Modern Chaos: The Charismatic and Pentecostal Movements (5:35)

There's nothing miraculous about modern gibberish; anyone can do it. It doesn't require a miracle, just open your mouth and start speaking nonsense.

Copeland, Dollar, Duplantis, Meyers, Haggee, Osteen, students of Oral roberts. i use to listen to these preachers all of the time, they have even helped me in my faith. i don't listen to them much any more. oral roberts was even a guest at a church i use to attend, i couldn't believe the security they had at the church. thought to myself where is the faith now? why all the security? Just wanted to say these teachers have helped me along the way.

No, you're assuming I said that all tongues are meaningless glossolalia, which I never said. Can you point to where I said that? I actually said that all the ones evaluated so far, and shown on youtube are all pseudo-languages. If they weren't, there would be translations of them. I'm still hoping I see some evidence of real tongues beyond peoples' claims. Can you at least show me a link to a youtube video of tongues (for example), where someone commented "hey, this is the ----- language." That could be very helpful.


The way these testimonies are written, simply matter-of-fact, without flowery language, and almost no religious jargon, they appear more credible than any other testimonies I've heard or read about.

I'd like to make some observations: firstly, they sound like sparse occasional miracles that God does actually do sometimes. That doesn't validate pseudo-language practiced regularly. Secondly, in the conclusion they make the typical assumption that the pseudo-language is unknown to anyone, quoting 1 Cor. 14:2 out of context. I understand that men are fallible, and people have their pet ideas.


I mean strict interpretation, not interpreting based on experience. The way I see P/C interpretation is that they have to read their experience into the text. Because if the text is read and interpreted solely on textual observance, it conflicts with P/C experience and doctrine. Case in point: Paul makes it clear that not all speak in tongues, and yet P/Cs not only expect everyone to do it, it's in their dogma. "The baptism of the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues" is not a Biblical teaching.


In 25 years of fellowship with P/Cs I've heard so many urban legends that weren't true, it still makes me sick thinking about it. Even some P/Cs acknowledge that 80% of prophecies never come true. Yes, I think it justifies calling them urban legends until proven otherwise.


Do you actually believe that happened? No, I don't think so. I think your argument is a straw man. God can do anything, so anything is possible. That doesn't make pseudo-language angelic or anything else having meaning.


Our paths diverge here. We aren't reading the text the same. Paul is not teaching the Corinthians to speak in tongues even of men, nor is he teaching them to speak in tongues of angels. He said "if" which is a logical argument. No, he is teaching them that they are wrong to practice tongues as they are. He's telling them shut up if there is no interpreter. He's telling them to love others by edifying them and stop being self-centered. This is what he is teaching. He is not teaching them that their tongues is angelic.


Like I said before, angelic languages is not random syllables with no language structure. To suggest so is unreasonable.


Something being possible doesn't make the norm. But the norm today is pseudo-language. Do you think that pseudo-language is possible?

Yep...they are all big money makers.

Copeland just recently bought himself another jet....$19 million dollar jet. Has 3 if I remember.
Check here;

https://www.christianpost.com/news/...seeks-19-5m-for-upgrades-and-maintenance.html



https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kenneth-copeland-jet-inside-edition_n_5cf822fee4b0e63eda94de4f



https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog...ecause-commercial-airlines-are-full-of-demons



Unreal!!!!!

If the saints in the Great Tribulation are not appointed unto wrath then, 'Not appointed unto wrath' is not an argument that the rapture occurs before the tribulation.

Very unfair comment from you. How many people do you personally know? You're talking about televangelists. There are a whole lot more charismatic/ Pentecostals than that.

I don't personally know televangelist, but I know some ex friend that involve in charismatic. When they make revival meeting, I remember they use expensive building it was full no more sit in the back, so I try to find empty sit, it was in front sit, the elder not let me, I was think because for the sick so I go back to stand, but then I know that sit are for the rich, to me it is discrimination, not first come first serve

I don't personally know televangelist, but I know some ex friend that involve in charismatic. When they make revival meeting, I remember they use expensive building it was full no more sit in the back, so I try to find empty sit, it was in front sit, the elder not let me, I was think because for the sick so I go back to stand, but then I know that sit are for the rich, to me it is discrimination, not first come first serve

That is about as shallow an assessment as you can get. But since that's your take, perhaps you should write another similar book and make some money.

No, it's not shallow at all, it's the truth.

For example, I recently made the mistake of reading David Jeremiah's The Book of Signs (please don't waste your time or money). In his chapter on the rapture, pg. 160, he says:

First of all, this isn't Paul's main passage on the rapture, at least in Thessalonians. That would be 2 Thessalonians 2. But Jeremiah doesn't even mention 2 Thessalonians! The reason for this is obvious: it blows a big hole in the pre-tribulation rapture idea. Jeremiah knows about 2 Thessalonians 2; he intentionally omitted it.

Throughout, he quotes other pre-tribulationist authors. This is what they do. They support each other in their books to up sales. The pre-tribulation rapture is a big market and they know it. That's why they write books in favor of it.

Personally, between what I have read and people I have spoken with and testimony I have heard, there are probably 20 testimonies to having heard tongues in one's language or having a tongue one spoken in as a language. I know of about 150 other recorded accounts in books I have not read yet. There is a lot of evidence.

One example of it proves it. A linguists sample does not. Why would you think his sample is representative anyway?

I think there is Chaos in several Movements.

One Movement has taken the English Translation of Proverbs 4:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil, and turned that into God made people specifically for Hell.

But, when you look at the Actual Hebrew from the Tanakh, 4 The Lord made everything for His praise-even the wicked man for the day of evil, you clearly see that even on the Day of Judgement, the Wicked will PRAISE GOD/ACKNOWLEDGE God, because His sole Purpose was for His Creation to Praise Him.

And for those who think God created Both Saint and Fuel for Hell, they gain this misinformation from a man whose Character is well known for things No True Example of God would ever have been.

IMO the debate between cessationism and continuationism doesn't get anywhere because it doesn't address the heart of the issue. The real issue is the nature of tongues, and the fact that modern tongues is not the same thing as NT tongues. Every time I try to get some P/C to submit their tongues for evaluation, the response is always evasion and hostility. This tells me that I'm poking the heart of the issue. Because all modern P/C tongues that have been evaluated have been found to be a pseudo-language. It sounds like a language, but has no structure or sufficient vocabulary to convey meaning, therefore it is called a false language.

First of all, this isn't Paul's main passage on the rapture, at least in Thessalonians. That would be 2 Thessalonians 2.

Because Biblical tongues were languages that people understood. It means what the apostles spoke actually had structure and vocabulary that conveyed meaning. It is the meaning conveyed that proved the miraculous nature of it, and so Peter could say that the house of Cornelius had received the Spirit in the same way they did. In all cases it says they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There might be different ways to surmise what that means, but I think the best idea is that they all spoke in tongues, and their tongues were prophecies that were understood by the apostles. Therefore, the pattern follows the Biblical precedent, that all mentions of tongues in the NT are the same kind that was manifested in Acts 2. If you study it carefully, I think you'll see that this fits all cases, including 1 Cor. 14. And to claim that the gibberish spoken today is described in 1 Cor. 14 is to wrongly apply the text.

There are many aspects of Copeland's teachings that I do not agree with and some things that are quite alarming to me. I cN harfly stand to watch him for more than a minute if I try.

But he is also apparently a petroleum (gas) billionaire. So some of this wealth that buys these things and pays to kerp him on the air so much.

Don't try to justify him. He got the money for the oil wells from church. That makes it worse. They said he paid for it with church money.
I can't stand to see or hear him. Yuk.

If you read his book, you'll see why there is a difference between language and pseudo-language. I suppose that he asked questions like an investigator, because lots of people helped him with recordings.

So out of 170 accounts you're talking about, is there enough evidence that would pass muster in any of them? That's the key question, and why only that many and not many more? If it is as common and prolific as P/Cs claim that it is and should be, there should be thousands or tens of thousands of cases. But if the vast majority is pseudo-language, then it still proves my point.