Speak in Tongues - essential :

[swordsman1]

That is harsh.

It is true. Today's so called tongues, prophecies, etc do not match the NT descriptions of those gifts. They are therefore counterfeits.

 

[1stcenturylady]

It is true. Today's so called tongues, prophecies, etc do not match the NT descriptions of those gifts. They are therefore counterfeits.

They don't match your erroneous interpretations of scripture. That's all.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It is true. Today's so called tongues, prophecies, etc do not match the NT descriptions of those gifts. They are therefore counterfeits.

You go on with your words. Just know if they are not right, you will have to deal with God about it.

That's just a big statement. One I'd not make, lest I find myself in error.

 

[swordsman1]

They don't match your erroneous interpretations of scripture. That's all.

The interpretations I use are based on the established principles of hermeneutics. Not on exegetical fallacies such as taking verses out of context and reading your own preconceived ideas and experiences into scripture.

 

[Biblicist]

The interpretations I use are based on the established principles of hermeneutics. Not on exegetical fallacies such as taking verses out of context and reading your own preconceived ideas and experiences into scripture.

Wow . . . of all the books that I have on Hermeneutics, it seems that I must have missed out on the copy that you apparently use; was it maybe produced by someone such as Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean) and if so I would love a link to it as I am always up for a good laugh - it suits my Australian sense of humour.

By the way, I am still waiting for a clarification to your post that said I confused the following abbreviations, being the BGAD, BAGD and the BAG, should be BAG (1957), BAGD (1979) and the BDAG (2001) have you gone to ground on yet another error on your part, I really am losing track of them.

 

[Biblicist]

Amazing! Even after repeatedly being proved wrong you are still trying to wriggle your way out of your mistake. Unbelievably, it seems you don't even know what a cessationist is - your definition is wrong. A cessationist is someone who believes that certain gifts ceased after the apostolic age. The clue is in the word 'cessation'.

Wikipedia - Cessationism
In Christianity, cessationism is the doctrine that spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophecy and healing ceased with the apostolic age.

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion
Cessationism: the belief that tongues and other special gifts enjoyed by early believers in the early Christian movement faded in the early fourth century CE, and are thus not present today​

So how then could there be cessationists during the apostolic age, when the definition of a cessationist is someone who believes that certain gifts ceased after the apostolic age? You are plainly wrong in claiming Paul told the Corinthians their tongues would confuse cessationist visitors. And the Ephesian disciples didn't even know what a spiritual gift was, let alone believe that certain ones would cease in the future.


That's a bit rich coming from you when it was me that had to teach you how the BDAG system works a few months ago when you mixed up their extended definitions with their glosses on their entry for phóné. You then tried to wriggle your way out of that one by making an even bigger gaff in claiming BDAG had stopped using glosses!

Oh well, as hard as I tried I could not find a crayon font which I had hoped to use. But as your particular agenda prohibits you from engaging in serious and constructive discussion then I suppose that would probably not have helped - you certainly live in a very strange world.

 

[Righttruth]

And what a surprise when God turned the wisdom of man into foolishness when He brought a tidal wave of the gifts back to awaken a church that was almost dead. Not even the Reformation could fully awaken her. No more trickles here and there, but a blooming church getting ready for her wedding. Come join her.

Join a mad, mad and crazy church? No way!

 

[ToBeLoved]

Unfortunately I'm totally alone. Just me and my animals. (They don't use slang - or maybe they do, cause I can't understand what they are saying) LOL

Well I'll throw some in in our conversations just to keep you a little fly.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Well I'll throw some in in our conversations just to keep you a little fly.

"a little fly"? There you go again! LOL

 

[ToBeLoved]

"a little fly"? There you go again! LOL

I thought you might catch that. Good to laugh sometimes on CF. we get pretty serious.so it's good to laugh together too.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I thought you might catch that. Good to laugh sometimes on CF. we get pretty serious.so it's good to laugh together too.

So are you going to teach me what it means, or keep me in the dark?

 

[Biblicist]

Join a mad, mad and crazy church? No way!

Who knows, you might actually enjoy church if you give it a try.

 

[Righttruth]

Who knows, you might actually enjoy church if you give it a try.

I have attended quite a few Pentecostal based churches at several places. They do have some merits. Nevertheless, the demerits over weigh the merits. Their claims are unfounded with regard to their unknown tongue.

 

[swordsman1]

By the way, I am still waiting for a clarification to your post that said I confused the following abbreviations, being the BGAD, BAGD and the BAG, have you gone to ground on yet another error on your part, I really am losing track of them.

No, the error is entirely yours. There is no such lexicon called the "BGAD" as you repeatedly call it. Clearly you are not the expert on lexicons you make yourself out to be.

Wikipedia - Bauer's Lexicon
The second edition, Bauer-Danker Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, was commonly known as BAGD (Bauer–Arndt–Gingrich–Danker). Danker published the third English edition in 2000. Given the extensive improvements in this edition (said to include over 15,000 new citations), it is now known as Bauer–Danker–Arndt–Gingrich (BDAG) or sometimes the Bauer-Danker Lexicon.​

 

[swordsman1]

Oh well, as hard as I tried I could not find a crayon font which I had hoped to use. But as your particular agenda prohibits you from engaging in serious and constructive discussion then I suppose that would probably not have helped - you certainly live in a very strange world.

Ah, the ad-hominem fallacy...YET AGAIN. How predictable.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I have attended quite a few Pentecostal based churches at several places. They do have some merits. Nevertheless, the demerits over weigh the merits. Their claims are unfounded with regard to their unknown tongue.

Good excuse. You've had a bad experience in the past.

Don't try to hard or give God too much. He might get spoiled and actually expect morals and valies or something.

Keep those low expectations low and you'll always Reach them.

 

[Righttruth]

Good excuse. You've had a bad experience in the past.

Don't try to hard or give God too much. He might get spoiled and actually expect morals and valies or something.

Keep those low expectations low and you'll always Reach them.

I am not talking of my experience, but of truth. Reach who? Do you expect me to join them to behave as though God has become blind and deaf?

 

[friend of]

Wow. This thread is still going on, huh?

 

[ToBeLoved]

So are you going to teach me what it means, or keep me in the dark?

Fly means cool or hip.

 

[Joe Fizz]

Oh Boy...why call me Lord Lord and do not the things I say !

nice sentiment but to answer your question,you interpret takinf up serpents as an order,the passage you pointed out tells you will be able to do the things that you mentioned when you are God's and have grown enough in spirit,this does "not"mean that you should do something as foolish as actually searching out snakes to pick up,you misunderstanding,you don't go looking for trouble especially not things that can kill you,because the passage is of the divine protection you can receive when you"require" divine protection not when you willingly seek out death,there is quite a difference between taking one's life in to one's hands by messing with deadly creatures and substances,and being "protected" through the holy spirit from such deadly things,when you "need it" and when you have "grown spiritually and in faith",or to put in more of a simple way,if you are looking for death you will find it,if you are working for God then death shall not so easily find you.