Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Didaktikon debunks Revivalist 'Theology' Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Didaktikon
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Date Posted:16/07/2009 10:52 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Tony.

I'd like to provide you with an opportunity to to publicly (and openly) present your "critiques" of my various exegetical essays. Here's a thread which you can fill with your evaluations to your heart's content

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #51
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:24/07/2009 1:00 AMCopy HTML

Yep I was harsh and  dismissive, but CD just showed that s/he can do better. If s/he wants me to listen s/he has the responsibility to *try* to explain clearly, and s/he just showed s/he could, as I've seen him/her demonstrate elsewhere. (Grade 6 level still has spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and awkwardness.)

Like many others I actually have family who have been schooled through what I was brought up calling "special school", I have a family member who has Downs syndrome, I have lived with adults who can barely read and write, and I have spent time assisting "remedial readers". Such people I treat with respect, love and admiration. CD, though was being a smart aleck ...

Enough defensiveness ...
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Chartdoctor Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #52
  • Rank:Regular User
  • Score:2630
  • Posts:127
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:29/08/2005 1:06 PM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:24/07/2009 1:12 AMCopy HTML

 To begin with, who says that what you "do" is the biblical gift of "tongues"? You? Based on what, exactly? I've pointed out, here and elsewhere, why there are sufficient grounds to be cautious in simply presuming Revivalist "tongues" to be representative of the biblical model. You need to consider the arguments, both pro and con. To date, you've not done so.



Ian, I didnt expect you to agree, sufficient just to point out to the other brethren here, what you actually do in total, so they can make up their own minds.
I am not wanting to get into lengthy discussions, at this time,  that is for others to do.



Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #53
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:24/07/2009 1:14 AMCopy HTML

Brian,

Yet again, you've lost me. What are you going on about?

Ian

P.S. After re-reading your posts a couple of times, I think it valid to make the following observation. If the "tongue" that comprises 5% of my daily prayer discipline is authentic, then it functions as simply another complement to my devotion as a Christian (another "arrow in the quiver", so to speak). However, this is still poles removed from your wholly unbiblical assertion, that posits the equation: "no tongues = no Christianity". In other words, "neither arrows nor quiver"!

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
prezy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #54
  • Rank:Poster Venti II
  • Score:7160
  • Posts:343
  • From:Scotland
  • Register:06/02/2007 11:02 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:24/07/2009 1:20 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon

Brian,

Yet again, you've lost me. What are you going on about?

Ian




Ian, your a smart man. Have you been to a revival meeting? If they can come up with a religion like that from trying to interpret the Bible, how do you expect them to interpret your posts?
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
Chartdoctor Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #55
  • Rank:Regular User
  • Score:2630
  • Posts:127
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:29/08/2005 1:06 PM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:24/07/2009 8:47 AMCopy HTML

 Ian, I am not over and out yet,

5% (or four to five minutes in total) comprises "tongues". The obvious question becomes, if I harbor doubts that what I "do" is the authentic "gift", then why do I "do" it anyway? The answer is simple. I find the practice to be useful. It provides me with "interludes" during my prayers than enables me to "transition" between prayers. For example, if I've been earnestly praying for specific people for a while, 30 seconds in "tongues" relaxes the mind so that I can more easily move onto my next "section" of prayer. So to me, "tongues" functions in a similar way to sorbet in a meal: it "cleanses the palate" between "courses".


IAN
Our posts over lapped somewhat, which unfortunately for me, caused me to speak out somewhat aggressively , which would not have occurred if I had waited a little for a reply.
I apologize for that behavior.
 
You were kind enough to reply regarding the information I was seeking, indicating that you do speak in tongues on occasions.  I dont believe you have ever tried to hide this fact about yourself
It could be deemed hypothetical as you indicate that this could possibly stop at some time in the future, as for all of us, we dont know about tomorrow.  
Would you please consider putting this information on the please consider site, or the p/c site,could be termed a little "deceptive", in light of what you have just spoken of now, and at earlier times.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #56
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:24/07/2009 8:55 AMCopy HTML

Brian,

For goodness sakes, what are you prattling on about?! If by, "on occasions" you mean "daily" (as I clearly said), then why didn't you simply say so? And furthermore, there is nothing at the "Please Consider" website that could be construed as being "deceptive" based on any admissions that I've made concerning my prayer habits.

Speak plainly: what statement are you expecting me to place on the "Please Consider" site?

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Chartdoctor Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #57
  • Rank:Regular User
  • Score:2630
  • Posts:127
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:29/08/2005 1:06 PM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:24/07/2009 10:35 AMCopy HTML

 IAN

a spiritual discipline of mine to commit myself to roughly 90 minutes of daily prayer. Of this perhaps 5% (or four to five minutes in total) comprises "tongues".

Yes, Ian, daily prayer as your post indicates , as the above words extracted from your post indicate.
A suitable sentence to this effect would be highly appreciated.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #58
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:24/07/2009 10:56 AMCopy HTML

Brian,

Why? To what end?!

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
prezy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #59
  • Rank:Poster Venti II
  • Score:7160
  • Posts:343
  • From:Scotland
  • Register:06/02/2007 11:02 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:24/07/2009 11:03 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Fremde
Ian,

You have activated something that has gnawed away at me for some time.

Having stated that I was coerced by the usual method of repetitive Hallelujahs to Revivalist babble.....their crude attempt at mimicking the Biblical "speaking and/or praying in tongues" and the rude awakening (very deserved) that my interpretations and prophecies were as legitimate as any other I heard, that is to say, of the flesh and not Holy Spirit given, I have more and more as the years have passed, been apprehensive about using that "tongue" as a form of prayer, lest it be a blasphemous form of worship (I speak for me and me alone), in that I am unsure of its source per se and that I may be doing despite to the Holy Spirit.

It took me a while to get used to praying in English, both mentally and verbally, after Revivalistic so called worship. You may or may not be aware that the PRC and the CAI met up to eight times a week (including up to five meetings on weekends), during which we would "pray in tongues" for between a half an hour up to two hours!

Bear in mind I had no deprogramming by men or another church, however, I have by the grace of God, shed a great deal of Revivalist doctrine and have had a better run than most (for which I am greatly thankful to God) and am less scarred than most of my ex brethren that are in the main, as you are aware, still very traumatised or have turned their backs on God. Is that because I have been forgiven the most, that I love him more (Luke 7:40-43) and that has pulled me through?  God knows. I know that I am an annoyance to many for the abundance of grace I have been afforded, just like the Prodigal Son was to his brother.

I am edgy about doing that which was such a big part of Revivalism/Pentecostalism and which forms such a web of delusion that has entrapped so many.

I would be interested to know yours and any others (excluding those who are still deluded) thoughts regarding my thinking.

John


Hi John, my experience would be very similar to yours. When I first spoke in tongues it was when I was alone with my Bible and looking to Christ. Not the usual hallelujahs over and over again. I felt physically hot and cleansed. I felt a connection with Jesus. I never felt this when speaking in tongues at grc meetings. It is worth noting that the deciever can imitate things of God to trick people. I'm not saying neccessarily that is the case with tongues in revival but I am cautious. My way of looking at it is this. Tongues are a sign. I am looking out the window now at a melaleuca tree. It has signs of being an apple tree. Real signs, it has leaves, trunk root system etc.. I also have  a real apple tree and know it by the same signs as the melaleuca tree. The great difference is the real apple tree bears fruit. So the signs that the maleleuca tree is an apple tree are fake.
At a prayer day at our local Presbyterian Church I felt that same communication with Jesus as when I first spoke in tongues, even though I had prayed in English and read my Bible. The fruits are abundently present where I go now and I thank the Lord for placing me in a fellowship that I can feel confident He is present. I no longer speak in tongues at all. It had  a purpose in my life the first time it happened as it did on the day of Pentecost, even though the purpose was different. Obsessing over a sign can cloud your vision to see the Christ. Certainly not understanding the Trinity is a big part of this in revival. I remember a testimony where someone said" he gave me his Holy Spirit" and the Spirit is an "It". They really have a lot to learn. Lastly where I have used the word "revival" It is only in reference to the Longfeild, Hollins etc groups, as oposed to the true revivals that we have by the Grace of God experienced over the centuries and are possibly entering in at this time. Of course the revivalists like to align themselves with the true revivals but the Fact remains no one in the Church was speaking in tongues in the days of Bunyan, Calvin or the Wesley's to name  a few.
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #60
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:25/07/2009 2:28 AMCopy HTML

Good morning, John.

Actually, I think your concerns are perfectly valid! To my way of thinking, Revivalist "tongues" (certainly the approach that Revivalists take to them, at any rate) qualify for the Scriptural prohibition against "vain repetitions" (and/or "babblings"). Personally, I don't see a whole lot of benefit to be gained from mistakenly associating what Revivalists "do" with prayer either, whether "in the Spirit" or not. Far better to engage with God in communication that involves the whole person, rather than simply gibbering away with one's mind disengaged.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Chartdoctor Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #61
  • Rank:Regular User
  • Score:2630
  • Posts:127
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:29/08/2005 1:06 PM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:25/07/2009 5:25 AMCopy HTML

 Hullo Ian

Brian,

Why? To what end?!      

             (and this more recent post added)
 Personally, I don't see a whole lot of benefit to be gained from mistakenly associating what Revivalists "do" with prayer either, whether "in the Spirit" or not. Far better to engage with God in communication that involves the whole person, rather than simply gibbering away with one's mind disengaged.




IAN,
Up until 2 days ago, and for some time before, your  daily prayer life consisted of some 90 minutes which included some 5 minutes of praying in tongues.
For anyone to read the entirety of your "Please Consider" site it would seem that a conclusion could be reached,being that you would never"PRAY IN TONGUES".

That is why the P/C site and the facts of what you "ACTUALLY DO" are in conflict.
I am not mounting a case to take it to the world council of churches.
I dont believe that you have changed your mind in the last 24 hours, however if you have and you no longer PRAY IN TONGUES, then simply say so, and this request is ended.
IF however your mind has not changed as to what you did some 2 days ago, then I am simply requesting that you insert somewhere appropriately within the Please Consider site , the information that you do include in your prayer life some 5 minutes of praying in tongues.
Incredibly as it may sound, I am not on this site to "DAMAGE" anyone in anything I have posted, that even includes you Ian.
 

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #62
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:25/07/2009 7:05 AMCopy HTML

Brian,

"PC" isn't a site that seeks to promote my prayer habits. It's a clearing house for information assessing Revivalist beliefs against Scripture. So, 'no', I won't be making an addendum of the sort that you seek.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #63
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:26/07/2009 12:00 PMCopy HTML

Chartdoctor:
You said, "I wont post again here, unless I have something different, or intelligent to say", And I'm thinking you should take some of your own advice already. You're conjuring up issues that don't really exist. Ian has never hinted at 'forbidding' the act of tongues in any of his work and he hasn't encouraged the use of the gift either outside of what he HAS already put it into context. The issue is whether such an act should be deemed as being what marks a Christian, and of course, it doesn't.

Now a few things about Luke-eemia:

Luke has admitted to using Ian Thomason's name as his own in his Aimoo profile and said it was just his sense of humour, and that's fair enough, a bit obsessive and silly, but ok (He says this isn't a game to him, yet he still does these infantile things). He's also called us liars and not admitted to using username puppets in discussions, which he has, but was probably, again, just his way of joking - childish, but probably not malicious. Such a thing can't be proven for the public records, however, let me just say this:

Luke has been allowed to have his say here, and then asked to move on. He chose not to, and was insistant that all his 25 essays be laid out wherever he liked and was fairly arrogant with it. His request was denied and was shown the door and then he obsessively harassed individual members of the forum via private messages, and threatened to flood the forum with 'thousands' of user-names more than once. I mean, Sigh... These are all hostile actions in ANY forum, yet alone one designed for ex-cult members. So he was banned, and asked not to return. Some people cannot handle rejection gracefully and any civil person would take this as a hint and have taken their toys and gone home. Not Luke. No, Luke comes back under different guises continuously, and of course he does have to take on a different user-name each time due to the banning, but when he does strike up a conversation, he NEVER admits to being the same troll that has been banned repeatedly, until someone catches him out. ALL the regulars KNOW this to be true... hey I can relate to obsessive people, but someone slap me hard if I ever get this far gone.

Anyway, squeak enough and someone will oil the hinge. Due to Luke's incessant whining and bi-atching and carrying on, he has been granted a thread here where he can go for it for as long as he likes. I wonder if Ian will be allowed any such freedom to reply to the roasting forum that's pretty much dedicated to discrediting 'his work'. Luke can't have free reign of the whole forum here because he and his doctrine are simply not wanted sprayed over all the furniture. I just checked out his forum, and it seems to be an ex-"'Revival Churches discussion forum' Forum" built on anti-Ian obsessiveness, and pouting. The forum of a scorned woman, if I may.

The Revival doctrine is considered to be just that. Revivalist. This forum welcomes ex-members of the organisation to take part and vent and support each other and so on and etc. and always has. Naturally, there'll be ex-members who still hold on to the doctrine, and they can ask questions and discuss it, as long as they expect it to be questioned. And if you come on board here to push the doctrines of the cult we came from then you will only be allowed a certain amount of time before you're asked to cool it. You can't make this your home to 'fill' with endless pages of scripture dumping. Case in point: Jehovah Witnesses... if you leave their organisation, but still hold onto the core doctrines, you're pretty much still a JW. Kudos for coming out and being separate, but supporting their doctrines at an ex-JW site would just NOT be on.

To Lukazade about me

Luke has mentioned on his rip-off forum that I have a website called Aint-Christian, but it hasn't been called that for a LONG time, and it can be found at www.mothrust.com and is called Mothrust and is a hilarious collection of Religious and Christian satire. I still don't consider myself a Christian (nor do I consider Luke to be a Christian), but I don't consider myself an atheist either and repented of that. I'm a searcher and have been opening myself up to consider things after a dark period in my life after enduring the disorientation I felt when I  discovered that the 17 years of Revivalism I lived was a sham cult that controlled my life.

This forum isn't FOR Christians, and you can tell Ian to bugger off if you want to. You can leave Revival and become a Buddhist and still come for a chat, but if you preach Buddha, you'll probably get a challenge from Ian... Meh, if you know your "Buddha" then go for it... if you just want to be Buddhist and left in peace, just be loud and proud.

That's enough ramble from this big mouth for one night, and no offense intended, this is YOUR thread, and I'm thanking you for coming on over and chewing the fat with us. I appreciate it and it's fun, and I don't think the tone has got nasty at all. I mean, why should it.

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Luke735 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #64
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/06/2009 4:43 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:26/07/2009 11:08 PMCopy HTML


Well said Moth!

Though the perceptions of some at your end reflects a general misunderstanding of who and why I am.

I agree that at times my methods have been regrettable and unwise. Fir this I am truly sorry.

With respect to the doctrine I will not be compromising any time soon.


One thing though, You have stated many times that I carried conversations with myself under different usernames. This is untrue, I believe if you review my posts, then you will realise that you are mistaken with that assumption.

I understand that you guys believe what you believe and at the end of the day its your choice.

I do however believe that the applications of scripture that Ian and others here have made are a rationalistic, naturalistic interpretation and this is where the Bible differs from all other studies of text.

Ian is good at performing a text analysis but that is not (in my humble opinion) the sole way of interpreting scripture. As such Ian (like the Pharisees of Jesus) find themselves drawing conclusions that are wrong and leading others into error.

I am compelled therefore to do my best (remembering that I am a reformed drug dealer) to limit his impact on the innocent.


There have been many misunderstandings of intent on both sides of the fence for the reasons Chartdoctor has cited. But thats life I guess.

Anyhow, thankyou for you post I enjoyed your comments very much.

Luke

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #65
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:26/07/2009 11:20 PMCopy HTML

"Luke",

Well now. I've pointed out several very substantial "difficulties" with respect to your approach to, and understanding of, Scripture in my responses to you thus far. I've also asked you several questions which you've not yet responded to. Given your recent claims, why haven't you tackled these issues?

Next, if my conclusions (drawn as you've accepted them being from the actual biblical texts) are wrong, then indicate where and why. Such a task shouldn't be too hard for you, surely?

Third, I'd also like you to explain exactly why it is that you believe the human authors of Scripture didn't use standard writing conventions of their day, and why you believe Scripture can't (or shouldn't) be interpreted in light of such conventions.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Luke735 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #66
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/06/2009 4:43 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:27/07/2009 1:08 AMCopy HTML

The importance of Understanding:

I think that if we all were personally acquainted with each other we would find that we have more in common then any of us would like to admit. I would like to share with you all my story so as to help you all to better understand my motivation.

In 1989 I was a drug dealer and addict. I was using approximately $1100 worth of my own product per day. I ran three houses along with two others major dealers.

I was an overt atheist and had no interest in God whatsoever. This was the case right up to January 31 1990. I was invited to a Revival meeting where I was challenged that God, through his Son Jesus Christ would prove himself to me personally. That was a Sunday, I left that meeting with a clear understanding that the Gospel of Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension represented an opportunity for people like me to be born again and start afresh. However to avail myself of this sacrifice I must in like manner; die (to my life) be buried (in water) and be resurrected (in newness of life through the baptism of the Holy Ghost) in like manner to Jesus.

This played on my mind on the Monday and by the Tuesday I decided to prove whether these things were true by being baptised in water and committing to God that if these things were true, that I would do whatever his word said I must.

I was baptised on the Tuesday morning. Bearing in mind I was still very entrenched in the business with my partners in some very unsavoury activities I was faced with quite a challenge.

Over the next three days I went to my parent’s house and I read through the pamphlets on salvation so as to navigate the many references in Acts and the gospels.

On the Friday night I went to a young people’s activity where I asked God to fill me with the Holy Ghost. I kneeled down to pray and immediately burst out speaking fluently in tongues (not stammering or babbling) this was very fluent.

The next day I met with the other dealers. Normally we would drive up to the top of a place called Mount Grey and shoot-up and generally discuss (the drug) business. This day when we were on the way up, the driver stopped the car, turned and said “something is different”. I said lets go up to the mountain and “I’ll show you”.

We got to the top of Mt grey and I told them what had happened in the previous 6 days. They asked what was different and I said I could not really explain it but I said we should ask God to verify my experience by them also doing what I had done by praying/asking for the Holy Ghost as I had.

This we did, two of them likewise began to speak fluently in tongues. After this we proceeded back to one of our drug/party houses where the third received the Holy Ghost the exact same way in which I and the others had.

Over the next few weeks several other drug users experienced the same thing and all ceased their drug use and changed their lives. 22 people in total.

My father, who was a staunch Catholic had been disabled due to a stroke and heart attack and was subsequently healed, Some of the direct healings included an inability to speak & walk. I saw him healed with my own eyes after a half hour prayer that I had in the Hospital toilets. As a result of theses healings He also experienced the same experience of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost.

My Mother, sisters and extended family. Later my wife, children and my wife’s family the same. I have continued to tell people all over the country what Jesus has done in my life with an expectation of the same for them, and seen similar resultant changes.

In one case I prayed with a deaf/dumb man who could not speak at all. (including “Free Vocalisation) As we prayed he began to gesture with his hands at the base of his stomach rotating in a circular motion upwards until he reached the base of his chin. Once he reached his chin he burst forth in tongues fluently. The moment he ceased speaking in tongues he resorted to being unable to speak.

In other cases I have prayed with those who have been healed and seen countless lives changed for the better.

Over the last 19 years I have also seen an evolution of the Church. This has (from my observations) been the greater development of a hierarchy within larger fellowships where cliques etc have been (at times) rife. This has accounted for many people leaving disappointed and disillusioned.

Many if not most of the offences on this site seem to derive from the GRC (correct me if I am wrong) with a much lesser amount from the RCI and even less from the RF. Within the RF this seems more prevalent in the larger assemblies.

What I have also noticed is that these behavioural issues have been highlighted and linked (“Bad root Bad Fruit) to the “Salvation Message” This is (in my opinion) intentional and wrong. This is my number one problem with this site.

I have over the years travelled all over the country and attended several other churches, AOG, Orthodox, RCI and RF and what I have seen is that there are good people in all these churches and I trust that God sees this and Loves them all and is guiding them all. I also believe that institutional issue often hinder the members form developing closer relationship with Jesus. Wherever and whenever I see this I try to prayerfully and purposely act to stop this from occurring.

In recent months I have found this to be the case in my local fellowship with several innocent victims. I have therefore separated and outreached to these disappointed and disillusioned people, with immediate success; many retrieved.

I also notice that on this site that many had a desire to communicate and were feeling isolated and condemned. This site (because of the focus on attacking the “Salvation Doctrine” and lumping all the various Revivalists in the one lump was failing to be helpful and often harmful.

I have set up an alternative to act as a  voice to those who have been hurt by the behaviour however see no intrinsic link between the behaviour and the “Salvation message”.

I hope this helps to frame who and why I am here and why I simply cannot swallow the idea that what I have “Seen and Heard” is simply a construct of my imagination. May God bless all of you in your search for truth.

Love in Christ

Luke 7:35

 

 

 

 

 

prezy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #67
  • Rank:Poster Venti II
  • Score:7160
  • Posts:343
  • From:Scotland
  • Register:06/02/2007 11:02 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:27/07/2009 1:59 AMCopy HTML

Thank you for your testimony, it is encouraging and I can see some excellent points you have made. There are e few points that you need to validate with scripture, and I believe this will not be possible. "In like manner to Jesus"? Jesus never spoke in tongues. "The salvation message" I fear you have an incorrect view of what this really is, as I did when I was still in your situation. Look toward Grace. Try to read the Bible without the "revival" slant on it. Pray about this and God will show you amazing things. Also the recent(100 or so years ago)revival pentecostal theory of speaking in tongues being the moment you recieve the Holy Spirit is flawed.
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #68
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:27/07/2009 2:26 AMCopy HTML

"Luke",

When can I expect that you'll answer my questions?

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Chartdoctor Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #69
  • Rank:Regular User
  • Score:2630
  • Posts:127
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:29/08/2005 1:06 PM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:27/07/2009 6:22 AMCopy HTML

 REPLY TO MOTH,
You're conjuring up issues that don't really exist. Ian has never hinted at 'forbidding' the act of tongues in any of his work and he hasn't encouraged the use of the gift either outside of what he HAS already put it into context. The issue is whether such an act should be deemed as being what marks a Christian, and of course, it doesn't.

Well, agreed, Moth, as to 'WHAT MARKS A CHRISTIAN'  , there is far more, mercy, compassion, help with material needs for a brother, kindliness, etc.
That is all preached where I go to church, and it all makes for a well rounded walk with God.

The "Revival" tag that is so prevalent here, is really way off focus.
On my recent posts I got myself out of sorts, instead of waiting for a reply post, I posted in haste, admittedly annoying a couple of folk, but my problem  was stated that I  had the "revival" in me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are we all aware that as we come out of an organization like that, that we are not "instantly" free of all the problems that we have? We end up mimicking some of that behavior unknowingly.
Were we not all "Called by God" to these places, Its not Gods fault that he hasnt got sufficient Pastors/Teachers of a pleasant nature, to guide us.  He warned us about the Wolf.
As Ian does speak in tongues, and the bible indicates that we should not 'FORBID TONGUES", then why cant a truce be called, meaning, we all know about this here, and it would cut down on some 'ANGST' somewhat.
I do get bored with repetitious  behavior  that is unnecessary and keeps hurting my brain.

Good to see you are not completely Atheist,moth.
As for Luke, I believe that is the good thing about this site, we can learn things that are not normally  learnt  elsewhere,
he will settle down, the calling of the Holy Spirit an "it" is what we learnt in Revival, in the "person of the Holy Spirit" is the way to go.
Ian should be annoyed about our postings on the Luke site about Please/ Consider ?  Yes, meaning that no one has paid any attention to it, to find the flaws.
Why is Ian concerned about our criticism, he doesnt confess any faults of his own, as far as I have seen, and others have just been advised to read it again. if they are doubtful.
One cannot criticize the  perfection with P/C as far as Ian believes, and this time I dont think I am being sarcastic.


Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #70
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:27/07/2009 8:26 AMCopy HTML

Brian,

To begin with Paul's advice was not to forbid real tongues; who says that the Revivalist version qualifies as being of the same category? Next, "Luke" has amply demonstrated that he's completely incapable of critiquing the essays at "Please Consider". I've read his attempts thus far, and to be perfectly blunt he clearly lacks the skills, the knowledge and the attributes required to evaluate my exegeses. Consequently the only "flaws" that he would identify would be those that don't comply with his mistaken views on the subject matter.

So what's the name of this church you attend? And was it started by disaffected Revivalists.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Chartdoctor Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #71
  • Rank:Regular User
  • Score:2630
  • Posts:127
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:29/08/2005 1:06 PM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:27/07/2009 9:45 AMCopy HTML

 
IAN,
As I said once before, it is not my intention to "damage" anyone here, and as I read Johns last post, he does not need this sort of fuel to fire him up , to bring up all sorts of stuff, imaginary hypothetical thoughts which is not necessary, and I need not answer to.
I can not either continue on this topic as it is agreed by us all, that there is far more to do in our walks besides   speaking  in tongues, without listing all the requirements and essential criteria that is needed to be "more righteous than the pharisees".
I dont see that you need to  address or answer what we have placed on Lukes site as we have only given folk a reason to think more on how they address their studies of the bible. Its something in any event that  I dont intend to continue "on and on" about in any event.
I also feel we need to somehow be able to tolerate each other somehow, at some level with some harmony. I visit the Revival folk to and get along okay, as you mentioned you did at a revival meeting.
brian. 
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #72
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:27/07/2009 10:15 AMCopy HTML

A-Luke-in-look,

Reply to Luke:

I think that if we all were personally acquainted with each other we would find that we have more in common then any of us would like to admit. 

Apart from obsessive qualities not much really. You DO remind me of myself about ten years ago, but most of us here have left Revival Churches, and the off-shoots thereof.

I would like to share with you all my story so as to help you all to better understand my motivation. In 1989 I was a drug dealer and addict. I was using approximately $1100 worth of my own product per day. I ran three houses along with two others major dealers.

I actually did wonder if you'd taken a substantial amount of drugs in your life at some time. We do understand your motivation as we were in Revival churches (myself for 17 years) and we've given and heard those testimonies 12 to 15 times a week! 

Over the next three days I went to my parent’s house and I read through the pamphlets on salvation so as to navigate the many references in Acts and the gospels. On the Friday night I went to a young people’s activity where I asked God to fill me with the Holy Ghost. I kneeled down to pray and immediately burst out speaking fluently in tongues (not stammering or babbling) this was very fluent. 

Fluent babble?... via suggestive cueing? Whatever the case, free vocalisation, even if spontaneous, is without syntax and is wholly unremarkable. Ecstatic speech is not exclusive to Revivalism, or to Christianity, but has a history that preceeds it. It wasn't uncommon amongst ancient pagan religions and is also still used by non-Christian religions nowadays. A prayer mantra is a positive and relaxing meditative technique that some find beneficial.

What I have also noticed is that these behavioural issues have been highlighted and linked (“Bad root Bad Fruit) to the “Salvation Message” This is (in my opinion) intentional and wrong. This is my number one problem with this site. 

You've got a problem with the site? /Shrug. So? Anyway, back in post #49 I made a list of common problems amongst all the Revivalist churches that are rightfully lumped here. The three step salvation doctrine is but one problem among many. The tongues things is just one device among many control mechanisms used by the group that are all damaging to individuals involved, but that one is a biggie as it leads to a kind of elitism that is exclusive and unnecessarily divides families. There's also the cult-like assembly guidelines that feed the fear of ex-communication and then the consequential shunning. There's the amount of meetings members are guilted into fellowshipping to. The list goes on...

I also believe that institutional issue often hinder the members form developing closer relationship with Jesus. Wherever and whenever I see this I try to prayerfully and purposely act to stop this from occurring. In recent months I have found this to be the case in my local fellowship with several innocent victims. I have therefore separated and outreached to these disappointed and disillusioned people, with immediate success; many retrieved. 

While you believe this to be a good thing, I feel sad for the people who could have lead more normal richer lives outside of the influence of Revivalism. Of couse you have good intentions, but you're incidentally and essentially part of the problem. If your 'Bibliocentric' debate is anything to go by you've already admitted that Ian's interpretations of the bible are good, just not filtered 'spiritually' (or what goes for 'spirituality' in the Revival tongue-centric version anyway). Therefore, you are just a 'dude' with a bible and a wadful of Revival pamphlet knowledge seeking to bring the 'lost' Revivalists back to the place they managed to escape from. :(

I hope this helps to frame who and why I am here and why I simply cannot swallow the idea that what I have “Seen and Heard” is simply a construct of my imagination.

Nevertheless, whatever you swallowed you did it hook line and sinker, and you won't be the last.


[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #73
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:27/07/2009 9:51 PMCopy HTML

Brian,

So called "speaking-in-tongues" is central to your "walk" not peripheral, so please don't attempt to promote this as being something of a "side issue"; it's anything but. And given the place (and the purpose) that you fellows ascribe to the "practice", I suppose you'll simply have to excuse me for choosing not to tolerate such unbiblical heresy, and certainly not here.

Now about this church of yours? What's the "scoop"?

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Luke735 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #74
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/06/2009 4:43 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:27/07/2009 10:15 PMCopy HTML

WOW! Talk about miss the point. How far you have gotten away from the Lord!

The point is obvious to the spiritually minded. The fact that you have missed the point shows that you are blind. Consider…Mat 13:13  Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. Mat 13:14  And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

Why is this so? Well perhaps this is why!

Mat 13:15  For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

The point that you all seem to have missed is captured in the following:

Act 4:1  And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, Act 4:2  Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. Act 4:3  And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide. Act 4:4  Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

Act 4:5  And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, Act 4:6  And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.

Act 4:7  And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? Act 4:8  Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,

Act 4:9  If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Act 4:10  Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. Act 4:11  This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Act 4:12  Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Act 4:13  Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. Act 4:14  And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.

Act 4:15  But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, Act 4:16  Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. Act 4:17  But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.

Act 4:18  And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. Act 4:19  But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. Act 4:20  For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

Even though most of you guys who have replied “Deny it” Those many people who saw the miracles in my life and the many subsequent miracles have responded and their lives have been changed for the better and now they love and worship Jesus. You cynically say “oh its Revivalism NOT Jesus. Well I wonder what will happen when Jesus Returns? Someone will be disappointed! And it wont be those who are sitting at Jesus’ feet!!!

I “cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” The fact that you are blind to these things simply reinforces my earlier warnings to those innocent onlookers, to wit

Mat 7:3  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Mat 7:4  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Mat 7:5  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Would anyone here allow a blind man to operate on your eyes?

NO?

Then I would suggest that if you are looking for spiritual advice then this is not the safe place to look. If the Blind lead the Blind, what happens????

Clearly I was totally against God on Sunday January 31, 1990. 5 days later (February 5, 1990) I asked God for the Holy Ghost (no babble, stammering and NO repetitious Halleluiahs.) I simply burst forth in tongues and immediate change ensued. No more drugs, women, alcohol etc etc etc.

I hope that you detractors would not similarly “Deny” the following History; let us look at some examples:

1) Eusebius — An early church historian wrote and quoted in “Ecclesiastical History” pages 111-112:

“Quadratus is said to have been distinguished for his prophetical gifts ... the Holy Spirit also wrought many wonders as yet through them.”

2) Justin Martyr, around 150 A.D.

“Come into our assemblies and there you will see Him cast out demons, heal the sick and hear them speak with tongues and prophecy”

3) Irenaeus,
a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, writing around 180 A.D. says:

“We hear many of the brethren in the Church ... speak in all tongues through the Spirit and having prophetical gifts.”

4) Tertullian
— eminent church historian who lived around 200 A.D. - speaks of the spiritual gifts still operating in his day,especially amongst the Montanists.

5)
The Early Church Martyrs slain by Pagan Rome “spoke and sang in unknown tongues” according to Dean Farrar in the book “Darkness to Dawn”.

6) Chrysostom
Bishop of Constantinople whose life and ministry spanned the close of the Fourth and the beginning of theFifth Century stated:

“Whoever was baptised in Apostolic days, he straightway spoke with tongues."


7) Martin Luther — According to Dr. Theodor Sauer in his book “History of the Christian Church”, the great Protestant Reformer was:

"A prophet, evangelist, speaker in tongues and interpreter in one person endowed with all the gifts of the Spirit.”

8) Phillip Schaff - in “The History of the Christian Church” claims that speaking in tongues continued to appear from time to time during religious revivals amongst the Quakers, Huguenots and early Methodists.

9) The Huguenots - During the time when these French Protestants were being cruelly persecuted by the Roman Catholic King Louis XIV during the late Seventeenth and early Eighteenth Centuries, there was a great move of the Holy Spirit amongst the so-called “Church in the Desert” accompanied by speaking in tongues, and other supernatural manifestations.

10) John Wesley
— Supports this contention when replying to Dr. Middleton who had written against the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, the founder of Methodism states in the mid-Eighteenth Century:

“Sir, your memory fails you — speaking in tongues has been heard more than once, no further off than the Galley’s of Dauphany”.

11) Thomas Walsh
— one of Wesley’s foremost preachers wrote in his diary, 8th March 1750:

‘This morning the Lord gave me a language that I knew not of, raising my soul to Him in a wonderful manner.”

12) Charles Finney — the great Nineteenth Century Revivalist wrote:

“I received a mighty baptism of the Holy Spirit ... I wept aloud with joy and love and I do not know but I should say I literally bellowed out the unutterable gushings of my heart.”

13) D. L. Moody — John Davidson. an intimate friend of the world-renowned evangelist claimed that he also enjoyed the Gift of Tongues:

14) Dr. F. B. Myer — after a visit to Russia in the late Nineteenth Century, wrote to the “London Christian” magazine claiming that amongst the Baptists of Russia and Estonia he witnessed marvellous manifestations of Spiritual Gifts - including speaking in tongues.

I appreciate that many of you guys were hurt by the behavior of Revivalist Pastors and I am very sorry about that. If I could have been there and done something about that I would not have stood by and did nothing. But the repeated denial of the legitimacy of the manifestations of the Holy Ghost (including Tongues) is dangerous ground my brothers and sisters. Dangerous ground indeed!

God Bless you all in your journey and I hope that you can overcome your hatred so that you may see clearly in the future. For your sake and those who choose to listen to you.

Luke 7:35

MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #75
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:27/07/2009 10:55 PMCopy HTML

'Duke'

The point is obvious to the spiritually minded. The fact that you have missed the point shows that you are blind. Consider…Mat 13:13  Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

The point that's obvious to anyone scripturally and/or spiritually minded is that the very same scripture can be used to point our your shortcomings in regard to Bible interpretation.

I appreciate that many of you guys were hurt by the behavior of Revivalist Pastors and I am very sorry about that. If I could have been there and done something about that I would not have stood by and did nothing.

I thought my previous 'crack' about you was a bit cheeky regarding the copious amounts of drugs you've taken in your life, but now I'm just wondering. You really do have some tickets on yourself don't you and are fairly ignorant and unrealistic about that little Revival world you live in. If you could have "done something you wouldn't have did nothing?". Excuse me, but you're a bit hopeless and living in somewhat of a dream world with your self-important delusions of grandeur, el chappo.

But the repeated denial of the legitimacy of the manifestations of the Holy Ghost (including Tongues) is dangerous ground my brothers and sisters.

Exposure of this convoluted gospel is only dangerous in the minds of the likes of you who have been convinced to believe that scripture can be interpreted by anyone as long as they give it there own 'spiritual' Revival tongue twist.


God Bless you all in your journey and I hope that you can overcome your hatred so that you may see clearly in the future.

Step off with the loaded 'Hate' trigger talk ok buddy? No one's hating on anything here. Perception is far from reality often times and hate is different from reasoned debate.

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #76
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:28/07/2009 12:42 AMCopy HTML

But the repeated denial of the legitimacy of the manifestations of the Holy Ghost (including Tongues) is dangerous ground my brothers and sisters. Dangerous ground indeed!

Indeed, but I've not seem any professing Christians on this site doing that. Those who disagree with you are disagreeing with your idea that the bible says that "speaking in tongues" always accompanies receiving the Holy Spirit.

I hope that you detractors would not similarly “Deny” the following History

None of your quotes supports your idea that "speaking in tongues" always accompanies receiving the Holy Spirit.

5 days later (February 5, 1990) I asked God for the Holy Ghost (no babble, stammering and NO repetitious Halleluiahs.) 

It sounds here more like you asked about speaking in tongues but perhaps your grammar is confused. Nevertheless, in the bible the preaching was always about *Jesus*, getting people to confess/believe him as Lord and savior. For example, the prologues of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke-Acts are blindingly obvious regarding this and even in 1 Co Paul emphasises that he preached Jesus!
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Luke735 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #77
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/06/2009 4:43 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:28/07/2009 1:01 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Moth:

Please don’t misunderstand, I mean “hate” in the sense of “Oppose” Your opposition to the tongues as evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost Baptism is what you hate (are opposed to) I am just wondering is this a manifestation of your opposition to Revivalism or your opposition to tongues in general. If the latter is the case then would you similarly be opposed to people such as the 14 church leaders listed previously.

With respect to your comments “I thought my previous 'crack' about you was a bit cheeky regarding the copious amounts of drugs you've taken in your life, but now I'm just wondering. You really do have some tickets on yourself don't you and are fairly ignorant and unrealistic about that little Revival world you live in. If you could have "done something you wouldn't have did nothing?". Excuse me, but you're a bit hopeless and living in somewhat of a dream world with your self-important delusions of grandeur, el chappo.”

Where did that come from Moth? I am simply saying that to relegate the fact that I was this and now I am that is “Undeniable” yet you seem to be denying/overlooking this as the Pharisees did in Acts 4. This is not to say that you are a Pharisee, but that the denial is pharisaical.

You went on to say

“Exposure of this convoluted gospel is only dangerous in the minds of the likes of you who have been convinced to believe that scripture can be interpreted by anyone as long as they give it there own 'spiritual' Revival tongue twist.”

I was only telling of my personal experience with Jesus, my particular place of worship does not change any single element of what I (or the 14 church leaders) experienced. Again you seem to be allowing the offences that you encountered in your specific assembly to taint your vision (beam in your eye) how then can you expect to give sound advice to others (me included)?

My advice to you brother is that you would be better served to consider this: 2Ti 2:25  In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 2Ti 2:26  And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

And remember that the word for offence means “Trap Stick” as in the stick used by hunters to trap a bird. Have you considered that holding on to the offences that you incurred in Revivalism is simply allowing yourself to again be snared and trapped exactly where Satan wants to be? NOW REMEMBER I SAY THIS ENTIRELY OUT OF SINCERE CONCERN FOR YOU. NO OTHER REASON.

Offence: Σκάνδαλον  skandalon

A “scandal”; probably from a derivative of G2578; a trap stick (bent sapling), that is, snare (figuratively cause of displeasure or sin): - occasion to fall (of stumbling), offence, thing that offends, stumbling-block.

You went on to say

Step off with the loaded 'Hate' trigger talk ok buddy? No one's hating on anything here. Perception is far from reality often times and hate is different from reasoned debate.

Gain, The word “Hate” is simply in terms of “opposition to truth” NOT LOADED AND NOT INTENDED TO BE AN ATTACK ON ANYONE.

I really appreciate your tone in recent times please don’t misunderstand mine. I am also beginning to see Ian differently. (though I still see him as “blind”)

 

God Bless

Luke 7:35

MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #78
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:28/07/2009 2:29 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Luke

I am just wondering is this a manifestation of your opposition to Revivalism or your opposition to tongues in general.

Both are worthy to be questioned thoroughly and I think my previous post covers which aspects. There's not much about the Revival institution that's not to oppose. Hatred 'is' a loaded word in my opinion, and it embodies nasty over-tones and makes you sound like you and your beliefs are 'victims' to the nasty 'haters' here, and we don't feel bitterness or hatred. I do have contempt for most, if not all, of the Revival doctrines and fanciful beliefs.

If you could have "done something you wouldn't have did nothing?". Excuse me, but you're a bit hopeless and living in somewhat of a dream world with your self-important delusions of grandeur, el chappo.” Where did that come from Moth? I am simply saying that to relegate the fact that I was this and now I am that is “Undeniable” yet you seem to be denying/overlooking this as the Pharisees did in Acts 4. This is not to say that you are a Pharisee, but that the denial is pharisaical.

Yeah yeah, everone's a pharisee... /eye-roll. My tongue in cheek reference to the amount of drugs you have taken is alluding to the unrealistic portrayal you have of yourself. I'll admit it wasn't very nice of me to suggest that your current behaviour has been affected by an over-use of drugs in your early life. I apologise for the inference. But you think that 'you' could have been a positive catalyst for any or all Revival church misbehaviours that you would have 'happened' upon? Please. I'm just saying that you're not all 'dat'. Up until very recently your behaviour has been off-kilter and erratic, even by my standards. You're NO Revival saviour especially considering that your tactic is to leave their group to be your own backyard 'pastor' to those that left it, and to harrass and prey on others who have chosen to leave on this site.

“Exposure of this convoluted gospel is only dangerous in the minds of the likes of you who have been convinced to believe that scripture can be interpreted by anyone as long as they give it there own 'spiritual' Revival tongue twist.” I was only telling of my personal experience with Jesus, my particular place of worship does not change any single element of what I (or the 14 church leaders) experienced.

No, I was just stating that the 'offense' of questioning your doctrine is nonsensical considering it is a belief system built on an interpretation of the bible that, by your own admission, can only be understood by the 'spritual', ie. 'people who read it through glossalalia goggles'.

Again you seem to be allowing the offences that you encountered in your specific assembly to taint your vision (beam in your eye) how then can you expect to give sound advice to others (me included)?

My experience, and experience since is not tied to the one assembly. In fact, that particular assembly was a soft one and I enjoyed myself there for the most part. It was just before I left that I came to realise that 'things' just didn't make sense. What is in question is ALL the doctrine and philosophies and beliefs of Revivalism, in particular - tongues. There's no use throwing wads of scriptures at me that would just as easily be used to describe you from my perspective. From what I see of the Bible (and after 17 years in your position already under my belt), you are in error and in heaps of it... and I think that's more than obvious from your discussions with Ian thus far.
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #79
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:28/07/2009 2:43 AMCopy HTML

"Luke",

Clearly you still don't "get" it. There is nothing in your experience which matches what we find recorded in Scripture. Therefore, for you to simply presume that your "tongues" matches up with the biblical manifestation is not only naive to the extreme, but altogether arrogant to boot. Ergo me attempting to establish the validity of your "experience" against Scripture isn't indicative of a straying from Christ but the opposite.

Next, and with respect to your constant mishandling of Holy Writ (and now Church history), remember the importance of the following before jumping to conclusions:

C-O-N-T-E-X-T
! (e.g. historical, literary, cultural, linguisitic, geographical, theological)

You should be a little more discerning when it comes to glibly accepting so-called historical witnesses to "tongues-speaking" (instead of simply cut-and-pasting the standard rubbish that one finds on pro-"tongues" websites). Do some decent and serious research from the primary sources and then repent of your hubris and ignorance.


Finally, when can I expect that you are going to answer my outstanding questions? Or perhaps, why is it that you continue ducking, dodging and weaving in your attempts to avoid having to do so? They're simple and straightforward requests for information, and responding to them shouldn't be too difficult a feat for someone with your "grasp" of Scripture.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Chartdoctor Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #80
  • Rank:Regular User
  • Score:2630
  • Posts:127
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:29/08/2005 1:06 PM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:28/07/2009 6:26 AMCopy HTML

 IAN,  Really,


So called "speaking-in-tongues" is central to your "walk" not peripheral,
and
  
Now about this church of yours? What's the "scoop"?

How on earth can you "deduce" that my walk consists more of what "you consider" it to be, rather that what "I say" that it is?
Straight off, it comes to mind that we are like clanging symbols if we s/i/t without love,   and any single minded approach on any aspect of  our "bible critique" leads to disaster, the one performing miracles in the Lords Name, and little else in his walk ,being one example.
I have on my desk, proof on an "instant rebuttal" , being the biblical requests for us "to pray" for things that will help us to walk "effectively and purposefully", there are some 31 prayer requests, (that I have located anyway).

Then there is the "kingdom barriers" in gal chap 5 v19-21 and rev 21 v 8. to make sure I have eliminated all.
There is more, but you get my drift.
As for what church I go to, uh, well, guys here can be 'SO' negative, and criticizing.
You say, and they say, that you are Revival free, "but" when you are so highly critical, 'THAT CAN BE, TERMED, REVIVALISM"



 
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #81
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:28/07/2009 6:36 AMCopy HTML

Brian,

It wasn't difficult for me to reach the conclusions that I did, given that you've written about the central importance that "tongues" plays to you. However, if you're prepared to state that you no longer believe that "tongues" functions as the supposed "evidence" of being "filled" with God's Spirit, then I would warmly welcome the change in approach. But as for you trying to avoid telling me which church you attend, I'd be inclined to respond with a very simple: "why"? Embarrassment? I can't imagine why it's proving so difficult for you to answer: what's the name of the church that you currently attend, and was it established by Revivalists or former Revivalists?

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #82
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:28/07/2009 9:16 AMCopy HTML

Charto  

As for what church I go to, uh, well, guys here can be 'SO' negative, and criticizing. You say, and they say, that you are Revival free, "but" when you are so highly critical, 'THAT CAN BE, TERMED, REVIVALISM"  

But it's critical to be critical, or one can end up in critical condition. The purpose of this thread is to give Lukazoid an opportunity to critique Ian's work at PC. And one of the main purposes of this forum is to educate and share knowledge so as to avoid being 'duped' by 'similar' organisations... 'cause ya know: Hosea 4:6. 

 The "Revival" tag that is so prevalent here, is really way off focus. 

For want of a better term at times, eh? It's shorter than typing, "Church-like organisations that vehemently promote speaking in tongues as 'the' evidence of being Christian". Not really catchy... The coined term 'Revivalists' is adequate. 

Are we all aware that as we come out of an organization like that, that we are not "instantly" free of all the problems that we have? We end up mimicking some of that behavior unknowingly. 

And luckily some manage to shake free of most of the false doctrines also... Everything Lloyd Longfield and his cronies built resulted in bad fruit right from the get go, and on top it off, in 1995, he unveiled his opus showing everyone just how out of touch he is and always was. The curse of Lloyd never improved and the bad fruit made its seed in kind.

Were we not all "Called by God" to these places, Its not Gods fault that he hasnt got sufficient Pastors/Teachers of a pleasant nature, to guide us. 

Unfortunately, not enough people seem to be able to think for themselves, or think critically. 

Good to see you are not completely Atheist, moth. 

Good for who? I appreciate anyone who makes 'informed' opinions. Atheists make absolute statements, but I believe there's no good in that. A closed mind is one that ceases to learn, and that's no way to live.

As for Luke, I believe that is the good thing about this site, we can learn things that are not normally learnt elsewhere, he will settle down, the calling of the Holy Spirit an "it" is what we learnt in Revival, in the "person of the Holy Spirit" is the way to go. 

The 'it/He' thing is Christian basics 101. Luke isn't up with the fundamentals and can only really cut and paste Revival scripture favourites, and then  paste them scattegoried and void of proper context. Seen enough of that in my 17 years doing exactly the same thing. You're not learning anything new from his site unfortunately.

One cannot criticize the perfection with P/C as far as Ian believes, and this time I dont think I am being sarcastic.

I'm sure there are imperfections... /shrug, but Luke's admitted that the interpretations that Ian has put forward are sound... just not 'spiritual' discerned by Luke's definition to result in 'his' conclusions, and that makes perfect sense. Luke equates 'spirituality' with being able to ramble in double dutch. So it'd be really 'something' for him to be able to point out some of these imperfections. I'm sure there are people that could, but Lukie boy is certainly not one of them.

As for you not being sarcastic, you've both been doing really really well. It seems you can be reasoned with. 
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #83
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:28/07/2009 9:50 AMCopy HTML

"Luke",

Just to help you out (in case you had forgotten), here's a list of those "pesky" questions of mine that you've not yet responded to:

From # 21

First, could you please indicate for me where the passage says 120 people were in a "room"?

Anyway, were you actually suggesting by "...God’s Spirit and your Spirit became one Spirit thus making unity..." that God's incorruptible nature (i.e. his Spirit) combines with our corruptible one (i.e. our spirit), the end result being a single, unified spirit?

* * *

From #42

In any case, you've admitted that you've "flipped-and-flopped" in and out of Revivalism several times over the years. Did you always leave for the same reason? And did you always return for the same reason? If not, then why not?

Ah. You simply had to act, did you? So you believe yourself capable of ministering to recent RF departees, but the formal Oversight to be incapable?

* * *

From #50

And, of course, I pointed you to my "Tongues in the Temple" essay, whereupon I developed this theme in greater detail. Of course, if you honestly believe that the statement refers to individual believers (i.e. as per Revivalism), rather than as the context demands, to Israel corporately; then perhaps you could explain why Luke chose to use plural pronouns rather than singular pronouns?

Well that's rather interesting. You see God clearly chose to provide his special revelation to a specific people group, at specific points in recorded history, making use of specific cultural contexts, and in specific human languages. But you reckon that being aware of such specificity is actually a hindrance to proper understanding?

* * *

From #55

Given that your so-called "spiritual reading" of Scripture derives results that aren't tied to, or dependent upon, what the biblical texts mean according to a supposedly "natural reading" of the actual words; how can you be sure that your interpretations are valid? To what is your "meaning" tethered if not to the text itself?

Next, you've stated that I "...make a connection between the bad behaviour that has been directed towards you; and the Acts 2:38 salvation message. Logically there is NO relationship." Where have I made such a connection?! When have I made such a connection?! Can you provide even a single example of me having done what you've claimed that I've done?

* * *

From #98

Next, if my conclusions (drawn as you've accepted them being from the actual biblical texts) are wrong, then indicate where and why. Such a task shouldn't be too hard for you, surely?

Third, I'd also like you to explain exactly why it is that you believe the human authors of Scripture didn't use standard writing conventions of their day, and why you believe Scripture can't (or shouldn't) be interpreted in light of such conventions.

* * *

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Chartdoctor Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #84
  • Rank:Regular User
  • Score:2630
  • Posts:127
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:29/08/2005 1:06 PM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:29/07/2009 4:22 AMCopy HTML

 Ian,
But as for you trying to avoid telling me which church you attend, I'd be inclined to respond with a very simple: "why"? Embarrassment?

I have said why, as to the above, and this is where you might try to learn some "social skills" , in view of the growing list of folk that come here, and realize what a "dialogue disaster" it often leads to.
Never ending repetitive chatter about these matters will not be fruitful for either of us, and your "need" to try to convince me otherwise holds no conviction. I am similar to Galien, as she holds to her convictions.
As for the phrase that is coined here "have you any revival left in you" ?  if you said that to anyone in the real world, they may lock us all up.

Try to ease off, somewhat Ian.
Luke might still have a couple of posts left here.
I am about done.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #85
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:29/07/2009 5:57 AMCopy HTML

Brian,

There you go. Obviously the question was far more difficult to answer than I thought.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Luke735 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #86
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/06/2009 4:43 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:01/08/2009 4:09 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon

"Luke",

When can I expect that you'll answer my questions?

Ian


Hi there Ian, Sorry I have been a little too busy during this week to deal with your many questions. I will get to them tonight. I have over the course of this week been preaching the gospel and seeing some great results.

The Lord is adding to the church as many as should be saved.

Now I do have one question, What church do you and your family attend and why?

I get the sense that you are Baptist, is this correct?

See ya later.

John 4:35
Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.

God Bless

Luke 7:35
Luke735 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #87
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/06/2009 4:43 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:01/08/2009 9:53 AMCopy HTML

Ian here are the answers to your many questions:

 

QUESTION 1) First, could you please indicate for me where the passage says 120 people were in a "room"?

 

I will answer this first question by citing your work "Revivalist dogma and the book of Acts (An exegetical and theological evaluation)" by Ian Thomason

 

Note my comments are in red font

 

We read in verses 13 and 14 that the apostles were residing in an upper room in Jerusalem with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers . The apostles are noted as being, “of one accord” with this small and select group, with whom they (that is the apostles) “devoted themselves to prayer ”. This is the first instance in the book of Acts where a group is in connection to the apostles; however, it is not until verse fifteen that the emphasis of the action shifts from strictly the apostolic group, to a much broader number of Jesus’ followers.

In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry ... For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and his office let another take.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection. ”

In verse 15 Peter, for the very first time, inclusively numbers the small apostolic group with the wider group of disciples, to arrive at the approximate total of one hundred and twenty of Jesus’ followers remaining in the environs of Jerusalem. He refers to the group, which included himself and his fellow apostles, as (“the brethren”)xxvi. However, note that the text very clearly infers that the much larger number of disciples (that is, exclusive of the apostles, the women, and the family of the Lord), were not staying in the previously mentioned “upper room”. By employing the clause (“in those days”) to introduce verse 15, Luke temporally distinguishes what follows from what immediately preceded, thereby dislocating the focus of subsequent events from former. Consequently, the clause marks the beginning of a new division in the narrative in the first half of Acts (grammatically it indicates a more definite break then the previously discussed. The result is such that there remain no grounds provided within the text itself, for the widespread belief that the entire “one hundred and twenty” were in the habit of meeting in the “upper room”. Such may have been so, unlikely though it is, but there is no emphatic statement that such was so

Yet again Ian makes some major assumptive leaps in his analysis of the text.

1)     Ian says However, note that the text very clearly infers that the much larger number of disciples (that is, exclusive of the apostles, the women, and the family of the Lord), were not staying in the previously mentioned “upper room”. By employing the clause (“in those days”)”Ian is saying that because Luke (the author of Acts) uses the Greek words (ἐν ταύταις, ταύτας ἡμέρα) which could just as easily be interpreted as “At that time”. (indeed these words are translated as such in the International Standard Version)  that the matter is Very Clear!!!! Again the words “strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel” come to mind.

2)     Further to this Ian then goes on to say Luke temporally distinguishes what follows from what immediately preceded, thereby dislocating the focus of subsequent events from former. Consequently, the clause marks the beginning of a new division in the narrative in the first half of Acts” This is very important to understand. Ian is saying that the term “In those days” constitutes a grammatical break, which somehow proves beyond all doubt that only 12 people met in the Upper Room. Then he goes on to say “Such may have been so, unlikely though it is, but there is no emphatic statement that such was so” This is called “a bet each way” in other words Ian knows full well that he has based his whole argument on the weight of these 3 Greek words and their meaning is disgraceful academically speaking and adds the caveat “Such may have been so, unlikely though it is, but there is no emphatic statement that such was so” What comes to mind is the words of the Lord Mar 7:13  Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

Ian continues…In the following verse Peter introduces the requirement to replace the fallen Judas Iscariot, thereby restoring the apostles to the theologically significant number of twelve. The context, as indicated by the grammar of the passage, suggests that Luke had by then reverted to identifying the select group of apostles as the subject of the discussion until verse 26. At verse 16 Peter specifically addressed the group: (“men, brothers”), which automatically excluded any women from consideration .

1)     The term Brethren appears 319 times in the Greek in the New Testament and almost always is “gender non-specific” In this case the setting was clarified by the naming of those present (which included women) however just as in other instances in the NT. When addressing a group the women seem to be relegated to the sidelines. This is cultural, not grounds for implying that only the 12 were in the upper room.

2)     Ian has gone to great lengths to say that the 120 were NOT in the upper room. He says again and again that this is clear in the Greek. Not one translation, version, commentary, handbook, Bible Encyclopaedia that I have access to either at home or on the web shares Ian’s conclusions.

3)     A straight out reading of the text is however supported by all. Lets have a look at it again, absent of Ian’s convoluted and contradictory additions. Act 1:13  And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. Act 1:14  These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. Act 1:15  And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about a hundred and twenty,)

4)     A few point need examination: a) Ian says that verse 15 constituted a division in the Greek text. Even if this is true; verses 13-&14 clearly says that the Apostles, some women, as well as Jesus’ brothers and sisters were in the “Upper Room”

5)     As discussed “At that Time” (the time just mentioned in (4) Peter addressed those already mentioned people totalling ~120. One would think that it is clear; However Ian really really wants you to believe his version of the events. Even though no one of any repute seems to agree with him.

 

 

 

Further, verse 17 specifically identified by way of a causal clause, that Judas was,(“numbered among us”), and further, that he was (“allotted his share in this ministry”): the apostolic ministry. Equally important from the perspective of cultural context is that the term; (“apostle”) was the first century Greek equivalent of the Hebrew       (“shaliach/shaluach”), which signifies “a sent one” in both languages. In contemporary Jewish custom, a person's was fully able to represent his master in all matters (note again, the implications of 1:8). According to the Mishna, “A man's           is like himselfxxxi”.

But for the moment we need to trace the flow of thought in verses 21 and 22(b): “So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us ... one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection. ” The distinction is plain: (“the men”) is distinguished from the first person pronoun (“us”) given in verse 21, and “these men” (the object is inferred from the context as it is redundant to repeat it in Greek) from (“with us”) of verse 22(b). Therefore it remains clear that the referent has once again reverted to being the smaller number of Jesus’ disciples, those whom he specifically called and appointed to be apostles.

It must be said that on various occasions in the account of the events leading up to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost that various people engaged in direct and indirect conversations where the principle recipient was either the apostles only (within the greater group of 120) or to the entire group of disciples. Ian is trying to isolate the direct references and paint a false picture that the words only apply the 12 or that the scripture says something that it doesn’t necessarily say in order to build a foundation on which to build a case that the experience of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost was for a select few. This is entirely inconsistent with several other texts of scripture that say categorically that God is NOT a respecter of persons etc. In short what Ian is doing is what many religious authorities have done for centuries. He is saying that there is a hierarchy in the kingdom of God and he places himself at the top end.

Mat 24:11  And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

2Pe 1:16  For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2Pe 1:17  For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 2Pe 1:18  And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 2Pe 1:19  We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 2Pe 1:20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. 2Pe 1:21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

What we have just witnessed is Ian’s “private interpretation” You would do well to rely on being an “eyewitnesses of his majesty” and experience your own Pentecost and not rely on Ian’s “cunningly devised fables”

In conclusion: Ian’s position is far from provable in the context of the whole Bible. Paul states that after the resurrection but before Pentecost Jesus appeared to greater than 500 others in 1st Corinthians 15:6  After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. Now these 500 or so had witnessed Jesus appearing to them.We cannot know how many of these 500 or so waited for the promise of the Holy Ghost which had been promised by Prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. I know I would have been there. Luke elaborates further by stating in Acts 1:3 To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. 4 And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, 5 for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Ian went on to say that this was for empowerment not salvation, which contradicted what Peter says later in Acts 11.

Whenever people build a doctrine on a verse or a chapter in Isolation to the rest of the Bible they always find themselves chasing their tail like Ian is. And having to go to extreme lengths to make their argument. My hope is that you do not follow Ian’s fairytale version but rather seek God to answer you in the way he always has confirmed hid word. “With signs and wonders” to the individual.

I leave you with one verse:- 1Ki 18:24  And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God.

What about Joel?

Ian Continued…At this point it becomes necessary to consider the actual Pentecostal phenomena as recorded by Luke, and the theological implications of the same. To begin with we cannot escape the fact that Luke expressly identified three inter-linked and miraculous manifestations: a roaring sound, being similar to the hearing to that of a violent windstorm. The sound then “fell” and rushed into the place where the apostles were sitting, filling it with noise (so verse two). The very fact that Luke records the apostles as sitting is important. Jews prayed to and worshipped God in one of three primary postures: either standing with the hands outstretched, kneeling with the forehead on the floor and the hands outstretched, or lying fully prostrate on the floor, again with the hands outstretched. Sitting only took place in between the prayers and the singing of the psalms, that is, during the interludes. That God arrived as he did, when he did, indicates that the apostles were caught completely unawares: they were not, at the time, praying! The subsequent miraculous manifestation was the visible, hovering sheet-like flame, having an outward appearance of fire, which then parted to rest on each apostle individually (verse three). The manifestation; (“appeared to them”), the referent to; (“them”) being yet again (“the eleven apostles”) plus Matthias of 1:26. And finally we must consider (“they were filled with the Holy Spirit”) and (“they began to speak in other languages”). The third person plural pronouns implicit in the verbs “they were filled” and “they began to speak” are grammatically dependant on (“the eleven apostles”) plus Matthias of 1:26 functioning as the antecedent!

 

Again Ian’s “Tunnel Vision” comes into play. In the Bolded portion above, Ian says “The third person plural pronouns implicit” As we all know the third person could mean more but Ian is trying his utmost to confine this outpouring to the 12 Men only. I wonder whether Ian has ever considered the fact that when Peter rises to his feet and explains to the crowd what was taking place that he refers to BOTH MEN & WOMEN as having received this wonderful fulfilment from God of Joel’s prophecy.

It is noteworthy that Ian avoids commenting on verse 16-18 in any of his essay (so called) Well what does it say? Act 2:16  But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; Act 2:17  And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: Act 2:18  And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

Well, what is the THIS in the text?

Clearly the THIS is “Speaking in Tongues”. Can we be sure that it is? Well read on Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. It is truly alarming that Ian can be so meticulous in his examination of every syllable in previous verses and yet skip over these ones.

But here we are, I’m sure Ian will respond with another assumption based on assumption based on even more assumptions answer. Well while you are at it Ian please attempt to answer these few questions as well.

1)    Why were the 120 there in Jerusalem if not to receive the Holy Ghost which had been promised.

2)    Why were the two men who were on the road to Emmaus compelled by Jesus to turn around and return to Jerusalem.

3)    In Luke 24:33 who were the “Them” who “were with them” (see below)

4)    If the “they” from (3) were the 120 generally why wouldn’t they have had the same expectation of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost just as the Apostles did? (according to Ian’s analysis at least.)

5)    If the Women did not receive the Holy Ghost in verse 4 then why did Peter rise up and quote Joel who said ““on my servants and on my handmaidens” and then say this which you now see and HEAR.

QUESTION 2) Anyway, were you actually suggesting by "...God’s Spirit and your Spirit became one Spirit thus making unity..." that God's incorruptible nature (i.e. his Spirit) combines with our corruptible one (i.e. our spirit), the end result being a single, unified spirit?

* * *

Yes!!!   

 

Joh 14:10  Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Joh 14:11  Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

 

Joh 14:12  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. Joh 14:13  And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

Joh 14:14  If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Joh 14:15  If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Joh 14:16  And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;

Joh 14:17  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.  


From #42

QUESTION 3a) In any case, you've admitted that you've "flipped-and-flopped" in and out of Revivalism several times over the years. Did you always leave for the same reason? And did you always return for the same reason? If not, then why not?

 

 

“Flip Flopped??? Hardly!!!!

 

No, I have left once because my work took me into the middle of the outback where there was no Revivalist church. Just me and Jesus.

 

I left once for a week because a Pastor was behaving very badly, He was eventually sacked!

 

I have left now because of a need to help some lost sheep who were in danger. Now we are all doing well and rejoicing.

 

 

QUESTION 3b)

 

Ah. You simply had to act, did you? So you believe yourself capable of ministering to recent RF departees, but the formal Oversight to be incapable?

* * *

Oversight (singular)  Yes!!!   


From #50

QUESTION 4) And, of course, I pointed you to my "Tongues in the Temple" essay, whereupon I developed this theme in greater detail. Of course, if you honestly believe that the statement refers to individual believers (i.e. as per Revivalism), rather than as the context demands, to Israel corporately; then perhaps you could explain why Luke chose to use plural pronouns rather than singular pronouns?

 

Could you please be a little more specific with your questions and not so broard. And you know what I think of the Israel-Jew question.



QUESTION 5) Well that's rather interesting. You see God clearly chose to provide his special revelation to a specific people group, at specific points in recorded history, making use of specific cultural contexts, and in specific human languages. But you reckon that being aware of such specificity is actually a hindrance to proper understanding?

 

No not at all, I am simply saying that the Bible is a spiritually discerned book that to date you have failed dismally to appreciate the spiritual meaning. I know this seems crazy to many here, sorry! What can I say? Don’t shoot the messenger!

* * *


QUESTION 6) Given that your so-called "spiritual reading" of Scripture derives results that aren't tied to, or dependent upon, what the biblical texts mean according to a supposedly "natural reading" of the actual words; how can you be sure that your interpretations are valid? To what is your "meaning" tethered if not to the text itself?

 

As stated earlier, There may be examples of very bad, even criminal behaviour on the part of individuals in their application of the gospel. They will answer to God for that.

However I can only speak about my case. I preach to people a simple gospel that is centred around Jesus Christ. In truth, the three miracles that constitute “Witnesses of a persons place in God’s future are as follows:

1John 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1Jn 5:8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1Jn 5:9  If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

What is meant by the repeated use of the word witness?

Definition: A witness as a matter of Law, is someone who has firsthand knowledge about a crime or dramatic event through their senses (e.g. seeing, hearing, smelling, touching) and can help certify important considerations to the crime or event. A witness who has seen the event firsthand is known as an eye-witness. Encyclopedia Britannica

The three (3) Witnesses bear Witness of salvation.

None of this is new. One needs only to look into the Old Testament to see the pattern repeated over and over and over again.

FIRSTLY IN THE EXODUS

BLOOD

Exo 12:13 And the blood shall be to you for a token (Witness - evidence) upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

WATER

Exo 14:21 And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

FIRE/SPIRIT

Exo 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

THEN IN THE TABERNACLE

BLOOD

Lev 3:13 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round about.

WATER

Exo 30:18 Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal: and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein.

FIRE/SPIRIT

Lev 3:3 And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,

1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 1Co 10:2 And were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Considering that we read in 1 Corinth 6:19  What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? It is no surprise that when the Holy Ghost was first poured out (including Handmaidens) that there is a striking similarity with the Dedication of the Temple.

FINALLY IN THE TEMPLE Compare the similarities to the day of Pentecost!!!!!!!

Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all (120 Ian!!) with one accord in one place. (including the Handmaidens????)

Compare: 2Ch 5:13 were as one, to make one sound

Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

Compare: 2Ch 5:13then the house was filled with a cloud”

Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Compare: 2Ch 7:1the fire came down from heaven

Act 2:4  And they were all (120) filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Compare: 2Ch 7:6and the (120) priests sounded trumpets before them

1Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Clearly the Old Testament traditions and ceremonies were structured with purpose in mind. God was trying to simulate the spiritual relationship he would one day have with his people with physical representations or acts to teach us of the way in which he would one day make access to the Holy of Holies and his presence would be made available. Now Ian Thomason would say that these stories have little to do with each other, he might even say C-O-N-T-E-X-T in order to give the illusion that this comparison of MAJOR significance in the Old Testament totally irrelevant. If you believe this to be so then that’s your choice. I for one think that you are making the mistake of your life. But that’s me!

The fact that the events mentioned have the “Witnesses” mentioned in 1Jn 5:8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. May be just a coincidence.

I fear that Ian’s pride and orthodox learning has become his god and he forgets that ALL SCRIPTURE IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE. Furthermore he is so hellbent on proving that his old Revivalist church is wrong that his blind the obvious. Consider the Gospel as outlined by Paul. 1Co 15:1  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 1Co 15:2  By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 1Co 15:3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1Co 15:4  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 1Co 15:5  And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 1Co 15:6  After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 1Co 15:7  After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 1Co 15:8  And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

 

Notice that in this gospel message there are four key elements:

 1)Death 2) Burial 3) Resurrection 4) Manifestation. Also notice that in like manner we are to similarly Die to our old lives in Repentance applying the BLOOD of Christ, be buried in WATER and Be filled with the Holy Ghost and walk in the Spirit (newness of life) Read

Rom 6:3  Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Rom 6:4  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Rom 6:5  For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Ian would have to believe that there is no requirement for you to obey the gospel and apply the BLOOD, be baptised in WATER and be filled with the SPIRIT with the accompanying MANIFESTATION. Indeed Ian’s version means that the following verses make no sense, in that how do you “obey the Gospel” if the gospel constitutes the sacrifice of Jesus without the respondent in like manner burying their old life. 2Th 1:7  And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

2Th 1:8  In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 2Th 1:9  Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

And again…1Pe 4:17  For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

 

QUESTION 7) Next, you've stated that I "...make a connection between the bad behaviour that has been directed towards you; and the Acts 2:38 salvation message. Logically there is NO relationship." Where have I made such a connection?! When have I made such a connection?! Can you provide even a single example of me having done what you've claimed that I've done?

 

Several times in fact over the last 18 months, Usually followed by the obligatory “Bad seed bad fruit” crack!!!

* * *


From #98

QUESTION 8) Next, if my conclusions (drawn as you've accepted them being from the actual biblical texts) are wrong, then indicate where and why. Such a task shouldn't be too hard for you, surely?

I think that your problem Ian is that you make an assumption and build on that assumption as though it is 100% true. This creates contradictions else where that you then have to create an explanation from that text to explain the contradiction. For example you say without question “Only the 12 spoke in tongues in the upper room”

If that is true then where does this leave Joel’s Prophecy of Joel 2:28  And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: Joe 2:29  And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

You do this over and over again to prove your case. This is exactly what JWs etc do.

What makes me different you rightfully ask?

Lives changed miraculously, miracles, signs and wonders. We preach a gospel of power and when people respond they see immediate change and they testify of God working in their lives. It simply works, the desired result. What can I say any more than that.

“Once I was  lame and now I can walk”  we might not be able to explain every plural pronoun and such but I have seen, and do see lives changed for the better again and again. I understand your position. Especially given that there seems to be many examples of Pastors gone bad. But in my experience people who follow the Acts 2:38 directive and pray often, walk in the spirit and lead Godly, overcoming lives.



QUESTION 9) Third, I'd also like you to explain exactly why it is that you believe the human authors of Scripture didn't use standard writing conventions of their day, and why you believe Scripture can't (or shouldn't) be interpreted in light of such conventions.

I don’t have a problem with “Scripture being interpreted in light of such conventions”.

The problem is that you are simply reading the text with natural eyes. I am truly sorry that this explanation is not to your satisfaction, But it is really just that simple!

* * *

I only wish I had have been able to continued studying Greek so that I had more than a “Kindergarten” understanding so that I could better explain to you Ian.

But that’s life, all I can say is that I lay hands on the sick and they recover, I lay hands on believers and they speak in tongues, I care for weak, I live every breath of my life in complete service to others. This is not to my glory but Jesus who is my life. Tony is a worthless, ignorant nothing. But he died 19 years ago. Col 3:3  For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. Col 3:4  When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

I’m not perfect, far from it; but the picture you paint of Revivalist is far from what I have witnessed.

God Bless you all and I hope that you allow Jesus to guide you in the future.

Luke 7:35
 

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #88
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:02/08/2009 6:55 AMCopy HTML

"Luke",

I asked you the very simple question, "could you please indicate for me where the passage says 120 people were in a "room"?" In response, you launched into an extended diatribe of 2,890 words in length (!), and yet didn't answer the question! Why? Was it too much to ask of you?

In response to question two, "were you actually suggesting by "...God’s Spirit and your Spirit became one Spirit thus making unity..." that God's incorruptible nature (i.e. his Spirit) combines with our corruptible one (i.e. our spirit), the end result being a single, unified spirit?", you responded with an unqualified "YES!!!" Well then, here's me lowering the "boom", as promised. In stating that you believe God's Spirit combines with our spirits to form a SINGLE, UNIFIED spirit is to reach the conclusion that we join with God ontologically! In other words, we become part of what God "is" in his Personhood! We, therefore become coequal with God, or to put this another way, we become God! Please explain for me how this doesn't
constitute heresy, even from a Revivalist slant?


With respect to question 3, interesting that you believe yourself to be more capable than the appointed RF oversight, to be ministering to the needs of wayward Revivalists. This being so, why weren't you ever appointed to be a "pastor" in the RF, then?

My question four: "And, of course, I pointed you to my "Tongues in the Temple" essay, whereupon I developed this theme in greater detail. Of course, if you honestly believe that the statement refers to individual believers (i.e. as per Revivalism), rather than as the context demands, to Israel corporately; then perhaps you could explain why Luke chose to use plural pronouns rather than singular pronouns?"  Your response? "Could you please be a little more specific with your questions and not so broard. And you know what I think of the Israel-Jew question." To begin with, I was very specific in the way I framed the question. Second, who was talking about "Israel-Jew" a la the British-Israel fantasy? Clearly I wasn't. So answer the question.

My next question: "Well that's rather interesting. You see God clearly chose to provide his special revelation to a specific people group, at specific points in recorded history, making use of specific cultural contexts, and in specific human languages. But you reckon that being aware of such specificity is actually a hindrance to proper understanding?" To which you replied, "No not at all, I am simply saying that the Bible is a spiritually discerned book that to date you have failed dismally to appreciate the spiritual meaning. I know this seems crazy to many here, sorry! What can I say? Don’t shoot the messenger!" Bollocks. On your forum you repeatedly mention that the Christian Bible isn't to be interpreted as we would any other book. And as for the supposedly "spiritual" meaning that you prate on about, how does such differ from "allegorical" interpretation?

Along similar lines, I asked: "Given that your so-called "spiritual reading" of Scripture derives results that aren't tied to, or dependent upon, what the biblical texts mean according to a supposedly "natural reading" of the actual words; how can you be sure that your interpretations are valid? To what is your "meaning" tethered if not to the text itself?" Your response, such as it was, didn't actually answer the question again. To the contrary, you resorted (again) to another over-lengthy ramble that said nothing and proved nothing. Nothing, except, for the fact that you can't interpret Scripture properly.

I then asked, "Next, you've stated that I "...make a connection between the bad behaviour that has been directed towards you; and the Acts 2:38 salvation message. Logically there is NO relationship." Where have I made such a connection?! When have I made such a connection?! Can you provide even a single example of me having done what you've claimed that I've done?"  Your reply, "Several times in fact over the last 18 months, Usually followed by the obligatory “Bad seed bad fruit” crack!!!" Sorry, but how does your broad and off-topic reply answer my very specific question? It doesn't.

I then asked, "Next, if my conclusions (drawn as you've accepted them being from the actual biblical texts) are wrong, then indicate where and why. Such a task shouldn't be too hard for you, surely?" An altogether simple request, I thought. You, however, then decided to stray into eisegesis once more, heaping assumption upon poor assumption. The fact is, you have never been able to demonstrate any error in any of my exegeses. All that you have ever done, is appeal to lashings of context-wrested proof-texts, loosely "interpreted" through your altogether unique, personal and "spiritual" lens.

And the response to my final question simply demonstrated either your poor memory, or loose handling of the truth.

Finally, this comment from you brought a smile to my face: "I only wish I had have been able to continued studying Greek so that I had more than a “Kindergarten” understanding so that I could better explain to you Ian." You don't even have a "kindergarten"-level understanding; you are altogether ignorant of the language. Face facts, you can't even explain your nonsense in English adequately, what hope would you have of appealing to Greek?

Goose.

Ian  

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
prezy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #89
  • Rank:Poster Venti II
  • Score:7160
  • Posts:343
  • From:Scotland
  • Register:06/02/2007 11:02 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:02/08/2009 7:45 AMCopy HTML

The word Triumph occurs a few times in the Bible. Sorry cant be bothered searching exactly how many. I ride a 1970 triumph motorcycle, which makes me saved and much better than say someone who rides a jap bike from a heathen country. Does this sound silly and biggoted? It makes a lot more sence than half the tripe revivalist would have you believe, like British Isreal and pyramidology. Without Proper understanding of scripture you could make up all sorts of mistakes. Problem is peoples eternal lives are involved. Very sad lately to see so many burned by revivalism and no longer trust in God.
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
Luke735 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #90
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/06/2009 4:43 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:02/08/2009 12:31 PMCopy HTML

The conversation that Ian and I have had; to many, may seem like a German talking to Chinaman. This leads to a sense that the various differences are going nowhere and that they are useless.

The problem is that Ian is a modern day equivalent to the Pharisees of Jesus time and encounters the same barriers in understanding. No doubt the Pharisees who debated with Jesus in the Temple’s and synagogues had their fair share of Old Testament texts that they were sure proved without doubt from the text that Jesus was not the Christ that he claimed to be. What will be the end of those men?

The same as Ian I would suggest.

The following is a story that gives us an insight into the natural, rational interpretation of scripture as opposed to the Spiritual approach.

John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: John 3:2  The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. John 3:3  Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

This is exactly what Ian’s core problem is and why all of you onlookers should be careful in your choice of who you follow. Ian sees only the physical not the spiritual.

John 3:4  Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Exactly the type of response Ian issues out time and time again. It’s not in his control. In deed he is absolutely convinced he is right. That’s the problem with deception; it’s deceiving especially “Self-Deceiving”

John 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:6  That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:7  Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Once again I draw your attention to the “Witnesses or Tokens” WATER and SPIRIT.

John 3:8  The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Ian would call me a “Goose” for suggesting that “Everyone” who is “born of the Spirit” will hear a sound. He would base this conclusion on his “Pharisaic” reading of the Greek text. I guess ALL of the translators of the Bible over the last 2000 years should have had Ian’s insight and maybe they wouldn’t have worded verse eight this way!

The translators who produced the Analytical Literal Translation must have been quite liberal when they translated verse eight like so…John 3:8  "The Spirit breathes where He desires, and you hear His voice, _but_ you do not know from where He comes and where He goes. In this manner [or, Like this] is every [one] having been born from the Spirit."

Now; Ian would have some explanation for this text, that means anything other than the Spirit giving voice, as in Pentecost. I mean, he would have to, wouldn’t he?????

Like Nicodemus, Ian is sincere, however rationalistic in his approach and cannot “SEE”. Therefore he is BLIND and should not be followed!

John 3:9  Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? John 3:10  Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

The word of God is so timeless; I would say the same thing to Ian. In fact I will!

Ian, Art thou a master (Theologian), and knowest not these things?

John 3:11  Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Remember what I said about Witnesses? Let me remind you…

The three (3) Witnesses that bear Witness of salvation.

In truth, the three miracles that constitute “Witnesses of a persons place in God’s future are as follows:

1John 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1Jn 5:8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1Jn 5:9  If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

What is meant by the repeated use of the word witness?

Definition: A witness as a matter of Law, is someone who has firsthand knowledge about a crime or dramatic event through their senses (e.g. seeing, hearing, smelling, touching) and can help certify important considerations to the crime or event. A witness who has seen the event firsthand is known as an eye-witness. Encyclopedia Britannica

Verse 11 perfectly sums up what is happening here. I am speaking about what I “Know” same word as used in verse 3 “SEE the kingdom of God.”  And I am testifying of that which I “Have Seen” past tense! And over and over again Ian “receives NOT my witness”

My response to you Ian is:

Like Jesus said to Nicodemus: John 3:12  If I have told you earthly (worldly, physical) things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly (Spiritual) things?

The honest truth here is that Ian is ANTI-PENTECOSTAL and is here for one purpose, to try to convince everyone that their experience of Speaking in Tongues is a learned product of their own imagination. When cornered on this he dances around it as strategically as he can so as not to lose his following. He gets great support from Moth and unkoolman who, lets face it, are not the wisest choice of “Spiritual Leadership”

To those of you who are victims: 1) Keep praying that the Lord guide you through these troubling and often confusing times 2) Find a healthy, spiritual fellowship that promotes sound, balanced, fruitful fellowship with other people who, like you, speak in tongues. And 3) Pray every day in the Spirit.

To you Revivalist Pastors who are reading this: The personal testimonies on this site should serve as a wakeup (shakeup) call that your motives MUST be first and foremost compassionate. Every Pastor should read this from the Amplified daily: 1 Corinthians 13:1 IF I [can] speak in the tongues of men and [even] of angels, but have not love (that reasoning, intentional, spiritual devotion such [a]as is inspired by God's love for and in us), I am only a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 13:2 And if I have prophetic powers ([b]the gift of interpreting the divine will and purpose), and understand all the secret truths and mysteries and possess all knowledge, and if I have [sufficient] faith so that I can remove mountains, but have not love (God's love in me) I am nothing (a useless nobody).

You do not serve Hollins, Longfield or Khulman You serve Jesus as Lord and Saviour and we will all stand before him and give account. You are Shepherds NOT Drovers. If you have an opinion about someone speak to that person alone (your position is not a licence to murmur and backbite) We are to go “Leave the 99 and go after the 1.” Above all love your fellowship and see Christ in them. Every one of them!

God Bless

Luke 7:35

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #91
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:02/08/2009 1:06 PMCopy HTML

"Luke",

Actually, I'm rather confident that most readers are completely aware of what is going on here. One doesn't need to be a genius to see that you refuse to submit to what Scripture very clearly states; to the contrary, that you would seek to re-interpret it through your own unique and faulty brand of "tongues-goggles". But why is it that you continue to appeal to the "Comma Johanneum" in support of your very silly Scripture wrangling? Surely you're not that dense?

In summary, and in much less than 10,000 words, you're still a goose.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
SintaxError Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #92
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Vatican_city
  • Register:30/01/2009 2:36 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:02/08/2009 1:33 PMCopy HTML

Hey Luke,

With all of  your diversity of formatting, one  would  almost be forgiven for t-h-i-n-k-i-n-g  you were typing in tongues.

Thats all folks.
Sin Tax Error

P.S. If your posts are shorter, people will be much more inclined to read them.
Thanks :-D

prezy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #93
  • Rank:Poster Venti II
  • Score:7160
  • Posts:343
  • From:Scotland
  • Register:06/02/2007 11:02 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:02/08/2009 10:23 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon

"Luke",

Actually, I'm rather confident that most readers are completely aware of what is going on here. One doesn't need to be a genius to see that you refuse to submit to what Scripture very clearly states; to the contrary, that you would seek to re-interpret it through your own unique and faulty brand of "tongues-goggles". But why is it that you continue to appeal to the "Comma Johanneum" in support of your very silly Scripture wrangling? Surely you're not that dense?

In summary, and in much less than 10,000 words, you're still a goose.

Ian


Its funny to me that these revival types accuse Christians of many things, such as being a Pharisee when in fact they are describing themselves. Who are they trying to convince? Their accusation that no tongues, no Holy Spirit puts them on dangerous ground regarding blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. To me though the worst thing against them is NO FRUIT, and NO LOVE.They are the clanging symbol.
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #94
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:02/08/2009 11:21 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Rob.

Agreed. Apparently anyone who is capable of engaging rather than disengaging their brain when approaching Scripture is a Pharisee.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #95
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:02/08/2009 11:38 PMCopy HTML

Hey Luke

Since you keep "hanging your hat" on what you've witnessed, might I suggest you have a (another?) look at the movie "Hoodwinked" for an insightful look into how witness statements fit into the search for truth.

PS He's not a central character but I  *love* Japeth the Goat. What a maestro!
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Luke735 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #96
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/06/2009 4:43 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:02/08/2009 11:58 PMCopy HTML


Hi all: You will have to do without my comments for a couple of weeks, I have some assignments due and I will not have time to devote to this site, as well as my other commitments.

I know we do not see eye to eye, that's life!

God Bless and see you in a few weeks.

Tony
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #97
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:03/08/2009 12:28 AMCopy HTML

"Luke",

The reason that we don't see "eye-to-eye" has to do with the fact that your eyes are closed smiley11 "Blind guys and ditches", yet again.

Put simply, you're not particularly credible a "witness". To begin with, you apparently struggle comprehending what I actually write. As but one notable example, you've mentioned a couple of times in various posts that my position is the "12 received the baptism of the Holy Ghost in the upper room". My Acts essay; however, is explicitly clear in pointing out that the location of the theophany was the Temple, and not the so-called "upper room". Further, you clearly struggle exercising critical judgment with respect to the sources you appeal to. Just yesterday, for example, you appealed to
the so-called "Analytical Literal Translation" of the Greek New Testament. Clearly you were blissfully unaware that this self-published "reference" was prepared and produced by a man with no qualifications or scholarly reputation in koine Greek specifically, or biblical studies more generally?

But in spite of these and other manifestly clear credibility issues, you expect people to take you seriously? Why is that, exactly? Oh. That's right! It's because you're "spiritual"


Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #98
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:06/08/2009 11:45 PMCopy HTML

"Luke",

I note that your forum seems to have, well, pretty much stalled in recent weeks, and isn't generating very much at all by way of discussion. Is there any reason, do you think, that those who complained about not having a "voice" here don't seem to be inclined to have a "voice" there either?

(Addendum added 8 Aug 09): I had a bit of a browse of your site and noticed the comments made by this "Ghosted" person, and your attempted responses. I will state this: whomever "Ghosted" is, s/he has cut to the heart of the matter! Furthermore, your typically long-winded replies altogether failed to satisfactorily address the issues raised, and demonstrated perfectly your profound ignorance of the function of Greek grammar in determining meaning. I'll give you a bit of a hint though: check the gender of the Greek pronouns that you make such a song-and-dance over

Goose.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Luke735 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #99
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/06/2009 4:43 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:11/08/2009 1:47 PMCopy HTML

Once again Ian is trying his dandest to manufacture conspiracies. Ian throwing mud continually will never make you look clean by comparison.

Anyway I will answer his latest verbal vomit.

He said Didaktikon: I've just been having a browse of "Lukie's" church forum [link] and I've noticed something peculiar in the "member" list. Whilst our pastor wannabe had admitted on another of his multiplied forae (I've counted seven so far) that he was also "Demetrius", "DemirtiusDiotrophes", and "Luke735" (among others), he claimed he used these different names only in order to access this forum.

My reply:

The reason is really a very benign one. I created that forum for the members of our little group to enable them to chat or otherwise challenge what they were hearing so as to greater engage the listeners and ensure any and all questions were sufficiently answered.

In creating the forum I made the mistake of doing so when I was already logged in under another name in this forum. This meant that when the automated Aimoo forum creator processed the creation of the forum it retained the owner as the wrong name.

Ian continues to add two plus two and get 6 continually. I can only assume he is:

a)    Not smart enough to consider the possible reasons behind what he observes.

b)    He is smart enough, but cares not about anyone or anything but himself

c)    Intentionally lies and misleads in order to promote his false doctrines

d)    You fill in the rest!

On my site I have my phone number. Feel free to call anytime. (open invitation) People like Ian only have the courage to talk on these forums and lack the gusto to take part in open debates.

Perhaps a room at the university would be a fitting forum for such an occasion? I am sure it could be arranged. 

Ian went on to say…”Surprisingly (or perhaps not, given his honesty to date) old "Lukie" is listed as Forum Owner (under his "DemitirusDiotrophes" label), Moderator ("Demetrius") and Administrator ("Luke735"). Clearly he wishes to present the impression that there are more supporters for his little "church" than actually is the case. I'm begining to wonder whether "Lukie" could even lie straight in bed! Ian”

You know, Jesus is coming back very soon and such comments will be repeated in the light and in the open. If Ian had the first clue about real Christianity he would fear God. When I read his posts I do not see fear of God. I see the pride of the Pharisees. 

Enjoy yourself Ian.... for you have your reward!

Luke

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #100
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.

Date Posted:11/08/2009 10:52 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Tony/Luke/Demetrius/DemitriusDiotrophes/GWM/AJay97/MothmansGhost, etc.

Once again Ian is trying his dandest to manufacture conspiracies. Ian throwing mud continually will never make you look clean by comparison.

If anyone would know about "conspiracy theories", I suppose it'd be you, huh? British-Israel, Roman Catholicism, Pyramidology, etc. Anyway, when compared to you and your dodgy behaviour I come off looking as "white-as-snow" 

I've just been having a browse of "Lukie's" church forum [link] and I've noticed something peculiar in the "member" list. Whilst our pastor wannabe had admitted on another of his multiplied forae (I've counted seven so far) that he was also "Demetrius", "DemirtiusDiotrophes", and "Luke735" (among others), he claimed he used these different names only in order to access this forum.

My reply:

The reason is really a very benign one. I created that forum for the members of our little group to enable them to chat or otherwise challenge what they were hearing so as to greater engage the listeners and ensure any and all questions were sufficiently answered.

In creating the forum I made the mistake of doing so when I was already logged in under another name in this forum. This meant that when the automated Aimoo forum creator processed the creation of the forum it retained the owner as the wrong name.

Really? I thought you created that public forum as a PR stunt. Anyway, you seem to have repeated the mistake of logging in under the wrong identity quite a bit (didn't you do exactly the same thing at your "anti-Ian" forum a few times?). Wow. It must be quite a chore trying to keep up with who you're presenting yourself as being at any given point in time, eh, Sybil?

I seem to recall noting a couple of weeks ago, that you managed to change the many names after the fact on the "anti-Ian" forum easily enough, once you'd been exposed slipping between identities by one of your own members! In any case, what I think is that you're simply showing your capacity for "slippery truth telling" yet again. The point that I made in the CBox was that you used three of your many aliases and not just the two (one being by "accident", according to you), and that you gave each a different role. This demonstrates intent, not accident.

Ian continues to add two plus two and get 6 continually. I can only assume he is:

a)    Not smart enough to consider the possible reasons behind what he observes.

b)    He is smart enough, but cares not about anyone or anything but himself

c)    Intentionally lies and misleads in order to promote his false doctrines

d)    You fill in the rest!

Well, I did stop to consider the range of possible reasons behind the deception that I observed, but quickly came to the obvious conclusion. Unlike you, I don't "intentionally lies and misleads in order to promote his false doctrines", which you've done in spades on this forum over the past 18 months, using goodness knows how many aliases. And even if I wanted to, which I don't, I doubt I'd be able to keep up with you in this respect smiley9

On my site I have my phone number. Feel free to call anytime. (open invitation) People like Ian only have the courage to talk on these forums and lack the gusto to take part in open debates.

That's a bit rich coming from you, given that when you called me recently you out-and-out lied as to (a) your identity, and (b) the real reason for seeking the information you were after. Goose. In any case I'm more than happy to debate you in any forum that you'd like, even (especially) in your "church" in front of your "congregation". I'd simply like you to demonstrate here, first, that it wouldn't be a total waste of my time traveling to your town, with the end result being the shortest debate in recorded history! I do get the impression that you're neither bright nor over quick on the up-take, so if you can't marshal a reasonable argument with ample time to think, here, then how on earth would you be able to do so "on the hop" under live debating conditions, there?

(By the way, I've known your phone numbers, and a range of other information about you, for several weeks now)

You know, Jesus is coming back very soon and such comments will be repeated in the light and in the open. If Ian had the first clue about real Christianity he would fear God. When I read his posts I do not see fear of God. I see the pride of the Pharisees.

And in your own comments I see naught but the idiocy of the ignoranti. However, and in case you hadn't noticed, all of my comments are "in the light, and in the open". And if you feared God half as much as you'd like to imply, then I doubt that you'd be as consistently dishonest and deceitful as you have been.

Enjoy yourself Ian.... for you have your reward!

Indeed I do. Eternal life into the future and a heap of chuckles at the expense of your shenanigans in the present!

Now shall we summarise your established character thus far? In a few short weeks you've been caught out lying, deceiving, playing the hypocrite and stealing. Such behaviour clearly makes you a liar, a deceiver, a hypocrite and a thief! Add to this heretic and I wonder how on earth you think you can fill the role of "pastor"?!

Goose.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.