G
guest1
Guest
sure it does lol- Acts 2 was real and so were tongues.Yep and whether you like it or not, all of that nonsense and false doctrine, comes out of the doctrine of the trinity and Jesus being God, all of it.
sure it does lol- Acts 2 was real and so were tongues.Yep and whether you like it or not, all of that nonsense and false doctrine, comes out of the doctrine of the trinity and Jesus being God, all of it.
Just so you know, I don't believe that the tongues are given to make confusion but rather to do away with it and let me explain.no tongues ever in my life even though as a young believer I sought out the " gift " .
I was at a Jimmy Swaggart crusade at oakland colosseum in the 80's right at the front when Swaggart Jr tried talking me into babbling baby talk, gibberish. What charismatic chaos down there at the podium it was nuts and so was he. I got the heck out of there and never sought the "gift " again.
I wasn't speaking of the original and genuine gift of tongue and you know I wasn't, for I agree that was real but the phony stuff being called "the gift of tongues" all originated out of the belief that Jesus is God and that God a trinity and so did the slain in the Spirit doctrine and many others as well and that is a fact.sure it does lol- Acts 2 was real and so were tongues.
That is totally untrue and you know it, for I answered your question and said I had experienced all of that but have a totally different view on the gift of tongues than I used to have back then.I'm not getting a direct answer from him either just the run around and he is asking me the same question I asked him lol.
Our conversation was not about knowing whether a specific person was born again, It was about doctrinally proving what you were claiming.I don't think I ever said I knew or could know if a particular person was born again. Just that a person had to be born again to see the Kingdom of God.
You said you were going to address "the promise of the Father" in this post, but you did notLet's start then with all of the verses you are speaking of where Jesus speaks of "the Promise of the Father" and the context surrounding them?
Now concerning your second or last paragraph above, I am getting this because of your own argument here, for you said that when Jesus breathed on them and said "receive the Spirit" and which happened well before the Day of Pentecost, that they didn't actually receive the Spirit at that time, isn't that what you said?
Therefore I take it that you are pushing the idea that only on the day of Pentecost was any promise of the Spirit being given, actually given.
Interesting idea that tongues arise out of the belief that Jesus is God.I wasn't speaking of the original and genuine gift of tongue and you know I wasn't, for I agree that was real but the phony stuff being called "the gift of tongues" all originated out of the belief that Jesus is God and that God a trinity and so did the slain in the Spirit doctrine and many others as well and that is a fact.
true: the word of God was not alive in my heart.But the word of God was not alive and growing in your heart. You've admitted that. It wasn't a living thing to you. For the seed in the sower parable to be growing in the ground IT WAS ALIVE.
But the main thing we were talking about is the seed in the parable WAS ALIVE and growing in the heart and soil. It was alive and active but only endured but for a short period of time.true: the word of God was not alive in my heart.
Then God changed my heart ; and I responded
It is possible that the sower and the seed is not about being born again, but is simply about what an individual does with the Word of God sown in his heart, seemingly mostly based on the preparation/condition.But the main thing we were talking about is the seed in the parable WAS ALIVE and growing in the heart and soil. It was alive and active but only endured but for a short period of time.
1 Pt 1:23 declares however, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." It even calls the word of God, or eternal life as seed which is born into the heart, ground or spirit. (that is the spirit of man which is what the ground in the parable means) Jesus said his WORDS are Spirit and Life and God watches over his word to perform them.It is possible that the sower and the seed is not about being born again, but is simply about what an individual does with the Word of God sown in his heart, seemingly mostly based on the preparation/condition.
On one hand we do not believe that the Word of God, the Bible, turns into a born again person inside the unregenerate heart, and it probably is not meant to convey that each heart is static and cannot change.
A parable doesn't cover EVERY dynamic one can consider but it does show LIFE genuine LIFE from God can be working and active in a person for a period of time and then they lose it, although I don't like saying they lose it but they forsake it. The plants which were alive....die that is in some.This is a new idea for me, as I normally look at the plant as proof of being born again, but then wheres the old man in this parable if the plants are the new man?
I did over and over again already but here goes again.You said you were going to address "the promise of the Father" in this post, but you did not
Come now, you are smart enough to know that I was speaking of the phony version of tongues which only ends up creating more confusion and not the genuine gift which was actually given to remove confusion about God and Christ instead.Interesting idea that tongues arise out of the belief that Jesus is God.
Amen in each of the 4 soils the seed was alive and sprouted.But the main thing we were talking about is the seed in the parable WAS ALIVE and growing in the heart and soil. It was alive and active but only endured but for a short period of time.
I can't even remember what I was doctrinally claiming now. I'm only a step or two behind Joe Biden.Our conversation was not about knowing whether a specific person was born again, It was about doctrinally proving what you were claiming.
lol thanks for the humor.I can't even remember what I was doctrinally claiming now. I'm only a step or two behind Joe Biden.
Thankyou for making a clear statement concerning the promise of the Father. I am getting called away, but i want to respond to thisI did over and over again already but here goes again.
When Jesus speaks of the promise of the Father in those words, he is not speaking of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, for when he breathed on them and said "receive the Holy Spirit" that is when they were indwelt by the Spirit.
Therefore when he instructs them to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Spirit, he is referring to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and power on the Day of Pentecost and as I have already said over and over again, the indwelling of the Spirit and the Baptism of the Spirit are two different promises concerning the Spirit.
It is quite a bit like the prophecies in the OT concerning the coming of the Messiah, for they all appear to be speaking of happening at one single advent but they are speaking of two advents and so the same promise had two different fulfillments and the same true for the giving of the Spirit also.
If you don't like my answer, then it will have to be your problem, for I am beginning to see that all you really want to do here is argue the point until you win your argument, and I am not here to win any arguments as though this were a game but just to present the truth that God has revealed to me and whether those who hear it can accept it or not.
Make a note of this also, for Jesus himself never actually won any of his arguments with the apostate Jews either, for if he had, then they would have put on the breaks with their rebellion and not have killed him.
This is not a game to see who is smarter or more informed but it should be about wanting to get to the truth alone and nothing more or less.
I get that same thing myself after a chat meanders long enoughI can't even remember what I was doctrinally claiming now. I'm only a step or two behind Joe Biden.
Are you aware that on the day of pentecost, all those in the crowd were Hebrew and did not need to hear a message in the langage of the people from where they had been dispersed. Peter went on to preach in a common language which they all understood. The primary use of tongues in the church going forth from the day of pentecost was to deliver a message to the church, thru an interpreter and to edify the speakerCome now, you are smart enough to know that I was speaking of the phony version of tongues which only ends up creating more confusion and not the genuine gift which was actually given to remove confusion about God and Christ instead.
The purpose of the genuine gift of tongues (every man heard them speak in his language the wonder works of God) was meant to remove the confusion and to unit men in the truth of the gospel who were originally confused and separated by God in Genesis 11.
I don't see that.Are you aware that on the day of pentecost, all those in the crowd were Hebrew and did not need to hear a message in the langage of the people from where they had been dispersed.