Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Can you provide a link confirming that the attempt was successful?
Well, the cut and paste job was a list that was a work that was built upon what another started. Half of the list is my own original work. But I did reword what another said in their original list (so as not to directly copy what they wrote). When I started to add to the list: God just kept showing me more and more.
So you are not convinced that I believe the Living Word and the Communicated Word are different?
My issue is that the indwelling and resting presence of the Holy Spirit and His work of leading us into all truth, comforting and guiding and empowering did not change when the Scripture was written, His voice was not closed off, His revelation continued as normal.
No wonder John said we don't need a teacher because the anointing of His Spirit is the teacher.
In this verse Paul is not saying he or anyone else actually speaks the language of angels. Paul is portraying an exaggerated scenario to make a point. He is saying even if someone could speak in tongues to the ultimate degree conceivable (speaking the language of angels), but not have love, it would be worthless. We know this because he does the same with 3 other gifts in the following verses - having the gift of prophesy to the ultimate degree of knowing ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie. omniscience); having the gift of faith to the ultimate degree of moving mountains; and having the gift of giving to the ultimate degree of giving up ALL you possess to the poor and even giving up your own life. Paul is saying that even if someone had gifts to such a superlative degree, without love, it would be to no avail.
We no longer have infallible prophecy, however.
Your posts on CF are not the inspired word of God.
BCV please. I'm not a big fan of vague out-of-context Scripture references.
And, since you are referring to a passage of Scripture intended to teach people, I doubt that the passage mean what you think it means.
No, it failed. That was why I used the conditional "If"
Now if faith was really a factor in that, surely no one would deny that the entire Bethel church were praying and believing that what Jesus said to Martha before he raised Lazarus, will also be true here.
Still, because signs and wonders are no longer for today, the kid was finally buried.
You should know your bible and where I am quoting from.
I find you last remark very offensive and from this point I will ignore your posts.
Err... no. Jesus said "Blessed are those who have not seen [me] and yet believe".Read the next 2 verses.
Blessed are those that have not seen the Jesus in the flesh but believe what they read in scripture. Not a hearsay report.
And sceptics. It really helps to not believe anything you see rather than try and believe two impossible things before breakfast (via Alice).A video is certainly better than hearsay. Fakes can generally by spotted, especially by experts.
Were they women? You know what the scriptures say about women as witnesses (...stirs up a hornet's nestI know two people who have witnessed faith healers at work and they testified that it was faked. So, must I believe their conclusion to be correct?
The scriptures show signs and wonders in the lives of the believers. If the church is authentic then, I would expect to see signs and wonders.
I have seen signs and wonders and I have seen fakery.
Also there is the problem of 'experts'.
Were they women? You know what the scriptures say about women as witnesses (...stirs up a hornet's nest)
Not so. It is referring to the beginning of salvation. Unless one is of the opinion that salvation began with the apostles rather than with Jesus this reference to signs and wonders refers to our saviour, Jesus, not to what came after.Heb 2:4 says people had the ability to perform miracles for authentication purposes. Notice the past tenses, "God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles...", not "God testifies..." which you would expect if the gift was ongoing.
The word 'proof' gets bandied around a lot. If the same proof was provided as there is for say Jesus' resurrection (i.e. a handful of accounts) would that satisfy?If you have proof of tongues speaking after around 3rd century then let's see it. The only accounts I found were from either heretics or Catholics wanting to canonize one of their churchmen. Sainthood is only granted if the candidate has been shown to have performed a miracle. In every case the person in question never claimed to speak in tongues themselves, it was always their fans making the claim of a miracle sometime after they died.
So you are of the opinion that Mark 16:9+ are not part of scripture. Hmm!If you maintain that the long ending of Mark was written in the 2nd century then it is was a later addition by a scribe, not authentic Mark and should therefore be ignored. Most commentators on Mark believe that which is why they offer no commentary on Mark 16:9 onwards.
That's just assuming Continuationism is true.
Thank you, brother. At last someone who admits that the fakery exists.
I endeavour to keep an open mind, but personally, I have only seen fakery.
Not necessarily - unless there is a claim that it was Russian. There are large numbers of languages and linguists weren't able to translate some languages until we got the Rosetta Stone, despite copious amounts of it. Small phrases and sentences in 'some random gibberish' is either going to be recognised by a native speaker or not recognised at all. Only in the former case can we be certain that there was no language.The level of expertise here relates to "is that really Russian?" and "was that person really healed?" Nothing particularly problematic.
From their perspective, they are not.
From a cessationalist perspective, they are.
Why should they not be from a continuationists perspective?
One can be blind to ones own deception...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?