F
feedm3
Guest
So, you're completely ruling out the possibility that the Holy Spirit didn't fall on those people because maybe Phillip was also fairly new to this Holy Spirit stuff as well, and just didn't know to lay hands on people to impart the Holy Spirit to them?
Cmon, that does not make much sense. Your saying Philip had the HS, (i.e. knowlege from him etc) and did not know he could lay his hands upon them?
This he was a newbie really does not explain this portion of scripture. Where does the text give this impression?
The text shows Philip could NOT lay his hands upon them. Even Simon noticed it was only given through the laying on of the Apostles hands.
I also don't see how any of this proves ceassationism.
It shows the Apostles only this ability, and implies when they died, so did this ability.
It is not about "proving" it, I am showing you a valid case for why I believe they have ceased. With the answer you just gave to explain acts 8, I am wondering if your really open to study, or just want to debate.
Nothing wrong with that, but if that's the case then you have not shown proof that I Cor 13:10 is saying they will cease at the 2nd coming. You must prove the words "that which is perfect" in I Cor 13:10 to mean Jesus. The burden of proof is on you seeing your taking a nueter word and using it to mean a person (Jesus -Masculine) in this one passage.
I can show many examples of "that which is perfect" referring to completeness, of man, through the word of God that is also complete (telios "perfect"). Which I assert this passage means, and is teaching.
I have myself experience and have had friends experience the healing power of God. For instance, a person burned his hand in a fire several years ago. The doctor told him he'd never have feeling in his right hand again due to the nerve damage. Immediately after hands were laid on him, and using Jesus' name, he had feeling in his hand again. I'm not about to say he's faking it just to try and justify unbelief. His healing doesn't contradict scripture, unless you're trying to say that God isn't a healer.
Again, I cant prove or disprove this. I will tell it has no merit, and does not explain Acts 8, or I Cor 13:10.
The gifts don't cease until perfection returns. Last I checked, perfection (Jesus) hasn't returned yet.
Where do you see "when perfection returns" in the passage? You added that.
It says "when that which is perfect has come", showing again, it has not already came once.
"that" never refers to Christ, if so, please show me another example where Christ is "that" instead of "he".
If you take the time to look up the word for "perfect" it means, "complete, mature, full of age", and again is never applied to Christ.
Christ does not need to come to a point of "completeness, maturity," we do, through the complete revelation of God - Col 1:28; II Tim 3:16-f.
Once again, you verify what I said at the start of this. You're not seeing it happen for yourself because a) you block out anything and everything other Christians say about it, and b) you spend more time believing the gifts have ceased than believing you have them.
I believe what the Bible says. And why would that play a role in me not seeing them? The Apostles and Jesus did them openly before all, did not matter what they believed, even some believed it was the power of Satan.
In fact, the purpose of the gifts were to confirm the word. If I dont believe, someone should be able to convince by performing a supernatural act, then I would believe. I dont mean someone you know, or TV, I mean, go to a hospital, start healing the children dying of cancer, go to a grave yard and raise the dead, use these gifts for their purpose, and confirm the word.
No one does this. Except we hear stories about people doing things within their church, and never is it brought out publicly as with the Apostles.
In fact, I have never seen anyone raise someone from the dead, but let me guess, it did happen somewhere in someones church.
I not trying to belittle what you believe, but at the same time, why are these things not done in the same way they were in scripture?
Why is it that Jesus couldn't perform many miracles when he went back to Nazareth? It was because of the people's unbelief, and nothing more.
It did not say he "could not" it said he "would not". Their is a big difference. IF that were the case, why did he perform them in front of those who claimed they were from the power of Satan???
He chose not to show what he could do because of their unbelief. Children believe in Santa, it would not be hard to convince them you could heal them, so what is stopping it?
Why are their children who have died because their parents refused to give them medical treatment, because they believed God would heal them? How much more faith must you have?
It's because God told them in his word the purpose of Gifts, the length of Gifts, and when they would cease. They choose to ignore it, and their child dies for it.
I had hands laid on my and an evil spirit cast out of me, and I completely changed as a person overnight. That is nothing short of a miracle. But if what you're proposing is true, everything contradictory to your proposal, including my personal testimony, would be false.
Again, can prove or disprove, does not help with this discussion. You need to show me from scripture why I Cor 13:10 is pertaining to Christ, and why in Acts 8 Philip needed an Apostle, and why Simon said it was "only through the laying on of the Apostles hands the Holy Ghost was given".
Exactly, you don't expect to be able to do that. That's why you laying your hands on the sick probably wouldn't do anything, because of your unbelief. Once again, Matthew 13:58. Mark 16:17-18 says those signs will follow ALL who believe, not just apostles.
So you do heal? Your saying you can lay your hands on people and heal them from sickness?
You already mentioned that for yourself, in Acts 2 and Acts 10. Why would it take more instances for you to believe it?
Acts 2 - fulfillment of promise to the Apostles - Jn 14-16
Acts 10 - fulfillment of promise to Abraham concerning Gentiles.
Both are specific incidences, that happened for a purpose. Otherwise, why did not the HS just fall on the Samaritans, or those in Acts 19?
Acts 8 and 19 are instances of the HS being imparted.
Acts 2 and 10 are instances of the baptism of the HS, only given once to Jews and Gentile without the laying on of hands showing God made the decision.
In Acts 10, it happened to be a sign for Peter. Read Acts 10: and 11, and you will see it was to show Peter God had chose the Gentiles.
Does he still need to show this?
