The GH with letters/numbering following indicates the specific word or phrase used but it is not found in the Greek Translated Bibles. And the then when you cross reference the words or phrase to Hebrew they are a 100% match. This is indicating the usage of these words/phrases come from a Hebrew Source only. But since the Lord's Prayer is found in the Book of Matthew, it is a better indication the Didaches Version of the Lord's Prayer comes from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew Version.
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.
The GH with letters/numbering following indicates the specific word or phrase used but it is not found in the Greek Translated Bibles. And the then when you cross reference the words or phrase to Hebrew they are a 100% match. This is indicating the usage of these words/phrases come from a Hebrew Source only. But since the Lord's Prayer is found in the Book of Matthew, it is a better indication the Didaches Version of the Lord's Prayer comes from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew Version.
I wouldn't say don't trust them, but don't just take their word for it either.
What does the Holy Spirit tell you? He's the Spirit of Truth. Have you done hard investigation to learn the truth asking Him to lead you to the truth; or, have you only listened to one side. If you've done a thorough investigation, considering everything from all angles, and believe it's more likely true than not, then you can say yes, the church "fathers" were right all long. But it's not wise to just take someone's word for it, even if there's apparently a cloud of witnesses. Like your mother used to say, if everyone else is jumping off a cliff should you do it? Maybe they don't say that anymore.
What does the Holy Spirit tell you? He's the Spirit of Truth. Have you done hard investigation to learn the truth asking Him to lead you to the truth; or, have you only listened to one side. If you've done a thorough investigation, considering everything from all angles, and believe it's more likely true than not, then you can say yes, the church "fathers" were right all long. But it's not wise to just take someone's word for it, even if there's apparently a cloud of witnesses. Like your mother used to say, if everyone else is jumping off a cliff should you do it? Maybe they don't say that anymore.
The Holy Spirit tells me the Greek freaks have always been incorrect. The reason they never want a Hebrew Matthew Version is because Matthew 28:19 matches the other 8 written examples of Water Baptism in Yeshua's Name. Now, as a Trinitarian or one who believes in the Father-WORD-Holy Spirit, this doesn't bother me because we HEAL in Yeshua's Name, we cast out demons in Yeshua's Name, we conduct most church business in Yeshua's Name, so being Baptized in Yeshua's Name like the other 8 examples in the Bible seem like no big deal. When Yeshua did anything, He did it in alignment with the Father. So to Baptize in Yeshua's Name would be Baptizing in the Father's Name and Holy Spirit all the same.
The Greek freaks are busy bodies trying to micromanage everything and proof of a Hebrew Matthew literally sets them off like we've seen just in the last page of Your thread. But truth is truth and it is what it is. Matthew was factually written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek later on.
But not even a fragment of a Hebrew Matthew from the 1st or early 2nd centuries. Now, I realize the church fathers are considered if they quote something. But it is always limited to confirming what we already know, because the church fathers were simply not "inspired by God" like the actual books of the Bible. The Didache is certainly not a good source of inspired text, either. I had the honour of translating it in my Greek class. What the class found out, is that there are portions directly copied out of the gospels. Then there are long tracts an unknown person wrote. That includes saying the evangelists should be kicked out, if they stay more than 3 days in a village, and they were not allowed to give these touring evangelists money - just a bowl of food. I wonder if the Bible said that, if we would have less shysters ripping people off on TV and social media? There were also instructions on how to slap a man on his right cheek. That is why I would never trust the Didache, because it has some radically different material than the Bible does. I feel the same about church fathers.
"New Testament scholars have no doubt that Matthew was written in Greek. Certainly, it was attributed to the apostle Matthew in the second century, but before this the book was anonymous. By laying the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke in parallel and reading them synoptically ('with the same eye') in Greek, scholars have established that Matthew and Luke were substantially copied from Mark, with Matthew using some 90 per cent of the verses in Mark. Much of the text even uses the same words in the Greek language, which would only be possible if the copying were done in the Greek language. Further sayings material not found in Mark but common to Matthew and Luke is attributed to the hypothetical 'Q' document, and once again, this could only come from Q in the Greek language.
the Gospel of Matthew in its current form—that is, the one that appears in every copy of the New Testament going back to the oldest surviving copies—was almost certainly written in Greek.
As Dick Harfield mentions in his answer, we find close parallels between Matthew and Mark in several places. In this example from the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8 || Mark 9:2-8) I have bolded exact parallels and italicized words and expressions that the later writer has modified.
Matthew 17:1-8
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, "This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!" When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Get up and do not be afraid." And when they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus himself alone.
Mark 9:2-8
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!" Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus.
Although these are not exact copies of each other, the presence of so many exact phrases is a strong indication that one author used the other as a source. There are good reasons to believe that Matthew used Mark as a source, and not the other way around."Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, "This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!" When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Get up and do not be afraid." And when they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus himself alone.
Mark 9:2-8
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!" Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus.
https://christianity.stackexchange....what-language-was-the-book-of-matthew-written
I am willing to concede that some people in history thought that Matthew was written in Aramaic, although no early copies remain. But, if there was a Hebrew Matthew, scholarship says it was copied from the Greek Matthew, and Matthew copied a lot from Mark, which is always cited as the source of both Matthew and Luke, being synoptic gospels.. It just does not seem believable that there is not ONE extant Hebrew copy of Matthew. Esp. when Hebrew was not spoken, but Aramaic and Koine Greek in the 1st and 2nd centuries of Christianity in the Near Middle East. So post all you want. You are not open to hearing other sides, and honestly, neither of us is going to convince the other one that we are right.
(Edited for length of words!)
Actually Hebrew Language has been used by the Jews for several Centuries past Yeshua.
Most linguists agree that after the 6th century BCE when the Neo-Babylonian Empire destroyed Jerusalem and exiled its population to Babylon and the Persian Empire allowed them to return, the Biblical Hebrew dialect prevalent in the Bible came to be replaced in daily use by new dialects of Hebrew and a local version of Aramaic. After the 2nd century CE when the Roman Empire exiled the Jewish population of Jerusalem and parts of the Bar Kokhba State, Hebrew gradually ceased to be a spoken language, but remained a major literary language.
Most linguists agree that after the 6th century BCE when the Neo-Babylonian Empire destroyed Jerusalem and exiled its population to Babylon and the Persian Empire allowed them to return, the Biblical Hebrew dialect prevalent in the Bible came to be replaced in daily use by new dialects of Hebrew and a local version of Aramaic. After the 2nd century CE when the Roman Empire exiled the Jewish population of Jerusalem and parts of the Bar Kokhba State, Hebrew gradually ceased to be a spoken language, but remained a major literary language.
This is simply a Fact whether we like it or not!
Quotes by Church Fathers
Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it.
— Jerome: De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.[7]
He (Shaul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently; while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.
— Jerome, 382 CE, On Illustrious Men, Book V
Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
— Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1 [c.175-185 A.D.]
First to be written was by Matthew, who was once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it in Hebrew for Jewish believers.
— Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4[8][9]
Didache
This version of the Lord’s Prayer is different from the one found in the Canonical Gospels. For this reason, some believe it is ‘possibly’ from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . It is interesting to compare this fragment with GHeb-47, which confirms that this Lord’s Prayer was found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.
Ignatius
This fragment from Ignatius has caused much controversy among scholars because the term “bodiless demon” is used. We know that this excerpt is not from the Canonical Gospels, nor would this term be used in Hebrew. Thus, some have argued that this fragment was written in Syriac but with Hebrew letters.
Jerome affirms “bodiless demon” is in the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
Polycarp
Born some thirty years after the crucifixion, Polycarp is an important link to the Apostolic Age. A strong defender of Orthodoxy, he seems to have been aware of the Gospel of the Hebrews written by Matthew.
Justin
The Church Fathers explain that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Apostles. Justin cites as his authority the “Apostles of our Christ” and the “Gospel of the Apostles.” (See GHeb-55) Also, Jesus being ‘begotten’ at His baptism is unique to the Hebrew Gospel.
Irenaeus
GHeb-11 Here Irenaeus states that the Ebionite community uses only the Gospel of Matthew! Other Church Fathers confirm what he writes, but say the Ebionites only use the Gospel of the Hebrews, making it ‘probable’ that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew. It is highly unlikely than he is referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel (see Epiphanius and Eusebius).
GHeb-12 Irenaeus states that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews in their own dialect. Biblical scholars agree that Irenaeus cannot be referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel, which has been shown to be composed in Greek by a person other than Matthew. This raises the ‘probability’ that Irenaeus is referring to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
Pantaenus
GHeb-14 This excerpt explains why those who were associated with the school of Alexandria had such extensive knowledge of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
Tertullian
GHeb-15 Scholars say that this quote is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
Hegesippus
A contemporary of Irenaeus, Hegesippus was a master of Syriac and Hebrew. He was familiar with Jewish oral tradition as well as Hebrew Christianity, and, more particularly, the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
GHeb-16 This fragment directly cites the Gospel of the Hebrews.
Clement of Alexandria
GHeb-17 and 18 and 19
These refer to the Gospel of the Hebrews. From Clements’s text it would appear that these teachings are familiar to Clements’s readers. ‘Seeking until one finds’ and ‘seeing God in your brother’ are themes developed in the Canonical New Testament. Also, it is clear that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .
Epiphanius
GHeb-31 Epiphanius was probably the first to write of the Hebrew Christian community called the Nazarenes. They had a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews, written by “Matthew quite complete in Hebrew."
Didymus
Didymus was a disciple of Origen. He was also the Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Therefore, he had access to the scholarly works collected by his predecessors, Pantaenus, Clement and Origen. Thus he was familiar with and had access to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
Quotes by Church Fathers
Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it.
— Jerome: De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.[7]
He (Shaul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently; while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.
— Jerome, 382 CE, On Illustrious Men, Book V
Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
— Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1 [c.175-185 A.D.]
First to be written was by Matthew, who was once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it in Hebrew for Jewish believers.
— Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4[8][9]
Didache
This version of the Lord’s Prayer is different from the one found in the Canonical Gospels. For this reason, some believe it is ‘possibly’ from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . It is interesting to compare this fragment with GHeb-47, which confirms that this Lord’s Prayer was found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.
Ignatius
This fragment from Ignatius has caused much controversy among scholars because the term “bodiless demon” is used. We know that this excerpt is not from the Canonical Gospels, nor would this term be used in Hebrew. Thus, some have argued that this fragment was written in Syriac but with Hebrew letters.
Jerome affirms “bodiless demon” is in the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
Polycarp
Born some thirty years after the crucifixion, Polycarp is an important link to the Apostolic Age. A strong defender of Orthodoxy, he seems to have been aware of the Gospel of the Hebrews written by Matthew.
Justin
The Church Fathers explain that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Apostles. Justin cites as his authority the “Apostles of our Christ” and the “Gospel of the Apostles.” (See GHeb-55) Also, Jesus being ‘begotten’ at His baptism is unique to the Hebrew Gospel.
Irenaeus
GHeb-11 Here Irenaeus states that the Ebionite community uses only the Gospel of Matthew! Other Church Fathers confirm what he writes, but say the Ebionites only use the Gospel of the Hebrews, making it ‘probable’ that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew. It is highly unlikely than he is referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel (see Epiphanius and Eusebius).
GHeb-12 Irenaeus states that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews in their own dialect. Biblical scholars agree that Irenaeus cannot be referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel, which has been shown to be composed in Greek by a person other than Matthew. This raises the ‘probability’ that Irenaeus is referring to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
Pantaenus
GHeb-14 This excerpt explains why those who were associated with the school of Alexandria had such extensive knowledge of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
Tertullian
GHeb-15 Scholars say that this quote is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
Hegesippus
A contemporary of Irenaeus, Hegesippus was a master of Syriac and Hebrew. He was familiar with Jewish oral tradition as well as Hebrew Christianity, and, more particularly, the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
GHeb-16 This fragment directly cites the Gospel of the Hebrews.
Clement of Alexandria
GHeb-17 and 18 and 19
These refer to the Gospel of the Hebrews. From Clements’s text it would appear that these teachings are familiar to Clements’s readers. ‘Seeking until one finds’ and ‘seeing God in your brother’ are themes developed in the Canonical New Testament. Also, it is clear that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .
Epiphanius
GHeb-31 Epiphanius was probably the first to write of the Hebrew Christian community called the Nazarenes. They had a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews, written by “Matthew quite complete in Hebrew."
Didymus
Didymus was a disciple of Origen. He was also the Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Therefore, he had access to the scholarly works collected by his predecessors, Pantaenus, Clement and Origen. Thus he was familiar with and had access to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
There is no fragment of a Hebrew original from Matthew. Only theories based on existing Greek manuscripts of Matthew. Therefore it is just a bunch of speculation that there ever was a Hebrew translation and it is impossible to present an exegesis of a Hebrew translation of Matthew on any passage of scripture since there is no copy of an original Hebrew translation of Matthew in extant.
Any proposition that something in the Greek translation in extant should be read differently in the Hebrew based on an original Hebrew translation is impossible to propose. It is a fictional imaginational "what if" proposition.
We can only rely on the Greek copies of the manuscripts as the original as that is all that was preserved and therefore most likely all that ever was.
Any proposition that something in the Greek translation in extant should be read differently in the Hebrew based on an original Hebrew translation is impossible to propose. It is a fictional imaginational "what if" proposition.
We can only rely on the Greek copies of the manuscripts as the original as that is all that was preserved and therefore most likely all that ever was.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The fragment in question is not a piece of papyrus itself. The fragment is the specific wording used that does not match any of the Greek copies we have. When you take the word or series of words there are no Greek that matches the saying. When you take those same series of words and apply them to Hebrew they match. So they know the words in each fragment is Hebrew originated.
I thought this might be a good time to revisit this thread. In the video Daniel exposes absolutely one of the early Pentecostal and Charismatic heroes: John G. Lake. This is the first installment of what Daniel says is going to be a series on early Charismatic fakes.
He already has a playlist with 25 videos called Exposing the Early Pentecostal Movement.
If the root is bad, how can it bear good fruit?
He already has a playlist with 25 videos called Exposing the Early Pentecostal Movement.
If the root is bad, how can it bear good fruit?
-
1
- Show all
I've been worshiping with Pentecostals for decades, and certainly do not agree with all of their doctrines, nor with all of their practices. They indeed are a mixed bag, full of flaws and flawed people. I hang out with them because they have traditionally focused on the Holy Spirit and on the Gifts of the Spirit. I don't always look at them the same way Pentecostals do, but I do like the emphasis on spiritual manifestations today. We just shouldn't make up what isn't really happening. We should give proper credit to God only when it is He doing the work.
-
1
- Show all
I never let bad examples of men weigh in on how I interpret scriptures.
Now if you want to use this kind of approach I think that the strongest argument for you would be to look at the majority of lives of the Pentecostal church such as an Assemblies of God congregations and compare their daily lives to a non Pentecostal congregation such as a Baptist where the doctrines are very similar except for this one area. Look for the fruit that is the daily life and character of these congregates.
Statistically you find that the majority of the pentecostal congregations live a much holier, godly, Christlike life, shunning sins of the flesh and the world, and are consumed with Christ 24x7 talking about him, praying, seeking God and hating any hint of sin and ungodliness.
The non pentecostal congregations are known for sipping saints, carousers, consumed with entertainment and worldliness, compromisers, cussing, they seem to have no problem with things that the pentecostals would consider themselves full blown backslidden if they were to partake in.
My point is that the FRUIT of pentecostalism produces holy living and focus on the great commission which is why the AG for example is the largest missions organization in the world and their churches that are being planted are filled with people that live a holy life and are not compromisers. The FRUIT is something you can check out for yourself.
I challenge you to go to a few AG churches and take time to get to know them. You will discover more of the congregation are non compromising holy men and women of God than the average in the non penetecostal.
You will discover that about 80% in the non pentecostal live lives and conduct themselves in word and deed that would make you question their conversion and make you wonder if they are just going to church but are not really born again, even though they claim to be.
And the opposite is true in the pentecostal churches. More like 80% in any given AG church are 100% on fire of God and you know they are living it everyday once you get to know them.
So their is your fruit and these videos will not be able to refute that fact.
So be careful that you don't find yourself having joined the devil in fighting against God by broad brushing all Pentecostals because of bad examples any one can find from any denomination if one searches.
I have 40 years of experience with mainline denominations and also non denominational churches and I have learned over and over again that there is something very intense, real, and Spirit Filled, about the lives of those individuals who are actively involved in the pentecostal, charismatic churches that is obviously missing in the non pentecostal, non charismatic churches.
This might be subjective experiential reasoning but it is superior in fruit judging than your theory that finding fault with previous historical personality celebrity preachers proves bad fruit. No it doesn't it proves bad fruit in their lives. Don't go judging the fruit of a modern AG congregation without getting to know the people themselves. You will learn that your theory has failed because there is more holy fruit in these congregations than in the non pentecostals and that is a fact.
That's all I have to say on the subject. I won't go on and on arguing about it. What I have written might help someone to discover that kind of church they have been looking for all their lives and if it does I am glad that I wrote it. But I won't strive about it.
Google Assemblies of God Church near me, and go visit the ones close to you. Give yourself time to know some people and you will see what I am talking about. It is a dynamic, organic, book of Acts kind of vibe you will soon get.
Now I know that there will be some who will post about their bad experience with an AG church, I won't respond to all that, it doesn't change anything I have said. The AG is huge, each congregation is autonomous and no two are alike. Some might have a bad pastor, go to another one. Most people will have the experience I am talking about, that book of Acts feel, that "I can get in agreement with these folks, they are for real about serving Jesus and focusing on the most important things Jesus preached." "They aren't faking it. They are people just like me perusing Christ with their whole heart and hungry for the word of God." If someone has had a bad experience with a church get over it and go to another one, there isn't time to hold on to grudges in the kingdom of God.
Now if you want to use this kind of approach I think that the strongest argument for you would be to look at the majority of lives of the Pentecostal church such as an Assemblies of God congregations and compare their daily lives to a non Pentecostal congregation such as a Baptist where the doctrines are very similar except for this one area. Look for the fruit that is the daily life and character of these congregates.
Statistically you find that the majority of the pentecostal congregations live a much holier, godly, Christlike life, shunning sins of the flesh and the world, and are consumed with Christ 24x7 talking about him, praying, seeking God and hating any hint of sin and ungodliness.
The non pentecostal congregations are known for sipping saints, carousers, consumed with entertainment and worldliness, compromisers, cussing, they seem to have no problem with things that the pentecostals would consider themselves full blown backslidden if they were to partake in.
My point is that the FRUIT of pentecostalism produces holy living and focus on the great commission which is why the AG for example is the largest missions organization in the world and their churches that are being planted are filled with people that live a holy life and are not compromisers. The FRUIT is something you can check out for yourself.
I challenge you to go to a few AG churches and take time to get to know them. You will discover more of the congregation are non compromising holy men and women of God than the average in the non penetecostal.
You will discover that about 80% in the non pentecostal live lives and conduct themselves in word and deed that would make you question their conversion and make you wonder if they are just going to church but are not really born again, even though they claim to be.
And the opposite is true in the pentecostal churches. More like 80% in any given AG church are 100% on fire of God and you know they are living it everyday once you get to know them.
So their is your fruit and these videos will not be able to refute that fact.
So be careful that you don't find yourself having joined the devil in fighting against God by broad brushing all Pentecostals because of bad examples any one can find from any denomination if one searches.
I have 40 years of experience with mainline denominations and also non denominational churches and I have learned over and over again that there is something very intense, real, and Spirit Filled, about the lives of those individuals who are actively involved in the pentecostal, charismatic churches that is obviously missing in the non pentecostal, non charismatic churches.
This might be subjective experiential reasoning but it is superior in fruit judging than your theory that finding fault with previous historical personality celebrity preachers proves bad fruit. No it doesn't it proves bad fruit in their lives. Don't go judging the fruit of a modern AG congregation without getting to know the people themselves. You will learn that your theory has failed because there is more holy fruit in these congregations than in the non pentecostals and that is a fact.
That's all I have to say on the subject. I won't go on and on arguing about it. What I have written might help someone to discover that kind of church they have been looking for all their lives and if it does I am glad that I wrote it. But I won't strive about it.
Google Assemblies of God Church near me, and go visit the ones close to you. Give yourself time to know some people and you will see what I am talking about. It is a dynamic, organic, book of Acts kind of vibe you will soon get.
Now I know that there will be some who will post about their bad experience with an AG church, I won't respond to all that, it doesn't change anything I have said. The AG is huge, each congregation is autonomous and no two are alike. Some might have a bad pastor, go to another one. Most people will have the experience I am talking about, that book of Acts feel, that "I can get in agreement with these folks, they are for real about serving Jesus and focusing on the most important things Jesus preached." "They aren't faking it. They are people just like me perusing Christ with their whole heart and hungry for the word of God." If someone has had a bad experience with a church get over it and go to another one, there isn't time to hold on to grudges in the kingdom of God.
That is not an intellectually honest comparison. Unless of course you sincerely believe pentecostals can be compared with LDS. In which case a discussion about it with you would probably be fruitless. (Pun intended. )
)
Pentecostalism is not a denomination. It is a doctrinal belief that what happened on the day of Pentecost is available to every believer today and that speaking in tongues and gifts of the Spirit as they operated in the book of Acts is still available for the Church today.
That is not something that can be discussed by highlighting bad characters. It is a matter of hermeneutics and of course experience but the hermeneutics can stand on it's own.
You're going about this the wrong way. It won't convince anyone to change their minds. Scriptures are our foundation. We can't be moved. Plus we speak in tongues so we are not moved by false accusations that we are faking. That's all on yall.
That is not something that can be discussed by highlighting bad characters. It is a matter of hermeneutics and of course experience but the hermeneutics can stand on it's own.
You're going about this the wrong way. It won't convince anyone to change their minds. Scriptures are our foundation. We can't be moved. Plus we speak in tongues so we are not moved by false accusations that we are faking. That's all on yall.
If we’re gonna talk about Pentecostal is it be wise to get the facts straight and your way off. Later you post a video of some unknown person who doesn’t help the kingdom he hurts the kingdom it’s not your kids or my kids he’s touching it’s the children that belong to a God. Some just don’t know how to handle the fact that those that came before us we’re human paid with a price paid in full with one sacrifice it’s the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanses us from all sin we all fall we all miss it we get up dust off keep going help the kingdom speak words of life or get out of his way.
And it’s not the world doing this is it no it’s those that love Jesus Christ so much we show the world how we love each other we forgive each other 70×7 are we expect Jesus to forgive us we demand it but those that came before us didn’t sing against us but we’re gonna remember their faults. Do you know all the good they did what do you look at first you’re the light the light doesn’t see darkness and again through his kids there’s a price to this saying you love Jesus doesn’t do anything for this. The god 1000 years it’s like one day so Chris just told us little over two days ago to love one another as he loves us to forgive one another it’s a free choice this isn’t helping anyone
And it’s not the world doing this is it no it’s those that love Jesus Christ so much we show the world how we love each other we forgive each other 70×7 are we expect Jesus to forgive us we demand it but those that came before us didn’t sing against us but we’re gonna remember their faults. Do you know all the good they did what do you look at first you’re the light the light doesn’t see darkness and again through his kids there’s a price to this saying you love Jesus doesn’t do anything for this. The god 1000 years it’s like one day so Chris just told us little over two days ago to love one another as he loves us to forgive one another it’s a free choice this isn’t helping anyone
-
1
- Show all