Oh but I HAVE looked at what Ian has written dear friends.  And I've read a great many things over the years from many authors.  Some have glorified God and some deny the existence of God.  Ian is just another man with his own beliefs and erudition.  But unlike thousands of passionate Christian men,  Ian hasn't started his own denomination... yet!

And yes Ian, I will be presenting some scriptural challenges to your views... I am studying... I'm really having trouble finding other sources that support your view that only the apostles spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost.  I haven't found ONE Bible translation that supports your view.  Can you provide another reference... which is not you... hehe   

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Welcome to the pack M&M. Nice to see you're engaging with people outside of your institution and that you're prepared to 'study up' and bring something to the table.

You'll notice that the 'individuals' here are of different persuasions and beliefs. Even the United Pentecostals in whom you gave such praise are vastly different to your church, as are many branches of the original Longfield doctrine (old news) and good point RFedgy... I could also list many other Revivalish sister churches that have sprung up over the years.

As exciting as it is to think that a 'pack' are up against you, you'll find that many issues will bring up a challenge to all posters. We're not all nodding at each other and rote learning a creed of beliefs to memorise. I might call all of you guys a 'pack' for picking on any agnostic/atheistic statements I make. I've been learning very slowly not to think less of people because of their religious beliefs. It frightens me when I feel the disdain I do for the Jehovah Witness student in my classroom. I actually feel disdain for her and feel stupid for letting the religious bigotry still rise up in me.

The Christian students in my class make my eyes roll most of the time too... but this is still a form of bigotry on my part and I recognise it. I don't respect everyone's beliefs, but I respect their right to believe what they like (to some degree). I think this is hypocritical of me actually, to think I'm 'better' than anyone else for 'my' lack or lack of various religious beliefs. I don't want to be that arrogant shmuck. Anyway, looking forward to reading some of your studies. Have you thought of addressing any of Ian's recent essay? Ask for a copy.

MM

... and hundreds of millions of passionate Christians haven't started their own denominations ... do you *like* leading with your chin?

I look forward to your 'scriptural challenges'. Surely you could start now with scriptures which show that if one doesn't speak in tongues, one isn't Christian? I know I used to have them ready to present at a moment's notice.

Hint 1: RF tongues doctrine wrt salvation is *clearly* unscriptural even if one concedes that the 120 did speak in tongues. (Did you actually consider my previous reference to the ESV and KJV. You can now add the NIV. But again, can you read koine Greek?)

Hint 2: What I'm interested in is 'majoring in the majors' ie defending the RF position that if one doesn't speak in tongues one can't be sure that one is a Christian ... eg to quote trf.org.au "You will 'speak in tongues' as promised to all believers" ... or would you phrase your 'salvation message' differently?

Personally, I'm interested in you defending RF views, not challenging Ian's views, and that's what will matter for you on 'that day'.

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Oh but I HAVE looked at what Ian has written dear friends. And I've read a great many things over the years from many authors. Some have glorified God and some deny the existence of God. Ian is just another man with his own beliefs and erudition. But unlike thousands of passionate Christian men, Ian hasn't started his own denomination... yet! And yes Ian, I will be presenting some scriptural challenges to your views... I am studying... I'm really having trouble finding other sources that support your view that only the apostles spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost. I haven't found ONE Bible translation that supports your view. Can you provide another reference... which is not you... hehe

Good evening, bloke.

Hmmm ... so you HAVE looked at what I've written, huh? Would your "looking" extend as far as the 42 page exegetical essay that I wrote and recently distributed on Acts? If so, then hows-about you engage with what appears there first, m'kay? Gotta admit, though, this bit of your previous post tickled me pink: "But unlike thousands of passionate Christian men, Ian hasn't started his own denomination... yet!" Yep. I suppose that's one thing that separates me from Lloyd Longfield, John Kuhlman, Scott Williams and the bloke who started the GRC! Unlike them, I didn't start my own denomination because I didn't get my own way in a previous one

Now please, why don't you start with the promised scriptural challenges. I'd love to see what charming new piece of info you think you can bring to the table of this discussion! And you even go so far as to claim to be experiencing some trouble finding sources that support my view concerning the apostles at Pentecost, huh? Well, not that I wish to cast any sort of doubts regarding your capacity for thorough research, but I might suggest that you begin at the beginning, with the Greek New Testament. It doesn't really matter which version: UBS, NA, MT, etc. Having done this much, you may then care to consult the standard Greek reference grammars (beginning with Blass, Debrunner and Funk), and from them move onto certain of the commentaries (I'd recommend that you start with the 4th century exegete, Ephrem Syrus). Having done all this, if you still find yourself to be persisting in unbelief, well, I might recommend one or two Greek professors who teach the language at a couple of universities and theological colleges

Up to the task, big boy?

Blessings,

Ian

P.S. To be honest, I find it very difficult to take you seriously.

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 06/03/2008 04:09:40)

Hey guy's, don't hold your breath, Male Member full of hot air, me thinks.

Ralph,

Well he's full of something!

Blessings,

Ian

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Well I know its hard to take someone with the name Male Member seriously! hehe

But your head would have to be phallus shaped if you think running to the Greek versions will win your argument.

And a 4th Century hermit/monk!  C'mon son is that your best shot!

And rest assured, I'll be finding my own theological experts, not YOUR henchmen.... thanks

But for the rest of our ENGLISH speaking friends here.  Yes ENGLISH! Its the lingua franca of Australia you silly little theologian.  I have done some research and found some INDEPENDENT references and I suppose they can be trusted... they are ENGLISH versions of the BIBLE.

oooh was that too snooty! ;)

Acts 2 (Contemporary English Version)

The Coming of the Holy Spirit

 1On the day of Pentecost ^[a] all the Lord's followers were together in one place. 2Suddenly there was a noise from heaven like the sound of a mighty wind! It filled the house where they were meeting. 3Then they saw what looked like fiery tongues moving in all directions, and a tongue came and settled on each person there. 4The Holy Spirit took control of everyone, and they began speaking whatever languages the Spirit let them speak.

 

 

Acts 2 (New Living Translation)

The Holy Spirit Comes

 1 On the day of Pentecost^[a] all the believers were meeting together in one place. 2 Suddenly, there was a sound from heaven like the roaring of a mighty windstorm, and it filled the house where they were sitting. 3 Then, what looked like flames or tongues of fire appeared and settled on each of them. 4 And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages,^[b] as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability.

 

Acts 1 (New Life Version)   … Not sure if the versification is wrong on this site.

The Holy Spirit Comes On The Followers Of Jesus

 1 The followers of Jesus were all together in one place fifty days after the special religious gathering to remember how the Jews left Egypt. 2 All at once there was a sound from heaven like a powerful wind. It filled the house where they were sitting. 3 Then they saw tongues which were divided that looked like fire. These came down on each one of them. 4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit. Then they began to speak in other languages which the Holy Spirit made them able to speak.

 

Acts 2 (New International Reader's Version)

The Holy Spirit Comes at Pentecost

 1 The day of Pentecost came. The believers all gathered in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound came from heaven. It was like a strong wind blowing. It filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw something that looked like tongues of fire. The flames separated and settled on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit. They began to speak in languages they had not known before. The Spirit gave them the ability to do this.

 

 

 

Wycliffe New Testament

Acts 2

 1 And when the days of Pentecost were filled [were fulfilled], all the disciples were together in the same place.

    2 And suddenly there was made a sound from heaven, as of a great wind coming, and it filled all the house where they sat [and it filled all the house where they were sitting].

    3 And diverse tongues as fire appeared to them, and it sat on each of them. [And tongues diversely parted as fire appeared to them, and it sat upon each of them.]

    4 And all were filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak in diverse languages [and they began to speak with diverse tongues], as the Holy Ghost gave to them to speak.

 

Male Member - (strange name for a 'revival boy'?)

1) Hypocrite: a person who pretends to be what he or she is not; one who pretends to be better than is really so, or to be pious, virtuous, etc. without really being so

 This definition certainly fits many people I used to know!  I distinctly remember a young lady who suffered from depression being told by a senior pastor - "don't go around telling people you have depression, we don't have depression in this assemby so you'd better get over it".  In other words, just pretend to be other than what you are, pretend to be healed, pretend that everything is just fine, but don't tell the truth!!  Sounds a little hypocritical don't you think?

2) Some forum members are quick to attack Revival churches with a pack like mentality, but the pack doesn't have consensus on ALL scriptural matters.  I have seen the pack turn on each other in this forum!

Yes MM, we are all DIFFERENT people and as such we have differing views at times and what is wrong with that? It's called tolerance, something that I never saw evidence of at RF. Whilst the RF appear to have 'consensus' on scriptural matters, there are various assemblies around the place that blatantly disagree with other assemblies.  And even if you agree 'most' of the time on scriptural matters that doesn't necessarily mean you are RIGHT. Look to the scriptures to measure up - not to your doctrine.

3) Some forum members jump on the bandwagon for bashing Revival but are still marching to the beat of a different denominational drum...  of which there are over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries (Barrett et al, volume 1, page 16, Table 1-5).

The fact that Christianity is made up of different denominations bothers you for some reason?? Ahh yeah, it should ONLY be revival, huh? But is that Revival Centres, Revival Fellowship etc etc? They have all broken away from each other so which denominational drum DO you march to?

I would like to state here, that it is all about the body of Christ and therefore NOT about denominations at all!  The body of Christ IS the church!

4) Which one will the pack attack next?

Ignorant people that have no understanding of truth/tolerance/compassion/love/mercy/grace and think that everyone else should also remain in the dark?

Urchin

Well I know its hard to take someone with the name Male Member seriously! hehe

You got that right! But for me, the principle reason that I find it difficult to take you seriously, is your complete lack of knowledge and understanding on the subject at hand. And you've demonstrated as much again in your most recent post, and in spades!

But your head would have to be phallus shaped if you think running to the Greek versions will win your argument.

oooh was that too snooty! ;)

Nah, but it was an amazingly ignorant and stupid thing to say! Out loud, at least   I spooked some of my staff when I guffawed as I read your response, so "thank you" for brightening an otherwise dull day

In closing, and to paraphrase Sean Connery in The Untouchables: "...you idiot, you've brought a (really little butter knife) to a gun fight!" MM, methinks you might be attempting to 'punch' well above your 'weight'

Blessings,

Ian


(Message edited by Didaktikon On 06/03/2008 20:41:01)

MM

So you like the NLT? I'd suggest you meditate on its translation of 1 Co 12:30. It's fascinating.

BTW I'm still interested in what your scriptural justification is for the RF 'salvation message'. You can have your 120 and the RF doctrine is still demonstrably false doctrine (from the bible's pov).

PS I've now seen support in KJV, ESV, NIV and NASB (oh and the NLT, too)

(Message edited by RF_on_the_edge On 06/03/2008 22:07:27)

           Quote MM - "Yes ENGLISH! Its the lingua franca of Australia"

There's an urban legend (neither proven or disproven) that a Southern senator in the United States once told the head of the Joint National Committee on Languages:

If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me.

This was also included in the book "776 Stupidest Things Ever Said", by Ross and Kathryn Petras.

Funny... and truly (dare I say it) stupid.

If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me.

This was also included in the book "776 Stupidest Things Ever Said", by Ross and Kathryn Petras.

Mooth & Roost

That quote is very funny as well as very stupid!
Like I said in an earlier post, being 'christian/buddist/atheist/agnostic/whatever' has nothing to do with stupidity. Stupid people are stupid people regardless of their beliefs and value systems - however, ALL of us say stupid things at times even though we are not stupid people (trust me, I speak from experience here) and if you're honest I bet you could say the same ??

Have a great weekend M&R, we have a long w/end here in downtown Adelaide - Yipee!
Urch

Hey Lurch

I know where you're coming from with this body of Christ idea... see AoG and ecumenicalism down the page.

I've been doing some research on AoG including reading Tanya Levin's book on Hillsong and the wider AoG movement.  Pages and pages of AoG's dirty laundry... in a handy paperback too!  Seeing this is a DEMOCRATIC forum lets widen the scope for a mo.

*  Did you know AoG was founded in Australia by a known pedophile?

This is a disgusting topic, but quite popular with priests and clergy from orthodox Christianity.

*  Hillsong don't take communion anymore.

*  AoG was prominent in the introduction of the Toronto Blessing freakshows and the Prosperity gospel.

AoG was first against Toronto but later embraced it. 

"I got disfellowshipped from the AOG simply for asking the pastor, in a friendly and brotherly manner, to check out some theology that was being introduced into our congregation."  Hughie Seaborn, Cairns, who left AoG when their leaders started to introduce the Toronto Blessing in the 90s.

Former General Secretary of the AoG, Phillip Powell, left AoG as a matter of principle.

On the Toronto Blessing: Yes I do. I think most of them are phoney. For example now with the 'signs and wonders' thing, the latest thing is through a man called Rodney Howard-Brown, who the Assemblies of God brought to this country a few years ago. Now what he does, he puts on almost like a hypnotist sort of mesmerism, a show, from the platform, where he gets people laughing. He in fact walks up and down the platform going 'Ho, ho, ho; he, he, he, ha, ha, ha' and all that sort of thing, and gets people laughing. And then they claim that these are signs and wonders, where people end up rolling on the floor, barking like dogs, roaring like lions, even clucking like hens, and all that sort of thing. 
                                                                                                    
On the Prosperity gospel: I believe the doorway into all of this - and you see my background is Assemblies of God: I was in the Assemblies of God as a pastor for many, many years, and occupied various positions both in Britain and here in Australia in the hierarchical system. And we always withstood the idea that Jesus Christ saves us to make us rich. The Bible in my understanding, is against that. But there is a group of people, some of which their names are Kenneth Copeland he's very much at the root of this...

ABC RADIO NATIONAL, November 1997

 *  AoG is moving into ecumenicalism, even with the Catholic church.

“These examples of ecumenity within the Assemblies of God illustrate the dangerous strides made by the organisation in the name of Christian unity. As doctrinal positions are downplayed and ignored by leading figures within the organisation and as an increased vision of a mainstream voice within the Christian renewal community replace doctrinal distinctions and stalwart reservations, a deep, centrifugal force is threatening the delicate union of many within the Assemblies. There is a marked polarisation within the Assemblies of God as 'pro' and 'con' camps form around the renewal movement, with Brownsville at the critical centre of the controversy.”

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~rseaborn/the_tie_that_binds.html

*   AoG is a CULT according to a Christian pyschologist who sees its thought reform program or mind control system as one of the criteria to being classified as a cult.

Levin Pg 132

* AoG believes there is a demon of homosexuality, gambling, etc and that such demons can control Christians too!

Well I have much more information about this AoG group. 

But that's enough for now.  There are many problems in AoG in Australia and around the world.

They have many schisms and at one point lost ¼ of their membership in the US. (see the Tie that Binds article) 

Oh yes and HYPOCRITES are also 'pots who call the kettle black'.

 

Male Member,

Guess what? I already knew all of that (even taking into account one or two factual errors in your second-hand assertions). But guess what? This thread has nothing to do with the foibles of Hillsongs or the Australian AoG. So why don't you engage with the topic at hand, instead of consistently trying to redirect matters away from your obvious lack of first-hand knowledge in the subject that's supposed to be under discussion here, about which you've "spruiked" much, but on which you've not engaged me at all!

So to remind you, when are we going to see:

1. Some definitive information from you that disproves what I've written concerning the Twelve apostles and Pentecost?

2. Some definitive information from you that proves the "120" were the focus of the manifestations at Pentecost?

3. Some definitive Scriptural information that "proves" any one of your many and varied nonsensical Revivalist beliefs?

4. And for RFOTE's benefit, some definitive Scriptural information that would support your illegitimate Revivalist "gospel"?

In short, the impression that I've gotten of you, from you, is that you're simply another Revivalist "light weight" who is much better at initially talking up his case, then he is at subsequently backing up his case.

Dare I say it? "Typical!"

Ian

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 07/03/2008 15:37:02)

Yo MM,

FWIW If you choose to respond to any of the points I've raised I'll respond to your responses. (You didn't even ask what evidence I saw in 'your' NLT for the 'apostles-only' position. Aren't you curious? Or do you already see that evidence yourself?)

I hope you realise that thinking RF'rs will see your AoG post as a diversionary tactic and evidence that you're not able (or, perhaps, willing) to deal with the main game of scripturally defending RF doctrine, or even your limited 120 vs apostles-only objective.

Anyway, if you haven't done it already, you really would benefit from (prayerfully) reading 1Co 12:30 ... not to mention the whole of the chapter ... in 'your' NLT.

Unfortunately, I suspect there won't be any more for me to respond to from you, so fare-thee-well.

PS If I were you I'd be focused on your own 'corner of the vineyard'. God knows there's enough 'log in that eye' to keep RF'rs busy for some time

(Message edited by RF_on_the_edge On 07/03/2008 15:38:20)

Even a novice salesman understands that bad mouthing their opposition is the worst thing they can do. It highlights the idea that their own product is shoddy and that the best they can do is throw around propaganda in the vain hope that customers will regard them even while losing all respect.

Bagging the opposition is childish and a very stereotypical Revivalist ploy. Most people see through this and is probably one of the factors that help keep Revivalism only a mostly small and insignificant organisation.

Sheeesh guys don't get shirty!

I don't live in the desert like Ian's favourite monk (see earlier posts).  I'm sure like you guys that time limits things.

I spend enough time at this Revival slagfest and its hard to respond to every member of the pack as they gnaw on my bones. **)

So sorry if I haven't responded to all the questions ( I have read your posts) and for straying from this DEMOCRATIC yet legalistic forum of discussing other denominations.  We're only allowed to slag Revival ay?

Ian I haven't finished with you yet you petulant pontificating person.  What are you going to do punch me or shoot me?  Your posts are unclear... maybe I should learn Greek to decypher my fate.

I haven't finished with your Apostles Only doctrine... give me time man!

And yes ROFL we will get to Salvation messages... you show me yours first.

Male Member,

I simply treasure a person who can make me laugh!

Sheeesh guys don't get shirty!

"Shirty"? Or is it more a case of some simply wanting you to "put-up-or-shut-up"? You see, here's the key issue as I perceive it: you apparently can't even "talk-the-talk", nevermind "walk-the-walk" You simply "blow" in here occasionally, you then briefly "blow" hard for a short spell, before "blowing" off whilst being none-the-wiser about the issues at hand. In some respects, then, you're a lot like a desert breeze (to borrow your metaphor): hot, windy and full of cluster, but basically lacking in any real substance

I don't live in the desert like Ian's favourite monk (see earlier posts). I'm sure like you guys that time limits things.

Okay, but I guess it befalls me to point out to you that you actually do live in a desert: the arid, "spiritual desert" of Revivalism. But this remains your choice; the blame for such rests with no-one but yourself. And to respond to the second part of your statement, above: you seem to have ample time with which to engage in "research" of the AoG (for example), so one could probably assume that you have had equal opportunity to back-up your various hollow statements and/or claims.

I spend enough time at this Revival slagfest and its hard to respond to every member of the pack as they gnaw on my bones. **)

Why would anyone want to "gnaw" on your bones? From what I've seen thus far, there doesn't seem to be enough of a meal to warrant the effort!

So sorry if I haven't responded to all the questions ( I have read your posts) and for straying from this DEMOCRATIC yet legalistic forum of discussing other denominations. We're only allowed to slag Revival ay?

But, MM, you haven't responded to any of the questions that have been put to you! And to be frank, I doubt that you properly understand what is meant by the term, "legalism". If you did, then you wouldn't have applied it in the sense that you have. Further, I find it to be remarkably hypocritical (there's that word again) of you to be passing comment on people you presume to be speaking ill of your particular denomination. After all, your own "church" (I use the term quite loosely in this instance) has quite the reputation for ignorant comments made at the expense of, for example, the Roman Catholic Church on the one hand, and all non-Revivalist churches on the other. So sorry, but for reasons like these I simply don't find you to be in the least bit credible.

Ian I haven't finished with you yet you petulant pontificating person. What are you going to do punch me or shoot me? Your posts are unclear... maybe I should learn Greek to decypher my fate.

Well, well. A little aliteration: "petulant, pontificating, person". Perhaps, then, you're not completely as dull as you've presented yourself being to date!  But in any case, if my posts are as "unclear" as you state, then perhaps they're so only to those who "...are perishing"? (if I may hint at Scripture). But to be serious for a brief moment, I don't believe what I write to be anywhere near as unclear as you presume. Consider, many, many people have found my writings to be of considerable benefit in helping them to make sense of Scripture; further, they're also apparently explicitly clear to the small coterie of men who run your fellowship.  And finally, why on earth would I want to either punch you or shoot you?!

I haven't finished with your Apostles Only doctrine... give me time man!

Okay. I'd just assumed that given you've claimed my explanation (and not doctrine btw) about Pentecost and the apostles was so clearly flawed, that you'd be able to explain to me, why. Had I mistakenly assumed too much?

And yes ROFL we will get to Salvation messages... you show me yours first.

Not wishing for one moment to intrude upon RFOTE's response, but have you not heard the biblical "salvation message", yourself? It's called the "gospel", the "good news" about Jesus Christ, and the small passage of John 3:16 pretty much sums it up.

In closing, I'd suggest you need to (a) reflect on a few things that have been pointed out to you; (b) reconsider just what it is that you hope to achieve, here; and (c) repent of your arrogance and ignorance. There you have it! An example of three-point aliteration of my own!

Blessings,

Ian

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 09/03/2008 17:26:20)

Sheeesh guys don't get shirty! I think you're percieving the shirtyness. You're a good catalyst for conversation, but you're hardly saying anything that woud evoke shirtyness. Unless you count excessive eye-rolling as said behaviour. I don't live in the desert like Ian's favourite monk (see earlier posts).  I'm sure like you guys that time limits things. There's certainly no rush, but there's no point you popping your head in until you've got your argument together. Take a few weeks, months, or etc. I'm sure they'll be someone here to respond to it. I spend enough time at this Revival slagfest and its hard to respond to every member of the pack as they gnaw on my bones. **) Don't feel you have to repond to everyone ;-P and I'm sure no-one is personally attacking you or your bones personally. I'm sure you're a nice guy who enjoys going to the movies and playing soccer with his mates. Don't be surprised if people engage you on your Revival beliefs... this is afterall a Revival discussion forum. So sorry if I haven't responded to all the questions ( I have read your posts) and for straying from this DEMOCRATIC yet legalistic forum of discussing other denominations.  We're only allowed to slag Revival ay? No, you can slag any church or religion. I do. As for responding to questions... I'm interested to see if you at least respond to one of them with something meaty. Ian I haven't finished with you yet you petulant pontificating person.  What are you going to do punch me or shoot me?  Your posts are unclear... maybe I should learn Greek to decypher my fate. Actually learning some Greek might be helpful, yes. Ian's posts are often unclear to me to, but a dictionary is never too difficult to grasp, neither is the humility to admit that I need to use one. I haven't finished with your Apostles Only doctrine... give me time man! Take your time. There's no need to name call with petulant pet names and get shirty yourself. Everyone here seems to be quite polite to you. Methinks you're looking for a fight or conflict to get riled up about. Just relax and let it out amicably. And yes ROFL we will get to Salvation messages... you show me yours first. What is this..? a stand-off? Are we at the O.K. Corral? Surely you've got your salvatin doctrine down-pat?

(Message edited by MothandRust On 09/03/2008 04:40:41)

Male body part: Hey Lurch, I know where you're coming from with this body of Christ idea...

Lurchin: Oh no MM, you've sprung me!  Yes, that's right, I'm caught, done for, totally guilty - of believing the Bible! And I was hoping that no-one would ever find out that I've read scriptures such as Eph 1:22-23 and Eph 5:29-30 about the church being His body.
 Answer one question MM, is the church the body of Christ or not (and if you think not please quote scripture please) Why do you think it is just an 'idea'? 

Male body part: I've been doing some research on AoG including reading Tanya Levin's book on Hillsong and the wider AoG movement.  Pages and pages of AoG's dirty laundry... in a handy paperback too! 

Lurchin: (trying not to laugh too hard) Gosh, a ' handy paperback' ! How titillating and exciting! Wow, can you smuggle it in to Easter Camp to read under the covers in your dorm (when you're meant to be pretending to be interested in listening to the same old boring talks)? 

Male body part: Did you know AoG was founded in Australia by a known pedophile?
This is a disgusting topic, but quite popular with priests  and clergy from orthodox Christianity.

Lurchin: (really laughing hard now) MM, do you actually KNOW any of your RF's history? Cos you came from the same root - ha ha ha ha! YEP, that makes you a descendant of the same paedophile (check your spelling). And I really don't know that it's a 'popular topic' although have heard of several instances of child molestation being covered up in RF.
'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'   

Male body part:  Hillsong don't take communion anymore.

Lurchin: That's funny cos I partook of communion when at Hillsong in Sydney last year!

Male body part:  AoG was prominent in the introduction of the Toronto Blessing freakshows and the Prosperity gospel.AoG was first against  Toronto but  later embraced it. 
Lurchin: Sorry, dunno anything about Toronto Blessing freakshow or properity gospel - I go to church!

Male body part: "I got disfellowshipped from the AOG simply for asking the pastor, in a friendly and brotherly manner, to check out some theology that was being introduced into our congregation."  Hughie Seaborn, Cairns, who left AoG when their leaders started to introduce the Toronto Blessing in the 90s.

Lurchin:  HA HA HA HA - again, you could be describing RF here. How many hundreds or it could be thousands of innocent, seeking, responsible Christians have been told by Rf that if they so much as question the doctrine they are out of fellowship? 

Male body part: Now what he does, he puts on almost like a hypnotist sort of mesmerism, a show, from the platform, where he gets people laughing. He in fact walks up and down the platform going 'Ho, ho, ho; he, he, he, ha, ha, ha' and all that sort of thing, and gets people laughing. And then they claim that these are signs and wonders, where people end up rolling on the floor, barking like dogs, roaring like lions, even clucking like hens, and all that sort of thing. 
                                                                                                                                                            Lurchin: This is just so typical Rf - slam everyone else and what you don't know just make up cos it sounds good and it keeps the flock from straying. I actually believed all the lies I'd heard from the platform for many many years about the ' Pentecostal church down the road'. The Adelaide RF were so paranoid about people leaving and going to this church that they made up huge lies about the place - which we all believed at the time cos one wouldn't expect their pastors to LIE, would one?  However, I've discovered that there are literally hundreds of ex-rf'ers now attending that same church. AND I've never seen anything like you describe above - no chooks clucking, no cows mooing, no lions roaring, no dogs barking and no partridge in a pear  tree - in fact none of ' that sort of thing' at all.                                  

Male body part: AoG is a CULT according to a Christian pyschologist who sees its thought reform program or mind control system as one of the criteria to being classified as a cult.

Lurchin: It's not actually called AOG anymore - it's ACC Australian Christian Churches. I must remember to tell the psychologists (again, check your spelling) and  the counsellors that are full-time staff members of 'AOG' that they are part of a cult according to another ' Christian psychologist'. Oh, and what's that?  RF is definitely NOT a cult?

Male body part: AoG believes there is a demon of homosexuality, gambling, etc and that such demons can control Christians too!

Lurchin: You know what - I'm starting to think there's a demon of stupidity and it is controlling you! C'mon man, be real!

Male body part: Well I have  much more information  about this AoG group.  But that's enough for now.  There are many problems in AoG in Australia and around the world.They have many schisms and at one point lost ¼ of their membership in the US.

Lurchin: Gee, can hardly wait for more interesting 'information' about 'this AoG group'. 
Of course there are problems in AoG, there are problems in EVERY church and every place you find humanity. It is not the churches that are the problems, it's the people that attend them. "they have many schisms"  - that's very funny cos RF/RCI and their offshoots are one of the 'schisms'.

Frankly MM, I have never read such drivel in my life! If this is the best you can do to try to divert the heat away from RF, it's a pretty pathetic path - not as good a laugh as ' petulant pontificating person' (sorry Ian, but just can't help laughing!)

Urchin

(Message edited by Sea Urchin On 09/03/2008 07:58:49)

MM

And yes ROFL we will get to Salvation messages... you show me yours first.

Hi. Hmmm .... nothing here to really respond to.

Get to them or not,  your call.  I'm interested in your defence but not desperate for it.

I acknowledge your diversionary tactics (1. name calling - or is it just poor humour; 2. irrelevantly raising the issue of my belief when I'm asking you to defend yours). Maybe you, though, should consider the impact of your prevaricating (not to say games) on your RF audience and your credibility with them.

I could respond in kind and say I'll show you mine when you respond to my previous points e.g., 1 Co 12:27-30. But I'll simply raise the point so you realise that I realise two can play your game, and it gets nowhere apart from demonstrating your failure to deal with the question I asked, and raises the question of why you fail to defend what really should be a fundamental component of your view of life, not to mention of your Christianity.

I could also respond by saying that I don't proclaim a "salvation message", rather I proclaim the biblical gospel as made plain by translators and teachers of the bible, and as revealed to me by the Holy Spirit - to show again that two can play your game.

But naaah ... I'll feint with Joel 2:28-32, counter with John's Gospel and follow up with a "Luke's Acts of the Apostles plus Paul's letter to the Romans" combination. (Hey I've even got an RF favourite here ... more than two or three witnesses.)

OK, congrats, I've responded. No more though, until you offer something sensible. I need to 'redeem my time'.

(Message edited by RF_on_the_edge On 09/03/2008 20:32:09)

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Hey guys, I'm really starting to feel sorry for this joker.

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 12/03/2008 02:25:17)

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Once again I have so many posts to respond to... but not enough time... but here's a start

Brolga... that avatar... it's gross!  It looks like an old hag.  Please change it as you promised.
If it IS a picture of you, I apologise.

Urch, I'm not allowed to criticise what you believe.  On this forum I have been warned I'm only allowed to defend what I believe... anything else I post is naughty.

Rusty: These guys are nice yeah???  With friends like these....  hehe 
And I was sure Jesus was English... oh well... you live and learn

ROTE, you're very good at snide remarks, maybe you could teach a course.
A few people have said they got a laugh from my humour.
C'mon didn't you have a little snigger at my nickname here?
Maybe it's poor humour, but maybe its a poor sense of humour by the reader.
Maybe you're a stuck up old snob?
Ian took the joke about silly little theologian.
Maybe you should stop being so precious.

On the I Corinthians 12... not all speak in tongues...

Jesus said BELIEVERS would speak in tongues, not SOME believers...
 
God is not the author of confusion.

Mark 16:17 [ Greek Font Size: – / + | Toggle Font ] [ View in: BYZ / TR | Side-by-side | Greek Lexical Parser ]<!--
[ Personal Notes: Add ] -->

And these signs shall follow (5692) them that believe (5660) ; In my name shall they cast out (5692) devils; they shall speak (5692) with new tongues;

shmeia de toiv pisteusasin (5660) tauta parakolouqhsei; en tw onomati mou daimonia ekbalousin, (5692) glwssaiv lalhsousin (5692) kainaiv

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Hi MM

ROTE, you're very good at snide remarks, maybe you could teach a course.

Moi? ... well hush my mouth and call me 'kettle' ... and there I was thinking you'd thank me for my calm comments. (Another snide moment?)  Did you realise that many of the Reformers' pamphlets used humour to get their points across?

A few people have said they got a laugh from my humour.
C'mon didn't you have a little snigger at my nickname here?
Maybe it's poor humour, but maybe its a poor sense of humour by the reader.
Maybe you're a stuck up old snob?
Ian took the joke about silly little theologian.
Maybe you should stop being so precious.

Ok so you were being funny, at least I recognised the possibility! Will you concede that you were diverting attention from the main game? (Which of course was what my comments were bringing to light.) Actually, many people who know me think I have a great, albeit dry, sense of humour. (Surely you saw the humour in my remarks?) But yeah, I do tend to take some things too seriously.

On the I Corinthians 12... not all speak in tongues...
Jesus said BELIEVERS would speak in tongues, not SOME believers...
God is not the author of confusion.

Mark 16:17 

And these signs shall follow (5692) them that believe (5660) ; In my name shall they cast out (5692) devils; they shall speak (5692) with new tongues;

shmeia de toiv pisteusasin (5660) tauta parakolouqhsei; en tw onomati mou daimonia ekbalousin, (5692) glwssaiv lalhsousin (5692) kainaiv

Oh goody. Some engagement at last. So I present the weakest point for you to respond to? I thought your stated first task was to be the 120 vs disciples only issue? (Yet another snide moment?)

Anyway to the points you raise.

I absolutely agree that God most certainly is not 'the author of confusion'. So the question is how to resolve the meaning of these two passages. I'll just flag a few of the issues.

I'm not a Greek scholar, but since you apparently are you should realise that your compatriots point out that Mk 16:17 is part of a construct which uses collective plurals - so a 1st century reader of Mk 16 would infer 'some'. Next, let's consider the English translation. 'All' vs 'some' is not explicit in the language, so let's consider the context. In scripture, not all cast out demons, not all picked up serpents and not all laid hands on the sick. Let's consider personal experience: when was the last time you cast out a demon or picked up a serpent? Have you ever laid hands on someone and found they didn't recover?

Now to 1 Co 12. Vv 27-30 explicitly say that not all speak in tongues, and the context is a passage which teaches about variation, or difference in the gifts of the Spirit and the body of Christ.

So sorry. No cigar. 1 Co 12 and Mk 16 are resolved easily and consistently in the sense that 'not all speak in tongues'.

Ok. I've shown you mine (... my resolution of the passages). Now it's your turn to show me yours (resolution of the passages) - and it'd be cute for you to do your cut-and-paste trick with 1 Co 12.27-30. Naah ... on second thoughts, save the bandwidth, unless you've got some point you want to make by doing it. C'mon how do you manage to reconcile the idea that all Christians speak in tongues with 1 Co 12 esp vv 27-30?  FWIW I think I have a pretty good idea (cos I know the arguments I used), but 'go ahead, make my day'.


BTW If you're going to rely on Greek I may have to flick-pass to Ian as my expertise is limited to reading words rather than sense in the original language, reading dictionaries , concordances and similar references, and coming to grips (as a critical layman reader) with what the experts say.

(Message edited by RF_on_the_edge On 12/03/2008 20:07:09)

Dude,

Surely you're joking?! How long do I have to wait before you respond to the pirnciple issue of this thread, and explain for me how (and why) I got matters so wrong with the apostles viz. Pentecost?

And please, lay off with the 'Greek'. Clearly you haven't a clue about the language.

Ian


(Message edited by Didaktikon On 12/03/2008 15:25:30)

Mark 16v16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Squabble over the meaning of that one for a few hours guys! he he     ___________________________________________________________________________ The revivalist stance of making Mark 16:16 a "conditional statement" for "being saved" is in my considered a thought a very poor prooftext. Look the verbs in the NA27 "believeth" and "baptized" are Aorist and the stem word for saved "sozo" is talking about being rescued or delivered so the revivalist are picturing something that appears quite contrary to the text..  What do you think Ian ?? Eric

Mark 16v16   He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Squabble over the meaning of that one for a few hours guys! he he
      ___________________________________________________________________________

The revivalist stance of making Mark 16:16 a "conditional statement" for "being saved" is in my considered a thought a very poor prooftext.

Look the verbs in the NA27 "believeth" and "baptized" are Aorist and the stem word for saved "sozo" is talking about being rescued or delivered so the revivalist are picturing something that appears quite contrary to the text..  What do you think Ian ??

Eric
______________________________________________________________________________________

Eric,

I'm not sure why you quoted me as saying the above when it's definitely not something I'd write.
Sounds more like a 'Male Member' post to me!

Urchin

Reply to Disciple (16/01/2008 22:22:33). Mark 16v16   He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Squabble over the meaning of that one for a few hours guys! he he       ___________________________________________________________________________ The revivalist stance of making Mark 16:16 a "conditional statement" for "being saved" is in my considered a thought a very poor prooftext. Look the verbs in the NA27 "believeth" and "baptized" are Aorist and the stem word for saved "sozo" is talking about being rescued or delivered so the revivalist are picturing something that appears quite contrary to the text..  What do you think Ian ?? Eric

No I wanted save some typing..

No I have a problem with the revivalist position on Mark 16:16. I have to have a closer look at the Greek Text again. The mood is not even in the imperative ( ie the mood of command) ( I will have to check this ). The verb for "believe" is active whereas the verb for "baptize" is passive. It seems to me that the revivalist stance is to make a command out of this scripture which is really not the intent of the verse at all.. But with both verbs being aorist ( aoristos - that is it states the fact of the action without specifying the duration of the action), I think this is plain poor prooftext..  Then again one has to accept the fact that the revivalist hermenuetic is all prooftext.

Eric

"I absolutely agree that God most certainly is not 'the author of confusion'."

.... except for that Tower of Babel incident when he authored all the confusion... lol

(Message edited by MothandRust On 12/03/2008 23:31:34)

Reply to MothandRust (17/01/2008 14:22:33). "I absolutely agree that God most certainly is not 'the author of confusion'." .... except for that Tower of Babel incident when he authored all the confusion... lol

Touche!
 
Let me rephrase: I absolutely agree with 1 Co 14:33, and I also believe in the principle (as I understand it) of sola scriptura

Ian

No I'm not a Greek freak.

And I find it sickening when people run off to the greek to try and prove a point that can't be made with an English bible.

I trust that God's Word has been faithfully translated by honest Bible scholars who fear God.

Do you believe that unless a Bible reader is an expert in Koine Greek they cannot understand the Bible?

Would you say that the Bible leads people into error? 

You were waiting for some definitive information from me that proves the "120" were the focus of the manifestations at Pentecost?

 

I have provided you with FIVE Bible versions (or as you call them interpretations) which are the work of theologians, working within committees no doubt with vast expertise in Bible scholarship, but this is not conclusive enough for you.

 

The versions for those who came in  late were…

 

Contemporary English Version

New Living Translation

New Life Version   

New International Reader's Version

Wycliffe New Testament

 

I was actually worried YOU were going to come up with a Bible version that supported your views! hahaha

 

I haven’t seen ONE Bible version that says the Apostles alone received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

 

But no, you’ve got YOUR Greek new testament and ephrem syrus.  (suppresses giggle with a cough)

 

Bully for you!

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

"And I find it sickening when people run off to the greek to try and prove a point that can't be made with an English bible."

Like the people who say in John 3 that sound in 'the sound thereof' is the greek word phonos that supposedly means languages? Revivalists love to pull out a few greek references when it suits them but scream blue murder when someone with an actual scholarship in the language has something to extrapolate.

*Coughs - bullsh*t copout - cough*.... while we're coughing... heh.

"I trust that God's Word has been faithfully translated by honest Bible scholars who fear God."

Trust the old and dead scholars eh? May as well put your fingers in your ears and scream nah nah nah... You'll find puh-lenty of contradictions as a result of monks copying and pasting hand-written texts. Someone tell me I'm wrong, but we don't actually have access to the original manuscripts do we? Just the copied copies of copies? Is that right? Male Member.... yoohoo... do you still add up the Greek letters to see if they add up numerically. Is Brad Smith still backing everything up with a calculator nowadays or is that a secret 'Dead Mathematician Society' of the RF?

What are your verses you're using for your argument anyway... from your English versions of scholars.

Yo MM

Ian can certainly speak for himself, yet from one 'non-Greek-freak' to another ...

No I'm not a Greek freak. And I find it sickening when people run off to the greek to try and prove a point that can't be made with an English bible.

So why the cut-and-paste effort for me? Or did you have a change of heart after you posted that?

I have provided you with FIVE Bible versions (or as you call them interpretations) which are the work of theologians, working within committees no doubt with vast expertise in Bible scholarship, but this is not conclusive enough for you. The versions for those who came in  late were... 

Contemporary English Version
New Living Translation
New Life Version
New International Reader's Version
Wycliffe New Testament 

I've now looked at on-line editions of each of these translations (plus my hardcopy NLT). For heaven's sake, if you comprehended how they translated chapter 2 after verse 1 you would see that they also present evidence for the apostles-only position (re tongues - thanks Brolga).



BTW You're last few posts make you look like you're one of the 'less pleasant' pastors / houseleaders / men with rank that I've occasionally come across within RF.  Unfortunately, that's not a complement. They had a somewhat distinctive mix of stunning ignorance, unwarranted over-confidence, blindness to their own faults, and general obnoxiousness combined with an unChrist-like attitude of 'lordship' authority over those in their charge. I hope you don't (haven't) morph(ed) into one.

If you're wise you'll learn from the new input from this forum, rather than ignore it.

(Message edited by RF_on_the_edge On 14/03/2008 02:15:38)

Yes, honest Christian men and women. Not too many "tongues-speakers" in the mix, though.

Do you believe that unless a Bible reader is an expert in Koine Greek they cannot understand the Bible?

Hardly. I have great confidence that the average man or woman can approach the English Bible and fully understand just what it is that God requires of him or her. And the established facts bear this out. It's only in those groups who twist Scripture to suit their own novel doctrines (such as your own), that "special explanations" are required to morph "this" into "that". hink about it

Would you say that the Bible leads people into error?

Nope. I would say that it's the twisting of Scripture to support novel theories by ignorant men, that leads people into error.

You were waiting for some definitive information from me that proves the "120" were the focus of the manifestations at Pentecost?

Yep, and I'm still waiting.

I have provided you with FIVE Bible versions (or as you call them interpretations) which are the work of theologians, working within committees no doubt with vast expertise in Bible scholarship, but this is not conclusive enough for you.

You've provided me with FIVE Bible versions, huh? Right. So your misinterpreting a number of English versions is supposed to be taken as somehow "definitive" by me? Are you serious? Sorry, friend, but you're going to have to do much, much better than that!

I was actually worried YOU were going to come up with a Bible version that supported your views! hahaha I haven't seen ONE Bible version that says the Apostles alone received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

But no, you've got YOUR Greek new testament and ephrem syrus. (suppresses giggle with a cough)

Bloke, it's not my Greek New Testament, it's the Greek New Testament. The Word of God. Holy Scripture. The Bible (are you getting any of this yet?) Further, instead of making light of the Church's historical understanding of this matter, you should try studying the same. Broaden your horizons a bit.

In closing, MM, you present as the definitive Revivalist: ignorant, arrogant and woefully incapable of defending your thoroughly stupid beliefs.

 

You are a disappointment.

 

Ian

 In closing, MM, you present as the definitive Revivalist: ignorant, arrogant and woefully incapable of defending your thoroughly stupid beliefs.


OOOOOUCH!!!  Would hate to be a Revivalist reading this. Don't these guys know when they are beaten??

OOOOOUCH!!!  Would hate to be a Revivalist reading this. Don't these guys know when they are beaten??
__________________________________________________________________________________

CT, I don't believe it's even a quesion of 'these guys knowing when they're beaten' - I think it's more a case of them being unable to see the truth. They (as were we at one stage too) are under a 'cloud' and so cannot possibly see past the brainwashing that has occurred so consistently and for so long.  When you believe something (their doctrine) to be true for so long it is so very hard to let go - cos to let go means to put all of your trust in God and not in man, to step out of the boat and onto the water, to trust that Jesus will hold you and not let you fall. In other words, it takes courage to totally trust in God, something that is not common for revivalists.

Urch

Oh such flowery words and bluster!

But let's move on from the usual insults and infantile "your dumb" insinuations.



Ian, I had a quick look at your Revival/Acts dogma essay that you've been shamelessly promoting throughout this website.  Is Unkoolman one of your minions? Did he post it for you so you wouldn't look vain? 

I wonder how well you know your Bible after this comment...

"Carefully note that Luke nowhere mentions Jesus teaching the much broader group of his disciples after his resurrection! The first five verses of chapter one clearly demonstrates that he limited this sort of interaction to just his apostles."

You'd better read Luke 24 again (here's a cut and paste for all you fans)

32And they said to one another, "Did not our hearts burn within us while He talked with us on the way and while He opened to us the Scriptures?"

33And they rose up that same hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,

34saying, "The Lord is risen indeed and hath appeared to Simon!"

35And they told what things were done on the way, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread.

36And as they thus spoke, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them and said unto them, "Peace be unto you."

37But they were terrified and afraid, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38And He said unto them, "Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 

39Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me to have." 

40And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet.

41And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, He said unto them, "Have ye here any meat?"

42And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and of a honeycomb.

43And He took it and ate before them.

   
 44And He said unto them, "These are the words which I spoke unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms concerning Me."

   
 45Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures,

   
 46and said unto them, "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,

   
 47and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

   
 48And ye are witnesses of these things.

   
 49And behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high."

   
 50And He led them out as far as to Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them.

   
 51And it came to pass, while He blessed them, He was parted from them and carried up into Heaven.

   
 52And they worshiped Him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,

   
 53and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.


I'm just not persuaded by ANY of your mumblings.
And if I'm such a Revival clone, why am I here talking to you and your cronies?

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 14/03/2008 14:54:06)

Reply to Male Member (17/01/2008 14:22:33). Oh such flowery words and bluster! But let's move on from the usual insults and infantile "your dumb" insinuations. Ian, I had a quick look at your Revival/Acts dogma essay that you've been shamelessly promoting throughout this website. Is Unkoolman one of your minions? Did he post it for you so you wouldn't look vain?

Is this humour too? Do you really not see the log in your own eye? RF readers take note of MM's (perhaps unconscious) continued tactic. This really does remind me of some RF'rs with rank who need to grow in Christ.

On another note ... It appears that the proof-texting tendencies that we seem to pick up from RF are preventing your accurate comprehension of both Ian's document and the bible. Consider the old adage about how to interpret 'GODISNOWHERE'.


(Message edited by RF_on_the_edge On 14/03/2008 15:28:53)

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

And if I'm such a Revival clone, why am I here talking to you and your cronies? MM, I beg to ask the same question.

Brolga, I'm not sure you got the question. I think MM is saying he's not overly typical of Revivalists, because he's one of the rare members who is at least engaging the forum in some way.

But let's move on from the usual insults and infantile "your (sic) dumb" insinuations.

That'd be good, seeing it has been you that initiated all such statements thus far (see quotes below) and some responses have been in like-manner, but from what I've read, most call the stupidity of your beliefs into question... not specifically you.

MM - You have just won the award for  STUPIDIST sentence EVER posted in this forum!

MM - (insinuating Ian is a dickhead) But your head would have to be phallus shaped if you think running to the Greek versions will win your argument.

MM - you silly little theologian

Although you usually point back and say, "...only joking..." you can see why you might look arrogant and typically Revivalish? You've been very quick to put down the opposition rather than engaging in the conversation.

Ian, I had a quick look at your Revival/Acts dogma essay that you've been shamelessly promoting throughout this website.  Is Unkoolman one of your minions? Did he post it for you so you wouldn't look vain? 

Unkoolman is the technician here and knew how to embed and hotlink to a pdf file. Again, rather than engaging with the text, you're quick to personally put down the author of it. How old are you? I'm curious... early 20s?

(Message edited by MothandRust On 14/03/2008 21:12:22)

Rust Bucket: What do you expect at the OK Corral, a tea party?  Ian just called me a twit!
Boo hoo. I've been mortally wounded!  Don't think so.  Yeah I've been a bit cheeky here, thrown in some ideas out of left field and rattled some cages.
If you want to rewind way back to the start of this thread I said this would be a merry go round. 
Only it's not so merry.
The reason these people aren't in Revival is that they don't hold to the Word of God.
Truth is, we don't want their nonsense in our fellowship.
I have presented 5 Bible translations to support my view that ALL the believers spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost.
That's not good enough for this mob.  The Bible should be the END of the argument. Not for this mob.
And not that it would do any good in this forum but here are some MORE expert translations that support this view.
Ian hasn't come up with ONE SINGLE translation that supports HIS view.

Dear reader please consider...

Good News translation

When the day of Pentecost came, all the believers were gathered together in one place.

The Complete Jewish Bible

 

The festival of Shavu'ot arrived, and the believers all gathered together in one place

God’s Word Translation  Acts 2

1 When Pentecost, the fiftieth day after Passover, came, all the believers were together in one place. 2 Suddenly, a sound like a violently blowing wind came from the sky and filled the whole house where they were staying. 3 Tongues that looked like fire appeared to them. The tongues arranged themselves so that one came to rest on each believer. 4 All the believers were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit gave them the ability to speak.

Weymouth New Testament   Acts 2

1 At length, on the day of the Harvest Festival, they had all met in one place; 2 when suddenly there came from the sky a sound as of a strong rushing blast of wind. This filled the whole house where they were sitting; 3 and they saw tongues of what looked like fire distributing themselves over the assembly, and on the head of each person a tongue alighted. 4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in foreign languages according as the Spirit gave them words to utter.

You're not arguing with me. 
This is the Word of God.
Hey guys you've tried the put downs, maybe if you start swearing at me I'll go away........ maybe... hahahahaha

 

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

PS. Just from my own experience, I find that Revivalists and Jehovahs Witnesses are very much the same. Lost to the truth in their own dogma.

EXACTLY... I happened to have a JW at my door this morning... they were using the easter story to sell their interpretation of what the death and resurrection meant for them...

But yeah, I coudn't help but think of MaleMember while talking to them. Just nodding and smiling all the way through but were just waiting for me to shut the hell up so they could get back to telling me 'their' truth. Everything else is blah except for what's been told to them at their numerous meetings. To even consider that they have it all wrong is a totally ridiculous thought. Revivalists do have a heck of a lot in common with the JWs.

One says you must speak in jumble, while the other says you must speak in jehovah.