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.

Tony,

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

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

Tony,

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

Ian

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"/Tony Barton 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

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

'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.

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

Tony,

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

Tony,

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

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 himself^xxxi”.

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 1^st 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 5:13 “then 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 7:1 “the 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 7:6 “and 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 

Tony,

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 still 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 human 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. 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?

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

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

Tony,

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

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

Mr Barton,

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

Put simply, you're not particularly credible as 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

Tony,

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

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

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, 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?). I suppose it must be quite a challenge trying to keep up with who you're presenting yourself as being at any given point in time.

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 lie and mislead 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.

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 at home recently you out-and-out lied as to (a) your identity, and (b) the real reason for seeking the information you were after. Did you honestly believe I didn't 'twig' at the time? 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, 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?

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

Behind the Rhetoric

On several occasions now I have been verbally attacked for similar reasons. The basic summary of the claims are that I have created multiple user-names in order to give the illusion that my comments are either supported or accepted by others. The source of these claims has been, for the most part from Ian, Moth and Rust and Unkoolman. I have on occasion answered these claims with specific explanations that to date, have not resinated with those guys. Based on this, these guys have all openly labelled me a liar and deceiver.

I just wanted to go on record for a moment to convey a few thoughts.

1) On my forum “The former Revivalist Discussion Forum” I posted actual evidence of Ian lying to others on this site in June of this year. I have posted screen shots of the private messages etc; to substantiate my rebuke. I would appreciate it if Ian were to do the same. Anyone one can claim this or that, but where is the evidence? i.e. “Evidence of knowingly lying”

2) Perhaps Ian uses the term “liar” very loosely. In other words, if someone makes a mistake, typo or something like that; he takes opportunity to attack whomever with claims of liar etc to try to claim the high ground (so to speak). I don’t know? Your guess is as good as mine.

3) Most importantly I would like to discuss the motive behind the specific claims made thus far by Ian. At the heart of Ian claims is the value he places on the popular support of the fellow posters. In other word Ian believes that the many usernames that I have had derives from a desire that I have to garner support, real or imagined, for my posts.

In reality I do not desire support from anyone. Ian makes many suppositions as to my “Intent” but truth be told, how could he? Is he a mind reader now?

The point I am making is that obviously Ian sees the support of (and attention gained) from other posters as a “big deal” this is why his sole avenue of attack against me has been along these lines. He thinks that I am driven by this desire because that is what drives him.

In fact it would not have even occurred to me that there would be a perception that I was trying to gain support by means of different usernames until Ian accused me of it. As if I would care if people agreed with me! LOL

In contrast I posted “Evidence;” whereas Ian posted “Accusations”.

You see this is the world Ian lives in. His whole world seems to revolve around discussions on this site. His whole sense of self-worth (I would suggest) perhaps hinges on the support he gets from the likes of Moth and anyone else.

Compare to: Gal 6:3  For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. Gal 6:4  But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. Well; unlike Ian I am not here to please men, I am here to please God; and the moment God filled me with the Holy Ghost and Fire he wrote across my forehead, “I am pleased  with you” that is where I stand.

Recently Ian said “Such behaviour clearly makes you a liar, a deceiver, a hypocrite and a thief! Add to this you being a heretic and I wonder how on earth you think you can fill the role of "pastor"?!

Well I never said I was a Pastor and to date the only events that Ian has cited to substantiate his claims have been related to this issue. Specifically the issue of intent.

Put bluntly, I have never and will never try to create the appearance of multiple usernames in order to create the illusion of support or otherwise of my claims. I challenge Ian to find one example of me replying to myself under a different username. Until such I would suggest to all on this site that Ian is simply an “Accuser of the Brethren”

Consider the following:

Rev 12:7  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, Rev 12:8  And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. Rev 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Rev 12:10  And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren (with his angels; Ian) is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Rev 12:11  And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Rev 12:12  Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

As I said before Ian... I realise that you have a short time and the things that you value and the things that I value are as far away from each other as the east is from the west.

I hope that others reading this understand that Ian is a Pharisee and is quite happy to create his own manufactured evidence in the absence of the real thing.

This is not new….Mat 26:59  Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; Mat 26:60  But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,

Compare to 1Ki 21:10  And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.

In fact; If you want to have a good read as to the methods of our friendly little Pharisee read the story of Naboth’s Vineyard in Kings 21.

Compare this story to Kings 18 and the Story of Fire from Heaven. But that is for another day.

Ciao