Tom

(A side thought;

If lucifer had known the full majesty and glory of God, he would never have been stupid enough to try to overthrow God. What lucifer had seen must have been enough that to that point God was big enough to be the boss, but not so big that lucifer could not beat Him and take over His throne.)

Keep the hope sweetheart, dear and precious and close to your heart. ;)

Not a biblically based post here, but I always thought that what Lucifer must have thought is that, yes, God is powerful, but he is Spirit & can't show up to these people in physical form. I can fake these people out, convince them that I am God, and, so, BE God. Course he didn't take into account Jesus Christ & his connection to the hidden mystery. Then Lucifer loses his title Lucifer, the Angel of Light, Jesus Christ comes, the light of the world, gets up from the dead, thereby sealing the Devil's fate. The rest, as they say, is history - even that which is future.

excie,

Never ever let go of the hope, the absolute basis of Christianity is that the hope is true, based on the works of Jesus Christ.

You asked if you could see God. Scripture says if He were to show his true majesty, it would melt the universe, let alone your face. But it also says we will see Him face to face. ( l Cor 13:12) He can easily take on a form we will see and be blessed by.

On the judgement day, certainly those who stand before the throne will see the judge.

The prosecutor, lucifer. The defense council, Jesus. :)

(A side thought;

If lucifer had known the full majesty and glory of God, he would never have been stupid enough to try to overthrow God. What lucifer had seen must have been enough that to that point God was big enough to be the boss, but not so big that lucifer could not beat Him and take over His throne.)

Keep the hope sweetheart, dear and precious and close to your heart. ;)

Kind of tired here, but isn't Jesus Christ OUR defense attorney/advocate. After he comes back as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, in the judgement day, doesn't Jesus Christ do the judging? Actually, he told Israel that he doesn't judge, for he came to save the world, not to judge it, but the words that he said, they would be judged by them. I guess that's God judging by his Word.

Beware of this Verichip, mind beading stuff here!

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=the+mark+of+the+beast&view=detail&id=83A98C824A193ADF167736FB9C3543A072AE2679&first=71

Those chips are made just a little bit north of where I live - a little more than maybe an hour's drive. Kind of freaky. Actually, there's a fellowship I go to fairly often that's like right south of there. Maybe we should take a field trip to there. Yikes!

God first

thanks excathedra

yes peace my friend excathedra

with love and a holy kiss Roy

Hi year. Ah, Excie, so good to see you

So what,you guys think Jesus doesn't see those people & what they're doing? He sees, & he is saying what he always says, "Come."

They just don't hear him.

And he said, "Let him who hears say come."

Come on. Say what Jesus is saying.

Come.

Faith and believing have always been an enigma to me.

"Name it and claim it" category philosophies are always derided by some Christians although the Bible clearly states that such true "believers" as the decendents of Abraham must believe those things which are not as though they were.

So what is the story here?

I am now thinking that it has to do with the origin of that thing believed.

So many "great believers" such as Hitler and Mussolini believed and brought into the world the results (or consequences) of their believing -- but they did follow through to the end on what they beleived.

However it could be argued that what they believed was not from the true God.

Abraham and Sarah believed God. Their faith was started by God.

And faith has come to be used as that which God implants in us. Believing is the spiritual muscle that lines up the forces of the universe and gets the work done and brings it into reality.

If this is so, then the little ditty, "believing is the key to heaven and faith unlocks the door" would be correct if that door one wants to enter is God's heart because only going after things that are on God's heart, which we receive by faith, are worth pursuing.

Watchman Nee was a great advocate of doing nothing that was not under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Do you have any thoughts in this regard?

I've been thinking about this stuff lately. I think believing & faith are the same, but I think you are hitting close to home, Kit, when you say it has to do with the source of our believing. Someone may decide to get to the place that he can do 50 pushups. He believes he can do it. He keeps believing & following through faithfully on his believing all the way to the point that he does it. His believing is in his own ability. His faith is in himself. "Unbelievers" can believe this way. This is not the kind of believing or faith the Word talks about that comes from hearing & that hearing coming from the Word of God.

Ephesians 2:8  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. We were trained to think this verse is saying that salvation is a gift. And it is, but that's sort of by proxy. Most directly, this verse is saying that believing, or faith, is a gift. Remember, pronouns (generally) refer to the nearest preceding nominative. "It, the gift of God" refers to faith. And then, through that faith, salvation is also a gift. That kind of believing that is a gift of God is not OF ourselves. We don't decide we are going to do this work or that. There are works GOD before ordained for us to walk in. We just decide that we are going to follow his lead or not.

It's like the children of Israel following the pillar of fire by night and the cloud by day. If the cloud moved, they followed it. If it didn't move, they stayed still. They didn't decide when & where they were moving - GOD did. And if they followed God, he led them to places where they were doing things that with men are impossible. They were following God's believing.

A serious problem comes in when we confuse the believing that is from faith in ourselves, & the believing that is from God.

If I may, I posted the following on another thread:

Mark 9:22 And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.

23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Jesus' response was like, "No, that's not the way it works. You have to believe that I can do anything. Then the possibilities are endless."

Jesus wasn't telling the man it depended on the man's believing in & of itself. Then it would be all praise to the man, MR. BELIEVER. The man was expressing lack of conviction that Jesus could do anything. Jesus was telling that man that he had to believe Jesus could do. All praise and glory to the Lord of glory.

We were taught that it was the man's believing that delivered his son. No, no, no. That's like freaking magic. The man doubted Jesus' ability to do. Jesus spoke the Word to him. Don't doubt me; believe. The man heard him. He believed in him, but didn't know where to take it to see his son delivered, & asked Jesus to help him there. That's all the believing that Jesus needed. He then worked the work of God, that which is with men impossible.

Thanks to plagareizing Ernst Martin and the Star of Bethlehem, the date calculated was not the first to place Christ's birth in the fall. Ethelbert Bullinger said it was September 29th, 5 BC which just happened to be the date celebrating St. Michael and All Angels, or as it is called in Great Britain, Michaelmas. However, most theologians say Jesus was born in the springtime, perhaps during Passover. What say you all relating to this? Discuss.

I believe he was born on Sept. 11 in the year 3 BC within whatever time frame JCOPS says. Now, I could be wrong. I did think I was wrong once, but I was mistaken

Someplace in the Word it says that if any man thinks he knows anything, let him know this, that no man knows anything like he ought to know it - something like that. I think that's the only basis upon which to have an honest & humble discussion from which people can leave bigger than they were before. Anything else is residual know that we know that we know that we know. Can't learn anything with that attitude. Isn't it enough that we can know that which is beyond knowledge?

Anyway, here's why I believe JCOPS. I figure people can talk themselves into just about anything, yet I do believe the Word was/is written in the stars pretty much like I believe the Word is written on paper these days. With all the meanings of the names of the houses of the Zodiak, the constellations, the stars, the planets, & the amazing way all of that whole thing fits together storywise, it seems to me that it is not only plausible that the Word is written in the stars, it's like it's right there. How can anyone say it is not there when there it is? To not believe that is like saying maybe there was a tribe of gypse jugglers who juggled letters over gazillions of generations, & one day they all happened to fall down in the form of the bible. OK, so maybe not to that extent, but you get the way my reasoning goes. That whole Word in the stars thing, the names of all those constructions & how all that so fits with the Word just impresses the heck out of me.

And I can see where people who were so versed in that whole thing would notice massings of planets, then this, then that, & knowing the meanings of all these things could get blown away by all that so to say THIS is no coincidence.

I remember some TWI guy sharing with us that he went to the NY planetarium over the Christmas holidays, & the show showed three of those heavenly happenings & how theypossibly indicated JC was born in the fall. So, he gave the guy a copy of JCOPS, & the next year the show included all 6 of them (was it 6?). NY planetarium - that impressed me. Now, I didn't see the show, but I got it from the horses mouth. Hope that doesn't make me the horses you know what.

So, by this time, I'm really intirued by this whole Word in the stars thing & the amazing story it seems to be telling. After a few years of this stuff gumming up my brain cells, I have to attend to it more closely & either accept it with more of a degree of certainty or discount the whole thing & move on. So I buy this software - fairly serious stuff. You know the whole Universe moves & works like clockwork. No one denies THAT, right? I mean, that's why we have clocks & calendars & all - because the Universe works that way. So, these days, especially with computers, they can figure out all kinds of stuff. So, this software was pretty cool. With it, you could look at the known Universe on your computer monitor. As a matter of fact, you could go forward & backwards 6000 years & see what the Univers looked like then. Actually, you could look at the Universe from the perspective of any point in the known Universe. Cool stuff.

So I load up this software, & go back to 9/11 3 BC & look to see if those heavenly configurations described in JCOPS were really there - actually, many were supposed to be there such & such time before his birth, leading up to his birth. Anyway, I'm looking. AND THEY ARE NOT THERE!!. Now, I'm ....ed. It's all a big scam. Boy, do I feel stupid & taken advantage of.

Then I realized I was looking from the perspective of South Florida. Could that make such a difference. So I moved my point of perspective over to Jerusalem and there they were - well the ones that ocurred from that point.

If I'm wrong, the rest of this borders on superstition. I figure that the Devil knows when JC was born & just like we honor JC on his birth (even if we are wrong on the date), his birth & our honoring of his birth bothers him no end. He hates his birth as much as we love it. My mom was born on 9/11. She also broke her hip on 9/11. My dad tripped in the parking lot, & I found him unconcious in a pool of blood - on 9/11. It got to the point that we told them they weren't allowed to go out of the house on 9/11 anymore. Oh, yeah, I found my dad on the 9/11/2001, so yes, the terrorist attacks happened on 9/11. Many people still intensely, blood boilingly, hate that date. The last conversation that I had with one of the principals I served under, she shared with me that her son was coming home for on leave from Iraq & mentioned how he hated the date, 9/11. I shared with her what I just shared with you. She heartliy thanked me & said that she would share it with her son when he came home - that maybe it would help him get over all the heat that burns within him on that date. If 9/11 is really JC's birthday, & the Devil wanted to have Christians filled with other than Christian feelings on that day, he certainly succeeded.

BTW, I just want you to know that you know that you know that if I'm wrong about that date, I didn't just type all this. There is a band of letter juggling gypsies inside my computer, & all the letters just happened to come out that way.

Be of good cheer,

Tom

And example of this is the "If" the leper asked Jesus if he would heal him, and Jesus didn't give him a lecture about "there is no 'if' with me." (Mark 1:40) ...What have you gleaned from your fellow believers/Bible research/Holy Spirit/Lord Jesus/God Almighty relationships over the years?

Interesting considerations, Kit.

I don't think the leper's "if" was a negative confession. I think it was a statement of Jesus' potential. I think it was in the sense of, "You can do this if you want. How about it; let's go."

On the other hand, in chapter 9, the "if" confession of the man with the possessed son expressed his lack of conviction that Jesus could actually do anything - in the sense of, "I don't know. Maybe you can do something; maybe you can't. If you can, help us."

Mark 9:22  And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.

23  Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Jesus' response was like, "No, that's not the way it works. You have to believe that I can do anything. Then the possibilities are endless."

Jesus wasn't telling the man it depended on the man's believing in & of itself. Then it would be all praise to the man, MR. BELIEVER. The man was expressing lack of conviction that Jesus could do anything. Jesus was telling that man that he had to believe Jesus could do. All praise and glory to the Lord of glory. The Holy Spirit has taught me that it's all about Jesus.

I would go to the trinity to explain how Father, Son, and HS work as one, but I don't call them the same. Guess what? I am not going there.

I'm glad. You know how I feel about man made labels counsels have decided represent biblical concepts. I wouldn't have followed you there. But there's really no need. Jesus said they're one & did an amazingly succinct job of putting in words (God doing the work in him) of how they work together in John 14-16. And how we can be one with them beholding His glory. I'll just take Jesus at his word (that's all he asked us to do). AND enjoy the ecstatic experience of his glory. In that order.

Thanks for the conversation, Geisha.

Love,

Tom

I don't think God did choose SIT as a sign for Christians. We don't need a sign, we have faith. :)

Good catch, Geisha.

I do appreciate the answer Tom. Please don't take exception, but I can't go there with you....there was a time I believed the same thing....but not anymore.

Just a couple of thoughts....we would have to assume that all Christians are given the gift of SIT, if that is what builds us up in the inner man. I don't SIT. We would have to assume that the practice of SIT, is actually for edification of the individual, and not, as what I believe Paul is calling selfish and the wrong heart toward spiritual gifts. We would also have to assume that SIT in or outside the assembly (uninterpreted) for prayer is more than speaking into the air, as no one understands it.

We would have to assume that SIT is speaking mysteries to God in a positive way instead of what I believe Paul is saying, that it is a mystery to everyone, but God, because no one else understands it. It is simply a mystery because it is unintelligible.

Furthermore, we would have to take credit for doing something, that God's Spirit does, by His riches and Glory and by His grace and His mercy. In other words, we would have to stand before Jesus Christ, with the nail marks in His hands and tell Him....we SIT to build up our inner man. I'll pass on that one.

Same for the verse in Romans. If it is the Spirit making intercession with groaning which cannot be uttered ....and we are uttering it and doing it....it is not the Spirit, but us operating the Spirit. Kind of takes the God out of God. No?

I do believe God has set teachers in the body for our edification.....so, not really sure what the back hills would do for me. I don't mind sound theology or people with letters after their names. Left with no accountability and some communally reinforced deception .....I have been known to believe some pretty wacky things. I was in a cult after all! :)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand a lot of what you just said or why we would have to assume all those things, but from what I think I do understand:

I don't believe SIT is a gift.

Neither do I believe it is a manifestation.

I believe it is the energizing of the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ.

I agree it is the Holy Spirit that strengthens us with might in the inner man.

I don't believe Paul is calling any matter of the Spirit selfish, just the people who are walking outside of love.

"We would have to assume that SIT is speaking mysteries to God in a positive way instead of what I believe Paul is saying, that it is a mystery to everyone, but God, because no one else understands it. It is simply a mystery because it is unintelligible." Well, what you are seeing there certainly seems to be what the Word is saying there Geisha. Thank you, but I still don't see why we would have to assume otherwise. I don't assume all those things that TWI taught just because I believe something that TWI taught. Please don't assume so.

We speak like they spoke in Acts, like they spoke in 1 Cor., but it is still the Spirit, Jesus Christ, the Comforter making intercession.

I don't believe we operate the Spirit. I think that is one of the biggest errors foisted on people by TWI. All spiritual matters are operated/energized/worked by that one & self same Spirit. We just believe that He is working in us to will and to do of HIS good pleasure. Jesus Christ is Lord, not us. Jesus Christ is the head over ALL THINGS that have to do with his body - us. 1 John 4:2&3 & 2 John 1:7 Jesus Christ is come in the flesh - our flesh, but we don't tell the Lord what to do. Anything else is the spirit of antichrist. They stole our Lord away.

I was being facetious about the back hills remark; it was a dig about TWI. But I still would rather listen to someone speak the Word to me in plain English than someone who speaks in terms that schools of people decided was a biblical concept & then other schools decided the opposite is a biblical concept & gave it a name & they argue terms forever. Jesus didn't do that. Paul didn't do that. Teachers set in the body for our edification, yes.

I am sure your mom was great...I never meant to imply anything less.

As for TWI, I do find it a tiny bit ironic that they were so willing to bash theologians and scholarship....but so ready to embrace the knowledge found in the back hills of....wherever the person telling that same story, decided the hills would be.

And this is the ministry I supported with my blood, sweat, and paycheck. Go figure.

Might as well have read the bible everyday in the back hills, but we were taught we couldn't understand the Word without the keys. If we could, they wouldn't have gotten your paycheck, not to mention your sweat and your blood.

;)

No, really, tongues DOES seem stupid & useless. OT, God cuts on man's penis. NT, God cuts on man's almighty brain power, logic, wisdom, & understanding. How more obvious can God get that the glory should be of God & not of man, but man continues to turn it around the other way. OK, I can do nothing of myself, but somehow I turn the sign of that very inability around to indicate that I'm better than.

It's not like I haven't considered the reality that I have a tendency to be a complete jerk. Why not in the matter of SIT?

, OK? No offense intended, Raf

I never said stupid or asinine!

Lighten up, bro. I wasn't talking about you. Perhaps I should have said so.

Golly, I'm glad you said that because there's something I've never understood.

Circumcision, and tongues.

Why did God chose circumcision as a sign? Of all things!! Let's say there were some Old Testament guys walking down a road, minding their own business, and then another group of guys passed by and stopped them to ask, "Hey, are you guys Jews?" Did the Jews like whip out their penises and say, "Yeah, buddy! Jews here!" I mean, wtf?

And then tongues. Why did God chose tongues as a sign for Christians? Of all things!! Maybe He chose it so that, instead of Christians having to whip out our penises to show people, we could just stick out our tongues. That's what I think.

Is this off topic?

Really! God has the Jews cut off part of their penis. There can't be any more humiliating thing to do to a man. And they turn it into a sign that they are better than everyone else. God has Christians SIT - so absolutely simple that you don't even have to use your understanding to do it. Zero cause for ego enhancement. So much so that so many perceive it as false & you as stupid, gullible, & assinine if you do it, & think it is real. And Christians turn it into a sign that they are better than everyone else. People are messed up.

Oral Roberts said

Hmm, more experience based talk. Let's try some Word.

Romans 8:24a  For we are saved by hope...

What happens at the hope? All the cool stuff talked about in verses 28-30 is fully realized in our lives.

Romans 8:28  And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29  ¶For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30  Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

We become fully conformed to the image of his Son.

Meanwhile before the fullness of the Hope, we have the Spirit.

Romans 8:26a  ¶Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession...

"Likewise the Spirit" Like WHAT does the Spirit help? Like the Hope. How does the Hope help? We are made completely whole. Just like that the Spirit helps as it makes intercession for us "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" Ephesians 4:13.

Until then the Spirit is bringing all that glorified Christ at the right hand of God stuff to bear in our lives. That's intercession. Transformational, no? The Comforter revealing Christ to us as Jesus said it would. John 15:26  ¶But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. Like Jesus Christ was in God & God in him, so we are in them and might be one with them as they were one. That's the work of the Comforter to open that door to us spiritually NOW.

Steve, like Geisha I very much appreciate the loving latitude you afford us in this thread.

Geisha, that's pretty much what I meant by God perfecting the language of our lives. Sorry if I was unclear. Maybe I should follow my own advice & stick to the language of the Word.

Since Steve has graciously given us some latitude on this thread....I am interested in how you make the leap from God purifying His words, to Him purifying the language of our lives. How do you get there?

So, whose experience ends up pointing to the truth?

Without the Holy Spirit dwelling in our heart...it is all an exercise in futility and words anyway. The perspective we need when reading scripture, must come from the heart with which it was written. It is not all academic, but, neither is it all visceral. It is a matter of heart and how I read about SIT matters above my experiences. My take.

Obviously it's MY experiences that point to the truth. Just kidding.

The simple answer is what is the Holy Spirit dwelling in our heart doing in there. Transforming us into the New Man, no? And who are we? If God is His Word, so are we our words. Actually, I think God is more than His words, & we are more than our words, but you get the idea. That's what I meant by the language of our lives.

Oral Roberts said that every syllable uttered in a tongue of prayer in the Spirit comes back in revelation knowledge & power. The more we do that, the more we (cruddy inept weak) get changed to be like Jesus Christ. In the sense that we are our words, the language of our lives is getting purified in the fire of Holy Spirit.

Does that help/make sense?

God bless you.

Psalm 12:6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

I didn't realize I was a master of skepticism.

I respectfully withhold judgment on the first person account provided here, for reasons I've expressed on another thread.

If this makes me a master of skepticism, then guilty as charged.

Ouch, sorry Raf. I didn't mean that crack to be insulting or even negative. You have a knack for debunking things. Of suspending judgment. I appreciate that.

Peace,

Tom

A friend of mine is presently reading a book that puts forth the proposition that Luke wrote Acts as an informative account to be brought forth in Roman court in defense of Paul - to concisely answer the question up front as to what this guy Paul was all about. I don't know, but it might have some good info showing that Luke wrote Acts. I'll be happy to ask my friend if it has info along those lines & get the title & author of the book if you are interested, Steve.

One thing my friend did mention was that, according to this book, theophilis (beloved of God) was a term that was used for high Roman officials.

Seize the day,

Tom

Never meant to imply you were on trial, Tom. Just saying while I remain skeptical, I could see where you or others would find affirmation or confirmation of SIT in your account. Me, I've heard it before, always second or third hand,... And I'm off topic and will stop there. Good morning.

Like I said, it's been a while since I've been here, but why is this off-topic? Because it's personal & experienced rather than a strictly academic approach to doctrine?

OK, back to topic. Steve, sorry if I've been leading the conversation astray.

Why do you have to start with who wrote Acts? Is that in question? Or is it just something that your professors are going to expect you to cover for your research to be recognized as complete? I don't know, but I thought it was pretty well accepted in theological circles drawn on graph paper viewed through trigonometric lenses through which people can be heard but not seen (sorry, I'll cut that out now - I actually found that whole circle thing to be interesting even though I didn't really understand it - please don't ask what I mean by really) whew, anyway I thought it was pretty well accepted that Luke wrote Luke and Acts. No?

Why do you think Luke didn't write Acts? For that matter, why do you think he did?

Bullinger says in his companion bible concerning Acts, "The writer is, without doubt, Luke. The book has the same introductory address as his Gospel (cp 1.1 with Luke 1.3), and takes up the history where the third Gospel leaves it, giving in greater detail the account of the Ascension with which that Gospel closes."

A friend of mine is presently reading a book that puts forth the proposition that Luke wrote Acts as an informative account to be brought forth in Roman court in defense of Paul - to concisely answer the question up front as to what this guy Paul was all about. I don't know, but it might have some good info showing that Luke wrote Acts. I'll be happy to ask my friend if it has info along those lines & get the title & author of the book if you are interested, Steve.

Well, if I were you, I would be a bit ticked, as several others have borrowed it and made it their own personal experience and what they saw as well. . . and it was, that they got their bibles, and they were big old family bibles, opened them up and pointed. Heard it a few times now. :)

Hahahaha, ticked? It's all just too weird & bizarre to me at the moment to be ticked. If they copped my ID, I'm just glad I'm me & not them. Or maybe there is a bunch of stories out there that are legitimately similar; those country folk are ubiquitous, thank God - salt of the earth. But if the story you heard from so many as their own is so particularly similar/identical that the story has to be stolen, that's just the weirdest thing.

Raf, master of retention of skepticism, help. What the freak do I do with this?

State of brain block - nothing to say.

Later & love,

Tom

I am not doubting your story Tom, about the folks in the back hills of NC, but, I have heard this exact same story from many TWI people. One, I remember, was the branch leader in Western NC. In a teaching, he recounted the exact story you did. Another, roamed the hills in TN. The reason I remember this running theme is because I heard it so much, that, at the time I had to wonder about it. You may not believe this,:) but, I was thinking about this story not all that long ago. It has stuck with me all these years. Not because of the impact it made on what I believed, but rather because of the commonalities. . . . it was suspicious. Whenever I heard it, it was used to support the idea that JCING. These "hill people" who had never been exposed to theology, but, had simply read the scriptures on their own for years......would respond by pulling out their bibles, and saying something to the effect...."It says Son of God, not God the Son". These hill people got around.

I am serious....I remember these stories. Maybe VP set you all loose in the hills of the South or in Appalachia. Could be.

Not trying to start a flame war.....please.....I am just telling you.... I do remember this story from way back. I was in NC for years.

Wow, Geisha, I never heard that story. Maybe I started it. That was back in, umm, 1975-77. I guess that's "way back." Stories do get around - wow. But I'm not talking about what I heard, but about what I saw & experienced. And, for the record, and apparently for posterity generations from now (gosh, I'm feeling ancient), I don't remember them "pulling out their bibles." They didn't have to; they just knew what the Word said. You couldn't fool them. And it wasn't about the Trinity - OMG, I'M FREAKING OUT HERE; I DO REMEMBER ONE PERSON TELLING ME, "It says Son of God, not God the Son." That's a true report, girl. I can't believe that spread so far & wide. And that was definitely about Jesus Christ & who he was, God or not, but regardless of whatever purpose the story was used for, that's the way some of those country folk were about EVERYTHING in the Word. Course JCING was big back then.

Gotta go now. My mind is - without further expression for the moment. Thanks for sharing Geisha.

Very cool.

You won't mind if I retain my skepticism, although I could see why you would consider the account highly valuable and, as they say in court, probative.

I don't mind at all, Raf, but I don't consider the account highly valuable or probative, nor do I perceive myself as being in court here. I did mention that was the least of all considerations with regard to tongues for those who believe in praying in the Spirit. I just mentioned it because it might make an impression on those who don't believe like the people who heard tongues in Acts 2 - or not.

If I'm in court, I'm just bearing witness.

The ideas we think about have histories of terms and ideas.

Not trying to be rude here, but I learned more talking with those North Carolina country people who had been reading the bible for decades than their "Pastors" who spoke of ideas in terms that had histories. Now, decades later, I believe things concerning the Comforter, Jesus Christ, the Spirit, things that don't fit into any of the labels, terms, ideas, whatever - boxes that have been brought up here. TWI think/Trinity think, dyophysite, miaphysite.

his thoughts are not our thoughts, so why not speak in terms of His thoughts rather than our thoughts?

Just finished a wonderful Sunday brunch that LizzyBuzz fixed!

So... what are my presuppositions for this thread (and my thesis)?

----------

1. That the events of Acts 2 were the fulfillment of the promise originally given in Joel 2:28-32. This was a possibility Wierwille denied from the git-go:

2. That the promise given in Joel 2:28-32 follows from the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, that in him would all the families of the earth be blessed:

3. That the Feast of Weeks entailed a freewill-offering of the first fruit of the wheat harvest, wherein people gave back to God of that which He had given them (Deuteronomy 16:10), and the Feast of Weeks was the foreshadowing of what actually occurred on the Day of Pentecost described in Acts 2:

4. That the Spirit itself first poured out in Acts 2 is to be regarded as the "gift of the Holy Spirit", that is to say, that the genitive case of ten dorean tou agiou pneumatos should be regarded as the genitive of apposition rather than as the genitive of source:

5. That the Spirit first poured out in Acts 2 was the "life/force" of God the Father "meshed/superimposed/heterodyned" with the human personality of Jesus Christ:

6. That the "gift of the Holy Spirit" is an earnest of the inheritance, that is to say, it is an earnest of the Spirit of resurrection life in the age to come:

7. That the earliest Christians regarded tongues as a sign the same way Abraham regarded circumcision as a sign:

----------

That's all the major points I can think of at the monent...

Love,

Steve

Great list - really. Please don't ask what I mean by really.

Gosh! I just realized my position is a dyophysite rather than a miaphysite position!

I am in agreement with the Council of Chalcedon in 451!

Whodathunkit!?!

Love,

Steve

Oy vey, "dyophysite," "miaphysite," see, hard to deal with these theo"logical" labels, without reference or source, unchallenged - one HAS to be the case - where do you fit in? They restrict thinking to boxes prescribed by people who pretend to know & pretend to have authority to so prescribe. Nothing new EVER outside a prescibed box. Totally, man's thinking, but His thoughts are NOT our thoughts.

Just finished a wonderful Sunday brunch that LizzyBuzz fixed!

So... what are my presuppositions for this thread (and my thesis)?

----------

1. That the events of Acts 2 were the fulfillment of the promise originallly given in Joel 2:28-32. This was a possibility Wierwille denied from the git-go:

2. That the promise given in Joel 2:28-32 follows from the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, that in him would all the families of the earth be blessed:

3. That the Feast of Weeks entailed a freewill-offering of the first fruit of the wheat harvest, wherein people gave back to God of that which He had given them (Deuteronomy 16:10), and the Feast of Weeks was the foreshadowing of what actually occurred on the Day of Pentecost described in Acts 2:

4. That the Spirit itself first poured out in Acts 2 is to be regarded as the "gift of the Holy Spirit", that is to say, that the genitive case of ten dorean tou agiou pneumatos should be regarded as the genitive of apposition rather than as the genitive of source:

What an awesome list, Steve.

5. That the Spirit first poured out in Acts 2 was the "life/force" of God the Father "meshed/superimposed/heterodyned" with the human personality of Jesus Christ:

6. That the "gift of the Holy Spirit" is an earnest of the inheritance, that is to say, it is an earnest of the Spirit of resurrection life in the age to come:

7. That the earliest Christians regarded tongues as a sign the same way Abraham regarded circumcision as a sign:

----------

That's all the major points I can think of at the monent...

Love,

Steve

Any reason to believe the speaker had or had not been exposed to Aramaic?

Had not - buncha sharp people there, not all idiots without a questioning mind, self included.

I'm not going to challenge what you experienced at meetings if you accept my right to remain skeptical. With no info about the hearer who recognized the language, his proficiency in that language, the person who brought forth the language or that person's prior exposure to that language, I really have nothing to go on except your word that two people made this combined claim. Having lied about SIT and TIP for years, with all outward sincerity and zero malice, i would not put it past anyone else, especially second or third hand.

My apologies if that sounds harsh.

It just occurred to me that this line of discussion hijacks the thread and makes it non doctrinal. LOL

Believe what you will, a believer had several relatives visit, umm, mom, dad, & some other if memory serves (no advice on giving credence to my memory - uh, what WERE we talking about?)

OK, so three people anyway - from somewhere in the Middle East. Their native language was some relative of Aramaic (yeah, I know that seems pretty coincidental considering TWI's infatuation with Aramaic - but that part of the story is not to be questioned - I mean that's what they spoke), & the tongue spoken was at least close enough to their native tongue for them to understand what was being said. I knew the guy whose relatives were visiting from the middle east.

So that's the deal. I already knew tongues was real, so, I thought this was cool, but, really, you know, so what? Jesus gets up from the dead, appears to people, some (of those he appeared to) still don't believe. Not why I'm here.

Just saying,

Tom