Number One Flaw in Cessationism

[JAL]

So, is the incarnation gibberish as well?

On the notion of an immaterial God it certainly is. For a materialistic world view, the Incarnation is a cinch to explain. But that's getting a bit off topic.

The idea that God cannot cause spirits to materialize is standard Christian belief.

I don't believe in spirits. Neither should you. That concept has its roots in Plato's incoherent philosophy, certainly not in Scripture.

 

[NBB]

On the notion of an immaterial God it certainly is. For a materialistic world view, the Incarnation is a cinch to explain. But that's getting a bit off topic.

I don't believe in spirits. Neither should you. That concept has its roots in Plato's incoherent philosophy, certainly not in Scripture.

The notion that the presence of God is some radio wave, gives me a very bad impression.

 

[JAL]

The notion that the presence of God is some radio wave, gives me a very bad impression.

The notion that the church is still sold on some magical fabrication of Plato gives ME a very bad impression.

 

[Albion]

On the notion of an immaterial God it certainly is.

Interesting.

For a materialistic world view, the Incarnation is a cinch to explain. But that's getting a bit off topic.

I don't believe in spirits.

You don't belong to any church or denomination I've heard of, right?

 

[swordsman1]

Shifting the burden of proof. God can pick any random language that He wants, for the unknown tongue. Who are you to dictate to Him what languages He can and cannot use? Show me in Scripture where it says He is NOT allowed to utilize angelic tongues? This is ridiculous.

No, it is you that is shifting the burden of proof. It is not up to me to prove that tongues is NOT an angelic languages. If you are making that assertion, then the onus is upon YOU to prove it.

(Sigh) Again, the Pentecostal doesn't NEED to prove that it is a non-human-language. The gift of tongues doesn't stand or fall on that. You're the one with the axe to grind here. You're the one insisting that it CANNOT be non-human and you've proven nothing of the kind. All you've proven is that you see yourself as having some kind of papal authority to dictate what God can and cannot do.

The only description we have of tongues is that it is foreign human languages. Seeing as there is no other description in scripture to add or override that position then that is de facto definition.

 

[JAL]

No, it is you that is shifting the burden of proof. It is not up to me to prove that tongues is NOT an angelic languages. If you are making that assertion, then the onus is upon YOU to prove it.

Nope. Because I am not asserting it. I'm merely allowing for that POSSIBILITY, instead of trying to tie God's hands.

The only description we have of tongues is that it is foreign human languages. Seeing as there is no other description in scripture to add or override that position then that is de facto definition.

Eisegesis.

 

[NBB]

The notion that the church is still sold on some magical fabrication of Plato gives ME a very bad impression.

Why magical? its just different.

 

[JAL]

Interesting.



You don't belong to any church or denomination I've heard of, right?

Not anymore. After 12 years of it, I'd had enough.

 

[NBB]

Not anymore. After 12 years of it, I'd had enough.

Not that i'm a fine example of church attendance myself, but i think the fellowship in reunions with other christians is important, God does extra things when several of his childs are together. This is for sure.
Also it can be useful to be in certain subjection to some other christians, like being accountable etc, because this can help if they are not a bad influence of course to keep us in line more better.

 

[swordsman1]

Nope. Because I am not asserting it. I'm merely allowing for that POSSIBILITY, instead of trying to tie God's hands.

It is also a possibility that pigs can fly. After all, all things are possible with God. Why aren't you trumpetting that as well?

Eisegesis.

Rubbish. You obviously don't know the meaning of the word.

 

[JAL]

Why magical? its just different.

Ok find me some proof that immaterial substance exists. And are you familiar with the technical definition as underestood by professional theologians? Are you aware that it is logically incoherent? I'll share here one tenet of it (it only gets worse if I share more).

An immaterial spirit has no extension in space. It has no spatial dimensions, i.e., no size and shape. This flatly contradicts the biblical localization of the human soul to the human body. Although in math we can hypothetically define size-less points of space, any EXISTING point in space has size and shape.

It is therefore humanly incoherent to claim that the soul exists at a specific point or points in the human body but has no spatial dimensions.

They also state it like this, "A soul is indivisible into parts." Find me ONE location of the human body that is indivisible into parts.

This is gibberish.

 

[NBB]

It is also a possibility that pigs can fly. After all, all things are possible with God. Why aren't you trumpetting that as well?



Rubbish. You obviously don't know the meaning of the word.

Speaking of rubbish, i consider that the opinion of all people who says that you get all the holy spirit you can get at believing, and not like in the bible as something you need to pray for, or someone needing to pray for them after believing, and receive the filling of the holy spirit, because when i received it i know he was the holy spirit 100% and is not something confusing at all, it was very clear what happened.
I'm so sure of this like anything really obvious.
Even if i have not been as faithful as i wish to him, i like to talk about this, because is very important that christians receive this.

Also cessationist preaching against this, are harmful to the gospel.

Just my sincere opinion.

 

[JAL]

It is also a possibility that pigs can fly. After all, all things are possible with God. Why aren't you trumpetting that as well?

Pigs flying isn't an everyday experience. Languages are. Also the possibility of flying isn't relevant to this particular debate.

On the other hand, self-propelling matter is part of my cosmogony. This is why God has power, it is why angels CAN fly, and if God were to allow it, pigs could fly as well, as could you. Would you like proof of self-propelling matter? Happy to supply it.

Rubbish. You obviously don't know the meaning of the word.

You inserted the word 'human' (i.e. you said human languages). That's not what the text said. You added to it, Ergo eisegesis.

 

[NBB]

Ok find me some proof that immaterial substance exists. And are you familiar with the technical definition as underestood by professional theologians? Are you aware that it is logically incoherent? I'll share here one tenet of it (it only gets worse if I share more).

An immaterial spirit has no extension in space. It has no spatial dimensions, i.e., no size and shape. This flatly contradicts the biblical localization of the human soul to the human body. Although in math we can hypothetically define size-less points of space, any EXISTING point in space has size and shape.

It is therefore humanly incoherent to claim that the soul exists at a specific point or points in the human body but has no spatial dimensions.

They also state it like this, "A soul is indivisible into parts." Find me ONE location of the human body that is indivisible into parts.

This is gibberish.

We went on this before, and all i can say that i'm not holder of truth 100% on this topic of course, but spirits as being spirit makes me at rest with my beliefs and that materialistic view, the 'grand total' that one that you spoke just gives me the creeps, God did not evolve in my view, and i really prefer him eternal like that.

 

[JAL]

swordsman1,

At this point I'm beginning to suspect that YOU are the one who doesn't don't know the meaning of eisegesis...

 

[swordsman1]

Pigs flying isn't an everyday experience.

No, it is as unlikely as humans speaking the language of angels.

You inserted the word 'human' (i.e. you said human languages). That's not what the text said. You added to it, Ergo eisegesis.

So what are the languages of "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs", if not human?

 

[JAL]

No, it is as unlikely as humans speaking the language of angels.



So what are the languages of "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews", if not human?

Who said they weren't?

 

[swordsman1]

Who said they weren't?

You did, by accusing me of eisegesis in saying Acts 2 tongues were foreign human languages.

 

[JAL]

We went on this before, and all i can say that i'm not holder of truth 100% on this topic of course, but spirits as being spirit makes me at rest with my beliefs and that materialistic view, the 'grand total' that one that you spoke just gives me the creeps, God did not evolve in my view, and i really prefer him eternal like that.

Rethink it - for God's sake, not for my sake. The traditional view is that God's perfections are innate instead of acquired over time by hard work. This implies that God merits no praise, it's like calling Him lazy and unaccomplished. It's like you saying to me, "The only thing you deserve credit for is being a human being."

That wasn't my choice - that means I don't deserve any credit at all! Don't you love God enough to rethink this kind of assessment of Him? I guess you're saying you already tried rethinking it and came up empty. In that case, I'm sorry to hear it.

 

[JAL]

You did, by accusing me of eisegesis in saying Acts 2 tongues were foreign human languages.

What I meant is that you are reading that conclusion into ALL possible instances of tongues. That would be eisegesis.