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.
As to the article that you call the "Emma teaching", I already addressed that earlier in the thread. I sincerely don't believe that article was EVER intended to focus on female angels and/or Emma. Therefore, in a side by side comparison of the article, I don't see how the overall message has changed all that drastically.
Calm down, SP, and do some research for yourself on the article you're criticizing.You don’t believe that article was EVER intended to focus on Emma !!!
You cannot be serious!!! The WHOLE ‘article’ was about EMMA!
The original title was:
Emma, Angel of the Prophetic.
The original teaching started:
Now let me talk about an angelic experience with Emma.
The orignal article even went into details describing how she looked, how old she was, how she moved, and where she'd been.
Three of the four paragraphs started with a sentence about Emma. (The first sentence of a paragraph tells you what the paragraph is about.)
Only the smallest paragraph is not directly about Emma.
The last, and concluding paragraph started:
I believe Emma released a financial and prophetic anointing in that place.
There was only about 29 sentences in the original teaching, yet:
Emma’s name was mentioned at least 12 times.
Emma was also referred to as “she” or “her” an additional 12 times.
Come on Pete, if this wasn't about 'Emma' then what would an article about Emma look like?
Your defensive attitude towards this is telling, I don't have a dog in this fight, I am not trying to convince you who to believe in, and thats the whole point. I don't care how many words you surround those I posted with, before , after, doesn't matter. What matters is that you believe and Todd believes that G-d really said this:It's simply amazing how you can post something that is talking about people who ALREADY BELIEVE in Jesus (i.e. Christians), and continue to insinuate that Todd Bentley is advocating that Jesus is not important.
You have SORELY ripped that quote out of its proper context to bear false witness against and misrepresent what Todd Bentley actually said in that clip.
This is why your "warnings" are suspect, because apparently, you feel it's OK to remove single sentences from their context to make it appear as though something is being promoted that is not.
People warning others shouldn't need to use deception as one of their tools to get their message across.
NOT THIS3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition,
When that son of perdition is coming most will not be in a sober state, awaiting Jesus, but they will be wrapped up in their own selfs , trying to 'experience' him and yet becoming blinded to what is really happening.3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the awakening comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition,
It's simply amazing how you can post something that is talking about people who ALREADY BELIEVE in Jesus (i.e. Christians), and continue to insinuate that Todd Bentley is advocating that Jesus is not important.
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]John 14:15-17[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.[/FONT]
Thanks to the amazing Web Archive, you can see the entire article in its totality as it was on the Fresh Fire website on December 4, 2003 at this link;
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204215254/www.freshfire.ca/teaching.asp
Here, you can see the original article was entitled "Angelic Hosts". There is one section of that article with a subheading "Emma, Angel of the Prophetic", but that was not the title, nor do I believe, the FOCUS of that article.
SP, the point is THERE WAS NO EMMA TEACHING, ever. The teaching was about Angelic Hosts. The teaching was entitled, Angelic Hosts. You an see that at the web archive link I've provided for you above.Pete,
It's the Emma teaching (under it's own title: EMMA, ANGEL OF THE PROPHETIC) that this thread is about. That's the teaching that has been doctored, and it's entire focus and meaning changed.
I don't believe I've tried to "justify" that. In fact, I took it a step further by comparing sentence for sentence the original article with the edited one, and found that a full 25 sentences had either been edited or removed, and then said that it appeared deceptive to me.Words are important. As Christians we know this better than most. Even more important are words that the Lord speaks. How can you justify the following revisionism:
Original version:
The Lord answered: "She is releasing the gold, which is both the revelation and the financial breakthrough that I am bringing into this church. I want you to prophecy that Emma showed up in this service the same angel that appeared in Kansas city as a sign that I am endorsing and releasing a prophetic spirit in the church."
New doctored version:
The Lord answered: “This angel is releasing the gold, which is both the revelation and the financial breakthrough that I am bringing into this church. I want you to prophecy that the angel’s appearance is a sign that I am endorsing and releasing a prophetic spirit in the church.”
I don't believe I've tried to "justify" that. In fact, I took it a step further by comparing sentence for sentence the original article with the edited one, and found that a full 25 sentences had either been edited or removed, and then said that it appeared deceptive to me.
That's not "justifying" the change.
SP, the point is THERE WAS NO EMMA TEACHING, ever. The teaching was about Angelic Hosts. The teaching was entitled, Angelic Hosts. You an see that at the web archive link I've provided for you above.
The "Emma Teaching" does not exist, and it never has. It was part of a much larger article, whose focus was never intended to be on Emma and/or female angels.
Isn't medusa a woman with snake hair? That's a tattoo of an ugly dude with wind blown hair and what looks to be a sword.[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Appearance[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Todd Bentley is far from mainstream. He is heavy set and bearded and his arms and neck are covered with tattoos. He wears studs in his chin and left eyebrow and certainly doesnt look anything like a typical evangelist. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]But isnt being a Christian all about being forgiven for past sins and being filled with the Holy Spirit which helps enable one to live out the rest of our lives in righteousness etc. etc. Isnt being a Christian more to do with the inside being clean, rather than the outside adhering to some set standard? Didnt Jesus criticize the Pharisees for their appearance of righteousness while the inside was rotting? [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Certainly! As long as our present lives are pleasing to God and our beliefs according to the precepts of Scripture, it should not particularly matter what our outward appearance is like. Except for one small problem.. Unlike many Christians, I have absolutely nothing against [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]tattoos[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1], but in the photograph Bentley is displaying a tattoo that is eerily similar to the popular depictions of Medusa. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Besides which it is all too often the case that tattoos, body piercings etc. are far more than just appearance, they represent a lifestyle a mindset or worldview, if you will, that is completely antithetical to Christianity. Apart from the eerie Medusa-like tattoo on his left shin, I wonder if Bentleys tattoos is just another sign of his mindset, which is further illustrated by his .....[/SIZE][/FONT]
This is like saying there never was a SERMON ON THE MOUNT, it does not exist and it never has. There's only a gospel called Matthew.
Ridiculous. I'm done here.
What was the "teaching" about Emma, and/or female angels? What are we "taught" by this subsection of the larger article?This is like saying there never was a SERMON ON THE MOUNT, it does not exist and it never has. There's only a gospel called Matthew.
Ridiculous. I'm done here.
Not quite.This is like saying there never was a SERMON ON THE MOUNT, it does not exist and it never has. There's only a gospel called Matthew.
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?