Speak in Tongues - essential :

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟51,094.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Why do you quote footnotes? What does the main translations say? Nevertheless, you see Paul desires spiritual gifts (diverse tongues, not gibberish). But with mocking stance of notorious Corinthian people, he deals only with unknown (gibberish) tongue that had become a nuisance from 14:2 to 32 ending with spirits of prophets. (Not the Holy Spirit).

You seem to equate person's spirit to the Holy Spirit, a blasphemy!
Now your obviously trying a bit too hard to make your point. Traditionally the Church has believed that man is a Dichotomy and not a Trichotomy where the idea that man had a distinct human spirit alongside his soul was rejected. The viewpoint that says man also has a distinct human spirit is a fairly new one and quite often when we encounter the term spirit in Paul's writings it can read as S/spirit which stand for the "Spirit which is within me".
 
Upvote 0

Righttruth

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,484
341
✟176,910.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hey, you actually provided the answer to your own question, it is found throughout the passage that you hyperlinked to, but of course we both know that you already know this.

Yes, I know that unknown tongue is not related to the Holy Spirit. What can be unknown to the Holy Spirit?
 
Upvote 0

Righttruth

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,484
341
✟176,910.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Now your obviously trying a bit too hard to make your point. Traditionally the Church has believed that man is a Dichotomy and not a Trichotomy where the idea that man had a distinct human spirit alongside his soul was rejected. The viewpoint that says man also has a distinct human spirit is a fairly new one and quite often when we encounter the term spirit in Paul's writings it can read as S/spirit which stand for the "Spirit which is within me".

When we are seeking truth, churches' traditions cannot form the base. If so, you need to believe the first church, that is, Catholic church wholly.

Man is made in the image of God who is Trinity. It follows, man has soul, body and spirit.

1 Thessalonians 5
23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes. believers do have the Spirit dwelling in their hearts. But that doesn't replace human spirit.

Sorry, you are bending the truth to your liking!
 
Upvote 0

Righttruth

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,484
341
✟176,910.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Exactly.

That's the reason it's so ridiculous to label tongues as gibberish just because it is not known to humans.

God through the Holy Spirit made known His will in a language that is understood by men through prophets for thousands of years. He is still continuing with that method. Claiming gibberish talk as that of the Holy Spirit, perhaps, not even the Holy Spirit can understand it because it is not at all a language, is something that even angels cannot grasp! It has never been supported by the Bible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICONO'CLAST
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟252,547.00
Faith
Christian
It seems that you are missing the obvious again, which I have already informed about on a number of occasions, where Paul is not making reference to me, you or the Corinthians, he is speaking about himself in the first person.

You have clearly failed to realise the rather obvious implications of your statement. If Paul was only speaking about himself it would only be Paul who can speak in the tongues of angels. Why are you then using this verse to claim that you and other Pentecostals speak in an angelic language?

Paul is not suggesting that all of these things have to be put in operation every single day of the week, after all, we can only die once.

Finally you are getting it! These are not the normal everyday expected operations of those gifts. Paul was speaking hypothetically to make the point that even having the highest conceivable forms those gifts would be worthless without love. Speaking in the tongues of angels is not the normal operation of the gift of tongues, just the most extreme example Paul could imagine.

The following graphic which I have posted on a number of occasions shows how Paul is connecting the seven conditional elements of the Manifestations of the Spirit and human traits to love, where he has informed us that no matter who mightily the Spirit may work through us and how open we are with our wordly goods and even if we were to sacrifice ourselves that unless we operate and do these things in love that they will not benefit us, not that they will be useless to others but that we will gain nothing for them in the economy of God.

251859_38f29924bc4b88e17f65f08e9cb5210d.png

Your graphic is correct. Read my posts again. I never said the gifts themselves are worthless. I said having the gifts would be worthless.

Paul is not dealing with 'human traits', he is dealing exclusively with spiritual gifts. The context of this passage, sitting in the middle of 3 chapters about spiritual gifts, ought to make that obvious to you. His whole thrust in 1 Cor 13:1-3 is to teach us that having spiritual gifts, even the highest conceivable forms of them, are worthless without love.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟252,547.00
Faith
Christian
There's not really all that much that I can say here as it seems to be more a perspective found within 'backyard' cessationism; as I have not come across it within the 49 commentaries that I own on 1Cor 12, 13 & 14 then you will need to find a 'source' (other than a Chick pamphlet) that backs up your rather wild claim.

I notice, as usually happens when you cannot refute an argument, you have to resort to making ad-hominen remarks.

Tell me, out of those commentaries you own, how many affirm that New Testament tongues is speaking in the language of angels? I have previously posted excerpts from 32 commentaries (and that was just a selection) that reject this implausible theory. Would you like me to post them again to remind you? Even your beloved Thiselton rejects the idea.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟252,547.00
Faith
Christian
I hold to the view that before every call to Salvation that we need to inform potential initiates that they can/should expect to be able to immediately pray in the Spirit (tongues).

How can every believer be expected to be able to pray in tongues when Paul plainly tells us that not everyone has the same gift:

1 Cor 12:29 "All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?

Rom 12:4-6 "For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. "

1 Cor 12:8-10 "To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues."

1 Cor 12:17-20 "If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body."
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Site Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
I am only pointing out the truth. Trust could be disliked and appear offensive!

You truth is you found a translation that seemed to agree with your bias, but the footnote said otherwise. That's why I added it for you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟252,547.00
Faith
Christian
Now your obviously trying a bit too hard to make your point. Traditionally the Church has believed that man is a Dichotomy and not a Trichotomy where the idea that man had a distinct human spirit alongside his soul was rejected. The viewpoint that says man also has a distinct human spirit is a fairly new one and quite often when we encounter the term spirit in Paul's writings it can read as S/spirit which stand for the "Spirit which is within me".

Dichotomists do not believe that humans do not have a spirit. They believe that the spirit and soul are synonymous. Of course humans have a spirit. What do you think Paul was referring to in these verses?:

Romans 1:9 "God, whom I serve in my spirit in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you"

1 Corinthians 2:11 "For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them?"

1 Corinthians 5:5 "hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord."

1 Corinthians 7:34 "Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. "

2 Corinthians 7:1 "let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit"

2 Corinthians 7:13 "we were especially delighted to see how happy Titus was, because his spirit has been refreshed by all of you."

Galatians 6:18 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers and sisters."

Philippians 4:23 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit."


So of course it is the human spirit, not the Holy Spirit, that prays in tongues:

1 Cor 14:15 "I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding."
Did you not notice that little word "my"? Or perhaps you think we own the Holy Spirit?

The pentecostal Gordon Fee is the one who invented the term "S/spirit" to apply to this verse. As is typical of pentecostal/charismatic theologians he is unjustifiably adding his own preconceived ideas into scripture. And he was roundly criticised by other commentators for doing so. Even your beloved Thiselton called it "disastrous confusion":

Anthony C Thiselton - First Corinthians p1112-13
A disastrous move , however, is to confuse a noncognitive or "spiritual" human capacity, with Spirit as the Holy Spirit of God. There are at least two different reasons. First, Pauline specialists generally agree that Platonic or Idealist notions of the human spirit as a point of "divine contact" are alien to Paul and plainly alien to the explicit thrust of I Cor 2:10-12. Second, to read this into 14:15 is to fall into the very trap to which the Corinthians and many today fall prey, namely, of associating the operation of the Holy Spirit more closely with noncognitive "spontaneous" phenomena than with a self critical reflection upon the word of God as that which addresses the understanding and thereby transforms the heart (cf. 14:23-25). Contrary to his usually more judicious assessments Fee repeats this disastrous confusion explicitly in his commentary and in his two more recent volumes: "my S/spirit prays." A third factor is noted by Héring and Barrett. Barrett writes that he might have been sympathetic with this understanding, but for the fact that in v. 14 Paul uses the phrase my spirit, my innermost spiritual being (tò Tveipudi uou, v. 14), thereby disengaging the term from Spirit of God: "To describe the Holy Spirit as in any sense mine is intolerable, and certainly not Pauline" (his italics): it denotes "part of my psychological make-up."75 Héring is equally emphatic.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Waggles

Acts 2:38
Site Supporter
Feb 7, 2017
768
476
69
South Oz
Visit site
✟112,244.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Widowed
Man is made in the image of God who is Trinity. It follows, man has soul, body and spirit.
Unscriptural.
Human beings like everything else in the Creation comes in fours -
body - heart - mind - spirit
A soul is a living spirit that is our awareness, our sentience; our need to connect with God.
That is why when people see the dead they see them in their fleshly form.
So when Saul is raised up by the witch of Endor his soul is recognisable as Saul.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 2:7
SOUL > H5315 nephesh > From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental): - any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature ...
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
James 2:26
Animals, all life and especially us humans are only alive and thrive because we have the Spirit of God within us - this makes humans a living soul purposed (unlike animals) for an eternal destination.
Romans 8 is how the Holy Spirit in a Pentecostal saint incorporates our spirit
and thus we have the ability to pray in the Spirit as children of God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Site Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Unscriptural.
Human beings like everything else in the Creation comes in fours -
body - heart - mind - spirit
A soul is a living spirit that is our awareness, our sentience; our need to connect with God.
That is why when people see the dead they see them in their fleshly form.
So when Saul is raised up by the witch of Endor his soul is recognisable as Saul.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 2:7
SOUL > H5315 nephesh > From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental): - any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature ...
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
James 2:26
Animals, all life and especially us humans are only alive and thrive because we have the Spirit of God within us - this makes humans a living soul purposed (unlike animals) for an eternal destination.
Romans 8 is how the Holy Spirit in a Pentecostal saint incorporates our spirit
and thus we have the ability to pray in the Spirit as children of God.

For me it is three. You show, four, body - heart - mind - spirit. It is the same, except I combine heart and spirit, and you separate them. Scripture shows them all so they are both scriptural, whether you count three of four. Nothing to argue about. The point is we are complex and not like animals. But I sure hope my pets will be with me in heaven. :hug:
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
That's the reason it's so ridiculous to label tongues as gibberish just because it is not known to humans.

A language could be unknown to [modern] humans, that doesn't make it gibberish. Being gibberish makes it gibberish.

Language contains things such as words with discrete meaning, along with syntax. A statement made in any language can be broken down in this way. For example words are comprised of phonemes, morphemes; these are units of sound which comprise a word. A word fits a particular category of language, nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronounds, and others which when joined together in a syntax consists of a thought--a complete thought being a sentence. For example, "My name is Bob" or "Watashi no namae wa Bob desu." or "Mi nombre es Bob". The first example is English which consists of the first person possessive pronoun "my" which is linked to the noun "name" along with the verb "is" along with the proper noun "Bob" corresponding to "name". This form of syntax is known as SVO (Subject-Verb-Object) the subject is "my name" the verb is "is" and the object is "Bob". The statement "Mi nombre es Bob" is Spanish, and corresponds pretty directly with the English.

The Japanese sentence, "Watashi no namae wa Bob desu." is a different kind of syntax than either English or Spanish, but we can break it down all the same, "watashi" is a first person pronoun meaning "I" there is no morphology here, such as in English me/my/I/etc. Which is followed by "no" is a modifying particle, here it connects "watashi" and "namae", the word "namae" means "name" (its similar sound to English is coincidence) and so "watashi no namae" can be translated as "my name", which is followed by "wa" a particular kind of particle in Japanese which connotes topic, it is here linking "watashi no namae" with "Bob". Ending with the copula "desu" which signifies that the sentence was a statement, if one were to say "watashi no namae wa Bob desuka?" it'd be a question, one that might sound funny, "My name is Bob?".

Words are further broken down, such as in English "my" consists of two phonemes, m and y which together form "my". In the case of Japanese, word break down is rather simple since words are constructed of particular sound-structures natively known as "mora" these are things like ka, chi, tsu, a, i, n; the word watashi can be broken down into these syllabic structures as follows: wa-ta-shi. The word namae can be broken down as no-ma-e.

All languages can be deconstructed, because all languages have an internal sense and logic to them, consisting of words constructed of sound qualities, structured into a sentence with a particular syntax. And it is the general consistency of this which makes it language rather than just producing nonsense sounds.

Gibberish, on the other hand, is just that--the production of nonsense sounds which comprise of no internal logic, structure, and therefore no meaning. Gibberish may be able to sound, at times, language-like by achieving a certain cadence and speech tempo--but without underlying meaningful structure it remains noise and not language.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Site Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
A language could be unknown to [modern] humans, that doesn't make it gibberish. Being gibberish makes it gibberish.

Language contains things such as words with discrete meaning, along with syntax. A statement made in any language can be broken down in this way. For example words are comprised of phonemes, morphemes; these are units of sound which comprise a word. A word fits a particular category of language, nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronounds, and others which when joined together in a syntax consists of a thought--a complete thought being a sentence. For example, "My name is Bob" or "Watashi no namae wa Bob desu." or "Mi nombre es Bob". The first example is English which consists of the first person possessive pronoun "my" which is linked to the noun "name" along with the verb "is" along with the proper noun "Bob" corresponding to "name". This form of syntax is known as SVO (Subject-Verb-Object) the subject is "my name" the verb is "is" and the object is "Bob". The statement "Mi nombre es Bob" is Spanish, and corresponds pretty directly with the English.

The Japanese sentence, "Watashi no namae wa Bob desu." is a different kind of syntax than either English or Spanish, but we can break it down all the same, "watashi" is a first person pronoun meaning "I" there is no morphology here, such as in English me/my/I/etc. Which is followed by "no" is a modifying particle, here it connects "watashi" and "namae", the word "namae" means "name" (its similar sound to English is coincidence) and so "watashi no namae" can be translated as "my name", which is followed by "wa" a particular kind of particle in Japanese which connotes topic, it is here linking "watashi no namae" with "Bob". Ending with the copula "desu" which signifies that the sentence was a statement, if one were to say "watashi no namae wa Bob desuka?" it'd be a question, one that might sound funny, "My name is Bob?".

Words are further broken down, such as in English "my" consists of two phonemes, m and y which together form "my". In the case of Japanese, word break down is rather simple since words are constructed of particular sound-structures natively known as "mora" these are things like ka, chi, tsu, a, i, n; the word watashi can be broken down into these syllabic structures as follows: wa-ta-shi. The word namae can be broken down as no-ma-e.

All languages can be deconstructed, because all languages have an internal sense and logic to them, consisting of words constructed of sound qualities, structured into a sentence with a particular syntax. And it is the general consistency of this which makes it language rather than just producing nonsense sounds.

Gibberish, on the other hand, is just that--the production of nonsense sounds which comprise of no internal logic, structure, and therefore no meaning. Gibberish may be able to sound, at times, language-like by achieving a certain cadence and speech tempo--but without underlying meaningful structure it remains noise and not language.

-CryptoLutheran

Psalm 1
1 Blessed is the one who does not in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or in the company of mockers,

Only God can tell if a tongue is a language or not, not scoffing mockers.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin Knox
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Psalm 1
1 Blessed is the one who does not in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or in the company of mockers,

Only God can tell if a tongue is a language or not, not scoffing mockers.

Ad hominem attacks aren't valid arguments.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Site Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Ad hominem attacks aren't valid arguments.

-CryptoLutheran

But scripture is. And just who is attacking who? That is hypocritical! You and your fellow mockers are calling a gift of God, gibberish. If you feared God you wouldn't be sitting amongst them.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
And just who is attacking who?

Attacking the person, rather than the argument, is an ad hominem argument.

That is hypocritical! You and your fellow mockers

That's an ad hominem again.

are calling a gift of God, gibberish.

I have not once referred to God's gift as gibberish. I have not once, in this entire thread, referred to the gift of tongues as gibberish. What I have said is that what is commonly seen in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles is not the gift of tongues.

It seems that you take this personally, and rather than engaging in civil debate you feel it necessary to poison the well and engage in ad hominem argument. After all, by telling yourself that I'm some wicked "mocker" who has no reverence toward God then any point or argument I've made can be dismissed without ever dealing with it.

The unwillingness to question or have one's beliefs challenged is not healthy.

I am quite willing to be wrong in all this, but I need better arguments then what I'm seeing so far.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟51,094.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Dichotomists do not believe that humans do not have a spirit. They believe that the spirit and soul are synonymous. Of course humans have a spirit. What do you think Paul was referring to in these verses?:
It seems that your frequent misunderstanding of grammar has on this occasion let you down again. You are correct in that the Dichotomist does see the soul and spirit as being synonymous which is why a Dichotomist (and a functional-Dichotomist as myself) recognises that the ‘human-spirit’ is not a separate entity – that’s classic-Dichotomy 101!

To recap, all Dichotomists reject the viewpoint that man supposedly consists of a distinct entity known as a human spirit, whereas the Trichotomist sees the spirit as being a separate entity from his soul, to the Dichotomist, man is comprised of two distinct entities, being a body and soul, whereas the Trichotomist sees man being composed of a body, soul and human spirit. Most Dichotomists seem to prefer to use the word soul as against spirit but this will change depending on the context.

As to how the Holy Spirit relates to these models is another question in itself.

So of course it is the human spirit, not the Holy Spirit, that prays in tongues:

1 Cor 14:15 "I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding."
Did you not notice that little word "my"? Or perhaps you think we own the Holy Spirit?

The pentecostal Gordon Fee is the one who invented the term "S/spirit" to apply to this verse. As is typical of pentecostal/charismatic theologians he is unjustifiably adding his own preconceived ideas into scripture. And he was roundly criticised by other commentators for doing so. Even your beloved Thiselton called it "disastrous confusion":

Anthony C Thiselton - First Corinthians p1112-13
A disastrous move , however, is to confuse a noncognitive or "spiritual" human capacity, with Spirit as the Holy Spirit of God. . . . . . . .
For those who have been aware of Fee’s approach to the historically difficult passage of 1 Cor 14:14, they would know from his material: (Fee 1987, 1994, 1996) that Thiselton has on this occasion obviously misunderstood Fee on this issue; I can imagine the quiet words that Fee must have had with Thiselton on this point, but maybe Thiselton’s ecclesiastical heritage sent him down the wrong path. As I have owned Fee's three following books almost since they were published it is easy for someone such as myself to check what Fee actually said; I also own Thiselton's four commentaries on First Corinthians and the Holy Spirit.
  • Fee, GD 1987, The First Epistle to the Corinthians New international commentary on the New Testament., W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids, Mich.
  • Fee, GD 1994, God's empowering presence : the Holy Spirit in the letters of Paul Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Mass.
  • Fee, GD 1996, Paul, the Spirit, and the people of God Hendrickson Publishers, Peadbody, Mass.
To keep things relatively simple, Fee is aware that when we pray in tongues that it is the Holy Spirit who is the one who is praying to the Father. What Fee has pointed out, is that even though the Holy Spirit is the agent who is praying to the Father, that he does so through the cognitive abilities (my words) of the person who is praying. So this can mean for the Trichotomist that it is their distinct 'human' spirit who has cooperated with the Holy Spirit whereas a functional-Dichotomist such as myself will view Paul's use of spirit as being our thoughts, desires, intent etc.

Fee's preference is to use the phrase "the S/spirit who is within me" or "of me" but admittedly trying to faithfully convey the Greek in English along with a complex theological issue can be problematic at best.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums