passage. A large group of about 120 were gathered. Peter told that large group that someone needed to replace Judas. The group set forward two men based on the criteria Peter laid out. They cast lots. The one chosen was added to the eleven disciples. Then, on the day of Pentecost, they were all in one accord in one place.
A normal, straight-forward reading of the text would lead us to believe that 'all' refers to the whole group that were involved with that discussion about Matthias being included with the eleven, not just to the eleven. It seems that you have a very rigid view on speaking in tongues, and you are really driven to line up every passage to fit with that interpretation, even if it is 'reaching' a bit.
I know others have made the same set of arguments you have in the past, so maybe there is some other rigid, doctrinally motivated interpreter whose commentary you rely on. One of the dangers with commentaries like this is that a Bible commentary seems so authoritative. Many people like the 'appeal to authority' in an argument and are swayed by the supposed expert that writes a book. Maybe you have a commentary that teaches this.
What I have noticed is that a lot of people in the so-called 'Church of Christ' movement have this rigid approach to this and other doctrines. They tend to be homogeneous on many matters of doctrine. And since many of them think that they, exclusively are THE true church, they tend to think that theirs must be the right or proper way of interpreting scripture. They also have their own kind of logical/interpretive rules that was influenced by Scottish Common Sense Realism, an offshoot of Enlightenment philosophy. Anyway, their commentaries and other people interpreting scripture the same way can be a bit of an echo chamber where they reinforce each others interpretations. Nearly everyone else they encounter who they think is a true Christian has the same beliefs.
I saw in a past thread, your ideas on Mark 16 align with the interpretation of a commentary from that movement that misinterpreted the Greek grammar, so that is why I mention it. I seem to vaguely recall that you may not be from this 'Restoration Movement' as best I can understand. But your propensity to hold to strained and unlikely interpretations of passages rigidly to support your theological viewpoint reminds me of conversations with people from this movement. I wonder if you have one of their commentaries on your desk or have encountered their ideas. And, btw, it seems like people in the instrumental Christian Church side of the movement are a bit less rigid about interpreting texts to fit with their predetermined positions.
Back to Acts 1-2, the idea that 'all' in Acts 2:1 refers specifically to the eleven in the previous verse is a rather strained reading of the text, highly unlikely, very unnatural, and not demanded by Greek grammar. Basing doctrine on such a speculative interpretation of the text is unwise. The actual message Peter preaches is about an outpouring of the Spirit, which is not limited to the Twelve, clearly, from what he quotes from Joel and from his own commentary.
A normal, straight-forward reading of the text would lead us to believe that 'all' refers to the whole group that were involved with that discussion about Matthias being included with the eleven, not just to the eleven. It seems that you have a very rigid view on speaking in tongues, and you are really driven to line up every passage to fit with that interpretation, even if it is 'reaching' a bit.
I know others have made the same set of arguments you have in the past, so maybe there is some other rigid, doctrinally motivated interpreter whose commentary you rely on. One of the dangers with commentaries like this is that a Bible commentary seems so authoritative. Many people like the 'appeal to authority' in an argument and are swayed by the supposed expert that writes a book. Maybe you have a commentary that teaches this.
What I have noticed is that a lot of people in the so-called 'Church of Christ' movement have this rigid approach to this and other doctrines. They tend to be homogeneous on many matters of doctrine. And since many of them think that they, exclusively are THE true church, they tend to think that theirs must be the right or proper way of interpreting scripture. They also have their own kind of logical/interpretive rules that was influenced by Scottish Common Sense Realism, an offshoot of Enlightenment philosophy. Anyway, their commentaries and other people interpreting scripture the same way can be a bit of an echo chamber where they reinforce each others interpretations. Nearly everyone else they encounter who they think is a true Christian has the same beliefs.
I saw in a past thread, your ideas on Mark 16 align with the interpretation of a commentary from that movement that misinterpreted the Greek grammar, so that is why I mention it. I seem to vaguely recall that you may not be from this 'Restoration Movement' as best I can understand. But your propensity to hold to strained and unlikely interpretations of passages rigidly to support your theological viewpoint reminds me of conversations with people from this movement. I wonder if you have one of their commentaries on your desk or have encountered their ideas. And, btw, it seems like people in the instrumental Christian Church side of the movement are a bit less rigid about interpreting texts to fit with their predetermined positions.
Back to Acts 1-2, the idea that 'all' in Acts 2:1 refers specifically to the eleven in the previous verse is a rather strained reading of the text, highly unlikely, very unnatural, and not demanded by Greek grammar. Basing doctrine on such a speculative interpretation of the text is unwise. The actual message Peter preaches is about an outpouring of the Spirit, which is not limited to the Twelve, clearly, from what he quotes from Joel and from his own commentary.
What part of that sentence says to Jesus "you are an angel?" You are making an assumption that when God says he didn't choose an angel (any of the created angels) or a man (any created man) to do the job Jesus did, that Jesus is one of the created heavenly angels. That's not said at all. That's a presumption you are making that isn't stated.
-
1
- Show all
The bible does say that.
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
No, I do not make this assumption. I do not see how anything I posted could reasonably interpreted this way.
I pointed out that the idea that 'angel of the Lord' refers to Christ is speculative. That verse I quoted from Hebrews might argue against it.
I appreciate the fact that this line of interpretation about the 'angel of the Lord' gives a good 'onramp' in the OT to trinitarian theology, and I understand it's appeal from that perspective.
I pointed out that the idea that 'angel of the Lord' refers to Christ is speculative. That verse I quoted from Hebrews might argue against it.
I appreciate the fact that this line of interpretation about the 'angel of the Lord' gives a good 'onramp' in the OT to trinitarian theology, and I understand it's appeal from that perspective.
That's the reason you can't understand. Also, you ignore Daniel 9:25 which identifies the Messiah as the prince and Daniel 12:1 which identifies Michael as the prince. That's full circle identifying Michael the arch angel.
Angels are heralds. They are messengers. They were created. But Jesus who came into the world and preached the word, is the chief Herald over the created angels and man. He is the chief messenger of all the created messengers. That does not mean that Jesus himself is a created angel. Jesus created everything, including his word, he is the chief proclaimer, author and power behind it. None of that says he is a created angel, just that he is the arch angel over all creation.
Angels are heralds. They are messengers. They were created. But Jesus who came into the world and preached the word, is the chief Herald over the created angels and man. He is the chief messenger of all the created messengers. That does not mean that Jesus himself is a created angel. Jesus created everything, including his word, he is the chief proclaimer, author and power behind it. None of that says he is a created angel, just that he is the arch angel over all creation.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The Bible does not say that there is only one prince. Saul was anointed a prince. Prophets prophesied to princes.
Interpreting these passages to mean that the Messiah is a Prince and that there is also an angel that is a prince for Israel, just as some other being was a prince for Persia also seems quite reasonable. We do not deify the prince of Persia, also mentioned in the book. Paul refers to principalities. These are not 'god' in the New Testament understanding of the word 'God.'
Interpreting these passages to mean that the Messiah is a Prince and that there is also an angel that is a prince for Israel, just as some other being was a prince for Persia also seems quite reasonable. We do not deify the prince of Persia, also mentioned in the book. Paul refers to principalities. These are not 'god' in the New Testament understanding of the word 'God.'
-
1
- Show all
Oh, I'm sorry. You cited an objection to understanding that Jesus is Michael, the arch angel and cited the citation where God tells us that he didn't choose and angel or man to do the job Jesus did.
As for Jesus being the angel of the Lord, that is pretty much understood throughout the scriptures. The angel of the Lord accepts praise and worship. He is declared to do "wondrously" which God says in praise. The angel of the Lord called out from heaven to stop Abraham from killing Isaac declaring "now I see thou hast not witheld thy son, thy only son from me. Genesis 22:11-12.
And all of this discussion is all written out and cited in another thread.
As for Jesus being the angel of the Lord, that is pretty much understood throughout the scriptures. The angel of the Lord accepts praise and worship. He is declared to do "wondrously" which God says in praise. The angel of the Lord called out from heaven to stop Abraham from killing Isaac declaring "now I see thou hast not witheld thy son, thy only son from me. Genesis 22:11-12.
And all of this discussion is all written out and cited in another thread.
-
1
- Show all
It is not my position to guess that Jesus IS BEYOND any doubt Michael.
That is for others to take that shaky ground.
A guessing game with no viable outcome
I will say simply Jesus is creator
Angels are created beings.
Oh i understand alright.
It has some pivital meaning for some people.
For me it is neither pivitol or a battle i will defend.
Kiss
"Keep it simple"
That is for others to take that shaky ground.
A guessing game with no viable outcome
I will say simply Jesus is creator
Angels are created beings.
Oh i understand alright.
It has some pivital meaning for some people.
For me it is neither pivitol or a battle i will defend.
Kiss
"Keep it simple"
A passage that shows He did not choose an angel. It says He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.
Can you see the difficulty with arguing that Jesus is an angel when considering this passage.
I know one could argue that Jesus was an 'Angel' in a literal sense of a messenger and that possibly the word kind of changed to mean a certain type of entity, 'species' if you will (that does not reproduce, usually). But couldn't the passage tell us that was what was going on? The idea that 'angel of the Lord' passages, like the burning bush, might refer to Christ, provide quite an apologetic for trinitarian thought, but where does the Bible actually indicate, even hint, that these references refer to the preincarnate Christ?
When humans prophesied, many of them also spoke for God in the first person. If an angel did the same thing, would that be so unusual?
Can you see the difficulty with arguing that Jesus is an angel when considering this passage.
I know one could argue that Jesus was an 'Angel' in a literal sense of a messenger and that possibly the word kind of changed to mean a certain type of entity, 'species' if you will (that does not reproduce, usually). But couldn't the passage tell us that was what was going on? The idea that 'angel of the Lord' passages, like the burning bush, might refer to Christ, provide quite an apologetic for trinitarian thought, but where does the Bible actually indicate, even hint, that these references refer to the preincarnate Christ?
When humans prophesied, many of them also spoke for God in the first person. If an angel did the same thing, would that be so unusual?
You won't accept that Jesus came into the world proclaiming his word, delivering his message, speaking on behalf of God and is the power behind the message that saves people. And you won't accept the scriptures that identify Michael as the prince and the prince as the messiah. And don't reply to me saying, oh yes he is and he did all those things because you don't believe it.
And because you can't understand that Jesus did those things, you are practically denying he ever proclaimed his word or preached or heralded or announced the news of salvation to the world simply because you are hung up on the notion that he is a created angel which is NEVER said by the scriptures or by me.
And because you can't understand that Jesus did those things, you are practically denying he ever proclaimed his word or preached or heralded or announced the news of salvation to the world simply because you are hung up on the notion that he is a created angel which is NEVER said by the scriptures or by me.
-
1
- Show all
This is all discussed and the case made in the other thread.
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...-hebrew-in-decent.198968/page-20#post-4566428
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...-hebrew-in-decent.198968/page-20#post-4566428