Is Speaking inTongues of the Devil?

Seth as long as your approach to the Bible is allegorical and not Biblical exegesis, along with a sound expository approach, then you can make the Bible say whatever you want. You can say white is black and black is white, but it won't work. You can argue your points until you are blue in the face, but with your allegorical approach to the Scriptures you could even insert Satan in there and claim you are right. We had a poster once who did such things. So I don't really take what you say seriously until you take the Bible literally, and the context of Scriture seriously.
DHK

 

The words are Spiritual, the letter kills.

Compare SPIRITUAL WITH SPIRITUAL.

I believe they are LITERALLY as the bible says "Spiritual"

Faith in what is seen is not faith at all.

I think I show it sharing Christ crucified and people as people and needing Him.

If you take it literally in the natural sense then you have yet to come to Mount Zion (an untouchable mount) yet very literal Spiritual reality for those in Christ.

The joylessness kind of makes that pretty clear though.

God bless

Seth3

 

That makes a lot of sense doesn't it??
No wonder you are confused.
DHK

 

I think that the RCC was the beginning of the destruction, or the attempt, of the the Bride of Christ.

They tried, but......we're still here!

MEE

 

Yes DHK it makes perfect sense to me. Something can be literal YET Spiritual. God Himself is Literally Spirit. Its make Him no less real Him being so.


Paul said we HAVE COME to MOUNT ZION. I'm standing on my kitchen floor at my computer literally but I'm also in my Spiritual Reality standing on Mount Zion which IS a Mountain that cannot be touched as SCRIPTURES SAY.

Your disagreement is not with me but scripture.

Faith in what is SEEN is not true faith at all.

By Faith Abraham could see Him who was invisible.


God bless

Seth3

 

Your allegorization of Scripture, and your unwillingness to study is shown in your quote above. Look how you mangled the Scriptures.

Hebrews 12:22-23 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

First, it does not say that it cannot be touched as you adamantly say. There is nothing in that verse that indicates that.

Secondly, "in reality" whether spiritually or physically, you are not presently standing on Mount Zion. The verse is speaking of those who look to it by faith.

As the context shows Mount Zion is a reality, a physical reality, where we will be in heaven. It refers to heaven, where the innumerable company of angels are. Where are the angels? In heaven of course? Where will be? In heaven of course. Your failure to study the Bible in its context shows your ignorance of it. It cannot be allegorized and have secret messages encoded into it as you believe it does.
DHK

 

Heb 12:18-19 For YE ARE NOT COME UNTO THE MOUNT THAT MIGHT BE TOUCHED, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which [voice] they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:

Mount Sion is a Spiritual Mount… if you not there by the letter of it then you might as well accept YOUR OWN WORDS that its not Spiritual

Heb 12: 22-23 BUT (((YE ARE COME))) TO MOUNT SION, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

No DHK we STAND BY FAITH this is symbolic of what Mt Zion represents Spiritually. Just men means God Justifies those by the Faith OF Christ, made perfect by the Blood of the Lamb.

Paul said Christ has already SEATED US IN THE HEAVENLY PLACES. (not when we get there). Wheres it say THAT?

The Children of the Ressurection are Children OF CHRIST because HE IS THE RESSURECTION and THEY are as the ANGELS of HEAVEN BECAUSE HE SEATED THEM THERE.

DHK "Up Down Up Down Up Down"


Seth3 says

I think your confused, scripture says We are seated there ALREADY.

No DHK its not coded, but it can be veiled. God keeps watch over knowledge. Its to His Glory to CONCEAL A MATTER but the Glory of Kings to SEARCH IT OUT.=Bereans Noble Character.

God bless

Seth3

 

Surely you jest. The Old English word "perfect" as well as the Greek word, means complete. By the end of the first century the New Testament had been completed with the writing of the last book, Revelation (ca. 98 A.D.) Thus the New Testament canon was perfected or completed. BTW, all the books were written in Greek. [qb]

 

Posted from Pedants' Corner (TM): actually, it was the Council of Hippo in 397. Otherwise, I agree... Teleos can mean a whole number of things - perfect, mature, complete, end-result, aim, goal, objective (n.) etc. To speculate on just one meaning is just that.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

To make this short and sweet, "..that which is perfect/complete" is the end of the gentile dispensation...or the rapture of *The Church.*

It does not refer to Jesus Christ himself!

All of the gifts, of the Spirit of God, that was given to His church, in the beginning, will remain until the Bride of Christ is caught up.

That includes speaking in other tongues, as the Spirit of God gives the utterance.

MEE

 

That which is perfect IS Christ (Gods perfect love) and HIM being made COMPLETE in us, Love PERFECTED in us, GROWING UP into Him, FULL MEASURE or FULL STATURE of Christ, End (CHRIST IS THE END) result IN US, the GOAL of our faith etc. IS HIM IN US. So that He is GLORIFIED IN US so that AS HE IS SO ARE WE IN THIS WORLD.

FAITH is the SUBSTANCE of things HOPED FOR. CHRIST IN US OUR HOPE OF GLORY.

I AM THE BEGINING AND THE END. Author and finisher of OUR FAITH WITH THE END RESULT BEING HIM=CREATED IN HIS IMAGE BY THE POWER OF GOD THROUGH THE CROSS OF CHRIST=BLOOD OF THE LAMB.

*NOT THE LAW

God Bless

Seth3

 

The first three meanings are the primary meanings and the only meanings that I know of that the word is translate: perfect, mature, complete. Any one these words can refer to the word of God. It was perfected. It was completed. It was brought to its full maturity. With the completion of the Book of the Revelation we had the "end-result." This indeed was the "perfect" word for the Holy Spirit to use in this passage to convey the right truth to us. Keep in mind that the entire context in this passage is the revelation of God's Word in a greater context of revelatory spiritual gifts--all of which prophecy, tongues, and revelatory knowledge were. When these spiritual gifts ceased (because they were needed no longer) it was at the time that the Bible was completed. We did not need the sanction of the Catholic Church to tell us that "here is your Bible." That is the most ridiculous view to take. The Catholic Church in itself was riddled with heresy. The church fathers believed strange and heretical doctrines. Believeing the Bible is a far more straight forward approach. Certainly there were apocryphal books around. Were the apostles and their early disciples so dumb that they did not recognize which were authentic and which were not. That is what the Catholic Church would have you believe. But the Bible does not teach that. The Bible itself teaches that as a book was written they recognized it as Scripture as soon as, or very soon after it was written--even during the apostles' lifetime. Look at Scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--Peter recognizes the epistles of Paul (and it appears he knew which epistles) were Scripture. Both Peter and Paul died approximately the same time. Yet Peter knew what epistles that Paul wrote were Scripture, already canonized.

2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Be mindful of these words:
the words of the holy prophets,
the commandments of us the apostles.

Peter says that the writings of the Apostles were just as important, just as inspired as the writings of the Old Testament prophets. He was authenticating the writings of the New Testament that had already been written in his lifetime. He didn't have to wait hundreds of years later until some heretical Catholic Council met to tell the world which books were in the canon, and which were out. He already knew, except for the books of John and one or two others which were written after his death. But these books also were recognized by the early church as Scripture by the early believers as soon as they were written, not hundreds of years later.
DHK

 

Peter used the book of Enoch, 2Pet 2:4

 

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

By what authority do you come to that conclusion???
DHK

 

From the book of Enco itself, where else is the same scripture repeated regarding the chains of darkness and judgement?

 

God inspired what was written in 2Peter; God did not inspire the book of Enoch. There is no proof that Peter copied from the Book of Enoch as he does not give reference to it. God inspired him to write what he wrote, not plagiarize what he wrote. The words come from God, the Holy Spirit, not the Book of Enoch.
DHK

 

Peter was quite clearly quoting from Enoch. This was a quotatation which would have been recognised at the time by the addressees of his letter who were of Jewish origin. The letter was written pre-Jamnia and therefore at that time various texts that were ruled as apocryphal at Jamnia - such as Enoch - were still part of the Jewish canon.

Nowhere in I Cor 13 does Scripture refer to itself being perfected. Yours in therefore an argument from silence and cannot be regarded as anything other than eisegesis

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

No, I have a Scripturally sound argument. The Holy Spirit inspired the words that He wanted to put into the Bible. You are speculation, and may I emphasize pure speculation, that this is from the Book of Enoch. You offer nothing but your own opinion. No evidence, no proof. I have no reason to take your word for it. There is nothing in the Word of God that says it is from the Book of Enoch. Peter wrote what the Holy Spirit told Him to write. That is what inspiration is all about. They are the inspired words of God.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--not as they were moved by the Book of Enoch.
DHK

 

Have a look at Jude 9, then have a look at the reasons why Jude and 2Peter almost didnt get canonised.

 

Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

There was some dispute about these books by some of the "church fathers." I don't put a lot of stock in the church fathers. Origen was a heretic, the Father of Arianism. Irenaeus believed that Jesus lived until he was 80. The doctrine of purgatory originated with them. Why should we use the church fathers for the basis of our doctrine. The books were canonized as they were written. Most of the early Christians could recognize an apocryphal book, as they could recognize a forgery. These books were inspired by God, because the marks of inspiration were upon them. They were written by Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, one of them being the half brother of our Lord. They were readily accepted by the early beievers, just not by some of the early church fathers and some of their followers.

Just what do these two references prove, and what do they have in common that would cause you to put in doubt that they are not the Word of God. I am baffled by your objections.
DHK