Search results

My answer is not in defense of the below, just answering OP's question... It depends on how you define “witch” – for most (conservative) Christians, ‘witch’, ‘Devil worshiper’ and ‘Satanist’ seem to be essentially synonymous. They are, of course not. I cannot speak for the latter two, but...

Should have added to my post - if you were redheaded AND were left-handed; there was basically no hope for you - you were pretty much considered to be in league with Satan and doomed to hell.

It's a lot older than the 1800's.

You took the words out of my mouth. Yes, in Medieval Germany (and I'm sure other places as well), women with red hair were considered to be evil witches. During the Spanish Inquisition, it was believed that red hair was a result of its wielder stealing fires from hell, and so many were...

Yes, people love to cherry pick phrases or verses and use them to mean one thing ; however, when put into context of the entire text, these verses, etc. tend not to mean what people imagine them to. And, yes, historical context is also very important. As an example, the phrase "the whole...

Also your former posts - I have to beg to differ. I never suggested that these plants were borrowed with the same meaning or context - again, the pagenness has been bred out for well over 1.000 years. Neither mistletoe or holly is native to what is now the Middle East.

Holly, Ivy, and Mistletoe - sacred plants of the pre-Christian Celts were given Christian symbolism and completely woven into Christmas traditions. While the "pagen-ness" has been completely bred out of their usage for centuries, their ultimate origins cannot be written off as a Christian...

Wesley founded what is today the Methodist Church; not Pentecostalism.

Sources?? There were movements in the 1800's that led to the eventual development of Pentecostalism, but 1700's in Eastern Europe and Africa??

Yes, interpretation of tongues may also be said to be a sort of self-created phenomenon. When you really look at it, it’s a ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs, isn't it. Interpretations are typically characterized by being inordinately longer than the actual...

I'm not a cessationist (or a continuationist) - I do not identify with either term and had never heard of either until just a few years ago.

“…speaking to God in an unknown tongue” – if put into something a bit more modern and getting rid of that pesky added ‘unknown’ – “…..speaking to God in a language”. I generally find that English, or any other real, rational language I may choose, seems to work just fine. Modern tongues-speech...

I did; however, I can find only one (from which I paraphrase from) - see: https://charlesasullivan.com/761/unknown-tongues-english-bible/#easy-footnote-4-761 Already covered this with the discussion on 1 Cor. 14:14-15

In many cases, yes, it does; however, unknown to the listener, not the speaker.

Yep, it is, sine the 1500's, but agree with it or not; that's where the "unknown" before tongues originated from. And, yes, it's painfully obvious that many denominations have ignored that fact for years. Indeed, it's been completely forgotten about.

You’re still using “understandeth” – that’s not what is written; it’s ‘to hear (in the sense of understanding what you’re hearing someone say)’; not ‘to understand’. Get rid of the archaic ‘tongue’ and replace it with the more modern “language”. Yes, the language is indeed unknown to the...

I should have added that the usage predates King James, but his Bible cemented its usage to this day.

I've already addressed this in the discussion on the passive vs. active use of of the word. Passive "my understanding produces no fruit (in/for me):, active "my understanding produces no fruit (for/in others)"

A better translation would be to get rid of the "understands/understanding/understandeth" - the verb used here is "to hear (with the sense of 'to hear with understanding)", not "to understand", so; "no one hears [him] with understanding", i.e. no one understands what he's saying (as they do not...

Yes - most people have no clue as to why the "unknown" got put there in the first place. It has zero to do with religion and 100% to do with the politics of King James. The phrase unknown tongues, of the English Bible has a tradition that dates back to the earliest days of the Reformation...