Charismatic Errors Listed

[awaken]

I think I need to answer this, though I did not before. I specifically exegeted the Greek NT. I told you exactly what it says in two passages. So by this answer, you are putting your opinon of Scripture above what the Bible itself says: "prophesied with/by means of tongues." I'll take the Bible over your opinion any day.

No! you are taking your or someone elses understanding of Greek. I am not saying that knowing Greek does not help..but when it contradicts other scriptures we need to re examine our understanding!

Once again, here is the direct Word of God which you are rejecting.

Tongues and prophecy are different. In other words, the tongues were the means by which they prophesied. God gave them tongues to enable them to prophesy to people who did not understand their language. They spoke miraculously with other languages the wonderful works of God. This is very clearly prophesying.

Again, I explained this in another post! Prophecy is not preaching! Peter preached! Tongues were mangnifying/praising God...the unbelievers understood in their own language what the believers were saying (praising/manifying God).

It's like saying, "He raised the gun and shot the deer." The gun was the tool used to shoot the deer. So, "They spoke with tongues and prophesied." The tongues were the means by which they prophesied.

The people were the tool that the Holy Spirit was manifesting through...what was that manifestation? Tongues/supernatural utterance given by the Holy Spirit/magnifying God.
Example:"Many, O LORD my God, are the wonders you have done. The things you planned for us no one can recount to you; were I to speak and tell of them, they would be too many to declare." (Psalms 40:5) THey were declaring the wonderful works of God!

The Greek for "other tongues" in Acts 2:4 is, eteraiV glwssaiV. This is in the dative case, and is what is called in Greek grammar the 'dative of means,' or in the big advanced grammar by Daniel Wallace, the "dative of manner." Wallace says, "The dative substantive denotes the manner in which the action of the verb is accomplished" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 161). So Acts 2:4 could be translated, "They spoke by means of tongues." The Greek grammar clearly shows that I am right here.

Acts 19:6 is very similar. Tongues is in the dative case, and is a dative of means, showing how they prophesied. It could be translated, 'They spoke and prophesied by means of tongues.'"

See above!

 

[awaken]

He was writing to an assembly; not an individual.
"These truths are self-evident."

So are you now saying that we can not pray in private whether it is "in the spirit" or "our own understanding" at home? He was correcting tongues in the church but never said ANYWHERE that we could not "pray in the spirit" at home!!!

The Bible doesn't speak of a church building. The church (local churches) met in cemeteries (Catacombs), fields, homes, and just wherever they could. Buildings used exclusively for churches did not come until about 300 years later. The church is the assembly of people. The church is where the people assemble together. They are an organized assembly.

your point?? You can still use your gifts outside the general assembly. We can "discern" outside the assembly..we can receive a "word of knowledge" outside the assembly...We can pray for the sick outside the assembly..we can have faith outside the assembly...SO WHY CAN'T WE PRAY IN THE SPIRIT OUTSIDE THE ASSEBLY?

Acts 12:5 Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.
Acts 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.

They were praying for Peter, not in tongues, but praying fervently for his deliverance and the Lord answered their prayers. Note the "church" the assembly at the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark.

I have no problem with the assembly being outside a church building!!
You do not know how they were praying! It does not say! Eph. 6:18 says "Praying with all prayer in supplication IN THE SPIRIT, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication FOR ALL SAINTS."

So you say. You can't even define what you believe in. It is just some mystical existential phrase that you have pulled out of one verse of the Bible. But you have yet to define what this "Manifestation" is.

I have defined this in many threads...but one more time for you....

Manifestation (phanerosis) means " a manifestation, a making viseble or observable." It is being detectable by the five senses.

We experience manifestations all the time...
Electric energy in a light bulb is manifested in the form of light and heat. We can not see the energy but we can feel and see the light and heat. ELECTRIC ENERGY BEING MANIFESTED.

A manifestation of chicken pox disease is a rash with small pimple-like sores. We cannot see the virus inside but we can see it once it is manfested-sores.

We cannot see the Holy Spirit..but He is manifested! 1 Cor. 14-10 shows how He can manifest to the physical world. It is not us doing any of the 9 listed! It is the Holy Spirit using us to manifest in the world as a witness that He was poured out to all flesh on the Day of Pentcost. He was given to the church... for the church...and will be here until we are raptured out of here!

If you say otherwise you are saying He took His Holy Spirit from us or that the Holy Spirit can not manifest himself anymore today. (Which I believe there might be some truth to the last statement..because of unbelief and the lukewarmness of His church).

 

[DHK]

So are you now saying that we can not pray in private whether it is "in the spirit" or "our own understanding" at home? He was correcting tongues in the church but never said ANYWHERE that we could not "pray in the spirit" at home!!!

He was correcting tongues in the church. That is what he was addressing. He did not address if you wanted to speak to UFO's in your house. What you do in your own house is your business. The letter is written to the church. If you want to pray standing on your head facing the wall with all the windows open, then do so, but please--not in the church. He was giving instructions for the church. And in doing so, he did not give permission for praying in a private prayer language anywhere. It is not mentioned in the Bible. Period. Case closed.

your point?? You can still use your gifts outside the general assembly. We can "discern" outside the assembly..we can receive a "word of knowledge" outside the assembly...We can pray for the sick outside the assembly..we can have faith outside the assembly...SO WHY CAN'T WE PRAY IN THE SPIRIT OUTSIDE THE ASSEBLY?

The point is that all the instruction given was for the church, not for the home, not for the private individual. He was not giving permission for you to pray in a private prayer language at home. There is no such permission given. You might as well deduce that he is giving permission to infants to pray in a private prayer language. You are just reading into the Scripture whatever you want. His instructions are solely to the local church, and that is all.

His instructions are for women to keep silence in the church.
But he does allow them to speak outside of the church.
His directions about tongues were for in the church; for they were not to be used outside of the church. The difference here is that women were useful outside of the church. The gifts of the Spirit were not. They were for the church, to be used in the assembly, for the assembly, for the edification of the assembly. Study chapter 12.

I have no problem with the assembly being outside a church building!!
You do not know how they were praying! It does not say! Eph. 6:18 says "Praying with all prayer in supplication IN THE SPIRIT, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication FOR ALL SAINTS."

I do know this:
They were praying "in supplication". The word "supplication" simply means "request" as translated in the WEB. Requests must be understood. Everyone had to understand what the various requests were that they were praying for, else what good would it be.
Secondly it says that they were persevering. You don't persevere in meaningless gibberish. You persevere only if there is understanding; only if you know what you are praying. "in the Spirit" has not reference to tongues. I pray in the Spirit every day. But I would never pray in tongues. Please learn what the expression means. If they are going to pray for all saints, they need to know what their names are, needs are, etc., and be able to pray for them intelligently, and think about it. You can't do that when speaking in tongues.

I have defined this in many threads...but one more time for you....

Manifestation (phanerosis) means " a manifestation, a making viseble or observable." It is being detectable by the five senses.

We experience manifestations all the time...
Electric energy in a light bulb is manifested in the form of light and heat. We can not see the energy but we can feel and see the light and heat. ELECTRIC ENERGY BEING MANIFESTED.

A manifestation of chicken pox disease is a rash with small pimple-like sores. We cannot see the virus inside but we can see it once it is manfested-sores.

We cannot see the Holy Spirit..but He is manifested! 1 Cor. 14-10 shows how He can manifest to the physical world. It is not us doing any of the 9 listed! It is the Holy Spirit using us to manifest in the world as a witness that He was poured out to all flesh on the Day of Pentcost. He was given to the church... for the church...and will be here until we are raptured out of here!

If you say otherwise you are saying He took His Holy Spirit from us or that the Holy Spirit can not manifest himself anymore today. (Which I believe there might be some truth to the last statement..because of unbelief and the lukewarmness of His church).

The Holy Spirit is not manifested today in the ways that you say he is. If you cling to that position you "wrest scripture to your own destruction" and stand on dangerous ground.

Read John chapter 3. It speaks of the Holy Spirit there also. It also speaks of the New Birth. When one is born again the Holy Spirit will manifest itself, and usually does so but gradually. He does not use the gifts of the Holy Spirit to do so, but rather the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

 

[awaken]

He was correcting tongues in the church. That is what he was addressing. He did not address if you wanted to speak to UFO's in your house. What you do in your own house is your business. The letter is written to the church. If you want to pray standing on your head facing the wall with all the windows open, then do so, but please--not in the church. He was giving instructions for the church. And in doing so, he did not give permission for praying in a private prayer language anywhere. It is not mentioned in the Bible. Period. Case closed.

He did not deny "praying in the spirit" at home! As a matter of fact he said "Forbid not to speak in tongues"

The point is that all the instruction given was for the church, not for the home, not for the private individual. He was not giving permission for you to pray in a private prayer language at home. There is no such permission given. You might as well deduce that he is giving permission to infants to pray in a private prayer language. You are just reading into the Scripture whatever you want. His instructions are solely to the local church, and that is all.

Grasping at straws again...As I said before it you look at it as you do all the intructions were given to the church...so we can not be a christian outside the walls of the assembly.

His instructions are for women to keep silence in the church.
But he does allow them to speak outside of the church.
His directions about tongues were for in the church; for they were not to be used outside of the church. The difference here is that women were useful outside of the church. The gifts of the Spirit were not. They were for the church, to be used in the assembly, for the assembly, for the edification of the assembly. Study chapter 12.

Exactly..correction of how it is to be in the assembly... does not apply to outside the assembly. Thanks for proving my point!

I do know this:
They were praying "in supplication". The word "supplication" simply means "request" as translated in the WEB. Requests must be understood. Everyone had to understand what the various requests were that they were praying for, else what good would it be.
Secondly it says that they were persevering. You don't persevere in meaningless gibberish. You persevere only if there is understanding; only if you know what you are praying. "in the Spirit" has not reference to tongues. I pray in the Spirit every day. But I would never pray in tongues. Please learn what the expression means. If they are going to pray for all saints, they need to know what their names are, needs are, etc., and be able to pray for them intelligently, and think about it. You can't do that when speaking in tongues.

YOu pray with your understanding! That is great! I pray both "praying with the spirit" and I "pray with the understanding"..

The Holy Spirit is not manifested today in the ways that you say he is. If you cling to that position you "wrest scripture to your own destruction" and stand on dangerous ground.

Read John chapter 3. It speaks of the Holy Spirit there also. It also speaks of the New Birth. When one is born again the Holy Spirit will manifest itself, and usually does so but gradually. He does not use the gifts of the Holy Spirit to do so, but rather the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

THe fruit of the Spirit is the fruit of the recreated human spirit.
Fruit grows on branches, and Jesus said believers are the branches. The Fruit of the spirit grows in the life of the born-again, recreated believers becasue of the life of Christ resident and developed within believers-the branches.
Baby christians do not produce and grow fruit all at once. It takes time for a tree to mature and for the fruit to grow and develope.
But a baby CHristian can be filled with the Holy Ghost, and have power, and can evern have the gifts of the spirit operating in his life. The Corinthians were babes. They did not have a lot of fruit...but they did have the manifestaion of the Holy Spirit manifesting in their lives.
Fruit of the spirit is for holiness...manifestations of the Holy Spirit are for power. You can be holy without having power...and you can have power without being holy. The combination in a christians life is the best!:thumbs:

Simplified...
The 9 fruit of the Spirit, which are a result of the indwelling Presence.(developed nature)
The 9 gifts (manifestations) are a result of the infillling. (power)

 

[DHK]

He did not deny "praying in the spirit" at home! As a matter of fact he said "Forbid not to speak in tongues"

He did not deny: driving a car, smoking a pipe, riding a bicycle, and many other things. He was writing a letter to the Corinthian church, not about "what Awaken can and cannot do in her house." The epistle was not addressed to you. It is a letter addressed to a local church, and when you start reading into the letter things that are not there you can make the Bible say anything you want it to.

Grasping at straws again...As I said before it you look at it as you do all the intructions were given to the church...so we can not be a christian outside the walls of the assembly.

You don't want to consider context. The context of the letter gives it the meaning.

Exactly..correction of how it is to be in the assembly... does not apply to outside the assembly. Thanks for proving my point!

You are not proving your own point. He is writing a letter to the church at Corinth. He tells the church not to sin. You take that as permission outside of the church to sin. You can sin all you want as long as it is not in the local church. That is precisely your reasoning.

YOu pray with your understanding! That is great! I pray both "praying with the spirit" and I "pray with the understanding"..

The "spirit" is the mind, the intellect. To say you pray with your mind and not have understanding is contradictory.
If it is the Holy Spirit you are referring to, the Holy Spirit never operates without understanding. Thus if you pray without understanding you are definitely outside the will of God.

THe fruit of the Spirit is the fruit of the recreated human spirit.
Fruit grows on branches, and Jesus said believers are the branches. The Fruit of the spirit grows in the life of the born-again, recreated believers becasue of the life of Christ resident and developed within believers-the branches.
Baby christians do not produce and grow fruit all at once. It takes time for a tree to mature and for the fruit to grow and develope.
But a baby CHristian can be filled with the Holy Ghost, and have power, and can evern have the gifts of the spirit operating in his life.

And what gifts would those be?
You can't even point to any of those gifts in operation today.
I challenged you to lay out evidence. Show me anyone who is demonstrating today those gifts and you can't. Why do you say something that can't be done. That is just hypocrisy.

The Corinthians were babes. They did not have a lot of fruit...but they did have the manifestaion of the Holy Spirit manifesting in their lives.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit were available to them. But God had distributed them among the members according to his will. There were some who were selfishly trying to claim gifts that were not theirs to claim. See chapter 12.

Fruit of the spirit is for holiness...manifestations of the Holy Spirit are for power. You can be holy without having power...

That is not true. The gifts of the Holy Spirit were simply for the edification of the church, not for power. The filling of the Spirit (still available) is to speak forth the Word in power.

and you can have power without being holy.

Yes, that is demonstrated in the Olympics and other sports. It is totally carnal.

The combination in a christians life is the best!:thumbs:

I wouldn't want your type of Christianity.

Simplified...
The 9 fruit of the Spirit, which are a result of the indwelling Presence.(developed nature)
The 9 gifts (manifestations) are a result of the infillling. (power)

No you have it wrong. The gifts of the Spirit have ceased, and they never were a result of the infilling of the Spirit. You are a very confused person.

 

[awaken]

He did not deny: driving a car, smoking a pipe, riding a bicycle, and many other things. He was writing a letter to the Corinthian church, not about "what Awaken can and cannot do in her house." The epistle was not addressed to you. It is a letter addressed to a local church, and when you start reading into the letter things that are not there you can make the Bible say anything you want it to.

You are trying to disprove "praying in the spirit" at home. I say it is not there! If I can pray in church..I can pray at home. If I can teach..I can teach at home. If I can encourage..I can encourage at home. Your theory does not line up with scriptures! NOWHERE does it say we can not speak in tongues at home!

You don't want to consider context. The context of the letter gives it the meaning.

Wrong..You are adding to the context! Saying that Paul said we can not speak in tongues/pray in the spirit at home!

You are not proving your own point. He is writing a letter to the church at Corinth. He tells the church not to sin. You take that as permission outside of the church to sin. You can sin all you want as long as it is not in the local church. That is precisely your reasoning.

No! You proved my point! But now you are just getting ridiculous!

The "spirit" is the mind, the intellect. To say you pray with your mind and not have understanding is contradictory.
If it is the Holy Spirit you are referring to, the Holy Spirit never operates without understanding. Thus if you pray without understanding you are definitely outside the will of God.

Are you saying that you understand the Holy Spirit? Sorry! I do not understand God! His ways are way above mine!

And what gifts would those be?
You can't even point to any of those gifts in operation today.
I challenged you to lay out evidence. Show me anyone who is demonstrating today those gifts and you can't. Why do you say something that can't be done. That is just hypocrisy.

Refer back to my other post! I am not repeating myself anymore!

The gifts of the Holy Spirit were available to them. But God had distributed them among the members according to his will. There were some who were selfishly trying to claim gifts that were not theirs to claim. See chapter 12.

Where does it say they were claiming selfishly others gifts? Chapter 12 is explaining that the Holy Spirit manifest a at His will and gives the gifts at His will. It goes on to say if you do not manifest in the body a certain way not to think you are less of a member. ALL members and their gifts are important.

That is not true. The gifts of the Holy Spirit were simply for the edification of the church, not for power. The filling of the Spirit (still available) is to speak forth the Word in power.

Yes it is true! Study the fruit of the spirit...
And your scriptures to back up that the filling was JUST to speak forth the Word in power?
Jesus poured out the Holy Spirit for all to have power...to manifest! How He manifest through us is up to Him not us!

Yes, that is demonstrated in the Olympics and other sports. It is totally carnal.

Yes, and that is how the Corinthians were...but yet they were manifesting the Holy Spirit.

I wouldn't want your type of Christianity.

YOu would not want to walk in holiness and power?

No you have it wrong. The gifts of the Spirit have ceased, and they never were a result of the infilling of the Spirit. You are a very confused person.

Sorry, but on the day of Pentecost.. something was manifested!
Sorry, but when the Gentiles were brought into the promise of the Holy Spirit..something was manifested!
Sorry, but when Peter and John laid hands on the Samaria..something was manifested!
Sorry, but when Paul laid his hands of the certain ones at Ephesus..something was manifested!
In the Corinthian church...manifestations took place.
I am not confused!

Again..THe Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentecost, to remain with the church until it is complete and presented to the Lord Jesus at His coming. Just as Jesus finished the work He came to do in the flesh, so the Holy Spirit will finish the work He came to do in the church!

THe gifts and callings of God are without repentance!

 

[DHK]

You are trying to disprove "praying in the spirit" at home. I say it is not there! If I can pray in church..I can pray at home. If I can teach..I can teach at home. If I can encourage..I can encourage at home. Your theory does not line up with scriptures! NOWHERE does it say we can not speak in tongues at home!

First, if you are a woman, it simply says to "shut up and keep quiet!"
Then it says you are to submissively learn from your husband at home.
Praying in tongues or other languages is a gift of the Holy Spirit given to the local church, not to individuals for their own selfish use. It was given for the edification of the church not for the selfish edification of oneself. 1Cor.12 teaches this very clearly.

Wrong..You are adding to the context! Saying that Paul said we can not speak in tongues/pray in the spirit at home!

Where did Paul give you permission to speak in tongues at home?
It is a gift given to the local church.

No! You proved my point! But now you are just getting ridiculous!

It is a gift given to the local church,
given as a sign to the Jews (14:21).
given as a sign to unbelievers (14:22).
given as a vehicle of revelation (13:8ff).
given as a sign of apostolic authentication (Heb.2:3,4)

The first century unbelieving Jews we don't have today.
The first century local churches we don't have today.
The Apostles we don't have today.
Temporary vehicles for God's revelation are not needed today.

Thus signs such as tongues are not needed today.

Are you saying that you understand the Holy Spirit? Sorry! I do not understand God! His ways are way above mine!

That is why you are so confused. Yes, I understand God and his workings as He reveals himself to me through his Word.

Refer back to my other post! I am not repeating myself anymore!

You have nothing to repeat. No evidence to give. You cannot demonstrate that any of the gifts are in operation today. You accuse others of being in unbelief when in truth it is you. You are in denial of these things because they have ceased and you won't admit it, or even give evidence that your position is true. You have no evidence.

Where does it say they were claiming selfishly others gifts? Chapter 12 is explaining that the Holy Spirit manifest a at His will and gives the gifts at His will. It goes on to say if you do not manifest in the body a certain way not to think you are less of a member. ALL members and their gifts are important.

Then why does that chapter say that some are more "honorable than others," and some more comely, and some "uncomely." It is nice to sound "spiritual" isn't it? Sometimes the truth hurts. Not everyone has the "important" gifts, and Paul was fairly blunt about that.

Yes it is true! Study the fruit of the spirit...
And your scriptures to back up that the filling was JUST to speak forth the Word in power?
Jesus poured out the Holy Spirit for all to have power...to manifest! How He manifest through us is up to Him not us!

The Holy Spirit was poured out on the Day of Pentecost. Since then all believers are indwelt with the Holy Spirit from the day that they are saved.
The gifts of the Spirit have ceased. They were not used for power. They each had different purposes as 1Cor.12 explains.
The filling of the Holy Spirit was to preach the Word with power or boldness.

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

Yes, and that is how the Corinthians were...but yet they were manifesting the Holy Spirit.

Your picture of Christianity is very carnal.

YOu would not want to walk in holiness and power?

The way that you define these terms--no.

Sorry, but on the day of Pentecost.. something was manifested!

Something not available to you. It was an historical event. Don't go searching after those cloven tongues of fire.

Sorry, but when the Gentiles were brought into the promise of the Holy Spirit..something was manifested!

Again, another historical event.

Sorry, but when Peter and John laid hands on the Samaria..something was manifested!

And do you assume you can lay your hands on people also. This too was an historical event.

Sorry, but when Paul laid his hands of the certain ones at Ephesus..something was manifested!

Another historical event that involved OT Jews.

In the Corinthian church...manifestations took place.

In a first century church under strict conditions, which not even you can meet.

I am not confused!

You are very confused.

Again..THe Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentecost, to remain with the church until it is complete and presented to the Lord Jesus at His coming. Just as Jesus finished the work He came to do in the flesh, so the Holy Spirit will finish the work He came to do in the church!

That has nothing to do with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. There are no gifts of the Spirit mentioned in the Great Commission.

THe gifts and callings of God are without repentance!

You probably have no idea what that verse means.

 

[awaken]

First, if you are a woman, it simply says to "shut up and keep quiet!"
Then it says you are to submissively learn from your husband at home.
Praying in tongues or other languages is a gift of the Holy Spirit given to the local church, not to individuals for their own selfish use. It was given for the edification of the church not for the selfish edification of oneself. 1Cor.12 teaches this very clearly.

Where did Paul give you permission to speak in tongues at home?
It is a gift given to the local church.

It is a gift given to the local church,
given as a sign to the Jews (14:21).
given as a sign to unbelievers (14:22).
given as a vehicle of revelation (13:8ff).
given as a sign of apostolic authentication (Heb.2:3,4)

The first century unbelieving Jews we don't have today.
The first century local churches we don't have today.
The Apostles we don't have today.
Temporary vehicles for God's revelation are not needed today.

Thus signs such as tongues are not needed today.

That is why you are so confused. Yes, I understand God and his workings as He reveals himself to me through his Word.

You have nothing to repeat. No evidence to give. You cannot demonstrate that any of the gifts are in operation today. You accuse others of being in unbelief when in truth it is you. You are in denial of these things because they have ceased and you won't admit it, or even give evidence that your position is true. You have no evidence.

Then why does that chapter say that some are more "honorable than others," and some more comely, and some "uncomely." It is nice to sound "spiritual" isn't it? Sometimes the truth hurts. Not everyone has the "important" gifts, and Paul was fairly blunt about that.

The Holy Spirit was poured out on the Day of Pentecost. Since then all believers are indwelt with the Holy Spirit from the day that they are saved.
The gifts of the Spirit have ceased. They were not used for power. They each had different purposes as 1Cor.12 explains.
The filling of the Holy Spirit was to preach the Word with power or boldness.

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

Your picture of Christianity is very carnal.

The way that you define these terms--no.

Something not available to you. It was an historical event. Don't go searching after those cloven tongues of fire.

Again, another historical event.

And do you assume you can lay your hands on people also. This too was an historical event.

Another historical event that involved OT Jews.

In a first century church under strict conditions, which not even you can meet.

You are very confused.

That has nothing to do with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. There are no gifts of the Spirit mentioned in the Great Commission.

You probably have no idea what that verse means.

We just don't agree on anything...so we will just disagree! This is getting boring and childish!

 

[John of Japan]

No! you are taking your or someone elses understanding of Greek. I am not saying that knowing Greek does not help..but when it contradicts other scriptures we need to re examine our understanding!

This is nonsense. I simply gave the meaning of the Greek grammar of the NT passages. (My own analysis, not someone else's. I teach Greek.) That means I gave you the literal meaning of the verses. It doesn't matter what other passages say, you can't change the clear meaning of the original language of the Word of God. Exegesis comes before comparing with other Scriptures in any normal hermeneutic.

But I'll work with you. Since you reject the literal language of the Greek NT, I'll try in English. Do you understand English grammar? (This is a genuine question. Many Americans do not.) Note the phrase in our English Bible "speak with tongues." What does "with mean"? It is a prepositional phrase in which the word "with" means, "By the means or agency of" (Microsoft Bookshelf, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language).

If your interpretation were correct, the word "tongues" would be a direct object, as in "He spoke tongues," similar to "He preached a sermon." The tongues were used for the purpose of prophesying. They prophesied "with," "by means of" tongues. If you reject this, then tell me what meaning of "with" is in view here. "In the company of"? "Next to; alongside of"? (ibid). Get an English dictionary and enlighten me. Show me you understand the English language.

Again, I explained this in another post! Prophecy is not preaching! Peter preached! Tongues were mangnifying/praising God...the unbelievers understood in their own language what the believers were saying (praising/manifying God).

Your narrow view of prophecy is not the Biblical view. In Mark 7:6 Jesus quoted Isaiah's prophecy as being relevant to the Jews. In Mark 14:65 they told Jesus to prophesy who hit him. In Luke 1:67 Zacharaias prophesied concerning the birth of John. I could go on and on. Prophecy is proclaiming the truth of God. That includes witnessing, preaching, however you proclaim the truth of God.

 

[awaken]

This is nonsense. I simply gave the meaning of the Greek grammar of the NT passages. (My own analysis, not someone else's. I teach Greek.) That means I gave you the literal meaning of the verses. It doesn't matter what other passages say, you can't change the clear meaning of the original language of the Word of God. Exegesis comes before comparing with other Scriptures in any normal hermeneutic.

But I'll work with you. Since you reject the literal language of the Greek NT, I'll try in English. Do you understand English grammar? (This is a genuine question. Many Americans do not.) Note the phrase in our English Bible "speak with tongues." What does "with mean"? It is a prepositional phrase in which the word "with" means, "By the means or agency of" (Microsoft Bookshelf, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language).

If your interpretation were correct, the word "tongues" would be a direct object, as in "He spoke tongues," similar to "He preached a sermon." The tongues were used for the purpose of prophesying. They prophesied "with," "by means of" tongues. If you reject this, then tell me what meaning of "with" is in view here. "In the company of"? "Next to; alongside of"? (ibid). Get an English dictionary and enlighten me. Show me you understand the English language.

Your narrow view of prophecy is not the Biblical view. In Mark 7:6 Jesus quoted Isaiah's prophecy as being relevant to the Jews. In Mark 14:65 they told Jesus to prophesy who hit him. In Luke 1:67 Zacharaias prophesied concerning the birth of John. I could go on and on. Prophecy is proclaiming the truth of God. That includes witnessing, preaching, however you proclaim the truth of God.

Ok, John...:wavey:

 

[John of Japan]

A Charismatic error in the area of divine healing is the idea that healing is in the atonement and God wants everyone to be healed. This is just nonsense, Biblically speaking. The prime passage to disprove this is when Paul prayed three times for healing of his "thorn in the flesh" (2 Cor. 12:7-8), but God did not heal him, but instead said, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness" (V. 9). So Paul said, "Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me."

Also, of course, many "faith healers" contract serious illnesses from which they cannot be healed. Healer Jack Coe died from complications from bulbar polio. A. A. Allen died of acute alcoholism. Kathryn Kuhlman died after heart surgery. The list could go on and on.

Again, many Charismatic healers blame the sick person for not having faith enough to be healed. This is a copout, since many times Christ healed people regardless of their faith or lack of it. This copout gives the "faith healer" an out in case the person is not healed.

Why stand against such "healers"? Because they are deceivers, giving false hope to people with disabilities and sick people, taking their offerings. Sometimes they even give false hope so that people stop taking their medicines and may even die. This is wicked.

 

[John of Japan]

Wonder what people said about Jesus methods of healing...spitting in mud and applying it to the eyes. I am not sayig all those healings are real..but we need to be careful!

Jesus Christ: God in human form, Savior, coming King, Creator of all the universe. I would die for Him. I would and have left all I have and am for Him.

Ernest Angley: human, fallible, tongues as the evidence of the Holy Spirit's filling, teaches you must receive the Holy Spirit to go up in the Rapture, "sickness comes from the devil," etc. etc., so many false teachings (from his website at: https://www.ernestangley.org/church).

There is a fair but thorough expose of Angley here: http://letusreason.org/Popteach50.htm (I can't vouch for the rest of the website, but it looks okay.) Among other things, in Part II we learn that Angley has a doctrine of "divine blood." Supposedly Jesus did not have human blood, but divine blood. Supposedly Adam and Eve had this "divine blood" and were like Jesus in that regard (Part III).

 

[awaken]

A Charismatic error in the area of divine healing is the idea that healing is in the atonement and God wants everyone to be healed. This is just nonsense, Biblically speaking. The prime passage to disprove this is when Paul prayed three times for healing of his "thorn in the flesh" (2 Cor. 12:7-8), but God did not heal him, but instead said, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness" (V. 9). So Paul said, "Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me."

Also, of course, many "faith healers" contract serious illnesses from which they cannot be healed. Healer Jack Coe died from complications from bulbar polio. A. A. Allen died of acute alcoholism. Kathryn Kuhlman died after heart surgery. The list could go on and on.

Again, many Charismatic healers blame the sick person for not having faith enough to be healed. This is a copout, since many times Christ healed people regardless of their faith or lack of it. This copout gives the "faith healer" an out in case the person is not healed.

Why stand against such "healers"? Because they are deceivers, giving false hope to people with disabilities and sick people, taking their offerings. Sometimes they even give false hope so that people stop taking their medicines and may even die. This is wicked.

THere is still a lot to be learned about healing that I as a Baptist was never taught!
We will all die, that is for sure!
Sickness comes by several ways...
Sin (John 5:14) Jesus made it clear in this verse that this man's sickness returning, even something worse that what he'd had, could come on him if he sinned.
Sowing and reaping (Rom. 6:21-23) An alcoholic that drinks all their llife and gets a lliver disease, they did that to themselves!
A direct attack from satan..we live in a fallen world!
Natural things..If we are not paying attention while walking down stairs, we could trip, fall, and break a leg, neck, or collarbone. It just happens!

On healing I still have more questions than answers..but I believe there is more to it than what we were taught!
As far as Pauls thorn..there is alot of debate about it..

Paul tells us exactly what it was: It was a "messenger of Satan" (2 Corinthians 12:7). Paul didn't use a Greek word for sickness or disease in this verse, but instead he specifically used the Greek word for "angel," and he specifically said that it was a demonic angel.

Paul pleaded with God three times to remove this "thorn," and then Paul boasted and delighted in it.

Paul did not ask God to heal him, but instead Paul asked God to take away (aphistemi, literally, "that it might depart from me") the "thorn." There's a big difference. This is the same Greek word which is used in Acts 12:10 when an angel "departed" from Peter, and in all of the 15 other occurrences of this Greek word in the New Testament it's never used in reference to sickness or healing (see Luke 2:37, 4:13, 8:13, 13:27, Acts 5:37, 38, 15:38, 19:9, 22:29, 1 Timothy 4:1, 6:5, 2 Timothy 2:19, and Hebrews 3:12). Paul wasn't asking for a sickness to be healed, but instead he was asking God to take away this demonic harassment.

What did this demon do to Paul? It "tormented" him, according to the NIV. The Amplified Version translates this Greek word by saying that it "buffeted" and "harassed" him. In addition to the verse that we're examining (2 Corinthians 12:7), this Greek word occurs 4 more times in the New Testament, where it means "to strike with the fists" (Matthew 26:67, Mark 14:65), "to be brutally treated" (1 Corinthians 4:11), and "to receive a beating" (1 Peter 2:20). This Greek word is never used in reference to sickness or disease. It's always used to describe someone brutally mistreating someone else.

Paul was not pleading for a healing. He was pleading to be delivered from persecutions and hardships.

 

[awaken]

Jesus Christ: God in human form, Savior, coming King, Creator of all the universe. I would die for Him. I would and have left all I have and am for Him.

Ernest Angley: human, fallible, tongues as the evidence of the Holy Spirit's filling, teaches you must receive the Holy Spirit to go up in the Rapture, "sickness comes from the devil," etc. etc., so many false teachings (from his website at: https://www.ernestangley.org/church).

There is a fair but thorough expose of Angley here: http://letusreason.org/Popteach50.htm (I can't vouch for the rest of the website, but it looks okay.) Among other things, in Part II we learn that Angley has a doctrine of "divine blood." Supposedly Jesus did not have human blood, but divine blood. Supposedly Adam and Eve had this "divine blood" and were like Jesus in that regard (Part III).

Not sure what you are getting at? I asked a simple question...what you posted has nothing to do with what people thought of the way Jesus went about healing...

 

[Yeshua1]

THere is still a lot to be learned about healing that I as a Baptist was never taught!
We will all die, that is for sure!
Sickness comes by several ways...
Sin (John 5:14) Jesus made it clear in this verse that this man's sickness returning, even something worse that what he'd had, could come on him if he sinned.
Sowing and reaping (Rom. 6:21-23) An alcoholic that drinks all their llife and gets a lliver disease, they did that to themselves!
A direct attack from satan..we live in a fallen world!
Natural things..If we are not paying attention while walking down stairs, we could trip, fall, and break a leg, neck, or collarbone. It just happens!

On healing I still have more questions than answers..but I believe there is more to it than what we were taught!
As far as Pauls thorn..there is alot of debate about it..

Paul tells us exactly what it was: It was a "messenger of Satan" (2 Corinthians 12:7). Paul didn't use a Greek word for sickness or disease in this verse, but instead he specifically used the Greek word for "angel," and he specifically said that it was a demonic angel.

Paul pleaded with God three times to remove this "thorn," and then Paul boasted and delighted in it.

Paul did not ask God to heal him, but instead Paul asked God to take away (aphistemi, literally, "that it might depart from me") the "thorn." There's a big difference. This is the same Greek word which is used in Acts 12:10 when an angel "departed" from Peter, and in all of the 15 other occurrences of this Greek word in the New Testament it's never used in reference to sickness or healing (see Luke 2:37, 4:13, 8:13, 13:27, Acts 5:37, 38, 15:38, 19:9, 22:29, 1 Timothy 4:1, 6:5, 2 Timothy 2:19, and Hebrews 3:12). Paul wasn't asking for a sickness to be healed, but instead he was asking God to take away this demonic harassment.

What did this demon do to Paul? It "tormented" him, according to the NIV. The Amplified Version translates this Greek word by saying that it "buffeted" and "harassed" him. In addition to the verse that we're examining (2 Corinthians 12:7), this Greek word occurs 4 more times in the New Testament, where it means "to strike with the fists" (Matthew 26:67, Mark 14:65), "to be brutally treated" (1 Corinthians 4:11), and "to receive a beating" (1 Peter 2:20). This Greek word is never used in reference to sickness or disease. It's always used to describe someone brutally mistreating someone else.

Paul was not pleading for a healing. He was pleading to be delivered from persecutions and hardships.

We believe that God can still do physical healings IF he chooses too, but up to His sovereign Will, NOT that He grants someone a gift of healing!

A BIG problem is that typically, charasmatics misunderstand the OT scriptures as regarding the concept of OT promises/blessings, and that healing wa sin the Cross!

many hold to God has promised us wealth and health, but that was ONLY specific to Isreal under provisions of thei rOld Covenant with God!

Also, they see healing provided for int he atonemntby peter and Isaiah BOTH tell us that His wounding/death was to pay for our sins specifically!

healing is provided for in the sense we shall ALL be glorified, but NOT a promise for it right here and now!

 

[awaken]

We believe that God can still do physical healings IF he chooses too, but up to His sovereign Will, NOT that He grants someone a gift of healing!

Maybe that is why we do not have that many being healed...we have denied the manifestation of healing!

A BIG problem is that typically, charasmatics misunderstand the OT scriptures as regarding the concept of OT promises/blessings, and that healing wa sin the Cross!

many hold to God has promised us wealth and health, but that was ONLY specific to Isreal under provisions of thei rOld Covenant with God!

Also, they see healing provided for int he atonemntby peter and Isaiah BOTH tell us that His wounding/death was to pay for our sins specifically!

healing is provided for in the sense we shall ALL be glorified, but NOT a promise for it right here and now!

Well, like I said...a lot has been left out on the teaching of healing. I have more questions than answers. But I am searching the scriptures to see if it is so...

 

[DHK]

Maybe that is why we do not have that many being healed...we have denied the manifestation of healing!

That is not true.
First, who is the "we" that you speak of?
Second, you repeatedly say that "you" believe in the manifestation of healing, so that "we" is not all inclusive is it?
Third, even though "you" believe in it, you cannot demonstrate that it is in existence or operative. You have no proof. You can't point to a single faith healer on this earth who has the ability to heal (the gift of healing) as Peter did in Acts 5:16. So what possesses you to continue to assert that it exists when all the evidence points to the contrary?

 

[awaken]

That is not true.
First, who is the "we" that you speak of?
Second, you repeatedly say that "you" believe in the manifestation of healing, so that "we" is not all inclusive is it?
Third, even though "you" believe in it, you cannot demonstrate that it is in existence or operative. You have no proof. You can't point to a single faith healer on this earth who has the ability to heal (the gift of healing) as Peter did in Acts 5:16. So what possesses you to continue to assert that it exists when all the evidence points to the contrary?

:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey:

 

[John of Japan]

As far as Pauls thorn..there is alot of debate about it..

Paul tells us exactly what it was: It was a "messenger of Satan" (2 Corinthians 12:7). Paul didn't use a Greek word for sickness or disease in this verse, but instead he specifically used the Greek word for "angel," and he specifically said that it was a demonic angel.

Paul pleaded with God three times to remove this "thorn," and then Paul boasted and delighted in it.

The debate is about what kind of a thorn in the flesh it is. No one who knows the Greek doubts that it was physical problem. A. T. Robertson: "Certainly it was some physical malady that persisted." Alford: "Some painful and tedious bodily malady." And so forth.

Paul's use of the term "messenger" is metaphorical, in keeping with his metaphorical usage of the term "thorn." You're welcome to believe it was a demon, but if you do so you are failing in what you like best to do, comparing Scripture with Scripture. Paul writes in Gal. 4:13-15, "Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me." So it is clear from Gal. that Paul had a physical ailment which was not cured, probably having to do with his eyes, because of this passage and Gal. 6:11, "Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand."

Any way you put it, Paul did not believe that all sicknesses can and will be healed, as the Charismatics do.

What did this demon do to Paul? It "tormented" him, according to the NIV. The Amplified Version translates this Greek word by saying that it "buffeted" and "harassed" him. In addition to the verse that we're examining (2 Corinthians 12:7), this Greek word occurs 4 more times in the New Testament, where it means "to strike with the fists" (Matthew 26:67, Mark 14:65), "to be brutally treated" (1 Corinthians 4:11), and "to receive a beating" (1 Peter 2:20). This Greek word is never used in reference to sickness or disease. It's always used to describe someone brutally mistreating someone else.

The usage of the Greek word kolaphizo here is very obviously metaphorical, and as a metaphor it most certainly can be used for disease. The original meaning was to actually hit someone with a fist. Liddell-Scott's classical lexicon defines it: "to give on a box on the ear, buffet, cuff." So, if it is persecution it is still metaphorical. And if it was a demon as you say, it is indeed metaphorical, unless you believe that demons actually physically sock us with their fists. And your point right back at you: no other usage in the NT refers to a demon.

 

[John of Japan]

Not sure what you are getting at? I asked a simple question...what you posted has nothing to do with what people thought of the way Jesus went about healing...

You compared Ernest Angley with Jesus. So did I.