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:17/01/2008 4:22 AMCopy HTML

All,

Anyone remotely interested in reading a handful of perfect examples of how not to interpret Scripture (or perhaps, "How to Read the Bible without Engaging the Brain") could do worse than to browse through Brad Smith's offerings at the BRF website! I've just had a look at his latest piece, "God's True Rest and Refreshing"; and I was actually laughing out loud before I finished the second paragraph [EMOTE]smiley-laughing.gif[/EMOTE]

But to be serious for a moment, there seems to be something of a trend appearing in the recent published works of TRF pastors, and the trend isn't positive. So how do you RF-er's do it?! How do you allow yourselves to be led by men who are so very clearly lacking in the simple skills and intellectual honesty that's needed to adequately handle God's Word? [EMOTE]smiley-undecided.gif[/EMOTE]

Amazed!

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #51
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:07/03/2008 2:20 AMCopy HTML

Bloke,

This is going to be fun!

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

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

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

Izzat so? Okaaayyyy. Now you do realise, don't you, that Luke wrote his Acts of the Apostles in Greek, and that it was to such that I was pointing you? Eh?

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

Nah. My 'best shot' would likely take your head clean off your shoulders! Innocent But to return to the fray, a question: have you any idea about the wealth of history that stands behind this very issue? (clearly this is a rhetorical question, as it's equally obvious that you don't). So, why don't you spend a moment or several reflecting on the following, rather well known piece of wisdom: "those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat its errors". Or perhaps you might find a 'pearl' or two in the Christian "application" of the former, which Spurgeon made in his equally famous quip: "I am forever amazed at those who prize so highly what they believe it is that the Holy Spirit speaks to them, and yet treat with such contempt what He has shared with others beforehand." In other words, perhaps you suspend judgment on the value of the early commentators until you first gain some familiarity with them and their circumstances Wink

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

Ha, ha, ha! I can't wait! Laughing

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

"Silly little theologian"?! Fair enough. Well now, here's my response, you silly little Revivalist Wink It's completely irrelevant what you might think certain of the English translations present on the subject at hand, given that each and every one of them remains an interpretative translation of what it is that God chose to record in Greek! That's right, boy-o Greek! Kiss Consequently, the authoritative Christian New Testament isn't the one that is found in English dress, or in German, or in French dress my remarkably naive friend. The authoritative Christian New Testament remains the one that is clad in the clothes that God provided: koine Greek.

oooh was that too snooty! ;)

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

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

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #52
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:07/03/2008 2:51 AMCopy HTML

MM

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

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

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

MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #53
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:07/03/2008 5:33 AMCopy HTML

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

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

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

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

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

[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
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #54
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:07/03/2008 6:05 AMCopy HTML

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

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

Mooth & Roost

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

Have a great weekend M&R, we have a long w/end here in downtown Adelaide - Yipee!
Urch
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
Male Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #55
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:15/03/2007 9:26 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:07/03/2008 2:20 PMCopy HTML

Hey Lurch

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

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

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

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

*  Hillsong don't take communion anymore.

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

AoG was first against Toronto but later embraced it. 

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

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

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

ABC RADIO NATIONAL, November 1997

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

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

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

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

Levin Pg 132

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

Well I have much more information about this AoG group. 

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

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

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




 

GAL 5 v 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

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:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:07/03/2008 8:50 PMCopy HTML

Male Member,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dare I say it? "Typical!"

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #57
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:07/03/2008 9:35 PMCopy HTML

Yo MM,

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

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

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

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

PS If I were you I'd be focused on your own 'corner of the vineyard'. God knows there's enough 'log in that eye' to keep RF'rs busy for some time Cry
Male Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #58
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:15/03/2007 9:26 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:09/03/2008 8:17 AMCopy HTML

Sheeesh guys don't get shirty!

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

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

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

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

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

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

GAL 5 v 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #59
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:09/03/2008 8:56 AMCopy HTML

Male Member,

I simply treasure a person who can make me laugh! Laughing

Sheeesh guys don't get shirty!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #60
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:09/03/2008 1:21 PMCopy HTML

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urchin


Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #61
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:09/03/2008 9:04 PMCopy HTML

MM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, congrats, I've responded. No more though, until you offer something sensible. I need to 'redeem my time'.
Male Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #62
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:15/03/2007 9:26 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:12/03/2008 2:21 PMCopy HTML

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark 16:17
 [ Greek Font Size:  / + | Toggle Font ] [ View in: BYZ / TR | Side-by-side | Greek Lexical Parser ]<!--
[ Personal Notes: Add ] -->
And these signs shall follow (5692) them that believe (5660) ; In my name shall they cast out (5692) devils; they shall speak (5692) with new tongues;

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





GAL 5 v 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #63
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:12/03/2008 9:15 PMCopy HTML

Hi MM

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

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

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

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

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

Mark 16:17 
And these signs shall follow (5692) them that believe (5660) ; In my name shall they cast out (5692) devils; they shall speak (5692) with new tongues;

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

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

Anyway to the points you raise.

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

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

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

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

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


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



Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #64
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:12/03/2008 9:20 PMCopy HTML

Dude,

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

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

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #65
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:12/03/2008 10:03 PMCopy HTML

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

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

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

Eric


Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #66
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:13/03/2008 2:55 AMCopy HTML

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

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

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

Eric
______________________________________________________________________________________

Eric,

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

Urchin

Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #67
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:13/03/2008 3:42 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Disciple (16/01/2008 22:22:33).

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

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

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

Eric



No I wanted save some typing..

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

Eric
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #68
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:13/03/2008 5:29 AMCopy HTML

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


.... except for that Tower of Babel incident when he authored all the confusion... lol
[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
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #69
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:13/03/2008 5:49 AMCopy HTML

Reply to MothandRust (17/01/2008 14:22:33).

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


.... except for that Tower of Babel incident when he authored all the confusion... lol
Touche!
 
Let me rephrase: I absolutely agree with 1 Co 14:33, and I also believe in the principle (as I understand it) of sola scriptura


Male Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #70
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:15/03/2007 9:26 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:13/03/2008 11:42 AMCopy HTML

Ian

No I'm not a Greek freak.

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

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

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

Would you say that the Bible leads people into error? 

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

 

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

 

The versions for those who came in  late were…

 

Contemporary English Version

New Living Translation

New Life Version   

New International Reader's Version

Wycliffe New Testament

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Bully for you!

GAL 5 v 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #71
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:13/03/2008 1:05 PMCopy HTML

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

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

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

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

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

What are your verses you're using for your argument anyway... from your English versions of scholars.
[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
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #72
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:13/03/2008 2:34 PMCopy HTML


Yo MM

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

If you're wise you'll learn from the new input from this forum, rather than ignore it.
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:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:13/03/2008 9:59 PMCopy HTML

Good morning MM,

No I'm not a Greek freak.

Heavens! Really?!

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

And you a Revivalist! Bloke, those woefully ignorant men that you call "pastor" are well known for their pathetic attempts at reinterpreting Scripture according to what they claim the original "Hebrew" or the "Greek" says. Men who haven't the first clue about Greek accidence or syntax, men who haven't the first idea about the canons of koine Greek grammar, but men who persist in wresting Scripture, "in the original Greek", in the vain attempt to  give credibility to their thoroughly indefensible and unbiblical doctrines.

The fact of the matter remains: that God chose to use Hebrew and Greek to record his revelation to mankind. Consequently, it remains the Hebrew and Greek that are the authoritative records of such revelation, and against which all theological interpretations, and against which all translations are to be assessed.

And finally, as RFOTE has pointed out to you repeatedly, a close reading of the various English versions fully supports my explanation! I can only assume that you lack the simple English comprehension skills needed to ascertain as much, or that you're so blinded by your Revivalist nonsensethat you can't see six inches beyond your own nose. Neither is particularly comforting.

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

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

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

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

Would you say that the Bible leads people into error?

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


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


Yep, and I'm still waiting.


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


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


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


Okay. I'm left with the very distinct impression that you haven't been following this conversation. At all Undecided


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


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


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

 

You are a disappointment.

 

Ian


email: didaktikon@gmail.com
cruel twist Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #74
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/10/2006 5:26 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:14/03/2008 7:09 AMCopy HTML

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


OOOOOUCH!!!  Would hate to be a Revivalist reading this. Don't these guys know when they are beaten??
"Try not to burn the toast"
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #75
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:14/03/2008 11:06 AMCopy HTML

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

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

Urch
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
Male Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #76
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:15/03/2007 9:26 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:14/03/2008 3:11 PMCopy HTML

Oh such flowery words and bluster!

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

43And He took it and ate before them.

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

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

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

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

   
 48And ye are witnesses of these things.

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

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

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

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

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


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

GAL 5 v 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #77
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:14/03/2008 8:39 PMCopy HTML

MM,

You really do present yourself as being a thoroughly silly twit!

To begin with, the essay that Unkoolman has linked to this site, is one that has been doing the rounds throughout Australia for a while. Your pastors all know about it, many of them have a copy of it. Unkoolman asked to link it here some time ago, but I wanted to get an idea of how widely it was being distributed in the early days. The fact is, I simply can't devote the time anymore necessary to responding to all the emails requesting copies of the thing
Laughing

Second, and with respect to your continued misunderstanding of matters, why don't you try reading what I actually had to say (and this time try looking at the context) before you go shooting your mouth off and proving to all and sundry just how ignorant you are? Having done so, you might then try responding with something substantive. I won't hold my breath, however, as experience has demonstrated that you're well out of your depth with all of this.

But think about it anyway, m'kay?

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #78
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:14/03/2008 9:11 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Male Member (17/01/2008 14:22:33).

Oh such flowery words and bluster!

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

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


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

On another note ... It appears that the proof-texting tendencies that we seem to pick up from RF are preventing your accurate comprehension of both Ian's document and the bible. Consider the old adage about how to interpret 'GODISNOWHERE'.
Male Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #79
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:15/03/2007 9:26 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:15/03/2008 3:45 AMCopy HTML

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

Dear reader please consider...

Good News translation

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

The Complete Jewish Bible

 

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

God’s Word Translation  Acts 2

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

Weymouth New Testament   Acts 2

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

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


 

GAL 5 v 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #80
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:15/03/2008 5:40 AMCopy HTML

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


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

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

One says you must speak in jumble, while the other says you must speak in jehovah.
[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 #81
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:15/03/2008 6:21 AMCopy HTML

Dude,

The reason these people aren't in Revival is that they don't hold to the Word of God.

Really? Well, speaking for myself, the reason that I'm not in "Revival" (a misnomer if ever there was one) is because I do hold to the Word of God. And, of course, I understand it too.

Truth is, we don't want their nonsense in our fellowship.

What? The Word of God?

I have presented 5 Bible translations to support my view that ALL the believers spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost.

The sad bit is that you don't even understand why your position with respect to the "5 Bible translations" is so stupid Cry

That's not good enough for this mob. The Bible should be the END of the argument. Not for this mob.

It is for me. Which is why I keep raising it with you. But with you, the "end" clearly isn't Scripture at all, it's your personal "experience".

And not that it would do any good in this forum but here are some MORE expert translations that support this view. Ian hasn't come up with ONE SINGLE translation that supports HIS view.

I think you'll find that I've already disproved your position. Others are smart enough to understand why, clearly though, you aren't. Your problem, not mine
Wink

Dear reader please consider...

Good News translation

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

Guess what? The words "all the believers" doesn't appear in the original Greek text. Anywhere. In any manuscript.

God’s Word Translation Acts 2

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

Guess what? The words "all the believers" doesn't appear in the original Greek text. Anywhere. In any manusript.

Weymouth New Testament Acts 2

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

'Yep'. "They" had all met in one place. Guess who the "they" refers to? Any ideas yet?

You're not arguing with me. This is the Word of God.

Actually 'nope'. It isn't the Word of God at all, simply your (as I've said before) thoroughly stupid misrepresentation of the same
Undecided

Hey guys you've tried the put downs, maybe if you start swearing at me I'll go away........ maybe... hahahahaha

Interesting. I'd prefer that you stayed. You've much to learn.

Blessings,

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:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:15/03/2008 6:31 AMCopy HTML


That's not good enough for this mob. The Bible should be the END of the argument. Not for this mob.
And not that it would do any good in this forum but here are some MORE expert translations that support this view.


Scriptures? Cool, let's have a look.

Good News translation -
 Acts 21 When Pentecost, the fiftieth day after Passover, came, all the believers were together in one place. 2 Suddenly, a sound like a violently blowing wind came from the sky and filled the whole house where they were staying.
 
Hey, MaleMember did you get the sound of violent blowing wind in your experience? Is that the testimony of all the believers of Revival?

3 Tongues that looked like fire appeared to them. The tongues arranged themselves so that one came to rest on each believer. 
 
Hey MaleMember, did you get the little tongues of fire resting on you? Be honest. No? Hmmm... No one has ever testified of this other than renaissance artists. Nice paintings and literary device, but nah... not happening is it?

4 All the believers were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit gave them the ability to speak.

Hey MaleMember, did you speak in other languages, or just a repetitive jumble of sounds? Be honest.

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

Hey MM, did you get the ability to speak in foreign languages? Is this a common experience of all who speak in tongues and are 'saved' in your church... or is it all shigida shigida? Again, be honest with yourself and others reading.

You're not arguing with me. This is the Word of God.

Yes OK. I'm looking straight at your English versions and I'm not seeing much match up at all with your 'experience', to start with.

Hey guys you've tried the put downs, maybe if you start swearing at me I'll go away... maybe... hahahahaha

No, stay as long as you're prepared to discuss your beliefs. It's very interesting and  well, after adding up all the put downs, I can safely conclude that yours outnumber everyone elses so don't be confused it there's tit for tat. What if we use the swear words in the King James bible? Pisseth and bastards - hehe.

So yes, don't go away, stay and 'fellowship' with us here and bring some more scriptures to look at, but if you're gonna make like a pigeon that continually craps on the chess board you can eventually 'pisseth' off thank you very much.

(Pigeon quote: No matter how well you set up the rules the Reivalist will fly in knock over all the pieces, cluck a great deal, crap all over the board, and fly off claiming victory.)

Regards
[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:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:15/03/2008 10:00 AMCopy HTML

Hi, Pete.

No, he said you 'present yourself' as a twit.  I used to present myself as Santa Claus in  Myers by my appearance. We recognise the twittyness because most of us spent many years in Revival and remember what life was like wearing the 'blinkers'. You may not be an actual twit, but your  'presentation' thus far speaks for itself. Ignoring the actual Greek text is, in itself, fairly stupid. Not to say you are stupid... get the distinction?

There's a saying that gets trotted around (tongue-in-cheek) by biblical scholars from time-to-time: "... if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then clearly it's a camel pretending to be a duck!" Somehow I don't think 'MM' is actually pretending, if you catch my drift Wink

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #84
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:15/03/2008 11:07 AMCopy HTML

Wait, is this GWM? Don't lie... it makes baby Jesus cry. Your problem really is ignorance and like my favourite scripture says (yes, I have a favourite scripture) in Hosea 4:6 - My people are destroyed through lack of knowledge.

You're going to be a cocky misinformed guy for a very long time as long as you're only listening to the same tarred friends, and you'll only develop the same fruit if you limit yourself to the scripture skimming english translations only. It's the 'glory of kings' to search out a matter, afterall.

Even your oversight (the guys with ties) will tell you that english words have been added by the translators here and there, and it doesn't take much study to discover which ones they are. Eg. (a known Revival example) Mark 9:29 - Jesus said a certain type of demon could only be exorcised through "prayer and fasting", but the word 'fasting' in NOT found in the oldest manuscripts and because of this discovery New English translations have dropped the word.

You can find more examples here - http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm but then I know it's a whole lot easier to stick with what you know with your head in the sand... until you run out of oxygen that is.

All the best.
[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 #85
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:16/03/2008 1:15 AMCopy HTML

Male Member,

Now that my essay is available for dowload from this site, and that you clearly have begun to read it, 'hows-about' you engage me on the issues that I've raised therein? Although I know that it might be a little 'high-brow' for you, and although I appreciate that it forces you to actually think, I'd still like to see something definitive from you that presents the faintest glimmer demonstrating that you actually understand the issues involved.

A handful of RF pastors have responded to me on the essay so far. And with one notable exception, they demonstrate a profound inability to grapple with the biblical text in a way that is honest. Their preference, instead, is to follow the: "... I was told that I would speak in tongues, and I did!", mantra
Undecided This simply reinforces to me that the Bible, Holy Writ, Scripture is not the ultimate authority in your fellowship. Personal experience enjoys that elevated position.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #86
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:16/03/2008 9:44 AMCopy HTML

The reason these people aren't in Revival is that they don't hold to the Word of God.

RF'rs take note. This is a typical smear tactic used by some (particulalrly immature examples) of your leaders. First who are 'they'? Second, what does 'hold to the Word of God' really mean. Sure some posters at this site are not Christian and so, quite rationally do not consider the bible to be Holy Writ. Others, however most certainly do consider the bible to be God's Holy Writ. You can see that for yourselves. I for one do, and it is because I do, that I consider the RF 'no tongues => no Holy Spirit' is unscriptural. I aim to have the bible as my 'rule of faith'.

Is 'don't hold to the Word of God' really code for 'don't agree with RF interpretation of the bible'? If so, well, duuuh.

RF'rs do you realise that when someone leaves your fellowship, and you are not allowed to speak with them, you don't hear their side of the story, you don't hear from them what their attitude is to the bible.. Remember the furphys (not to say untruths) put out in some RCI's about what was going on in the assemblies that eventually banded together under the RF banner?

Truth is, we don't want their nonsense in our fellowship.

Smear tactic alert for RF'rs! Who are 'we'? Is MM qualified to speak on behalf of 'we'? What specifically is the 'nonsense'? Whose nonsense is this referring to? This site has postings from people with all sorts of belief systems and even the Christians come from a range of 'denominations'.

BTW RF'rs Read through the '2 questions' thread if haven't done so already and you want some more clues as to why MM's claim that the bible translations he nominated 'support his view that ALL believers spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost' is more than a wee bit suspect.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #87
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:17/03/2008 1:25 AMCopy HTML

Ian

No I'm not a Greek freak.

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




Lets face one fact. The Greek New Testament is the witness, NOT ANY OF THE VARIOUS ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS ON OFFER.... and I am amazed at how a day doesn't go by that I am now finding interesting gems contained within the Greek Text that the translaters have completely missed altogether due to misunderstanding of important grammer points such as "mood" and "tense" etc and I have to admit that I have many upon many miles to go before I can catch up to Ian in this area of theology.... For me, Greek is a beautiful language and it was written in Koine because that was the international tongue at that time and I feel that God intended it to be in Koine, because He wanted His word to be clearly understood.. Get one thing clear. When you read an english translation, you read through the eyes of a translater but get some formal Greek learning and you will soon see otherwise. I can understand now why Ian chooses to do his devotional reading from just the Greek alone. The Greek is just so nourishing to the human heart in a way that the English will never do.

Eric
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:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:17/03/2008 9:21 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Eric.

Lets face one fact. The Greek New Testament is the witness, NOT ANY OF THE VARIOUS ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS ON OFFER....

Correct.

and I am amazed at how a day doesn't go by that I am now finding interesting gems contained within the Greek Text that the translaters have completely missed altogether due to misunderstanding of important grammer points such as "mood" and "tense" etc

Well, I think you might be being a little harsh with the Bible translators Wink For one thing, they are generally extraordinarily competent at handling Greek; they well understand the minutiae of Greek grammar too, and note well that meaning doesn't necessarily reside simply with "mood" and/or "tense" (in isolation). The fact is, Bible translation is a complex issue. Translation committees must take God's revelation and convert it from source language (Hebrew and Greek) into a receptor language (such as English), but then in such a way as to make it 'smooth' and 'readable'. This is no mean feat! And the average believer simply doesn't want to read a version that contains a running commentary of translational/grammatical/syntactical/exegetical issues that better exposits the text. People are generally content with turning to commentaries for this sort of detail Cool

and I have to admit that I have many upon many miles to go before I can catch up to Ian in this area of theology....

Shucks! Embarassed

For me, Greek is a beautiful language and it was written in Koine because that was the international tongue at that time and I feel that God intended it to be in Koine, because He wanted His word to be clearly understood.. Get one thing clear. When you read an english translation, you read through the eyes of a translater but get some formal Greek learning and you will soon see otherwise.

I agree. The benefits of being able to read Scripture in the 'original' are massive for those who are prepared to labour for the years needed to develop the required level of competence. Because Greek is inflected, I find it is often more precise than English is, in certain respects at least.

I can understand now why Ian chooses to do his devotional reading from just the Greek alone.

Sure. But to be brutally honest, in the earlier years disciplining myself to study Scripture in Hebrew and Greek really was a chore! It was hard! But the effort eventually paid off, to the point where I can read the Bible 'devotionally', as originally written. But such isn't for everyone. Statistically, 75% of people who learn Greek as part of their ministerial or theological studies don't continue to actively use the language a mere three years after graduation. Things are even more dire with respect to Hebrew, where a whopping 95% (!!!) never regularly pick up their BHS after graduation Cry

The Greek is just so nourishing to the human heart in a way that the English will never do.

I disagree. Reading the English Bible is every bit as 'nourishing' as is reading Scripture in Hebrew or Greek. One simply needs to have access to a greater range of contextual tools, that's all.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Male Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #89
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:15/03/2007 9:26 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:18/03/2008 6:47 AMCopy HTML

This is fun!  Now the Greeks are arguing! lol

I'm not against people learning Greek, just for the record.

Eric, could you please clairfy WHICH Greek NT is THE witness?

Are you a Textus Receptus man or a Byzantine?  You make it sound as if there is ONE witness that you stand on.

Ian, I would also like your opinon... AFTER Eric gives his.

Mothman, lots of questions there but I know your core issues are much wider than that.  And yeah I reckon you'd be A LOT OLDER than me! hehe

The main reason I am here is to bring some ideas that might not have been considered by forum members.

And ROTE, throwing nine English translations in the bin ay?  I'll get you the phone numbers of the theologians who worked on these publications and you can explain to them your theories on Textual Criticism. 
And your professional qualifications would be?  Can I say nutter on here?
GAL 5 v 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

Male Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #90
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:15/03/2007 9:26 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:18/03/2008 7:22 AMCopy HTML

Oh sorry that should say... you present yourself as a nutter.  That makes it okay hey guys?
GAL 5 v 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #91
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:18/03/2008 7:54 AMCopy HTML

Mothman, lots of questions there but I know your core issues are much wider than that.  And yeah I reckon you'd be A LOT OLDER than me! hehe

I'm sure of it.

Nutter..? Surely we'll be progressing past the name calling at some stage.

The main reason I am here is to bring some ideas that might not have been considered by forum members.

Some ideas we weren't savvy to after a lifetime in the Revival system? What ideas have these been so far? Ignore the Greek text? ummm... yeah, great idea.. not

Oh, what was another idea... The United Pentecostals get a thumbs up?

Hmm, you're an ideas man, for sure. hehe
[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
Akriboo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #92
  • Rank:Not quite new
  • Score:770
  • Posts:37
  • From:Australia
  • Register:16/03/2008 7:03 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:18/03/2008 8:59 AMCopy HTML

Reply To Male Member
Date Posted: 18/03/2008 01:22:34)

MM, have you read or considered Ian's exegetical and theological evaluation re Revivalist dogma and the book of Acts?

If you have then you must acknowledge that it makes sense...even without the use of Greek. The intended audience, manner and purpose makes sense.

This direction would seem to naturally follow if taken in conjunction with the intended purpose. Consider John 20:22. The Revival theory and teaching is that the word 'breathed'  means 'emphasized'. Thus Revial would teach that Jesus emphasized to the deciples the Holy Gohst.

Let me ask you, who are the deciples? It is clear from these and the following passages all the way to the end of chapter 21 that jesus was talking to the Apostles. Hence on the day of Pentacost, the Apostles (not the 120) were expecting the Holy Spirit which Jesus emphasized to them earlier in the Gospel according to John.

It follows with the logic that Ian has stated in his paper. Perhaps you may want to read it?

God bless in your journey

Akriboo


RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #93
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:18/03/2008 9:48 AMCopy HTML

MM

And ROTE, throwing nine English translations in the bin ay?

Wow, where did you get that idea? For the sake of newcomers I don't in any way shape of form think any of the translations mentioned in this thread should be thrown in any bin. Check the thread and I'll resile from any such remark you find.

I'll get you the phone numbers of the theologians who worked on these publications and you can explain to them your theories on Textual Criticism.

Hey you're encroaching on my snideness territory. Actually, my understanding of translation theories might be appropriate, but I can't see what I've said that relates to textual criticism. (Verstanden sie?)

And your professional qualifications would be?

Grow up. I've presented myself as a Christian layman. What about yours?

Can I say nutter on here?

Is this your sense of humour again? I don't really care what you call me here as long as you don't call me late for dinner. I would like to know though what evidence you have for that thought.


... Do you have any idea how foolish and unattractive you are as a representative of RF? (Especially in that 2nd last post of yours before you started 'joking' with me) ... Do you realise that it's really, really obvious that you've diverted from your 120 vs apostles-only goal? ... Please, for your own sake, take a good hard look at yourself.
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #94
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:18/03/2008 11:40 AMCopy HTML

RFOTE to MM ... Do you have any idea how foolish and unattractive you are as a representative of RF?
 ___________________________________________________________________________

Dunno about anyone else but I think MM sounds just right for a representative of RF!

Let's not forget that maybe in the past we've all been a bit guilty of being the same (when we were "RF'ed")  Most of us just accepted and believed whatever we were fed and didn't think to question the oversight, let alone to check scripture for ourselves. It was just so easy to read INTO scripture what we 'thought' it said - or worse, what we WANTED it to say cos then it fitted in with our doctrine. Thank God that we eventually all began questioning and researching for ourselves! Maybe even the fact that MM posts on this forum is a start for him - at least he's brave enough to do what his oversight forbid him to do.

I wouldn't be letting MM's attitude bother you too much rfote - he enjoys making personal attacks because that is how HE is treated in RF. There's a saying that's very appropriate, 'the God we know is the God we show'. When people are only shown a God of judgement, fear, control etc then that is the God they show (in their fruits) to others. But when we come to know a God of love, mercy, compassion, love and grace, then that is the God we show (in our fruits) to others.

Urch
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
Akriboo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #95
  • Rank:Not quite new
  • Score:770
  • Posts:37
  • From:Australia
  • Register:16/03/2008 7:03 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:18/03/2008 11:52 AMCopy HTML

 

Good on you Urch, not only do I like what you said, but agree with you.


Now the hardest part, can we be doers of the word??


Akriboo

RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #96
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:18/03/2008 12:19 PMCopy HTML

 Urch, Akriboo

Cool. MM's comments are pretty much water off a duck's back.  Still, when I was a 'true believer' I *always* tried to maintain a rational approach (even though I was deluded) and virtually all my current RF associates are the same. One reason I respond is to make certain things obvious to RF observers.

Yeah it *is* good that he would defy his oversight and post, but not all RF's come the heavy on that sort of thing.
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:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:18/03/2008 9:59 PMCopy HTML

MM,

You really are a goose! Undecided There's an old saying that you might care to reflect upon: "arrogance is inversely proportional to intelligence", and you're presenting as being very, very arrogant
Wink

Now, as I recall before you started to go down the ad hom argument path, this discussion was about Pentecost and the Twelve. Have you anything new to bring to the table? Laughing

Blessings,

Ian

P.S. There's a really good discussion going on about this subject elsewhere in this part of the forum. You might care to read-up on in a bit.

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Male Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #98
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:15/03/2007 9:26 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:19/03/2008 6:17 AMCopy HTML

Ian

 

I have read and understood your hypothesis and other threads.  Just because I don’t agree with your view doesn’t mean I don’t understand your theory.

 

I have seen that some theologians support your view. If you were honest you would admit your theory isn’t the dominant view of theologians.

 

There can be only ONE truth.

 

I have provided nine scholarly Bible translations that clearly indicate ALL the disciples spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost. 

 

Is there any point providing more evidence?

 

The answer is a resounding YES!  Because although I admit to being frivolous at times it is important that forum members get a wider range of views than what is provided by you.

 

Any honest researcher will soon see that the idea that ALL the disciples received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and spoke in tongues is not a unique Revival dogma and is supported by respected Theologians.

 

(And I see your cunning… because if this theological construct of yours falls over… and ALL the disciples spoke in tongues, you would have to rethink your whole soteriology.)

 

Your theory also goes against the whole message of the New Testament that salvation and the Holy Spirit is for ALL people of all nations as Peter also attests to in his Pentecost sermon.

 

Jesus’ teaching is clear that the gift of the Holy Spirit is available for ALL believers.  Not just for the leading disciples. 

 

Luke 11:13
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

 

John 7:39
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

 

That you argue the Holy Spirit was only given to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost shows you do not understand the ‘intent’ of the Author of salvation.

 

Now let me walk you through the first Theological commentaries that destroy your theory.

 

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

 


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

3. cloven tongues, like as of fire, &c.-"disparted tongues," that is, tongue-shaped, flame-like appearances, rising from a common center or root, and resting upon each of that large company:-beautiful visible symbol of the burning energy of the Spirit now descending in all His plenitude upon the Church, and about to pour itself through every tongue, and over every tribe of men under heaven!

 

15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

15. these are not drunken-meaning, not the Eleven, but the body of the disciples.

but the third hour-nine A.M. (see Ec 10:16; Isa 5:11; 1Th 5:17).

 

 

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

 


Chapter 2

 

Verses 1-4

We have here an account of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the disciples of Christ.

 

“It seems evident to me that not only the twelve apostles, but all the hundred and twenty disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost alike at this time-all the seventy disciples, who were apostolic men, and employed in the same work, and all the rest too that were to preach the gospel; for it is said expressly (Eph. 4:8, 11), When Christ ascended on high (which refers to this, v. 33), he gave gifts unto men, not only some apostles (such were the twelve), but some prophets and some evangelists (such were many of the seventy disciples, itinerant preachers), and some pastors and teachers settled in particular churches, as we may suppose some of these afterwards were. The all here must refer to the all that were together, v. 1; ch. 1:14, 15. 2.”

 

Wesley's Notes on the Bible

 


1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

 

They were all with one accord in one place - So here was a conjunction of company, minds, and place; the whole hundred and twenty being present.

 

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

2:4 And they began to speak with other tongues - The miracle was not in the ears of the hearers, (as some have unaccountably supposed,) but in the mouth of the speakers. And this family praising God together, with the tongues of all the world, was an earnest that the whole world should in due time praise God in their various tongues. As the Spirit gave them utterance - Moses, the type of the law, was of a slow tongue; but the Gospel speaks with a fiery and flaming one.

 

Other commentaries in support of ALL disciples receiving the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

 

Scofield, Darby, Gill

 

I also direct readers to the commentary on Acts by Dr. Bob Utley, a retired Professor of Hermeneutics with more than 16 years full-time university teaching experience in the U.S. and now an international Bible teacher.

 

I await your next post.  I note most members now have resorted to belittling my intelligence rather than providing anything meaningful to the discussion.

 

I have done the research.  I stand unmoved.
GAL 5 v 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #99
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:19/03/2008 9:02 AMCopy HTML

MM,

Oho! Thou thinkest thyself a scholar!?

Guess what? I'm actually inclined to humour you, to see how much rope you take. Let's begin then, shall we? So my fellow, how well versed are you in the scholarly debate on this issue, to warrant the assertion that my view isn't the dominant one? How many Greek grammars have you personally consulted? How many scholarly commentaries on Acts have you personally reviewed (and I don't mean the few 'devotional' ones that you've introduced recently, for no other reason than the fact that they're readily available on the internet)? Have many journals have you reviewed? How many biblical scholars and/or qualified theologians have you personally 'bounced' your ideas off, to test their validity? I pose these questions because if you've not engaged the necessary research 'spade-work' needed to substantiate your views, whatever statements you make don't amount to very much at all
Wink

There are many fine and very reputable scholars who hold to a position that is different to my own on this issue. A number of them are personal friends. Several are mentors of mine. And while we disagree, and no doubt will continue to disagree, we do so being fully conversant of the issues and the reasons that underpin each other's perspectives. I've personally engaged in scholarly debate with my peers at a level that far exceeds what you're currently capable of; therein we've thrashed-out issues that relate to this subject, and to our current passage, that haven't even entered into your consciousness! But in spite of our differences (which actually tend towards theological inferences rather than exegetical conclusions in any case), I've yet to come across a single scholar who believes as you do. Not a one. Not even among the cadre of Pentecostal biblical scholars. You see, contrary to your stated assertion, the number of people who experienced the manifestations at Pentecost isn't important to my soteriology. Not even tangentially! The number could have been 12, 120 or 1200 for all the relevance the issue has to orthodox teaching on salvation. What doesn't change, however, is that your own Revivalist position is crucially dependant on there having been more than simply the 12 apostles in view. Your theology hinges on this issue, not mine
Innocent

Now you continue to base your claim on your particular interpretation of our passage in any number of English Bible versions. I've been engaged in a conversation elsewhere on this site, that demonstrates that your 'reading-into' the passage is quite at odds with what the passage actually states. And I've given voluminous and detailed explanation and examples to support my view. But what do you bring to the table? Nothing more than a (very small) handful of devotional commentaries written by the likes of J-F-B and MH. These are supposed to shore-up your position?! You really are clutching at straws; I can quote significantly more credible modern and far more learned scholarly commentators that support the idea of the '120' than the very few you've presented! But I can also demonstrate where and why I believe they've erred in their judgments. But you?! Well. All I can suggest is that you go find a theological library somewhere, and spend some quality time acquainting yourself with the discussion, and with the material that is relevant to the same. If you come back with something substantial, then I'll devote more of my time to you. Until then, I can't see that it's worth my effort the truth be told
Undecided

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #100
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:Light reading - Discussion with Male Member of RF

Date Posted:19/03/2008 9:34 AMCopy HTML

MM

(And I see your cunning… because if this theological construct of yours falls over… and ALL the disciples spoke in tongues, you would have to rethink your whole soteriology.)

You can have the 120 tongues speakers if you like, and RF soteriology still is unbiblical and contradicts scripture. Ian's flagged some reasons already. Have you ever wondered why the vast majority of churches which preach the need to speak in tongues, believing in the 120, still say that one receives or is sealed with the Holy Spirit at the point of belief and confession? (Hint: It's not because they're imitating 'Romanism'.)

Personally, I still thought it was 120 when my last 'theological escape route to RF tongues doctrine' disappearred.

Your theory also goes against the whole message of the New Testament that salvation and the Holy Spirit is for ALL people of all nations as Peter also attests to in his Pentecost sermon.

The apostles-only pov does not imply that the Holy Spirit is only given to only some Christians, or even posit that only some of the 120 received the Spirit. Rather it posits that speaking in tongues did not accompany the receieving of the Spirit for all the 120.

Jesus' teaching is clear that the gift of the Holy Spirit is available for ALL believers.  Not just for the leading disciples. 

You know, I believe He (the Spirit) is much more integral to God's plan than just 'being available for all believers', but that's not the question. The real question (wrt soteriology) is whether (according to scripture) tongues universally accompanies Him.
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.