Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Title: Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Speaking in Tongues	Go to subcategory：

Author	Content

Rank：Forum Oracle
Score：41550
Posts：1881
From：Australia
Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Date Posted：18/04/2007 3:57 PMCopy HTML

Speaking In Tongues - Rochelle D'Elia gives John Safrana healingActually, the woman in this clip wasn't on the show because she is spiritualist who believes the gibberish she speaks are the harmonics of sentient aliens with healing properties within the frequencies. She's not speaking in tongues; that's just the title of this Australian TV show, which features a guy and a Catholic priest discussing different forms of religion and spirituality (usually with much humor). This lady supposedly "feels a dual-consciousness through her 'extraterrestrial heritage' and uses sound and energy to heal on many levels. (weird.container id(Reply) comment_div_idcomment_div_idkeithguh(6 months ago)Interesting, I assumed it was Christians. I've encountered quite a few who do that same thing.

Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete

Rank：Forum Oracle
Score：41550
Posts：1881
From：Australia
Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：18/04/2007 4:57 PMCopy HTML

 
If this guy(the one speaking audibly)-(apparently on the side of the screen-) doesnt and never has believed in Jesus, where is this "tongues" ability from? and then... what if he does become a Christian and want the pentecostal "tongues"? This looks exacly the same as that!How do u know the difference? Is it REALLY THE PROOF of Jesus' Holy SPIRIT living in you?So what do u think of that UPC and Revival and other tongues-for-salvation people? 
If this is really an example of mindless "tongues" -(eg- not knowing what u said while u spoke it-)then it looks just like- or even MORE legitimate then a lot of "tongues" Ive seen! If that is really" tongues" and u dont believe in Jesus as your Saviour and never did- then here's proof ( along with Emily's "speakin in tongues" (also on u tube)-it proves that "tongues" is not proof that one has the Holy Spirit from God. 
If u like this video clip, watch ehenocha- " I speak in tongues." She raises a totally valid point about "tongues" not necessarily being from God. 

LOL I felt something! It sounded like an orgasm in hebrew! FUNNY! And so true. I've always taken "tongues" to mean languages ACTUALLY spoken on EARTH between people. In 'ACTS' the apostles speak in tongues - and the towns folk say something like "Hey, look at these guys, they're speaking my native language, but aren't they simple locals?"

Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete

Rank：Member IV
Score：1490
Posts：58
From：Unknown
Register：16/04/2007 12:27 PM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：21/04/2007 3:46 PMCopy HTML

Cat - Speaking in tongues!

Rank：Forum Oracle
Score：41550
Posts：1881
From：Australia
Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：31/03/2008 2:51 PMCopy HTML

Robert DeNiro in Cape Fear... speaking in ecstatic speech... 
Forgot about this one. 

I thought this movie was too taboo while I was a Revivalist, and avoided it. This is the final scene, so if you want to see the whole movie, avoid this spoiler.

Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete

Rank：Not quite new
Score：771
Posts：26
From：Australia
Register：29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：15/03/2010 10:11 AMCopy HTML

Hiya, Pete.

Darn those perfectly natural, strictly human emotions, eh?   "Shondai, rondai who stole my hyundai".

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Rank：Forum Oracle
Score：41550
Posts：1881
From：Australia
Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：26/04/2010 10:47 AMCopy HTML

More from the "Gibberish: anyone can do it" files...

An Italian singer wrote this song with gibberish to sound like English. 
If you've ever wondered what other people think Americans sound like, 
this is it.

And Ewok Karaoke... sing along with it!


 						 						 						 					See more funny videos and Music Videos at Today's Big Thing.
See more funny videos and Music Videos at Today's Big Thing.

Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete

Rank：Poster Venti III
Score：10810
Posts：347
From：Unknown
Register：05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：06/04/2011 1:17 PMCopy HTML

Speaking in Tongues Explained Part 1

Rank：Regular Rookier
Score：5980
Posts：293
From：Australia
Register：21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：06/04/2011 11:01 PMCopy HTML

 I'd suggest you don't waste your time. The following clangers within the first 2 min are enough to say "no more".

(1) Lets not worry about "what this scripture means, what that scripture means" ... let's just take a deep look at what the scripture says.
(2) Christ as in JC means annointER. (Clearly the preacher - Tony Barton - has missed the context of the title, and doesn't properly use, or ignores, koine Greek references.)

And that's after looking past the riduculous emphasis on the *authorised* version of the bible as source material in the initial graphic.

The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.

Rank：Regular Rookier
Score：5380
Posts：218
From：Australia
Register：30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：07/04/2011 12:41 AMCopy HTML

The Revivalist “Statement of Faith” 
 
Repent, be Baptised, receive the Holy Ghost with the Bible evidence of Speaking in Tongues”
 
“You MUST speak in tongues to be saved.”
 
Q. for Revs. What if a “saved” person who speaks in “tongues” falls away from the Lord and no longer believes, are  they still “saved” even though they continue to have the ability to speak in tongues? 
If not, why not? Speaking in tongues is evidence of salvation is it not? If yes……..?

Confusing, to say the least.

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Australia
Register：12/06/2009 4:43 AM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：08/04/2011 11:48 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Talmid 

 I'd suggest you don't waste your time. The following clangers within the first 2 min are enough to say "no more".

(1) Lets not worry about "what this scripture means, what that scripture means" ... let's just take a deep look at what the scripture says.
(2) Christ as in JC means annointER. (Clearly the preacher - Tony Barton - has missed the context of the title, and doesn't properly use, or ignores, koine Greek references.)

And that's after looking past the riduculous emphasis on the *authorised* version of the bible as source material in the initial graphic.



Talmid Said... (1) Lets not worry about "what this scripture means, what
that scripture means" ... let's just take a deep look at what the
scripture says.

Funny how people place a few loaded words around quotation marks in order to misrepresent
what is said in order to intentionally deceive. Not!
The actual quote is this:
“Let’s look at what the scripture says without spin, without saying, well this scripture
means this and that scripture means that, let’s just look deep into the
scripture and see what it says in straight out, strait talk”

Clearly it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that we should not be swayed by spin and
opinions. But as usual those who “Lie in wait to deceive” are not governed by
anything but the law of their own pride.

Now I’m sure you are not stupid Talmid, Are you?So I can only assume you have intentionally misled the readers here on Unkoolman’s site. Why
is that?

In short, sound bites are totally worthless in the absence of the full context.
I won’t bother with the rest of your nonsense, except to say if people want a balanced
POV on this issue they should take a look at the whole presentation on tongues
and then make their conclusions.

Luke 7:35

Rank：Poster Venti III
Score：10810
Posts：347
From：Unknown
Register：05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：08/04/2011 7:26 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Luke735 

Reply to Talmid 

 I'd suggest you don't waste your time. The following clangers within the first 2 min are enough to say "no more".

(1) Lets not worry about "what this scripture means, what that scripture means" ... let's just take a deep look at what the scripture says.
(2) Christ as in JC means annointER. (Clearly the preacher - Tony Barton - has missed the context of the title, and doesn't properly use, or ignores, koine Greek references.)

And that's after looking past the riduculous emphasis on the *authorised* version of the bible as source material in the initial graphic.



Talmid Said... (1) Lets not worry about "what this scripture means, what
that scripture means" ... let's just take a deep look at what the
scripture says.<!--?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /-->

Funny how people place a few loaded words around quotation marks in order to misrepresent
what is said in order to intentionally deceive. Not!
The actual quote is this:
“Let’s look at what the scripture says without spin, without saying, well this scripture
means this and that scripture means that, let’s just look deep into the
scripture and see what it says in straight out, strait talk”

Clearly it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that we should not be swayed by spin and
opinions. But as usual those who “Lie in wait to deceive” are not governed by
anything but the law of their own pride.

Now I’m sure you are not stupid Talmid, Are you?So I can only assume you have intentionally misled the readers here on Unkoolman’s site. Why
is that?

In short, sound bites are totally worthless in the absence of the full context.
I won’t bother with the rest of your nonsense, except to say if people want a balanced
POV on this issue they should take a look at the whole presentation on tongues
and then make their conclusions.

Luke 7:35

Talmid has got it right. 

All that long essay on Luke's  'page' is without any reference to source for any ideas which he has either convoluted himself or plagiarized elsewhere.  For example where does "Tony" get his idea from that "Christ" means "anointer" from??? Tony does not say and the truth is "Tony" must have made it up himself..

As Tony states:

"But as usual those who “Lie in wait to deceive” are not governed by
anything but the law of their own pride."

.. Yes Tony is a case of playing hypocrite here because hardly any of his nonsense is supported by sound objective research and source and instead the only thing he actually does source is 'cut and pastes' from a KJV text. 

Tony it is time for you to learn a sound academic fact. The Greek New Testament IS THE WITNESS !!!  The King James Version IS NOT the witness !! When you read a King James Bible, you are reading the text through the eyes of A King James translator !!!  ..  

I heard a fair slice of Tony's audio and Tony creates the dreadful eisegeses of cutting up Acts 2 and excluding and ignoring valuable inclusions from the Lukan historical account and then attempts to fool his own audience with it.  

Tony does not handle nor present his argument responsibly

Eric

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Australia
Register：12/06/2009 4:43 AM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：08/04/2011 10:52 PMCopy HTML

Good morning Eric

I realise you among others have a real hatred for everything Revival and I think that maybe this is
clouding your intellect especially for the detail.

You said: All that long essay on Luke’s ‘page’ is without any reference to source for any ideas which he has either convoluted himself or plagiarized elsewhere. 
I never once made any claim to be the originator of any idea. It was not a work that warranted any
referencing in any case. It is simply a presentation of the straight out teaching of the Bible. Save your complaints for Jesus when you stand before him.
For example where does "Tony" get his idea from that "Christ" means "anointer" from??? Tony
does not say and the truth is "Tony" must have made it up himself.
In answer to your question: In the Strong’s Concordance: G5547 Χριστός Christos; From G5548;
anointed, that is, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus: - Christ. 
G5548  χρίω chriō Probably akin to G5530 through the idea of contact; to smear or rub with oil, that is, (by implication) to consecrate to an office or religious service: - anoint.
I never once said that Christ or Χριστός Christos means “Anointer". What I did say is that Christ came to anoint therefore he was the anointer. Once again old chap…The detail!
As Tony states:"But as usual those who “Lie in wait to deceive” are not governed by anything but the law of their own pride."
Yes indeedie

Yes Tony is a case of playing hypocrite here because hardly any of his nonsense is supported by sound objective research and source and instead the only thing he actually does source is 'cut
and pastes' from a KJV text. 

Aar contraire I have once believed as you do but the Lord revealed the TRUTH the key is a humble
heart which is dreadfully lacking in your case. 
Tony it is time for you to learn a sound academic fact. The Greek New Testament IS THE WITNESS !!!  The King James Version IS NOT the witness !! When you read a King James Bible, you are reading the text through the eyes of A King James translator !!! .

Agreed, this is why I spend most of my time in the Greek, much more than I do reading the KJV. Indeed I read as much out of other versions as I do with the KJV. It’s just that 99% of our assembly uses the KJV or NKJV that’s all.
I heard a fair slice of Tony's audio and Tony creates the dreadful eisegeses of cutting up Acts 2 and excluding and ignoring valuable inclusions from the Lukan historical account and then
attempts to fool his own audience with it. 

Wrong again, you I would seem have simply bought into the Ian Thomason/orthodox, lukewarm, satanic version of the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
Tony does not handle nor present his argument responsibly
We’ll see when Jesus bursts through the clouds, Then we will see to whome Jesus says "Well done Good and FAITHFULL Servant"!!!
Luke 7:35
 

Rank：Not quite new
Score：771
Posts：26
From：Australia
Register：29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：09/04/2011 12:18 AMCopy HTML

Tony,

Rather than respond to each and every point that you think supports your POV, I'll limit myself to just a few this time around.

(Eric) For example where does "Tony" get his idea from that "Christ" means "anointer" from??? Tony does not say and the truth is "Tony" must have made it up himself.

In answer to your question: In the Strong’s Concordance: G5547 Χριστός Christos; From G5548; anointed, that is, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus: - Christ. G5548  χρίω chriō Probably akin to G5530 through the idea of contact; to smear or rub with oil, that is, (by implication) to consecrate to an office or religious service: - anoint. Strong's Concordance, huh? The sum total of your capacity in 'Greek' is what you can look up in the very out-of-date 'word list' at the back of "Strong's"? Very impressive; perhaps we should 'cap' and 'gown' you right away? Had I not beaten Eric to the punch, I'm sure he would have pointed out to you that the BDAG Greek-English Lexicon provides almost a column and a half of very detailed information concerning this word, which is, of course, considerably more than the single line that "Strong's" accords it. Noone who has gone to the trouble of learning Greek relies on "Strong's" word lists; it's to proper lexica such as the BAGD/BDAG, LSJ, and Abbott-Smith that we all turn. Twit.

(Eric) Tony it is time for you to learn a sound academic fact. The Greek New Testament IS THE WITNESS !!!  The King James Version IS NOT the witness !! When you read a King James Bible, you are reading the text through the eyes of A King James translator !!! .

Agreed, this is why I spend most of my time in the Greek, much more than I do reading the KJV. Indeed I read as much out of other versions as I do with the KJV. It’s just that 99% of our assembly uses the KJV or NKJV that’s all. Another bald-faced lie. You don't spend any time 'in the Greek', as you can't read a word of it. What you actually do is troll through the Strong's Concordance word lists, stupidly convincing yourself that doing so makes you as adept as any trained Greek scholar. You said as much in your 'response' to my large Acts essay. However, you clearly failed to understand that no language 'works' simply at the lexical level; meaning resides at the syntactical level: with clauses, sentences, paragraphs, etc. And "Strong's" is of absolutely no help whatsoever in this regard. However, even if we were to limit ourselves to simply individual lexemes, you're still unable to grasp meaning, given the fact of Greek morphology. "Strong's" only lists the 'dictionary' form of a word. It doesn't provide any detail with respect to how 'case', 'tense', 'voice', 'mood', or 'number' (for example) directly affects meaning, never mind more complex issues such as 'declension'. And what of the scores of grammatical rules that apply to Greek? How much help does "Strong's" give you at making sense of, for example, the interpretative effects that apply when the corollary to the 'Granville-Sharp Rule' is invoked? You haven't a clue, huh?

Now given that you've claimed for yourself a measure of 'competence' in Greek, please translate for me the following, very (very) simple example. You won't find it if you try to 'Google' it, nor will 'Babelfish' be of much use to you:

Eίσαι ηλίθιος Αντώνιος, 'εχω συναντήσει τους εξυπνώτερους βράχους.

(Eric) I heard a fair slice of Tony's audio and Tony creates the dreadful eisegeses of cutting up Acts 2 and excluding and ignoring valuable inclusions from the Lukan historical account and then attempts to fool his own audience with it. 

Wrong again, you I would seem have simply bought into the Ian Thomason/orthodox, lukewarm, satanic version of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. That's quite the charge given that I've comprehensively disproven every single ridiculous Revivalist theory that you've ever raised on this board. My 'lukewarm' version of the Gospel is apparently far more reliable, demonstrable and credible than is your recently invented heresy. 

When all is said and done, one of us is competent in correctly handling and interpreting God's Word. The other is named Tony Barton.

Goose.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Australia
Register：12/06/2009 4:43 AM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：09/04/2011 1:55 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon 

Tony,

Rather than respond to each and every point that you think supports your POV, I'll limit myself to just a few this time around.

(Eric) For example where does "Tony" get his idea from that "Christ" means "anointer" from??? Tony does not say and the truth is "Tony" must have made it up himself.

In answer to your question: In the Strong’s Concordance: G5547 Χριστός Christos; From G5548; anointed, that is, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus: - Christ. G5548  χρίω chriō Probably akin to G5530 through the idea of contact; to smear or rub with oil, that is, (by implication) to consecrate to an office or religious service: - anoint. Strong's Concordance, huh? The sum total of your capacity in 'Greek' is what you can look up in the very out-of-date 'word list' at the back of "Strong's"? Very impressive; perhaps we should 'cap' and 'gown' you right away? Had I not beaten Eric to the punch, I'm sure he would have pointed out to you that the BDAG Greek-English Lexicon provides almost a column and a half of very detailed information concerning this word, which is, of course, considerably more than the single line that "Strong's" accords it. Noone who has gone to the trouble of learning Greek relies on "Strong's" word lists; it's to proper lexica such as the BAGD/BDAG, LSJ, and Abbott-Smith that we all turn. Twit.

(Eric) Tony it is time for you to learn a sound academic fact. The Greek New Testament IS THE WITNESS !!!  The King James Version IS NOT the witness !! When you read a King James Bible, you are reading the text through the eyes of A King James translator !!! .

Agreed, this is why I spend most of my time in the Greek, much more than I do reading the KJV. Indeed I read as much out of other versions as I do with the KJV. It’s just that 99% of our assembly uses the KJV or NKJV that’s all. Another bald-faced lie. You don't spend any time 'in the Greek', as you can't read a word of it. What you actually do is troll through the Strong's Concordance word lists, stupidly convincing yourself that doing so makes you as adept as any trained Greek scholar. You said as much in your 'response' to my large Acts essay. However, you clearly failed to understand that no language 'works' simply at the lexical level; meaning resides at the syntactical level: with clauses, sentences, paragraphs, etc. And "Strong's" is of absolutely no help whatsoever in this regard. However, even if we were to limit ourselves to simply individual lexemes, you're still unable to grasp meaning, given the fact of Greek morphology. "Strong's" only lists the 'dictionary' form of a word. It doesn't provide any detail with respect to how 'case', 'tense', 'voice', 'mood', or 'number' (for example) directly affects meaning, never mind more complex issues such as 'declension'. And what of the scores of grammatical rules that apply to Greek? How much help does "Strong's" give you at making sense of, for example, the interpretative effects that apply when the corollary to the 'Granville-Sharp Rule' is invoked? You haven't a clue, huh?

Now given that you've claimed for yourself a measure of 'competence' in Greek, please translate for me the following, very (very) simple example. You won't find it if you try to 'Google' it, nor will 'Babelfish' be of much use to you:

Eίσαι ηλίθιος Αντώνιος, 'εχω συναντήσει τους εξυπνώτερους βράχους.

(Eric) I heard a fair slice of Tony's audio and Tony creates the dreadful eisegeses of cutting up Acts 2 and excluding and ignoring valuable inclusions from the Lukan historical account and then attempts to fool his own audience with it. 

Wrong again, you I would seem have simply bought into the Ian Thomason/orthodox, lukewarm, satanic version of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. That's quite the charge given that I've comprehensively disproven every single ridiculous Revivalist theory that you've ever raised on this board. My 'lukewarm' version of the Gospel is apparently far more reliable, demonstrable and credible than is your recently invented heresy. 

When all is said and done, one of us is competent in correctly handling and interpreting God's Word. The other is named Tony Barton.

Goose.

Ian

Hello Ian, hows the wife n kids? Long tiime no speak. Hope all is well in your life. After all its the only one you have, best that you cherish it.  You have your reward Pharisee!
Luke 7:35

Rank：Not quite new
Score：771
Posts：26
From：Australia
Register：29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：09/04/2011 1:58 AMCopy HTML

Tony,

You have your reward Pharisee! Too many difficult points and questions-without-adequate-answers to respond to, huh? Πόσο ηλίθιος μπορεί ένα άτομο να είναι και εξακολουθεί να αναπνεύσει;

Goose.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Rank：Poster Venti III
Score：10810
Posts：347
From：Unknown
Register：05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：09/04/2011 3:57 AMCopy HTML

 Ian

εχω συναντήσει τους εξυπνώτερους βράχους.

lol, but even rocks, at least, can be metamorphic. 

Rank：Not quite new
Score：771
Posts：26
From：Australia
Register：29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：09/04/2011 3:59 AMCopy HTML

Modgod,

lol, but even rocks, at least, can be metamorphic. Ha, ha, ha. I thought you'd get a chuckle out of that one.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Rank：Poster Venti III
Score：10810
Posts：347
From：Unknown
Register：05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：09/04/2011 6:48 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon 

Howdy Ianos.

(Eric) For example where does "Tony" get his idea from that "Christ" means "anointer" from??? Tony does not say and the truth is "Tony" must have made it up himself.

In answer to your question: In the Strong’s Concordance: G5547 Χριστός Christos; From G5548; anointed, that is, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus: - Christ. G5548  χρίω chriō Probably akin to G5530 through the idea of contact; to smear or rub with oil, that is, (by implication) to consecrate to an office or religious service: - anoint. Strong's Concordance, huh? The sum total of your capacity in 'Greek' is what you can look up in the very out-of-date 'word list' at the back of "Strong's"? Very impressive; perhaps we should 'cap' and 'gown' you right away? Had I not beaten Eric to the punch, I'm sure he would have pointed out to you that the BDAG Greek-English Lexicon provides almost a column and a half of very detailed information concerning this word, which is, of course, considerably more than the single line that "Strong's" accords it. Noone who has gone to the trouble of learning Greek relies on "Strong's" word lists; it's to proper lexica such as the BAGD/BDAG, LSJ, and Abbott-Smith that we all turn. Twit.

Indeed Ian,

The TDNT devotes 87 pages to this subject and family of words and so far I can't find any reference to "anointer". It appears that the title (and role) "Anointed" is exclusively appointed to Jesus alone !!! But now you have got my brain cracking into 'think mode' because of the celebrity evangelist (and triumphalism) circle going around the preaching circuits telling everyone that they are "anointed". It seems from BDAG AND TDNT (for those who need explanation: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament or commonly called "Kittels) are very focused in their discussions on Jesus alone and so it seems that rather as Christians in a corporate body, we share in the anointing that belongs to the anointed one who is Jesus alone. For example page 569 Volume 9

"Being the Messiah means that Jesus leads His own, who receive life by listening to His Word in faith and who are united to Him as His community. His Messiahship is set forth under the metaphor of the Shepherd whose power is superior to the destructive force of death and of the rule of this world being grounded in His unity with God." 

I suggest that yes we all have differing roles and functions and giftings etc but all operating together under a single entity of life that belongs to Jesus Christ alone..   

When all is said and done, one of us is competent in correctly handling and interpreting God's Word. The other is named Tony Barton.

Goose.

Ian

Good on you Ian.

Eric

Rank：Not quite new
Score：771
Posts：26
From：Australia
Register：29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：10/04/2011 12:20 AMCopy HTML

Eric,

If I may briefly resort to Revivalist 'proof-texting' for a moment, well might the 'Rock' have had Tony Barton in mind when he penned 2 Peter 2:17 (paraphrased as he was by the Lord's brother in Jude 1:12). It simply beggars belief that Barton's sect takes the twit seriously as a Bible 'expositor'. I suppose the strength of 'Revivalism' is to be found in weak and pliable minds.

אין להכחיש את ההשפעה של הנפש חלשה על מוחות חלשים

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Vatican_city
Register：30/01/2009 2:36 AM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：11/04/2011 2:56 AMCopy HTML

Hi, All.

While Tony Barton looks like the leader and internet champion of this latest revival sect, the behind-the-scenes mentor of Barton's is ex-RCI & ex-RF pastor John Kirwood, who also preaches there. This might explain why there is no difference of any importance between Barton's group and your average "mainline revivalist group". 4 decades of revivalism is a straightjacket which is not easy to remove.

Regards,
SinTaxError

Rank：Regular Rookier
Score：5980
Posts：293
From：Australia
Register：21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：11/04/2011 4:36 AMCopy HTML

 Hi Tony,

I'm really not sure how I could intentionally mislead people, given that there is a link to your presentation. It's also a little uncharitable that the only explanation that you can think of was that I was intentionally misleading people.

All that aside, it seems you've missed the point. In context you hypocritically dismissed other people's understanding of the "deep" meaning of scripture as mere "spin" while you proclaimed *your* right to present *your own* understanding as a "deep" perspective that "this means that".

PS I don't think *you're* intentionally hypocrticical, just foolish and somewhat arrogant.

The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.

Rank：Poster Venti III
Score：10810
Posts：347
From：Unknown
Register：05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube

Date Posted：11/04/2011 9:37 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon 

Eric,

If I may briefly resort to Revivalist 'proof-texting' for a moment, well might the 'Rock' have had Tony Barton in mind when he penned 2 Peter 2:17 (paraphrased as he was by the Lord's brother in Jude 1:12). It simply beggars belief that Barton's sect takes the twit seriously as a Bible 'expositor'. I suppose the strength of 'Revivalism' is to be found in weak and pliable minds.

אין להכחיש את ההשפעה של הנפש חלשה על מוחות חלשים

Blessings,

Ian

Ιανος,

Weak all right... Yes the Gospel of Mathew states : " και στησει τα μεν προβατα εκ δεξιον αυτου τα δε εριφια εξ ευωνυμων. "

Εριχ

MothandRust
Rank：Forum Oracle Score：41550 Posts：1881 From：Australia Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM	Date Posted：18/04/2007 3:57 PMCopy HTML Speaking In Tongues - Rochelle D'Elia gives John Safrana healingActually, the woman in this clip wasn't on the show because she is spiritualist who believes the gibberish she speaks are the harmonics of sentient aliens with healing properties within the frequencies. She's not speaking in tongues; that's just the title of this Australian TV show, which features a guy and a Catholic priest discussing different forms of religion and spirituality (usually with much humor). This lady supposedly "feels a dual-consciousness through her 'extraterrestrial heritage' and uses sound and energy to heal on many levels. (weird.container id(Reply) comment_div_idcomment_div_idkeithguh(6 months ago)Interesting, I assumed it was Christians. I've encountered quite a few who do that same thing. Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete
MothandRust	Share to: #1
Rank：Forum Oracle Score：41550 Posts：1881 From：Australia Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：18/04/2007 4:57 PMCopy HTML If this guy(the one speaking audibly)-(apparently on the side of the screen-) doesnt and never has believed in Jesus, where is this "tongues" ability from? and then... what if he does become a Christian and want the pentecostal "tongues"? This looks exacly the same as that!How do u know the difference? Is it REALLY THE PROOF of Jesus' Holy SPIRIT living in you?So what do u think of that UPC and Revival and other tongues-for-salvation people? If this is really an example of mindless "tongues" -(eg- not knowing what u said while u spoke it-)then it looks just like- or even MORE legitimate then a lot of "tongues" Ive seen! If that is really" tongues" and u dont believe in Jesus as your Saviour and never did- then here's proof ( along with Emily's "speakin in tongues" (also on u tube)-it proves that "tongues" is not proof that one has the Holy Spirit from God. If u like this video clip, watch ehenocha- " I speak in tongues." She raises a totally valid point about "tongues" not necessarily being from God. LOL I felt something! It sounded like an orgasm in hebrew! FUNNY! And so true. I've always taken "tongues" to mean languages ACTUALLY spoken on EARTH between people. In 'ACTS' the apostles speak in tongues - and the towns folk say something like "Hey, look at these guys, they're speaking my native language, but aren't they simple locals?" Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete
Tiffany Roche	Share to: #2
Rank：Member IV Score：1490 Posts：58 From：Unknown Register：16/04/2007 12:27 PM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：21/04/2007 3:46 PMCopy HTML Cat - Speaking in tongues!
MothandRust	Share to: #3
Rank：Forum Oracle Score：41550 Posts：1881 From：Australia Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：31/03/2008 2:51 PMCopy HTML Robert DeNiro in Cape Fear... speaking in ecstatic speech... Forgot about this one. I thought this movie was too taboo while I was a Revivalist, and avoided it. This is the final scene, so if you want to see the whole movie, avoid this spoiler. Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete
Didaktikon	Share to: #4
Rank：Not quite new Score：771 Posts：26 From：Australia Register：29/08/2007 7:54 AM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：15/03/2010 10:11 AMCopy HTML Hiya, Pete. Darn those perfectly natural, strictly human emotions, eh? "Shondai, rondai who stole my hyundai". Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
MothandRust	Share to: #5
Rank：Forum Oracle Score：41550 Posts：1881 From：Australia Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：26/04/2010 10:47 AMCopy HTML More from the "Gibberish: anyone can do it" files... An Italian singer wrote this song with gibberish to sound like English. If you've ever wondered what other people think Americans sound like, this is it. And Ewok Karaoke... sing along with it! See more funny videos and Music Videos at Today's Big Thing. See more funny videos and Music Videos at Today's Big Thing. Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete
Uncoolman	Share to: #6
Rank：Poster Venti III Score：10810 Posts：347 From：Unknown Register：05/04/2003 2:38 PM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：06/04/2011 1:17 PMCopy HTML Speaking in Tongues Explained Part 1
Talmid	Share to: #7
Rank：Regular Rookier Score：5980 Posts：293 From：Australia Register：21/04/2008 10:04 PM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：06/04/2011 11:01 PMCopy HTML I'd suggest you don't waste your time. The following clangers within the first 2 min are enough to say "no more". (1) Lets not worry about "what this scripture means, what that scripture means" ... let's just take a deep look at what the scripture says. (2) Christ as in JC means annointER. (Clearly the preacher - Tony Barton - has missed the context of the title, and doesn't properly use, or ignores, koine Greek references.) And that's after looking past the riduculous emphasis on the authorised version of the bible as source material in the initial graphic. The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Biblianut	Share to: #8
Rank：Regular Rookier Score：5380 Posts：218 From：Australia Register：30/11/2010 9:39 PM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：07/04/2011 12:41 AMCopy HTML The Revivalist “Statement of Faith” Repent, be Baptised, receive the Holy Ghost with the Bible evidence of Speaking in Tongues” “You MUST speak in tongues to be saved.” Q. for Revs. What if a “saved” person who speaks in “tongues” falls away from the Lord and no longer believes, are they still “saved” even though they continue to have the ability to speak in tongues? If not, why not? Speaking in tongues is evidence of salvation is it not? If yes……..? Confusing, to say the least. I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
Luke735	Share to: #9
Rank： Score：0 Posts：0 From：Australia Register：12/06/2009 4:43 AM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：08/04/2011 11:48 AMCopy HTML Reply to Talmid I'd suggest you don't waste your time. The following clangers within the first 2 min are enough to say "no more". (1) Lets not worry about "what this scripture means, what that scripture means" ... let's just take a deep look at what the scripture says. (2) Christ as in JC means annointER. (Clearly the preacher - Tony Barton - has missed the context of the title, and doesn't properly use, or ignores, koine Greek references.) And that's after looking past the riduculous emphasis on the authorised version of the bible as source material in the initial graphic. Talmid Said... (1) Lets not worry about "what this scripture means, what that scripture means" ... let's just take a deep look at what the scripture says. Funny how people place a few loaded words around quotation marks in order to misrepresent what is said in order to intentionally deceive. Not! The actual quote is this: “Let’s look at what the scripture says without spin, without saying, well this scripture means this and that scripture means that, let’s just look deep into the scripture and see what it says in straight out, strait talk” Clearly it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that we should not be swayed by spin and opinions. But as usual those who “Lie in wait to deceive” are not governed by anything but the law of their own pride. Now I’m sure you are not stupid Talmid, Are you? So I can only assume you have intentionally misled the readers here on Unkoolman’s site. Why is that? In short, sound bites are totally worthless in the absence of the full context. I won’t bother with the rest of your nonsense, except to say if people want a balanced POV on this issue they should take a look at the whole presentation on tongues and then make their conclusions. Luke 7:35
Uncoolman	Share to: #10
Rank：Poster Venti III Score：10810 Posts：347 From：Unknown Register：05/04/2003 2:38 PM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：08/04/2011 7:26 PMCopy HTML Reply to Luke735 Reply to Talmid I'd suggest you don't waste your time. The following clangers within the first 2 min are enough to say "no more". (1) Lets not worry about "what this scripture means, what that scripture means" ... let's just take a deep look at what the scripture says. (2) Christ as in JC means annointER. (Clearly the preacher - Tony Barton - has missed the context of the title, and doesn't properly use, or ignores, koine Greek references.) And that's after looking past the riduculous emphasis on the authorised version of the bible as source material in the initial graphic. Talmid Said... (1) Lets not worry about "what this scripture means, what that scripture means" ... let's just take a deep look at what the scripture says.<!--?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /--> Funny how people place a few loaded words around quotation marks in order to misrepresent what is said in order to intentionally deceive. Not! The actual quote is this: “Let’s look at what the scripture says without spin, without saying, well this scripture means this and that scripture means that, let’s just look deep into the scripture and see what it says in straight out, strait talk” Clearly it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that we should not be swayed by spin and opinions. But as usual those who “Lie in wait to deceive” are not governed by anything but the law of their own pride. Now I’m sure you are not stupid Talmid, Are you? So I can only assume you have intentionally misled the readers here on Unkoolman’s site. Why is that? In short, sound bites are totally worthless in the absence of the full context. I won’t bother with the rest of your nonsense, except to say if people want a balanced POV on this issue they should take a look at the whole presentation on tongues and then make their conclusions. Luke 7:35 Talmid has got it right. All that long essay on Luke's 'page' is without any reference to source for any ideas which he has either convoluted himself or plagiarized elsewhere. For example where does "Tony" get his idea from that "Christ" means "anointer" from??? Tony does not say and the truth is "Tony" must have made it up himself.. As Tony states: "But as usual those who “Lie in wait to deceive” are not governed by anything but the law of their own pride." .. Yes Tony is a case of playing hypocrite here because hardly any of his nonsense is supported by sound objective research and source and instead the only thing he actually does source is 'cut and pastes' from a KJV text. Tony it is time for you to learn a sound academic fact. The Greek New Testament IS THE WITNESS !!! The King James Version IS NOT the witness !! When you read a King James Bible, you are reading the text through the eyes of A King James translator !!! .. I heard a fair slice of Tony's audio and Tony creates the dreadful eisegeses of cutting up Acts 2 and excluding and ignoring valuable inclusions from the Lukan historical account and then attempts to fool his own audience with it. Tony does not handle nor present his argument responsibly Eric
Luke735	Share to: #11
Rank： Score：0 Posts：0 From：Australia Register：12/06/2009 4:43 AM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：08/04/2011 10:52 PMCopy HTML Good morning Eric I realise you among others have a real hatred for everything Revival and I think that maybe this is clouding your intellect especially for the detail. You said: All that long essay on Luke’s ‘page’ is without any reference to source for any ideas which he has either convoluted himself or plagiarized elsewhere. I never once made any claim to be the originator of any idea. It was not a work that warranted any referencing in any case. It is simply a presentation of the straight out teaching of the Bible. Save your complaints for Jesus when you stand before him. For example where does "Tony" get his idea from that "Christ" means "anointer" from??? Tony does not say and the truth is "Tony" must have made it up himself. In answer to your question: In the Strong’s Concordance: G5547 Χριστός Christos; From G5548; anointed, that is, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus: - Christ. G5548 χρίω chriō Probably akin to G5530 through the idea of contact; to smear or rub with oil, that is, (by implication) to consecrate to an office or religious service: - anoint. I never once said that Christ or Χριστός Christos means “Anointer". What I did say is that Christ came to anoint therefore he was the anointer. Once again old chap…The detail! As Tony states:"But as usual those who “Lie in wait to deceive” are not governed by anything but the law of their own pride." Yes indeedie Yes Tony is a case of playing hypocrite here because hardly any of his nonsense is supported by sound objective research and source and instead the only thing he actually does source is 'cut and pastes' from a KJV text. Aar contraire I have once believed as you do but the Lord revealed the TRUTH the key is a humble heart which is dreadfully lacking in your case. Tony it is time for you to learn a sound academic fact. The Greek New Testament IS THE WITNESS !!! The King James Version IS NOT the witness !! When you read a King James Bible, you are reading the text through the eyes of A King James translator !!! . Agreed, this is why I spend most of my time in the Greek, much more than I do reading the KJV. Indeed I read as much out of other versions as I do with the KJV. It’s just that 99% of our assembly uses the KJV or NKJV that’s all. I heard a fair slice of Tony's audio and Tony creates the dreadful eisegeses of cutting up Acts 2 and excluding and ignoring valuable inclusions from the Lukan historical account and then attempts to fool his own audience with it. Wrong again, you I would seem have simply bought into the Ian Thomason/orthodox, lukewarm, satanic version of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Tony does not handle nor present his argument responsibly We’ll see when Jesus bursts through the clouds, Then we will see to whome Jesus says "Well done Good and FAITHFULL Servant"!!! Luke 7:35
Didaktikon	Share to: #12
Rank：Not quite new Score：771 Posts：26 From：Australia Register：29/08/2007 7:54 AM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：09/04/2011 12:18 AMCopy HTML Tony, Rather than respond to each and every point that you think supports your POV, I'll limit myself to just a few this time around. (Eric) For example where does "Tony" get his idea from that "Christ" means "anointer" from??? Tony does not say and the truth is "Tony" must have made it up himself. In answer to your question: In the Strong’s Concordance: G5547 Χριστός Christos; From G5548; anointed, that is, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus: - Christ. G5548 χρίω chriō Probably akin to G5530 through the idea of contact; to smear or rub with oil, that is, (by implication) to consecrate to an office or religious service: - anoint. Strong's Concordance, huh? The sum total of your capacity in 'Greek' is what you can look up in the very out-of-date 'word list' at the back of "Strong's"? Very impressive; perhaps we should 'cap' and 'gown' you right away? Had I not beaten Eric to the punch, I'm sure he would have pointed out to you that the BDAG Greek-English Lexicon provides almost a column and a half of very detailed information concerning this word, which is, of course, considerably more than the single line that "Strong's" accords it. Noone who has gone to the trouble of learning Greek relies on "Strong's" word lists; it's to proper lexica such as the BAGD/BDAG, LSJ, and Abbott-Smith that we all turn. Twit. (Eric) Tony it is time for you to learn a sound academic fact. The Greek New Testament IS THE WITNESS !!! The King James Version IS NOT the witness !! When you read a King James Bible, you are reading the text through the eyes of A King James translator !!! . Agreed, this is why I spend most of my time in the Greek, much more than I do reading the KJV. Indeed I read as much out of other versions as I do with the KJV. It’s just that 99% of our assembly uses the KJV or NKJV that’s all. Another bald-faced lie. You don't spend any time 'in the Greek', as you can't read a word of it. What you actually do is troll through the Strong's Concordance word lists, stupidly convincing yourself that doing so makes you as adept as any trained Greek scholar. You said as much in your 'response' to my large Acts essay. However, you clearly failed to understand that no language 'works' simply at the lexical level; meaning resides at the syntactical level: with clauses, sentences, paragraphs, etc. And "Strong's" is of absolutely no help whatsoever in this regard. However, even if we were to limit ourselves to simply individual lexemes, you're still unable to grasp meaning, given the fact of Greek morphology. "Strong's" only lists the 'dictionary' form of a word. It doesn't provide any detail with respect to how 'case', 'tense', 'voice', 'mood', or 'number' (for example) directly affects meaning, never mind more complex issues such as 'declension'. And what of the scores of grammatical rules that apply to Greek? How much help does "Strong's" give you at making sense of, for example, the interpretative effects that apply when the corollary to the 'Granville-Sharp Rule' is invoked? You haven't a clue, huh? Now given that you've claimed for yourself a measure of 'competence' in Greek, please translate for me the following, very (very) simple example. You won't find it if you try to 'Google' it, nor will 'Babelfish' be of much use to you: Eίσαι ηλίθιος Αντώνιος, 'εχω συναντήσει τους εξυπνώτερους βράχους. (Eric) I heard a fair slice of Tony's audio and Tony creates the dreadful eisegeses of cutting up Acts 2 and excluding and ignoring valuable inclusions from the Lukan historical account and then attempts to fool his own audience with it. Wrong again, you I would seem have simply bought into the Ian Thomason/orthodox, lukewarm, satanic version of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. That's quite the charge given that I've comprehensively disproven every single ridiculous Revivalist theory that you've ever raised on this board. My 'lukewarm' version of the Gospel is apparently far more reliable, demonstrable and credible than is your recently invented heresy. When all is said and done, one of us is competent in correctly handling and interpreting God's Word. The other is named Tony Barton. Goose. Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Luke735	Share to: #13
Rank： Score：0 Posts：0 From：Australia Register：12/06/2009 4:43 AM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：09/04/2011 1:55 AMCopy HTML Reply to Didaktikon Tony, Rather than respond to each and every point that you think supports your POV, I'll limit myself to just a few this time around. (Eric) For example where does "Tony" get his idea from that "Christ" means "anointer" from??? Tony does not say and the truth is "Tony" must have made it up himself. In answer to your question: In the Strong’s Concordance: G5547 Χριστός Christos; From G5548; anointed, that is, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus: - Christ. G5548 χρίω chriō Probably akin to G5530 through the idea of contact; to smear or rub with oil, that is, (by implication) to consecrate to an office or religious service: - anoint. Strong's Concordance, huh? The sum total of your capacity in 'Greek' is what you can look up in the very out-of-date 'word list' at the back of "Strong's"? Very impressive; perhaps we should 'cap' and 'gown' you right away? Had I not beaten Eric to the punch, I'm sure he would have pointed out to you that the BDAG Greek-English Lexicon provides almost a column and a half of very detailed information concerning this word, which is, of course, considerably more than the single line that "Strong's" accords it. Noone who has gone to the trouble of learning Greek relies on "Strong's" word lists; it's to proper lexica such as the BAGD/BDAG, LSJ, and Abbott-Smith that we all turn. Twit. (Eric) Tony it is time for you to learn a sound academic fact. The Greek New Testament IS THE WITNESS !!! The King James Version IS NOT the witness !! When you read a King James Bible, you are reading the text through the eyes of A King James translator !!! . Agreed, this is why I spend most of my time in the Greek, much more than I do reading the KJV. Indeed I read as much out of other versions as I do with the KJV. It’s just that 99% of our assembly uses the KJV or NKJV that’s all. Another bald-faced lie. You don't spend any time 'in the Greek', as you can't read a word of it. What you actually do is troll through the Strong's Concordance word lists, stupidly convincing yourself that doing so makes you as adept as any trained Greek scholar. You said as much in your 'response' to my large Acts essay. However, you clearly failed to understand that no language 'works' simply at the lexical level; meaning resides at the syntactical level: with clauses, sentences, paragraphs, etc. And "Strong's" is of absolutely no help whatsoever in this regard. However, even if we were to limit ourselves to simply individual lexemes, you're still unable to grasp meaning, given the fact of Greek morphology. "Strong's" only lists the 'dictionary' form of a word. It doesn't provide any detail with respect to how 'case', 'tense', 'voice', 'mood', or 'number' (for example) directly affects meaning, never mind more complex issues such as 'declension'. And what of the scores of grammatical rules that apply to Greek? How much help does "Strong's" give you at making sense of, for example, the interpretative effects that apply when the corollary to the 'Granville-Sharp Rule' is invoked? You haven't a clue, huh? Now given that you've claimed for yourself a measure of 'competence' in Greek, please translate for me the following, very (very) simple example. You won't find it if you try to 'Google' it, nor will 'Babelfish' be of much use to you: Eίσαι ηλίθιος Αντώνιος, 'εχω συναντήσει τους εξυπνώτερους βράχους. (Eric) I heard a fair slice of Tony's audio and Tony creates the dreadful eisegeses of cutting up Acts 2 and excluding and ignoring valuable inclusions from the Lukan historical account and then attempts to fool his own audience with it. Wrong again, you I would seem have simply bought into the Ian Thomason/orthodox, lukewarm, satanic version of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. That's quite the charge given that I've comprehensively disproven every single ridiculous Revivalist theory that you've ever raised on this board. My 'lukewarm' version of the Gospel is apparently far more reliable, demonstrable and credible than is your recently invented heresy. When all is said and done, one of us is competent in correctly handling and interpreting God's Word. The other is named Tony Barton. Goose. Ian Hello Ian, hows the wife n kids? Long tiime no speak. Hope all is well in your life. After all its the only one you have, best that you cherish it. You have your reward Pharisee! Luke 7:35
Didaktikon	Share to: #14
Rank：Not quite new Score：771 Posts：26 From：Australia Register：29/08/2007 7:54 AM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：09/04/2011 1:58 AMCopy HTML Tony, You have your reward Pharisee! Too many difficult points and questions-without-adequate-answers to respond to, huh? Πόσο ηλίθιος μπορεί ένα άτομο να είναι και εξακολουθεί να αναπνεύσει; Goose. Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Uncoolman	Share to: #15
Rank：Poster Venti III Score：10810 Posts：347 From：Unknown Register：05/04/2003 2:38 PM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：09/04/2011 3:57 AMCopy HTML Ian εχω συναντήσει τους εξυπνώτερους βράχους. lol, but even rocks, at least, can be metamorphic.
Didaktikon	Share to: #16
Rank：Not quite new Score：771 Posts：26 From：Australia Register：29/08/2007 7:54 AM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：09/04/2011 3:59 AMCopy HTML Modgod, lol, but even rocks, at least, can be metamorphic. Ha, ha, ha. I thought you'd get a chuckle out of that one. Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Uncoolman	Share to: #17
Rank：Poster Venti III Score：10810 Posts：347 From：Unknown Register：05/04/2003 2:38 PM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：09/04/2011 6:48 AMCopy HTML Reply to Didaktikon Howdy Ianos. (Eric) For example where does "Tony" get his idea from that "Christ" means "anointer" from??? Tony does not say and the truth is "Tony" must have made it up himself. In answer to your question: In the Strong’s Concordance: G5547 Χριστός Christos; From G5548; anointed, that is, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus: - Christ. G5548 χρίω chriō Probably akin to G5530 through the idea of contact; to smear or rub with oil, that is, (by implication) to consecrate to an office or religious service: - anoint. Strong's Concordance, huh? The sum total of your capacity in 'Greek' is what you can look up in the very out-of-date 'word list' at the back of "Strong's"? Very impressive; perhaps we should 'cap' and 'gown' you right away? Had I not beaten Eric to the punch, I'm sure he would have pointed out to you that the BDAG Greek-English Lexicon provides almost a column and a half of very detailed information concerning this word, which is, of course, considerably more than the single line that "Strong's" accords it. Noone who has gone to the trouble of learning Greek relies on "Strong's" word lists; it's to proper lexica such as the BAGD/BDAG, LSJ, and Abbott-Smith that we all turn. Twit. Indeed Ian, The TDNT devotes 87 pages to this subject and family of words and so far I can't find any reference to "anointer". It appears that the title (and role) "Anointed" is exclusively appointed to Jesus alone !!! But now you have got my brain cracking into 'think mode' because of the celebrity evangelist (and triumphalism) circle going around the preaching circuits telling everyone that they are "anointed". It seems from BDAG AND TDNT (for those who need explanation: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament or commonly called "Kittels) are very focused in their discussions on Jesus alone and so it seems that rather as Christians in a corporate body, we share in the anointing that belongs to the anointed one who is Jesus alone. For example page 569 Volume 9 "Being the Messiah means that Jesus leads His own, who receive life by listening to His Word in faith and who are united to Him as His community. His Messiahship is set forth under the metaphor of the Shepherd whose power is superior to the destructive force of death and of the rule of this world being grounded in His unity with God." I suggest that yes we all have differing roles and functions and giftings etc but all operating together under a single entity of life that belongs to Jesus Christ alone.. When all is said and done, one of us is competent in correctly handling and interpreting God's Word. The other is named Tony Barton. Goose. Ian Good on you Ian. Eric
Didaktikon	Share to: #18
Rank：Not quite new Score：771 Posts：26 From：Australia Register：29/08/2007 7:54 AM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：10/04/2011 12:20 AMCopy HTML Eric, If I may briefly resort to Revivalist 'proof-texting' for a moment, well might the 'Rock' have had Tony Barton in mind when he penned 2 Peter 2:17 (paraphrased as he was by the Lord's brother in Jude 1:12). It simply beggars belief that Barton's sect takes the twit seriously as a Bible 'expositor'. I suppose the strength of 'Revivalism' is to be found in weak and pliable minds. אין להכחיש את ההשפעה של הנפש חלשה על מוחות חלשים Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
SintaxError	Share to: #19
Rank： Score：0 Posts：0 From：Vatican_city Register：30/01/2009 2:36 AM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：11/04/2011 2:56 AMCopy HTML Hi, All. While Tony Barton looks like the leader and internet champion of this latest revival sect, the behind-the-scenes mentor of Barton's is ex-RCI & ex-RF pastor John Kirwood, who also preaches there. This might explain why there is no difference of any importance between Barton's group and your average "mainline revivalist group". 4 decades of revivalism is a straightjacket which is not easy to remove. Regards, SinTaxError
Talmid	Share to: #20
Rank：Regular Rookier Score：5980 Posts：293 From：Australia Register：21/04/2008 10:04 PM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：11/04/2011 4:36 AMCopy HTML Hi Tony, I'm really not sure how I could intentionally mislead people, given that there is a link to your presentation. It's also a little uncharitable that the only explanation that you can think of was that I was intentionally misleading people. All that aside, it seems you've missed the point. In context you hypocritically dismissed other people's understanding of the "deep" meaning of scripture as mere "spin" while you proclaimed your right to present your own understanding as a "deep" perspective that "this means that". PS I don't think you're intentionally hypocrticical, just foolish and somewhat arrogant. The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Uncoolman	Share to: #21
Rank：Poster Venti III Score：10810 Posts：347 From：Unknown Register：05/04/2003 2:38 PM	Re：Speaking in tongues videos on YouTube Date Posted：11/04/2011 9:37 AMCopy HTML Reply to Didaktikon Eric, If I may briefly resort to Revivalist 'proof-texting' for a moment, well might the 'Rock' have had Tony Barton in mind when he penned 2 Peter 2:17 (paraphrased as he was by the Lord's brother in Jude 1:12). It simply beggars belief that Barton's sect takes the twit seriously as a Bible 'expositor'. I suppose the strength of 'Revivalism' is to be found in weak and pliable minds. אין להכחיש את ההשפעה של הנפש חלשה על מוחות חלשים Blessings, Ian Ιανος, Weak all right... Yes the Gospel of Mathew states : " και στησει τα μεν προβατα εκ δεξιον αυτου τα δε εριφια εξ ευωνυμων. " Εριχ