Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pentecostal gibberish is still gibberish

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Morefish
    started a topic Pentecostal gibberish is still gibberish

    Pentecostal gibberish is still gibberish

    They may CALL it 'tongues' but of course it is NOT language at all. There is NO 'private prayer language' ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE. When they say that is what they are doing, it is still. . .GIBBERISH.
    gibberish

    [jib-er-ish, gib-] See synonyms on Thesaurus.com noun
    1. meaningless or unintelligible talk or writing.
    2. talk or writing containing many obscure, pretentious, or technical words.
    It's just gibberish. Gibberish may make them FEEL GOOD, but is FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST about 'self' FEELING GOOD? Naah.

    It is about loving GOD and my fellow man, and SERVING BOTH, NOT about 'getting God to make me FEEL GOOD. . .'

  • tbeachhead
    replied
    Originally posted by Conqueror View Post







    I respect the Apostolic word of God.

    I have no respect for someone who contradicts himself
    and then turns on me to defend that absurdity.




    I point out your own contradictions...you quote me...and say I'm contradicting myself.

    Let me lay it out for you: Paul cannot be an apostle without corroborating witness...Luke is the only corroborating witness. You reject Luke's testimony. You cannot accept Paul's writing.

    Your cult can go to bed now.

    On the other hand: Christianity accepts Luke's testimony. Christianity sees where Paul gets sent out, by the Holy Spirit, and is therefore an Apostle by definition. Since you have no proof but Paul's singular claim, you cannot lay any claim to Paul's apostleship.

    I know you will not understand, my friend. You've shown yourself prone to these errors every time you post. I hope this has helped some.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morefish
    replied
    Originally posted by Conqueror View Post
    I respect the Apostolic word of God.

    I have no respect for someone who contradicts himself
    and then turns on me to defend that absurdity.
    No respect for YOURSELF?

    Leave a comment:


  • Conqueror
    replied
    Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post

    Paul was not an apostle, not even by Peter's claim, ........... .
    Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post
    ............. Paul himself, establishes Paul's apostleship beyond all doubt...


    Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post

    You treat my posts the same way you read scripture...
    I respect the Apostolic word of God.

    I have no respect for someone who contradicts himself
    and then turns on me to defend that absurdity.





    Leave a comment:


  • tbeachhead
    replied
    Originally posted by Conqueror View Post











    Thanks for the input.

    I agree that the contradiction in terms is absurd.


    .
    You treat my posts the same way you read scripture...Your own misunderstanding could not be better represented than you do here...all in one post. Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • Conqueror
    replied

    Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post


    Paul was not an apostle, not even by Peter's claim, ...........


    Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post

    .................... Paul himself, establishes Paul's apostleship beyond all doubt...



    Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post

    Wahahahahaha!

    Thanks for the input.

    I agree that the contradiction in terms is absurd.


    .

    Leave a comment:


  • tbeachhead
    replied
    Originally posted by Conqueror View Post




    Deceiver exposes himself.


    .
    Wahahahahaha! You treat my posts the same way you treat scripture, and truncate those pesky passages that belie your claim, relying only on that which is convenient to your singular invention.

    Let's repeat for comedy's sake, that part of my post you chose to ignore: ..but as you've erased Luke, you have absolutely no established authority at all.

    Don't quote Paul, if you cannot prove that he's an apostle without referring to the evangelist you've despised, and the inspired word you've chosen to ignore.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conqueror
    replied
    Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post


    Paul was not an apostle, not even by Peter's claim, ...........


    Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post

    .................... Paul himself, establishes Paul's apostleship beyond all doubt...


    Originally posted by Morefish View Post
    It would appear that EVERYONE is a 'deceiver' except YOU in your own mind.
    Support your confused mate, but leave me out of it.


    .

    Leave a comment:


  • Morefish
    replied
    Conqueror replied
    02-20-19, 12:02 PM
    Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post

    Paul was not an apostle, not even by Peter's claim, ...........
    Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post
    .................... Paul himself, establishes Paul's apostleship beyond all doubt...
    Deceiver exposes himself.
    It would appear that EVERYONE is a 'deceiver' except YOU in your own mind.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conqueror
    replied
    Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post


    Paul was not an apostle, not even by Peter's claim, ...........

    Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post

    .................... Paul himself, establishes Paul's apostleship beyond all doubt...
    Deceiver exposes himself.


    .

    Leave a comment:


  • tbeachhead
    replied
    Originally posted by Conqueror View Post



    You have no case,
    since your beloved Luke he Greek
    establishes Paul as an apostle.
    Why on earth are you using my argument against me? Of course Luke the Greek, the inspired evangelist to which all of contemporary history attests, and Paul himself, establishes Paul's apostleship beyond all doubt...

    ...but as you've erased Luke, you have absolutely no established authority at all.

    Don't quote Paul, if you cannot prove that he's an apostle without referring to the evangelist you've despised, and the inspired word you've chosen to ignore.

    Your entire argument has become wind by virtue of the eraser you've used.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conqueror
    replied
    Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post

    That "apostolic commandment" was written by one whose only claim to apostleship is his own word. It's not a commandment according to your standards.
    Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post

    .Luke establishes Paul's apostleship very clearly,
    You have no case,
    since your beloved Luke he Greek
    establishes Paul as an apostle.




    Leave a comment:


  • tbeachhead
    replied
    Originally posted by Conqueror View Post





    It would be nice,
    if that apostolic commandment was understood.

    However the response indicates that it isn't.


    Originally posted by Conqueror View Post





    It would be nice,
    if that apostolic commandment was understood.

    However the response indicates that it isn't.


    That "apostolic commandment" was written by one whose only claim to apostleship is his own word. It's not a commandment according to your standards.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbeachhead
    replied
    Originally posted by Conqueror View Post

    I am not here to argue about your opinion sir.

    Have it your way.


    .
    ...you'll sure have it yours. Have a great day...see you next time around, when your logic fails. Always there to help you see.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conqueror
    replied
    Originally posted by tbeachhead View Post

    Paul is no apostle.

    Let's suppose that Luke's writings are not authoritative..
    I am not here to argue about your opinion sir.

    Have it your way.


    .

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X