Do any supernatural gifts of the Spirit exist today

Mathetes the kerux · Jan 8, 2011

Dr.Strangelove said:
Historical? So is kundalini and pagans talking gibberish.

I want to know if angels talking gibberish is BIBLICAL! Show me in the Bible.

The blue bold parts you made up to to excuse unbiblical practices. You are desperately trying to use semantics to justify talking gibberish in Christs name.

If I recite poetry and the listeners in the room do not applaud and then I exclaim "No-one understands!" would you take it I meant that no one on Earth..lolz...including myself..understands or that no-one present understands? Please use common sense.

Do you know? Have you seen how similar use of 'tongues' are in both systems? And other similarities? Shaking and quaking etc?

YouTube - SHOCKING DOCUMENTARY 1- False spirits invade the church - KUNDALINI WARNING - Andrew Strom -Part 1

You've got very little I'm afraid. But I understand your desperation to justify all this stuff. I mean, if you admit your wrong it's probably years if not decades of practicing unbiblical things in the name of God. I dont expect many to come out of it once the strong delusion has set in. I've helped 1 person come out of it in this forum. Only one sadly.

I dont have 700 bucks to spend on a lexicon I can have free online.

Glossa - the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations

That, or variations of it is all I can find from many different sources. Please cite your source.

The contrast is most likely between the speech of a common man and the speech of angels who are eloquent and use speech powerfully:

Barnes:

And of angels - The language of angels; such as they speak. Were I endowed with the faculty of eloquence and persuasion which we attribute to them; and the power of speaking to any of the human family with the power which they have. The language of angels here seems to be used to denote the highest power of using language, or of the most elevated faculty of eloquence and speech.

Or if Paul was making a passing reference to the ancient Jewish Cabbalistic belief that there was a secret language of the Angels then is that seriously something you want to be involved in? Talmudic Kabbalhism? I doubt this is his meaning though.

Jewish extra canonical? Uhm...no sorry that doesn't work for me. Can you show angels babbling in God breathed scripture please. I don't dabble in gnosticism and kabbalhistic magick. Sorry.

Historical? So is kundalini and pagans talking gibberish.

K, tell me about the pagan practices . . . no, let me save you the trouble. It is the pythian and delphic oracles and the mantenoi . . . and what they spoke WAS TRANSLATED. IT SOUNDED like gibberish because it wasnt an earthly language. It was DEMONIC.

The SAME place of religious fervor is awakened in Christians as it is in the Pagans . . . the difference is the SOURCE . . . one comes from a redeemed spirit awakened by God, the other from fallen spirit stimulated by demons.

Notice here:

1 Cor 12:1-3
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware. 2 You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led. 3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
NASU

You tell me . . . what is paul's standard of discerning between what happens in the pagan cults and what happens in the church?

I want to know if angels talking gibberish is BIBLICAL! Show me in the Bible.

Nope. We never have an account of angels speaking to one another in the scripture where the communication is not meant for man to hear. So what?

What we do have is historical context for Judaism in which angelic language is part of the religious mileau . . . so your just shot down. Paul's references to tongues of angels is

1. DICHOTOMIZED from the tongues of MEN.
THIS ALONE SHOOTS YOU OUT OF THE SKY. What ever it is that he means by the comment, it is CLEAR that it is DIFFERENT then EARTHLY LANGUAGES OF MEN. SORRY DUDE, that is hermeneutics 101.

2. We have historical data that shows the the CONCEPT of angelic tongues is PART of the JUDAIC relgious experience and theology of the 1st Cent Jew.
This means that it is WELL WITHIN THE ACCEPTABLE POSITIONS to see Paul's reference to angelic tongues . . . as just that.

CASE CLOSED. Even if you dont buy 2 . . . which is fine . . . YOU CANT GET AROUND ONE. You r out on this one buddy. :wave:

The blue bold parts you made up to to excuse unbiblical practices. You are desperately trying to use semantics to justify talking gibberish in Christs name.

What a flimsy concept! How absolutley unsubstantial! LOL. I am refering to philosophical NECESSITIES IN THE PASSAGE THAT ARE THERE FOR THOSE WHO THINK.

1. Paul posits and open meeting where ANYONE can enter.
2. Paul states that NO ONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS SAID
3. Paul's entire concept of the need for interpretation is ROOTED in the possibility in someone coming in who could say "they are all nuts"
4. THEREFORE, the concept of "no one understands" with the open meeting where ANYONE can enter and say "they're crazy" COVERS ANYONE. Oudeis, no one, covers the potential of ANYONE WHO ENTERS

HELLO? that means that oudeis extends to ALL POTENTIAL PEOPLE.

It isnt hard . . . wow . . . basic underpinnings in passages and philosophical necessities . . . HERMENEUTICS DUDE. :doh:

If I recite poetry and the listeners in the room do not applaud and then I exclaim "No-one understands!" would you take it I meant that no one on Earth..lolz...including myself..understands or that no-one present understands? Please use common sense.

Thoroughly dismantled above. Sorry bro, Paul's posits make the possibility of anyone entering and the unintelligbility of tongues apply to any possible person of any possible language walking thru the door. Sorry.

Do you know? Have you seen how similar use of 'tongues' are in both systems? And other similarities? Shaking and quaking etc?

Yep. Manifestations and their similiarities dont mean anything. Both the first and second great awakenings had the same things dude. I know the philosophical contentions behind Kundalini . . . do you? or is all your judging by your eyes?

Jus for your info . . . Strom speaks in tongues . . . I kno who he is and where he came from and have several messages of his. You have essentially posted a tongues speaker video who is fed up with the excesses of other tongues speakers and wants them gone. FYI, I am on the same side as Strom. You just shot yourself in the foot.

Do some history and background research

I am aware of the excesses and errors of some fringe movements . . . to color the whole thing by them is a false form of logic called the "Composition Fallacy" . . .

Further, kundalini has no bearing on tongues . . . which is why your reference to it as a connection to tongues really GLARES your ignorance of the matter. Bad form

I dont have 700 bucks to spend on a lexicon I can have free online.

Glossa - the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations

That, or variations of it is all I can find from many different sources. Please cite your source.

I told you already. Limited lexicons are going to give basic and truncated meanings. Kittles gives
1. Tongue
2. Human Dialect
3. Ecstatic unintelligible speech

FYI, glossa also means the literal member of your body in your mouth called "tongue"

The contrast is most likely between the speech of a common man and the speech of angels who are eloquent and use speech powerfully:

U have absolutely NO idea of the use of parallelism in scripture.

Or if Paul was making a passing reference to the ancient Jewish Cabbalistic belief that there was a secret language of the Angels then is that seriously something you want to be involved in? Talmudic Kabbalhism? I doubt this is his meaning though.

False Dilemma. A reference to something that happened is not somethng even akin to Khaballah (if u even kno what that is) . . . or the Talmud (and your use of it here shows you dont even know what that is, lol) . . . it is a mere reference to a commonly held belief and does nothing to support that people practiced it. It is the same as the citations of the arguement between Michael and Satan in Jude from the Assumption of Moses or even the book of Enoch . . . A NON CANONICAL WORK which a BIBLICAL AUTHOR CITES AUTHORITATIVELY as TRUE in its account. NICE TRY HOME FRY.

child of Jesus · Jan 8, 2011

Mathetes the kerux said:
Yep, the impartation of tongues to believers is a sign of condemnation to the unbeliever . . . hence "still they will not listen"

Kinda throws your "tongues as foreign language for the presentaiton of the Gospel" out the window.

actually, Doc is right...here are two witnesses in Scripture:

1 Corinthians 14
In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”

Judgment on Ephraim and Jerusalem

Isaiah 28
1 Ah, the proud crown of the drunkards of Ephraim,
and the fading flower of its glorious beauty,
which is on the head of the rich valley of those overcome with wine!
2 Behold, the Lord has one who is mighty and strong;
like a storm of hail, a destroying tempest,
like a storm of mighty, overflowing waters,
he casts down to the earth with his hand.
3 The proud crown of the drunkards of Ephraim
will be trodden underfoot;
4 and the fading flower of its glorious beauty,
which is on the head of the rich valley,
will be like a first-ripe fig before the summer:
when someone sees it, he swallows it
as soon as it is in his hand.

5 In that day the Lord of hosts will be a crown of glory,a
and a diadem of beauty, to the remnant of his people,
6 and a spirit of justice to him who sits in judgment,
and strength to those who turn back the battle at the gate.

7 These also reel with wine
and stagger with strong drink;
the priest and the prophet reel with strong drink,
they are swallowed byb wine,
they stagger with strong drink,
they reel in vision,
they stumble in giving judgment.
8 For all tables are full of filthy vomit,
with no space left.

9 “To whom will he teach knowledge,
and to whom will he explain the message?
Those who are weaned from the milk,
those taken from the breast?
10 For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept,
line upon line, line upon line,
here a little, there a little.”

11 For by people of strange lips
and with a foreign tongue
the Lord will speak to this people,
12 to whom he has said,
“This is rest;
give rest to the weary;
and this is repose”;
yet they would not hear.
13 And the word of the Lord will be to them
precept upon precept, precept upon precept,
line upon line, line upon line,
here a little, there a little,
that they may go, and fall backward,
and be broken, and snared, and taken.

........

For - This verse is to be understood as a response to what the complaining and dissatisfied people had said, as expressed in the previous verse. God says that he will teach them, but it should be by another tongue - a foreign language in a distant land. Since they refused to hearken to the messages which he sent to them, and which they regarded as adapted only to children, he would teach them in a manner that should be "much more" humiliating; he would make use of the barbarous language of foreigners to bring them to the true knowledge of God.
With stammering lips - The word which is used here is derived from a verb (לעג lâ‛âg), which means to speak unintelligibly: especially to speak in a foreign language, or to stammer; and then to mock, deride, laugh at, scorn (compare Isaiah 33:19; Proverbs 1:26; Proverbs 17:5; Psalm 2:4; Psalm 59:9; Job 22:19). Here it means in a foreign or barbarous tongue; and the sense is, that the lessons which God wished to teach would be conveyed to them through the language of foreigners - the Chaldeans.

They should be removed to a distant land, and there, in hearing a strange speech, in living long among foreigners, they should learn the lesson which they refused to do when addressed by the prophets in their own land they should learn the lesson which they refused to do when addressed by the prophets in their own land
Barne's

.............

so, The Miracle at Pentecost was another example of this....the unbelieving jews (probably the Pharisees etc) who were permanent residents of Jerusalem DIDN'T UNDERSTAND what was spoken, since it was the LANGUAGES of the nations....another judgment on apostate National Israel (since they despised the gentiles AND had rejected Christ's Message), and another evidence of God's Power and Promise (Abraham) that the Gospel would be published among the GENTILE NATIONS.

:wave:

another example:

Jeremiah 5:15
O house of Israel," declares the LORD, "I am bringing a distant nation against you--an ancient and enduring nation, a people whose language you do not know, whose speech you do not understand.

Mathetes the kerux · Jan 8, 2011

Dr.Strangelove said:
So the drunk comment couldn't possibly have anything to do with the mockers trying to discredit the people who were the vessels for this astonishing miracle?

Are you high? (illustrating a point )

Barnes notes:

These men are full of new wine - These men are drunk. In times of a revival of religion men will have some way of accounting for the effects of the gospel, and the way is commonly about as wise and rational as the one adopted on this occasion. "To escape the absurdity of acknowledging their own ignorance, they adopted the theory that strong drink can teach languages" (Dr. McLelland). In modern times it has been usual to denominate such scenes fanaticism, or wildfire, or enthusiasm. When people fail in argument, it is common to attempt to confute a doctrine or bring reproach upon a transaction by "giving it an ill name."

Wesley:

"Thus natural men are wont to ascribe supernatural things to mere natural causes; and many times as impudently and unskilfully as in the present case."

New Geneva Bible:

"..and by this reproachful mocking we see that no matter how great and excellent the miracle, the wickedness of man still dares to speak evil against it."

Gill:

"...a very foolish and impertinent cavil this; there was, at this time of the year, no new wine, just pressed, or in the fat; and if there had been any, and they were full of it, it could never have furnished them with a faculty of speaking with many tongues; men generally lose their tongues by intemperance."

Does the opinion of these scholars, that make no mention of the drunk/gibberish association, hold ANY weight with you whatsoever. Any?

Mate, you are reaching. They began to speak with other tongues in V4. tongues which are then LISTED in V9/10/11.

When this was 'noised abroad' means when the rumor of this transaction was spread the multitudes came together, NOT when this babble like noise was heard they came closer to hear more clearly. Sheesh man.

TBH you are making a complet mockery of the miracle that happened at Pentacos if your trying to say that the Apostles had babble spewing out of their mouths.

If Pentacostal tongues are the same as the Acts tongues...they why when the Pentes talk gibberish IT SOUNDS LIKE GIBBERISH to the listeners but when the Apostles did in Acts every man heard in their own tongue?

So the drunk comment couldn't possibly have anything to do with the mockers trying to discredit the people who were the vessels for this astonishing miracle?

Why would foreign languages cause one to mock? with all the people groups in the city at the time, what would be so worthy of mockery? No . . . it was the perception of gibberish by those who didnt understand.

Does the opinion of these scholars, that make no mention of the drunk/gibberish association, hold ANY weight with you whatsoever. Any?

Nope. Commentaries are mere reflections on a text. That is all. Theirs is no better or worse then mine.

U need to understand the way the progressive history works. Take Martin Luther. How many times had people passed over Hab. 2:4 and its connection to Romans? How many RCC scholars had commented on this or church fathers?

Yet the revelation that came to Luther caused him to go back to the scripture to abandon current consensus among scholars. AND HE WAS RIGHT.

All these guys that you cite have NO REASON TO DELVE deeply into the text of Acts 2, 10 or 19 and its connection with the philosophical posits of 1 Cor 12-14. It isnt on their radar. So you cant expect them to dig deep to see and expound. To them, the face of the text is all that they need.

But you see, for ME and other Charismatic/Pentecostal Scholars, THESE PASSAGES are of PRIME importance because they ARE ON OUR RADAR. I want to know how it is that tongues are to God in 1 cor 14 . . . yet APPEAR to be toward men in a superficial reading of Acts 2. I want to know why paul says no one (oudeis) understands, yet the men in Acts 2 understand. I want to know why 1 cor 14 says that tongues are a sign to unbelievers, yet in Acts 10 and 19 THEY ARE A SIGN TO BELIEVERS. I want to know why Paul says tongues need to be interpreted . . . but in Acts 10 and 19 they are not . . . yet still considered legit expressions of the gift.

SO I DIG . . . and my studies, and others, lead them to deeper and more conclusive finds then others BECAUSE IT IS WHERE WE ARE CONCERNED.

I want to make sure, that as a practioner of the gifts, I am operating according to the Glory of God. I want to make sure that what I espouse and allow in my church ARE ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT and NOT THE DEMONIC (like that video you showed) . . . I detest EVERYONE of those people mentioned in that video . . . I DONT LIKE THEM EITHER . . . or the manifestations that accompany them . . . BUT I HAVE DONE MY HOMEWORK AND KNOW WHY . . . I know the roots of Howard-Browne . . . I know the visitations of Sundar Singh . . . I know why those things are bad, APART FROM THE WAY THAT THEY LOOK.

I know the streams that they come from . . . and the philosophies that undergird them.

BUT ALL OF THAT DOESNT MITIGATE AGAINST TONGUES OR THE GIFTS.

Mate, you are reaching. They began to speak with other tongues in V4. tongues which are then LISTED in V9/10/11.

What does that have to do with anything? Sorry, dont see your point. :sorry:

When this was 'noised abroad' means when the rumor of this transaction was spread the multitudes came together, NOT when this babble like noise was heard they came closer to hear more clearly. Sheesh man.

Actually no. The greek is phones (fone-ace is how this is pronounced) and it means SOUND . . . not rumor. Sorry. You are just plain wrong. Sheesh man :doh:

TBH you are making a complet mockery of the miracle that happened at Pentacos if your trying to say that the Apostles had babble spewing out of their mouths.

Actually what I am saying is that the DISCIPLES (all 150 of em) were worshiping God . . . and the Spirit imparted a phenomenal gift by which they would foster such intimacy and joy with their king that it would aid in their ability to witness. They took the impartation of the Spirit and worshiped God (hence the CONTENT is the great and mighty works of God . . . not euaggelion/gospel). The sound of this tumult of 150 ppl worshiping God in a strange sounding language drew a number of people. Some would believe and those heard the content of the worship in their own DIALECT (which is actually different then what was spoken BTW . . . what was spoken was glossa what was heard was DIALEKTOS) which was something quite different then what they first heard and caused them to say "dude, are you hearing what I am hearing?" to the others around them . . . and each testified, how in the world are each of us hearing this group in our own native dialect? THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Others, who heard the "gibberish" (or what SOUNDED like gibberish to them for no one understands apart from the impartation of understanding by the Spirit, called the gift of interpretation of tongues) whom the Spirit did not open to hear for they would not be converted, mocked and said "yo, these guys are DRUNK!"

That is what the Greek SHOWS . . . BTW you have Judeans surprised to hear Judeans speaking Judean . . . which makes NO SENSE with mere foreign languages. And that is how 1 Cor 14 works with Acts 2.

I got the hard work and the Greek to back every part of this . . . you have a preconcieved bias and some superficial scratching.

Sorry.

If Pentacostal tongues are the same as the Acts tongues...they why when the Pentes talk gibberish IT SOUNDS LIKE GIBBERISH to the listeners but when the Apostles did in Acts every man heard in their own tongue

Because the miracle of Acts 2 wasnt the tongues . . . that was done again and again (chpt 10 and 19) and became a regular part of the church (1 Cor).

The miracle of Acts 2 was in the HEARING . . . which is by far LESS frequent then the tongues.

Oh, and FYI, there are NUMEROUS anectdotes ABOUNDING that testify to EXACTLY what I am saying. A person speaking in their "devotional tongues" and someone from a different nation looking on and hearing in their own native dialect . . . PERFECTLY. But others didnt hear anything but the percieved "gibberish."

razeontherock · Jan 9, 2011

Mathetes the kerux said:
3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
NASU

You tell me . . . what is paul's standard of discerning between what happens in the pagan cults and what happens in the church?

B-b-but that would mean we can't just gossip our fool heads off. What fun is THAT?!?

Mathetes the kerux said:
I know the philosophical contentions behind Kundalini . . . do you? or is all your judging by your eyes?

Pretty sure he has 0 first-hand experience, even just watching any such thing? (Ok, so that would be second-hand experience) What say you Dr Strangelove aka Docbot? Are you merely passing on ideas you got from a book?

Dr.Strangelove · Jan 9, 2011

Mathetes the kerux said:
The verse is pointing to praying in the SPirit (tongues) as building us up . . . and a leading to do so.

So your just gonna ADD the word tongues into that verse? Lolz.

So now 'praying in the Spirit' means talking gibberish? :doh:

Mathetes the kerux said:
Yep, the impartation of tongues to believers is a sign of condemnation to the unbeliever . . . hence "still they will not listen"

Kinda throws your "tongues as foreign language for the presentaiton of the Gospel" out the window.

What? Acts: FOREIGN tongues heard by UNBELIEVERS (MOCKERS) who didn't hear the message of the Gospel. Hence "still they will not listen".

Believers: HEARD IN THEIR OWN TONGUE! Heard! Received the message.

Maybe one day you will understand all this. I pray you do.

Mathetes the kerux said:
Sure, coming from a guy who doesnt move in them . . . or better yet

chapter and verse that your wrong

1 Cor 12:11
11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.
NASU

Sorry, I will believe Paul. People who move in the gifts move as the Spirit leads . . . not as they desire. So, no hospitals emptied . . . and to search for that as the criteria is error. Sorry dude.

Can you see how it works? When you WANT to see things in scripture that ARN"T there? WHO distributes? WHO worketh all things? AND WHO WILLS!?

THE SPIRIT! NOT MAN!

Mathetes the kerux said:
Cool. Glad it isnt gibberish . . . even if it sounds like it . . . so ur contention isnt even applicapble.

How do you tell the difference then if it all sounds the same? How do you know the gibberish is genuinely from God?

Mathetes the kerux said:
Proof texting . . . I can do that too

Eph 3:17-19
17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.
NASU

Phil 4:7
7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
NASU

lol, context dear friend . . .

Oh my goodness. These verses are supposed to be validating talking gibberish? Or scuse me...stuff that SOUNDS like gibberish? Lolz.

know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge

which surpasses all comprehension

You see no meaning to this other than surpassing knowledge or understanding of known languages? Could it just mean what it says on paper. That the emotions of love and peace surpasses mere facts and data that man can accumulate? That love and peace are infinate?

Mathetes the kerux said:
Bable has nothing to do with a communion with God and the soulic expressions of such.

Glad to hear it. So why do so many practice it?

Dr.Strangelove · Jan 9, 2011

Mathetes the kerux said:
K, tell me about the pagan practices . . . no, let me save you the trouble. It is the pythian and delphic oracles and the mantenoi . . . and what they spoke WAS TRANSLATED. IT SOUNDED like gibberish because it wasnt an earthly language. It was DEMONIC.

The SAME place of religious fervor is awakened in Christians as it is in the Pagans . . . the difference is the SOURCE . . . one comes from a redeemed spirit awakened by God, the other from fallen spirit stimulated by demons.

And this makes you feel better about talking gibberish in the name of God?

And your gonna tell me how to discern the difference between the evil and the good forms of this gibberish right?

Mathetes the kerux said:
Notice here:

1 Cor 12:1-3
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware. 2 You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led. 3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
NASU

You tell me . . . what is paul's standard of discerning between what happens in the pagan cults and what happens in the church?

The spirit of 'tongues' is gibberish. That spirit doesnt say 'Jesus is Lord'. It says.....'gah gah gah phala phala makoo kooo jee buarl'. Or something similar.

Fail.

By the way, the point Paul is making is that people who HONOR Jesus and who are continuously praising his name and pointing to his finished work on the Cross are from the right Spirit. It doesnt mean anyone who attaches the tagline 'Jesus is Lord' to their demonic activity is immediately considered a genuine Christian or working in the Holy Spirit.

Mathetes the kerux said:
Nope. We never have an account of angels speaking to one another in the scripture where the communication is not meant for man to hear. So what?

What we do have is historical context for Judaism in which angelic language is part of the religious mileau . . . so your just shot down. Paul's references to tongues of angels is

Why do I care about that. thats got nothing to do with valid information for Christians. Your talking about occult KABBALHISTIC documentation. It's PHARISAIC TALMUDIC DOCTRINE. If they talk about angels talking gibberish... I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Mathetes the kerux said:
1. DICHOTOMIZED from the tongues of MEN.
THIS ALONE SHOOTS YOU OUT OF THE SKY. What ever it is that he means by the comment, it is CLEAR that it is DIFFERENT then EARTHLY LANGUAGES OF MEN. SORRY DUDE, that is hermeneutics 101.

Sorry dude but I already explained my view of the Dichotomy which has been the view of mainstream orthodox Christianity through the ages. Tongues of men (normal common language) and tongues of Angels (Eloquent powerful use of speech). You don't want to allow for common sense because you are desperate to validate unbiblical behaviour.

Mathetes the kerux said:
2. We have historical data that shows the the CONCEPT of angelic tongues is PART of the JUDAIC relgious experience and theology of the 1st Cent Jew.
This means that it is WELL WITHIN THE ACCEPTABLE POSITIONS to see Paul's reference to angelic tongues . . . as just that.

1st Century Jews were predominantly led by the talmud rather than Torah. Why would you want to have anything to do with that antichrist religion and call it acceptable? why do you want to partake of JUDAIC (talmudic/kabbalhistic) religious experiences?

Mathetes the kerux said:
CASE CLOSED. Even if you dont buy 2 . . . which is fine . . . YOU CANT GET AROUND ONE. You r out on this one buddy.

Both your points are easily circumnavigated no matter how much you deny. Tongues of angels is not gibberish and gibberish is not a valid religious experience unless you buy into apostate Judaic talmudic kabbalha. Which is the source of all this nonsense as the Jews picked all this up in Babylon when they were help captive there by the pagans. And the pagans got it from the original Hebrews circa Golden Calf days.

Mathetes the kerux said:
What a flimsy concept! How absolutley unsubstantial! LOL. I am refering to philosophical NECESSITIES IN THE PASSAGE THAT ARE THERE FOR THOSE WHO THINK.

1. Paul posits and open meeting where ANYONE can enter.
2. Paul states that NO ONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS SAID
3. Paul's entire concept of the need for interpretation is ROOTED in the possibility in someone coming in who could say "they are all nuts"
4. THEREFORE, the concept of "no one understands" with the open meeting where ANYONE can enter and say "they're crazy" COVERS ANYONE. Oudeis, no one, covers the potential of ANYONE WHO ENTERS

HELLO? that means that oudeis extends to ALL POTENTIAL PEOPLE.

It isnt hard . . . wow . . . basic underpinnings in passages and philosophical necessities . . . HERMENEUTICS DUDE.

Philosophical necessities? Whats philosophy got to do with it?

You can jump through hoops all you like. Fact remains if you speak a foreign tongue and no-one who can understand it hears you then NO ONE will understand what you just said. Oudeis >>> No one. again its acommon sense explanation for the verse that you simply don't WANT to consider. And AGAIN it's an explanation that is not just held by me but by ALL of orthodox Christianity. But charismatics don't like orthodoxy do they? It's way too boring.

Mathetes the kerux said:
Thoroughly dismantled above. Sorry bro, Paul's posits make the possibility of anyone entering and the unintelligbility of tongues apply to any possible person of any possible language walking thru the door. Sorry.

Paul posits nothing of the sort. He just says no one will understand. Your foreign words will be pointless if spoken to the unlearned. Its just common sense.

Mathetes the kerux said:
Yep. Manifestations and their similiarities dont mean anything. Both the first and second great awakenings had the same things dude. I know the philosophical contentions behind Kundalini . . . do you? or is all your judging by your eyes?

Jus for your info . . . Strom speaks in tongues . . . I kno who he is and where he came from and have several messages of his. You have essentially posted a tongues speaker video who is fed up with the excesses of other tongues speakers and wants them gone. FYI, I am on the same side as Strom. You just shot yourself in the foot.

Do some history and background research

I am aware of the excesses and errors of some fringe movements . . . to color the whole thing by them is a false form of logic called the "Composition Fallacy" . . .

Further, kundalini has no bearing on tongues . . . which is why your reference to it as a connection to tongues really GLARES your ignorance of the matter. Bad form

Arn't you making a composition fallacy by saying I cant use someone as a source to refute certain practices when he has other ideas that I dont agree with?

Kundalini and third wave madness have much in common. Yes I judge by what I see and hear.

Mathetes the kerux said:
I told you already. Limited lexicons are going to give basic and truncated meanings. Kittles gives
1. Tongue
2. Human Dialect
3. Ecstatic unintelligible speech

FYI, glossa also means the literal member of your body in your mouth called "tongue"

U have absolutely NO idea of the use of parallelism in scripture.

Oh...I thought Strongs was the lexicon of foremost note, rather than this keittles thing that costs 700 dollars. Only available to the wealthy. Maybe only to those who covet the prosperity Gospel?

Mathetes the kerux said:
False Dilemma. A reference to something that happened is not somethng even akin to Khaballah (if u even kno what that is) . . . or the Talmud (and your use of it here shows you dont even know what that is, lol) . . . it is a mere reference to a commonly held belief and does nothing to support that people practiced it. It is the same as the citations of the arguement between Michael and Satan in Jude from the Assumption of Moses or even the book of Enoch . . . A NON CANONICAL WORK which a BIBLICAL AUTHOR CITES AUTHORITATIVELY as TRUE in its account. NICE TRY HOME FRY.

And I'll keep trying BUD NIK until you realise that this demonic madness is unbiblical and teaching others to do this is bringing them to the door of APOSTACY!

You can keep trying to cite non-biblical documentation that validates this stuff but that just shows that you have nothing left.

Laters.

Dr.Strangelove · Jan 9, 2011

Mathetes the kerux said:
Why would foreign languages cause one to mock? with all the people groups in the city at the time, what would be so worthy of mockery? No . . . it was the perception of gibberish by those who didnt understand.

I already told you, the mockers were simply trying to DISCREDIT the Apostles. A common ploy even when no untoward physical signs are present. Just to combat the person. Are you high?

Mathetes the kerux said:
Nope. Commentaries are mere reflections on a text. That is all. Theirs is no better or worse then mine.

Just showing you I'm not just some lone radical Christian who's got the wrong handle on scripture. these guys are respected orthodox Christian scholars. You should respect their take on scripture if not mine. Thats why I present them to you.

Mathetes the kerux said:
U need to understand the way the progressive history works. Take Martin Luther. How many times had people passed over Hab. 2:4 and its connection to Romans? How many RCC scholars had commented on this or church fathers?

Yet the revelation that came to Luther caused him to go back to the scripture to abandon current consensus among scholars. AND HE WAS RIGHT.

All these guys that you cite have NO REASON TO DELVE deeply into the text of Acts 2, 10 or 19 and its connection with the philosophical posits of 1 Cor 12-14. It isnt on their radar. So you cant expect them to dig deep to see and expound. To them, the face of the text is all that they need.

Your saying mainline Christian orthodox opinion is just wrong coz they didn't 'delve deeply enough'? There were verses that wern't on their radar?? Lolz. Ok babe.

Mathetes the kerux said:
But you see, for ME and other Charismatic/Pentecostal Scholars, THESE PASSAGES are of PRIME importance because they ARE ON OUR RADAR. I want to know how it is that tongues are to God in 1 cor 14 . . . yet APPEAR to be toward men in a superficial reading of Acts 2. I want to know why paul says no one (oudeis) understands, yet the men in Acts 2 understand. I want to know why 1 cor 14 says that tongues are a sign to unbelievers, yet in Acts 10 and 19 THEY ARE A SIGN TO BELIEVERS. I want to know why Paul says tongues need to be interpreted . . . but in Acts 10 and 19 they are not . . . yet still considered legit expressions of the gift.

Ya I can see why these verses are particularly on your radar. Because if you twist them just the right amount you can partially get away with excusing talking gibberish in Gods name.

Mathetes the kerux said:
SO I DIG . . . and my studies, and others, lead them to deeper and more conclusive finds then others BECAUSE IT IS WHERE WE ARE CONCERNED.

And it is WHAT YOU WANNA HEAR.

Mathetes the kerux said:
I want to make sure, that as a practioner of the gifts, I am operating according to the Glory of God. I want to make sure that what I espouse and allow in my church ARE ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT and NOT THE DEMONIC (like that video you showed) . . . I detest EVERYONE of those people mentioned in that video . . . I DONT LIKE THEM EITHER . . . or the manifestations that accompany them . . . BUT I HAVE DONE MY HOMEWORK AND KNOW WHY . . . I know the roots of Howard-Browne . . . I know the visitations of Sundar Singh . . . I know why those things are bad, APART FROM THE WAY THAT THEY LOOK. I know the streams that they come from . . . and the philosophies that undergird them.

I think you just wanna try and find an excuse to keep practicing unbiblical behaviour because you just have too much invested to stop. You are 'all in' with a pair of deuces and you are trying to bluff the rest of the table that you have a full house. Thing is....your bluffing yourself too. It's called the strong delusion.

Mathetes the kerux said:
What does that have to do with anything? Sorry, dont see your point.

Point is, when they began to speak tongues, they were foreign tongues as documented. Not gibberish

Mathetes the kerux said:
Actually no. The greek is phones (fone-ace is how this is pronounced) and it means SOUND . . . not rumor. Sorry. You are just plain wrong. Sheesh man

Is a rumor a sound? Sounded abroad means the word of what was going on was taken further afield. Others were alerted. Check any commentary. Or maybe you can supply me with some commentary by scholars who support your position?

Mathetes the kerux said:
Actually what I am saying is that the DISCIPLES (all 150 of em) were worshiping God . . .

Scripture doesnt say they were worshipping. You did.

Mathetes the kerux said:
and the Spirit imparted a phenomenal gift by which they would foster such intimacy and joy with their king that it would aid in their ability to witness.

Scripture doesnt say anything about fostering anything. You did.

Mathetes the kerux said:
They took the impartation of the Spirit and worshiped God (hence the CONTENT is the great and mighty works of God . . . not euaggelion/gospel).

Scripture doesnt say anything about worshipping. It describes them being vessels by which this miracle worked through them.

Mathetes the kerux said:
The sound of this tumult of 150 ppl worshiping God in a strange sounding language drew a number of people. Some would believe and those heard the content of the worship in their own DIALECT (which is actually different then what was spoken BTW . . . what was spoken was glossa what was heard was DIALEKTOS)

Your making stuff up to excuse gibberish.

Mathetes the kerux said:
which was something quite different then what they first heard and caused them to say "dude, are you hearing what I am hearing?" to the others around them . . . and each testified, how in the world are each of us hearing this group in our own native dialect? THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Others, who heard the "gibberish" (or what SOUNDED like gibberish to them for no one understands apart from the impartation of understanding by the Spirit, called the gift of interpretation of tongues) whom the Spirit did not open to hear for they would not be converted, mocked and said "yo, these guys are DRUNK!"

Theres nothing about people interpreting in the verses. you are adding this to justify.

Mathetes the kerux said:
That is what the Greek SHOWS . . . BTW you have Judeans surprised to hear Judeans speaking Judean . . . which makes NO SENSE with mere foreign languages. And that is how 1 Cor 14 works with Acts 2.

Or was it Galilaeans speaking Judean?

Mathetes the kerux said:
I got the hard work and the Greek to back every part of this . . . you have a preconcieved bias and some superficial scratching.

Sorry.

I'm afraid all you have is unbiblical behaviour and a desperate need to add things to verses that don't actually appear there, as can be seen by your exposition of Acts 2.

Mathetes the kerux said:
Because the miracle of Acts 2 wasnt the tongues . . . that was done again and again (chpt 10 and 19) and became a regular part of the church (1 Cor).

The miracle of Acts 2 was in the HEARING . . . which is by far LESS frequent then the tongues.

Oh right so actually it wasn't the Apostles who were FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST AND WHOSE UTTERANCE WAS GIVEN BY THE SPIRIT??

What your saying is that the LISTENERS WERE FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT AND IT GAVE THEM THE DIVINE HEARING?

TOTALLY CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE...AGAIN. Twisting scripture to support your own practices.

Mathetes the kerux said:
Oh, and FYI, there are NUMEROUS anectdotes ABOUNDING that testify to EXACTLY what I am saying. A person speaking in their "devotional tongues" and someone from a different nation looking on and hearing in their own native dialect . . . PERFECTLY. But others didnt hear anything but the percieved "gibberish."

Sure there are.

Dr.Strangelove · Jan 9, 2011

razeontherock said:
B-b-but that would mean we can't just gossip our fool heads off. What fun is THAT?!?

Do you think I like rebuking people over demonic practices? I'd rather not have to do it.

razeontherock said:
Pretty sure he has 0 first-hand experience, even just watching any such thing? (Ok, so that would be second-hand experience) What say you Dr Strangelove aka Docbot? Are you merely passing on ideas you got from a book?

If your referring to the bible then yeah.

Do you think the only way to truly know that a practice is demonic is to actually TRY IT?

Bit late at that point Razer. You already put your downpayment and to then call it demonic...well....you would lose yer deposit.

Dr.Strangelove · Jan 9, 2011

Probably the best individual to illustrate the nature and development of Holiness Theology is Phoebe Palmer. It was Palmer who linked the idea of the moment of sanctification with the work of the Holy Ghost in the imagery of Pentecost. By 1857, her messages were filled with terminology that reflected the imagery of Pentecost. She asked at a Methodist camp meeting in Millbrook, Canada, if Christians ought not to receive a, "Baptism of the Holy Ghost similar to that received by the believers at Pentecost." She then asserted that such a baptism is every Christian's privilege and then proposed as a query: "The question now before us is, 'May we ask in faith . . . that we may be endued with power from on high, baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire?'"
Experience became a key to Palmer's theology. Since the instance of the witness of the Spirit was expected to be conscious and sensate, it led those in the holiness ranks to look for physical evidence for this moment. They esteemed emotional, sensate and physically demonstrative expressions in worship and spiritual experience. "Getting blessed" expressed in the holy shout, dance, jump, or the trance "under the power of the Spirit" were a common part of the holiness worship. This experiential and sensate manifestation of the Holy Spirit grew out of the assumptions of Wesleyan "experimentalism." In contrast, what was for Wesley a unique or seasonal occurrence of an unusual experience of the Spirit, became for Holiness proponents a normative or regularly expected phenomena.
Revivalism to Pentecostalism

Mathetes the kerux · Jan 9, 2011

Dr.Strangelove said:
So your just gonna ADD the word tongues into that verse? Lolz.

So now 'praying in the Spirit' means talking gibberish?

What? Acts: FOREIGN tongues heard by UNBELIEVERS (MOCKERS) who didn't hear the message of the Gospel. Hence "still they will not listen".

Believers: HEARD IN THEIR OWN TONGUE! Heard! Received the message.

Maybe one day you will understand all this. I pray you do.

Can you see how it works? When you WANT to see things in scripture that ARN"T there? WHO distributes? WHO worketh all things? AND WHO WILLS!?

THE SPIRIT! NOT MAN!

How do you tell the difference then if it all sounds the same? How do you know the gibberish is genuinely from God?

Oh my goodness. These verses are supposed to be validating talking gibberish? Or scuse me...stuff that SOUNDS like gibberish? Lolz.

know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge

which surpasses all comprehension

You see no meaning to this other than surpassing knowledge or understanding of known languages? Could it just mean what it says on paper. That the emotions of love and peace surpasses mere facts and data that man can accumulate? That love and peace are infinate?

Glad to hear it. So why do so many practice it?

So your just gonna ADD the word tongues into that verse? Lolz.

Prosuchemenoi and pnuema . . . sorry bro. The only other reference we have in the Scriptures to the same is TONGUES.

oops

So your just gonna ADD the word tongues into that verse? Lolz.

Sounds like gibberish and gibberish are two different things. Thanks for playing tho

What? Acts: FOREIGN tongues heard by UNBELIEVERS (MOCKERS) who didn't hear the message of the Gospel. Hence "still they will not listen".

Believers: HEARD IN THEIR OWN TONGUE! Heard! Received the message.

Maybe one day you will understand all this. I pray you do.

1. Different authors.
2. Paul speaks nothing of the Gospel and neither does Luke concerning tongues . . . sorry

Can you see how it works? When you WANT to see things in scripture that ARN"T there? WHO distributes? WHO worketh all things? AND WHO WILLS!?

THE SPIRIT! NOT MAN!

Oh this is rich . . . I REALLY hope everyone is watching.

1. You said "If people are not clearing out hospitals with these gifts, then I dont believe it"
2. I told you, that is an erroneous view of the gifts because, per the text, THEY ARE NON RESIDENTIAL . . . IOW, they dont BELONG to the person in such a way that the person is free to use them whenever they want.
3. THEREFORE, your required concept CANT BE MET because, it is a FALSE ASSUMPTION. Your standard will never be met, BECAUSE IT DOESNT EVEN APPLY.

this means . . . ahem . . . UR STILL WRONG.

And instead of saying "oh, wow . . . guess that IS the way they work so I should probably abandon this line of thinking that I had" you shoot back with "see, see!"

Uh, duh :doh:

THAT WAS MY POINT.

this:

WHO distributes? WHO worketh all things? AND WHO WILLS!?

THE SPIRIT! NOT MAN!

(which is EXACTLY WHAT I WAS POINTING TO)

by your own confession DESTROYS part of your reasoning for rejecting the gifts as operative today.

How do you tell the difference then if it all sounds the same? How do you know the gibberish is genuinely from God?

4 ways
1. Content
2. Witness of the leadership in the church
3. The gift of Discerning Spirits
4. Does it edify the Body

Those are the ways that Paul states specifically to discern ALL the gifts.

Oh my goodness. These verses are supposed to be validating talking gibberish? Or scuse me...stuff that SOUNDS like gibberish? Lolz.

No. These verses show that things that surpass the mind are not always bad. So that "babel" as a line of "lack of understanding shows judgement" doesnt work. There are times when lack of understanding is actually a BLESSING. That was my point . . . and it still stands.

Glad to hear it. So why do so many practice it

As I said, Babel has nothing to do with it . . . so the negative shadows of Babel cast no influences on the practices . . . so Paul says to . . . so we do. Pretty simple really.

I will respond to the rest of ur stuff later . . .

sunlover1 · Jan 9, 2011

Mathetes the kerux said:
Oh this is rich . . . I REALLY hope everyone is watching.

Wouldn't miss it.

What i see happening here (as in many threads around here) is that people get
an idea in their head and even when presented with the facts that make it very
obvious that they may have been a bit confused.. they refuse to reconsider.
Which is a bummer because it's a dangerous thing to disregard that light
while you have it.
We should be learning more and more spiritual truths daily. We should be
maturing in the Spirit daily..getting ourselves ready for some pruning lol.

I think you're doing a great job Mathetes. I might go one small bit at a time
in a case like this rather than long posts that are difficult for the lurkers
(the real target) to follow along with. But that's easier to say than do

Shouldn't you be working on your other game strategy? :holy:

Mathetes the kerux · Jan 9, 2011

Dr.Strangelove said:
And this makes you feel better about talking gibberish in the name of God?

And your gonna tell me how to discern the difference between the evil and the good forms of this gibberish right?

The spirit of 'tongues' is gibberish. That spirit doesnt say 'Jesus is Lord'. It says.....'gah gah gah phala phala makoo kooo jee buarl'. Or something similar.

Fail.

By the way, the point Paul is making is that people who HONOR Jesus and who are continuously praising his name and pointing to his finished work on the Cross are from the right Spirit. It doesnt mean anyone who attaches the tagline 'Jesus is Lord' to their demonic activity is immediately considered a genuine Christian or working in the Holy Spirit.

Why do I care about that. thats got nothing to do with valid information for Christians. Your talking about occult KABBALHISTIC documentation. It's PHARISAIC TALMUDIC DOCTRINE. If they talk about angels talking gibberish... I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Sorry dude but I already explained my view of the Dichotomy which has been the view of mainstream orthodox Christianity through the ages. Tongues of men (normal common language) and tongues of Angels (Eloquent powerful use of speech). You don't want to allow for common sense because you are desperate to validate unbiblical behaviour.

1st Century Jews were predominantly led by the talmud rather than Torah. Why would you want to have anything to do with that antichrist religion and call it acceptable? why do you want to partake of JUDAIC (talmudic/kabbalhistic) religious experiences?

Both your points are easily circumnavigated no matter how much you deny. Tongues of angels is not gibberish and gibberish is not a valid religious experience unless you buy into apostate Judaic talmudic kabbalha. Which is the source of all this nonsense as the Jews picked all this up in Babylon when they were help captive there by the pagans. And the pagans got it from the original Hebrews circa Golden Calf days.

Philosophical necessities? Whats philosophy got to do with it?

You can jump through hoops all you like. Fact remains if you speak a foreign tongue and no-one who can understand it hears you then NO ONE will understand what you just said. Oudeis >>> No one. again its acommon sense explanation for the verse that you simply don't WANT to consider. And AGAIN it's an explanation that is not just held by me but by ALL of orthodox Christianity. But charismatics don't like orthodoxy do they? It's way too boring.

Paul posits nothing of the sort. He just says no one will understand. Your foreign words will be pointless if spoken to the unlearned. Its just common sense.

Arn't you making a composition fallacy by saying I cant use someone as a source to refute certain practices when he has other ideas that I dont agree with?

Kundalini and third wave madness have much in common. Yes I judge by what I see and hear.

Oh...I thought Strongs was the lexicon of foremost note, rather than this keittles thing that costs 700 dollars. Only available to the wealthy. Maybe only to those who covet the prosperity Gospel?

And I'll keep trying BUD NIK until you realise that this demonic madness is unbiblical and teaching others to do this is bringing them to the door of APOSTACY!

You can keep trying to cite non-biblical documentation that validates this stuff but that just shows that you have nothing left.

Laters.

1. Ur parallels of Khaballah and the Talmud are ignorant. Perhaps u should do some study before you continue to discredit yourself.

2. Philosophical necessities refers to concepts within the text that are requisite for statements made. It has nothing to do with formal philosophy.

So, the potential for ANYONE to walk in and NOT understand and say "your crazy" hearkens back to the BASIC concept that "no one understands" . . . as the concept of "anyone" walking through the door covers ANYONE . . . the usage of oudeis is in connection to ANYONE. Sorry dude. You have yet to supply substance to contradict this.

3.

Arn't you making a composition fallacy by saying I cant use someone as a source to refute certain practices when he has other ideas that I dont agree with?

No, but nice try.

Try brushin up on your fallacies

4.

Kundalini and third wave madness have much in common. Yes I judge by what I see and hear.

Strawman, Kundalini has NOTHING to do with tongues. That is the point. You are making yourself look foolish again by your lack of knowledge.

5.

Oh...I thought Strongs was the lexicon of foremost note

Nope. it is actually antiquated. Good for laymen . . . BAD for real scholarly work.

6.

than this keittles thing that costs 700 dollars. Only available to the wealthy. Maybe only to those who covet the prosperity Gospel?

Nope. Staple for all seminaries. Universally respected amongst scholars. WoF has NOTHING to do with it.

7.

The spirit of 'tongues' is gibberish. That spirit doesnt say 'Jesus is Lord'. It says.....'gah gah gah phala phala makoo kooo jee buarl'. Or something similar.

Not an answer to my quesiton. Try again.

Mathetes the kerux · Jan 9, 2011

Dr.Strangelove said:
I already told you, the mockers were simply trying to DISCREDIT the Apostles. A common ploy even when no untoward physical signs are present. Just to combat the person. Are you high?

Just showing you I'm not just some lone radical Christian who's got the wrong handle on scripture. these guys are respected orthodox Christian scholars. You should respect their take on scripture if not mine. Thats why I present them to you.

Your saying mainline Christian orthodox opinion is just wrong coz they didn't 'delve deeply enough'? There were verses that wern't on their radar?? Lolz. Ok babe.

Ya I can see why these verses are particularly on your radar. Because if you twist them just the right amount you can partially get away with excusing talking gibberish in Gods name.

And it is WHAT YOU WANNA HEAR.

I think you just wanna try and find an excuse to keep practicing unbiblical behaviour because you just have too much invested to stop. You are 'all in' with a pair of deuces and you are trying to bluff the rest of the table that you have a full house. Thing is....your bluffing yourself too. It's called the strong delusion.

Point is, when they began to speak tongues, they were foreign tongues as documented. Not gibberish

Is a rumor a sound? Sounded abroad means the word of what was going on was taken further afield. Others were alerted. Check any commentary. Or maybe you can supply me with some commentary by scholars who support your position?

Scripture doesnt say they were worshipping. You did.

Scripture doesnt say anything about fostering anything. You did.

Scripture doesnt say anything about worshipping. It describes them being vessels by which this miracle worked through them.

Your making stuff up to excuse gibberish.

Theres nothing about people interpreting in the verses. you are adding this to justify.

Or was it Galilaeans speaking Judean?

I'm afraid all you have is unbiblical behaviour and a desperate need to add things to verses that don't actually appear there, as can be seen by your exposition of Acts 2.

Oh right so actually it wasn't the Apostles who were FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST AND WHOSE UTTERANCE WAS GIVEN BY THE SPIRIT??

What your saying is that the LISTENERS WERE FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT AND IT GAVE THEM THE DIVINE HEARING?

TOTALLY CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE...AGAIN. Twisting scripture to support your own practices.

Sure there are.

1.

Your saying mainline Christian orthodox opinion is just wrong coz they didn't 'delve deeply enough'? There were verses that wern't on their radar?? Lolz. Ok babe.

It is the story of the reformation. My point stands "babe."

2.

Ya I can see why these verses are particularly on your radar. Because if you twist them just the right amount you can partially get away with excusing talking gibberish in Gods name.

And it is WHAT YOU WANNA HEAR.

I think you just wanna try and find an excuse to keep practicing unbiblical behaviour because you just have too much invested to stop. You are 'all in' with a pair of deuces and you are trying to bluff the rest of the table that you have a full house. Thing is....your bluffing yourself too. It's called the strong delusion.

NOW you are playing God. You have NO IDEA what is in my heart nor my intention. You are arrogant and you reak of self righteousness to say such things w/o knowing a person nor their heart. You are not sovereign . . . stop acting like it.

3.

Point is, when they began to speak tongues, they were foreign tongues as documented. Not gibberish

Funny thing is, all I have seen from you is bare assertion fallacies. I have given you substance and provided exegesis from the Greek. Sorry, but I am the one who has provided substance dude, not you. Please bring something substantial.

4.

Is a rumor a sound? Sounded abroad means the word of what was going on was taken further afield. Others were alerted. Check any commentary. Or maybe you can supply me with some commentary by scholars who support your position?

Do you ever learn to hear from God on your own? Geez . . . I wonder what your prayerlife is like . . . or how you live by His leading. wow. Your preoccupation with commentaries is scary . . . those commentaries are not goin to be there with you when you stand in front of Him . . . DO SOME WORK ON YOUR OWN WITH HIM.

Phones is used 143 times in the NT . . . guess what, NOT ONCE DO I SEE IT USED OF A RUMOR . . . or of a REPORT . . . but of ACTUAL SOUND . . . a voice, a noise, a sound. Sorry, it is exactly what I said it is . . .

5.

Or was it Galilaeans speaking Judean?

Galileans were only a part of the group. Nice try tho. The ioudaian is original . . . deal with it.

6.

I'm afraid all you have is unbiblical behaviour and a desperate need to add things to verses that don't actually appear there, as can be seen by your exposition of Acts 2.

that is rich coming from the guy who has NO exposition of Acts 2! All you have are bare assertion fallacies. Do some homework little brother . . . when you have some serious scholarly attempts that reflect YOU . . . then come back.

7.

Oh right so actually it wasn't the Apostles who were FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST AND WHOSE UTTERANCE WAS GIVEN BY THE SPIRIT??

What your saying is that the LISTENERS WERE FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT AND IT GAVE THEM THE DIVINE HEARING?

Not what I said at all. Try again.

8.

Sure there are.

There are indeed . . . but you wouldnt know that as an honest researcher looking for truth who has done his due dilligence in examining a matter.

9.

Scripture doesnt say they were worshipping. You did.

Scripture doesnt say anything about fostering anything. You did.

Scripture doesnt say anything about worshipping. It describes them being vessels by which this miracle worked through them.

Your making stuff up to excuse gibberish.

Theres nothing about people interpreting in the verses. you are adding this to justify.

TOTALLY CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE...AGAIN. Twisting scripture to support your own practices.

I can bear with bad exegesis . . . even silly ignorance . . . but bare assertion fallacies coupled with an arrogant thought to know the hearts of men is a foul stench. Grow up.

Supply something of substance . . . like I have . . . or leave . . . cuz right now you look like a little boy with empty paper not willing to do some work. Bare assertion fallacies are called fallacies for a reason.

Dr.Strangelove · Jan 10, 2011

Mathetes the kerux said:
Laleo and pnuema . . . sorry bro. The only other reference we have in the Scriptures to the same is TONGUES.

oops

Whatever it says, it doesnt mean gibberish.

Do you have to quote me twice all the time? Are you just trying to lengthen your posts?

Mathetes the kerux said:
Sounds like gibberish and gibberish are two different things. Thanks for playing tho

Huh? LOLZ! whats the difference?

Mathetes the kerux said:
1. Different authors.
2. Paul speaks nothing of the Gospel and neither does Luke concerning tongues . . . sorry

This is a bit disjointed as answers.

1. Different authors? So?

2. And? your point is?

Mathetes the kerux said:
Oh this is rich . . . I REALLY hope everyone is watching.

1. You said "If people are not clearing out hospitals with these gifts, then I dont believe it"
2. I told you, that is an erroneous view of the gifts because, per the text, THEY ARE NON RESIDENTIAL . . . IOW, they dont BELONG to the person in such a way that the person is free to use them whenever they want.
3. THEREFORE, your required concept CANT BE MET because, it is a FALSE ASSUMPTION. Your standard will never be met, BECAUSE IT DOESNT EVEN APPLY.

this means . . . ahem . . . UR STILL WRONG.

And instead of saying "oh, wow . . . guess that IS the way they work so I should probably abandon this line of thinking that I had" you shoot back with "see, see!"

Uh, duh

THAT WAS MY POINT.

this:

(which is EXACTLY WHAT I WAS POINTING TO)

by your own confession DESTROYS part of your reasoning for rejecting the gifts as operative today.

Uhm...confusamundo. So are you now saying that the Apostles didn't heal people? So they didn't have spiritual gifts either? So basically no one does. The Holy Spirit is fully responsible. Right glad we got that cleared up.

No one has any control over gifts. So if someone says they have agift and can do thi or that, they are deceived.

Mathetes the kerux said:
4 ways
1. Content
2. Witness of the leadership in the church
3. The gift of Discerning Spirits
4. Does it edify the Body

Those are the ways that Paul states specifically to discern ALL the gifts.

How do you tell gibberish with content from gibberish that has no content?

If the leadership of a church says something is true will you always believe it?

If everyone seems to be edified does that mean its good and true? Or could it mean that the whole church is deceived?

Mathetes the kerux said:
No. These verses show that things that surpass the mind are not always bad. So that "babel" as a line of "lack of understanding shows judgement" doesnt work. There are times when lack of understanding is actually a BLESSING. That was my point . . . and it still stands.

There is never a time where a lackof understanding is a blessing. Never.

Dr.Strangelove · Jan 10, 2011

Mathetes the kerux said:
1. Ur parallels of Khaballah and the Talmud are ignorant. Perhaps u should do some study before you continue to discredit yourself.

You can even give reasons why if you want.

Mathetes the kerux said:
2. Philosophical necessities refers to concepts within the text that are requisite for statements made. It has nothing to do with formal philosophy.

It's all Greek to me.

Mathetes the kerux said:
So, the potential for ANYONE to walk in and NOT understand and say "your crazy" hearkens back to the BASIC concept that "no one understands" . . . as the concept of "anyone" walking through the door covers ANYONE . . . the usage of oudeis is in connection to ANYONE. Sorry dude. You have yet to supply substance to contradict this.

I've given my substance. And given you the substance of respected scholars who think the same. You can ignore it if you wish. I'm sure people who read this thread wont though. And that is what I'm working for. This isn't for you.

Mathetes the kerux said:
3.
No, but nice try.

Try brushin up on your fallacies

Shall we just stop throwing stones all together? That would make things simpler

Mathetes the kerux said:
4.
Strawman, Kundalini has NOTHING to do with tongues. That is the point. You are making yourself look foolish again by your lack of knowledge.

And you are making yourself look unChristian by continuing to use a disrespectful tone and namecalling.

Kundalini stems from pagan practices. Gibberish is heavily involved with all of it.

Mathetes the kerux said:
5.
Nope. it is actually antiquated. Good for laymen . . . BAD for real scholarly work.

Seeing as your expensive lexicon translates 'Tongues' as gibberish in one of it's meanings I'd say you got ripped off. It's pure speculation and has no relation to the real meaning of the word.

Mathetes the kerux said:
6.
Nope. Staple for all seminaries. Universally respected amongst scholars. WoF has NOTHING to do with it.

Never heard of Kittles. Anyone else?

Mathetes the kerux said:
7.
Not an answer to my quesiton. Try again.

Oh you missed it, here it is again:

"By the way, the point Paul is making is that people who HONOR Jesus and who are continuously praising his name and pointing to his finished work on the Cross are from the right Spirit. It doesnt mean anyone who attaches the tagline 'Jesus is Lord' to their demonic activity is immediately considered a genuine Christian or working in the Holy Spirit."

Do you agree that the spirit of 'tongues' (gibberish) doesn't say Jesus is Lord? Yes or No?

Dr.Strangelove · Jan 10, 2011

Mathetes the kerux said:
1. It is the story of the reformation. My point stands "babe."

Ahh...you've got something against the reformation. This is revealing. Becasue they were simple honest Christians who believed in the 5 Solas and didn't run around church babbling and falling down?

Mathetes the kerux said:
2. NOW you are playing God. You have NO IDEA what is in my heart nor my intention. You are arrogant and you reak of self righteousness to say such things w/o knowing a person nor their heart. You are not sovereign . . . stop acting like it.

Just judging fruit babe. No eternal condemnation from me. You can still come out of it and be saved. I've seen it happen. It's not too late. I'm praying for you. and trying to help you with some discipleship here on the forum. Theres no God complex. I'm just a humble servant contending earnestly for the faith delivered to the saints.

Mathetes the kerux said:
3. Funny thing is, all I have seen from you is bare assertion fallacies. I have given you substance and provided exegesis from the Greek. Sorry, but I am the one who has provided substance dude, not you. Please bring something substantial.

It names the languages they spoke right there in the text dude. theres no evidence to say it was gibberish coming out of their mouths. It was a miracle. They spoke and everyone heard in their own language. Thats all we know.

Mathetes the kerux said:
4. Do you ever learn to hear from God on your own? Geez . . . I wonder what your prayerlife is like . . . or how you live by His leading. wow. Your preoccupation with commentaries is scary . . . those commentaries are not goin to be there with you when you stand in front of Him . . . DO SOME WORK ON YOUR OWN WITH HIM.

God talks to me through His Son. Jesus is the WORD made flesh. I read the Word to hear His voice.

Isn't what you are trying to tell me a commentary? Why should anyone listen to what you say if commentaries should be disregarded. At least mine are from respected scholars.

Mathetes the kerux said:
Phones is used 143 times in the NT . . . guess what, NOT ONCE DO I SEE IT USED OF A RUMOR . . . or of a REPORT . . . but of ACTUAL SOUND . . . a voice, a noise, a sound. Sorry, it is exactly what I said it is . . .

Ya I know babe. thats why I asked is a rumor a sound. To which the answer is yes. So a spoken rumour would qualify as a sound.

Mathetes the kerux said:
5. Galileans were only a part of the group. Nice try tho. The ioudaian is original . . . deal with it.

Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

It says Galilaeans. Does it really matter anyway? There were different dialects.

Mathetes the kerux said:
6.
that is rich coming from the guy who has NO exposition of Acts 2! All you have are bare assertion fallacies. Do some homework little brother . . . when you have some serious scholarly attempts that reflect YOU . . . then come back.

I presented you with scholarly work and you reject it. what will it take?

Mathetes the kerux said:
7.Not what I said at all. Try again.

You said the miracle was the hearing. Which is TOTALLY refuted by the text that says the Holy Spirit GAVE UTTERENCE to the Apostles and they spoke in different tongues. Known tongues, to the listeners..and they heard this miracle of them speaking a divine utterance that was 10 languages in one. the miracle was the utterance. It's quite clear.

Mathetes the kerux said:
9. I can bear with bad exegesis . . . even silly ignorance . . . but bare assertion fallacies coupled with an arrogant thought to know the hearts of men is a foul stench. Grow up.

I dont claim to know anyones heart. I can see plain error though.

Mathetes the kerux said:
Supply something of substance . . . like I have . . . or leave . . . cuz right now you look like a little boy with empty paper not willing to do some work. Bare assertion fallacies are called fallacies for a reason.

You would like me to leave wouldn't you? Well...I'm not going anywhere. There is no gibberish in the New Testament. You have nothing that can support talking gibberish in God's name. It's pagan.

It's never too late to come out of it. I'm not expecting you will as you seem to be under the strong delusion, but others can.

I pray for all those trapped in churches that seek erotic sensual tangible manifestations of the spirit. It's Montanism. What you think are spiritual supernatural gifts...are nothing more than the counterfeits of the devil.

Mathetes the kerux · Jan 10, 2011

Dr.Strangelove said:
Whatever it says, it doesnt mean gibberish.

Do you have to quote me twice all the time? Are you just trying to lengthen your posts?

Huh? LOLZ! whats the difference?

This is a bit disjointed as answers.

1. Different authors? So?

2. And? your point is?

Uhm...confusamundo. So are you now saying that the Apostles didn't heal people? So they didn't have spiritual gifts either? So basically no one does. The Holy Spirit is fully responsible. Right glad we got that cleared up.

No one has any control over gifts. So if someone says they have agift and can do thi or that, they are deceived.

How do you tell gibberish with content from gibberish that has no content?

If the leadership of a church says something is true will you always believe it?

If everyone seems to be edified does that mean its good and true? Or could it mean that the whole church is deceived?

There is never a time where a lackof understanding is a blessing. Never.

Whatever it says, it doesnt mean gibberish.

Yet no substance again . . . I am seeing a pattern hera . . . and u r loosing face.

Do you have to quote me twice all the time? Are you just trying to lengthen your posts?

WISPY . . .

Huh? LOLZ! whats the difference?

Guess ur not as intelligent as we were all hoping . . . sad

This is a bit disjointed as answers.

1. Different authors? So?

2. And? your point is?

Ever heard of hermeneutics? One of the prime principles is AUTHORIAL INTENT and AUTHORIAL USAGE.

And, u contend tongues are meant for spreading the Gospel . . . but NEVER is the content of tongues said to be euaggleion . . . the Greek word for Gospel. You may find that out when you actually do some study.

Uhm...confusamundo.

Actually not too surprised at this point. :doh:

Ur inability to see even the simplest of your own inconsistencies is becoming quite apparent.

So are you now saying that the Apostles didn't heal people?

No, God heals people. That is why Peter says that the man in Acts 3 was healed by the power of the NAME of Jesus.

Further, um . . . it is what Paul says. :doh:

No one has any control over gifts. So if someone says they have agift and can do thi or that, they are deceived.

Owning a gift to use at your discretion and the ability to control are two different matters. But yes, no one owns the gifts. Paul is rather clear about that.

How do you tell gibberish with content from gibberish that has no content?

uh . . . interpretation :doh:

If the leadership of a church says something is true will you always believe it?

only if it is in commentaries!

Of course not . . . which is why it is ONE of the standards and not the only standard. Ur silly

If everyone seems to be edified does that mean its good and true? Or could it mean that the whole church is deceived?

Again, one of the standards, not the only standard

There is never a time where a lackof understanding is a blessing. Never

Yet I have given you two clear passages that say otherwise. Thanks for playing . . . I will stick with Paul.

Funny that I can give you chapter and verse , . . but you cant . . . hmm . . . glad this is here for all to see.

from scratch · Jan 10, 2011

Mathetes the kerux said:
1. Ur parallels of Khaballah and the Talmud are ignorant. Perhaps u should do some study before you continue to discredit yourself.

2. Philosophical necessities refers to concepts within the text that are requisite for statements made. It has nothing to do with formal philosophy.

So, the potential for ANYONE to walk in and NOT understand and say "your crazy" hearkens back to the BASIC concept that "no one understands" . . . as the concept of "anyone" walking through the door covers ANYONE . . . the usage of oudeis is in connection to ANYONE. Sorry dude. You have yet to supply substance to contradict this.

3.

No, but nice try.

Try brushin up on your fallacies

4.

Strawman, Kundalini has NOTHING to do with tongues. That is the point. You are making yourself look foolish again by your lack of knowledge.

5.

Nope. it is actually antiquated. Good for laymen . . . BAD for real scholarly work.

6.

Nope. Staple for all seminaries. Universally respected amongst scholars. WoF has NOTHING to do with it.

So which cemetary did you attend?

7.

Not an answer to my quesiton. Try again.

Mathetes the kerux · Jan 10, 2011

Dr.Strangelove said:
You can even give reasons why if you want.

It's all Greek to me.

I've given my substance. And given you the substance of respected scholars who think the same. You can ignore it if you wish. I'm sure people who read this thread wont though. And that is what I'm working for. This isn't for you.

Shall we just stop throwing stones all together? That would make things simpler

And you are making yourself look unChristian by continuing to use a disrespectful tone and namecalling.

Kundalini stems from pagan practices. Gibberish is heavily involved with all of it.

Seeing as your expensive lexicon translates 'Tongues' as gibberish in one of it's meanings I'd say you got ripped off. It's pure speculation and has no relation to the real meaning of the word.

Never heard of Kittles. Anyone else?

Oh you missed it, here it is again:

"By the way, the point Paul is making is that people who HONOR Jesus and who are continuously praising his name and pointing to his finished work on the Cross are from the right Spirit. It doesnt mean anyone who attaches the tagline 'Jesus is Lord' to their demonic activity is immediately considered a genuine Christian or working in the Holy Spirit."

Do you agree that the spirit of 'tongues' (gibberish) doesn't say Jesus is Lord? Yes or No?

You can even give reasons why if you want.

Uh, how about that the Talmud and Khaballah are two different things, separated by more than a 1000 years! lol

Ur colors r glaring dude . . . ur loosing lots of ground and discrediting yourself.

It's all Greek to me.

Then perhaps you should retire and return when you got a little more study.

I've given my substance. And given you the substance of respected scholars who think the same. You can ignore it if you wish. I'm sure people who read this thread wont though. And that is what I'm working for. This isn't for you.

Sure dude. U havent given anything but drive by sound bytes and a LOT of bare assertion fallacies. And I dont think you have given ONE iota of something that is YOUR OWN hard earned, prayed over, work in the text that is the result of someone really seeking and searching the word of God. You have lazily leaned on others. makes great for impaired wheel chair arguments from posits that have no strength to stand on their own . . . quite apparent.

Shall we just stop throwing stones all together? That would make things simpler

Oh, nice duck and dodge.

I would love to . . . but ur not playing with the same set of rules . . . I supply worked substance and effort . . . and you cut and paste and use bare assertion fallacies.

Hard to maintain a standard between 2 ppl when one keeps playing by different rules.

And you are making yourself look unChristian by continuing to use a disrespectful tone and namecalling.

SO PRECIOUS coming from one who calls people decievers and decieved.

Facts are facts dude. I tried to be gentle from the gate and you forced my hand. For someone who actually KNOWS what Kundalini IS and who KNOWS the ins and outs of its connections to the Charismatic movement YOUR POSTS MAKE YOU LOOK FOOLISH. THAT IS THE FACTS.

1. You asserted "tongues and kundalini are the same" (essentially your recent arguements along with posting that video)
2. The FACTS are that Kundalini is a spirit snake that runs the lengths of the chakras espoused by Hinduism and Buddism. The "awakening" is when the spirit snake awakes and moves in unison between the chakras causing all kinds of physical sensations and manifestations . . .
3. These manifestations have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GIFT OF TONGUES . . . period
4. I tired to be kind by encouraging you to revisit your posits . . . but you bull headedly clung to them
5. and now that you are playing sovereign god, but knowing mens hearts . . . I am going to expose your skirts. Sorry if it hurts . . . I tried to be gentle and got no where with you
6. FACTS . . . YOU HAVE NO CLUE AS TO WHAT YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT AND ASSERTING . . . and the reason why you have no substance, is because you have no clue as to the truths about what you are asserting.

perhaps next time you should have some real substance before speaking with someone who really has the facts about the matter.

Jesus called the pharisees "white washed tombs full of dead men's bones" and Paul named alexander and hymenaeus as apostates . . . name calling is only bad when it is slander . . . if it is true, then it bears its weight. Oh, and there is a differnce between telling someone that they ARE a fool and that they are presenting themselves as one . . . one is name calling, assiging tags . . . and the other is addressing perception.

Kundalini stems from pagan practices. Gibberish is heavily involved with all of it.

Here we go again! lol.

Tongues isnt even part of the matter. :doh:

Never heard of Kittles. Anyone else?

And it now becomes painfully apparent as to why you have no scholarly substance.

"universally acclaimed by a host of biblical scholars to be the best New Testament dictionary ever compiled"

here ya go
Theological dictionary of the New ... - Google Books

"The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) is one of the few agreed upon standard reference works in the area of New Testament studies"

"is a necessity for serious Greek students"

oops

Oh you missed it, here it is again:

"By the way, the point Paul is making is that people who HONOR Jesus and who are continuously praising his name and pointing to his finished work on the Cross are from the right Spirit. It doesnt mean anyone who attaches the tagline 'Jesus is Lord' to their demonic activity is immediately considered a genuine Christian or working in the Holy Spirit."

Do you agree that the spirit of 'tongues' (gibberish) doesn't say Jesus is Lord? Yes or No

No actually I didnt. The problem is that you didnt answer my question . . . OBTW . . . the same way that I answered yours when you asked for a straight answer (double standard DOCTOR)

Lets try ONE more time . . . see if you can actually play

1 Cor 12:1-3
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware. 2 You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led. 3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
NASU

what, in this verse, is Paul's standard for judging if a particular manifestation is of the Lord or not?

Gunna take a little work . . . gotta think . . . gotta put in a little effort to read the substance . . . lets see if you can play by your own rules.

Dr.Strangelove · Jan 10, 2011

Mathetes the kerux said:
Yet no substance again . . . I am seeing a pattern hera . . . and u r loosing face.

Do you have to post my entire quote then break it up? Do you just want the longest posts on the forum?

I see a pattern too. Your posts are getting more and more cranky. You have nothing to validate babble talk. This is making you quite irate. You keep claiming to have supplied all the hard work and all the greek and all the scholarly substance. Yet I've answered everything you've given and supplied my own substance.

Dude....3 quarters of your posts now is stonethrowing, acidic sarcasm and vitriol. Personally, when I see other posters get like this in a thread I tend to skip over their posts and read the other guys stuff.

Mathetes the kerux said:
WISPY . . .

Guess ur not as intelligent as we were all hoping . . . sad

Ever heard of hermeneutics? One of the prime principles is AUTHORIAL INTENT and AUTHORIAL USAGE.

And, u contend tongues are meant for spreading the Gospel . . . but NEVER is the content of tongues said to be euaggleion . . . the Greek word for Gospel. You may find that out when you actually do some study.

Were the Apostles in Acts not given utterance by the Spirit to preach the Gospel to the listeners? Was the content of the speech miracle not the Gospel on that occasion?

Mathetes the kerux said:
Actually not too surprised at this point.

Ur inability to see even the simplest of your own inconsistencies is becoming quite apparent.

No, God heals people. That is why Peter says that the man in Acts 3 was healed by the power of the NAME of Jesus.

Further, um . . . it is what Paul says.

Owning a gift to use at your discretion and the ability to control are two different matters. But yes, no one owns the gifts. Paul is rather clear about that.

So if someone says they HAVE the gift of this or that then it's a false assertion agreed?

If someone says they can heal people then its not true agreed?

What were we debating again? 'Tongues'? So do you have control over your 'tongues'? Can you turn it on and off at will? Do you always understand everything your saying? Do you interpret your own tongues or do you need someone to do it for you.

I'm genuinely interested in answers to these if you'd be so kind as to furnish. If you can keep your cool that would be good too.

How do you tell gibberish with content from gibberish that has no content?

Mathetes the kerux said:
uh . . . interpretation

How do you know the interpreter is genuine or not? How do you know he's not making stuff up? Can you interpret your own tongues and do you yourself interpret others?

Mathetes the kerux said:
only if it is in commentaries!

Of course not . . . which is why it is ONE of the standards and not the only standard. Ur silly

Again, one of the standards, not the only standard

This is your own made up list of standards.

Mathetes the kerux said:
Yet I have given you two clear passages that say otherwise. Thanks for playing . . . I will stick with Paul.

Funny that I can give you chapter and verse , . . but you cant . . . hmm . . . glad this is here for all to see.

I explained to you how your verses had nothing to do with and lack of understanding. Anyway I thought 'tongues' should only be used if you can understand the content. Is that not correct.

Do you ever use 'tongues' without their understanding?

Do any supernatural gifts of the Spirit exist today

Tales of a Twice Born Man

child of Jesus

Guest

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Beloved, Let us love one another

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Tales of a Twice Born Man

from scratch

Guest

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Well-Known Member

Similar threads