Defend your Faith - Page 24

Timmy · #**231** 06-23-2007, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmy

UCs? Cons? Mods, libs, ULs, commies, hippies, ... anyone???

OK, Steve Epley is excused, since he probably still has that check in his spirit. The rest of you, come on in!

Oh, come ON!! You gonna let Crakjak have the last word??!

crakjak · #**232** 06-23-2007, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmy

Oh, come ON!! You gonna let Crakjak have the last word??!

Probably won't hear see any response until after Sunday, these guys are pretty busy on Sunday.

Timmy · #**233** 06-24-2007, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crakjak

Probably won't hear see any response until after Sunday, these guys are pretty busy on Sunday.

Yeah, I suppose. And busy Sat PM, getting ready.

Kutless · #**234** 06-25-2007, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmy

Yeah, I suppose. And busy Sat PM, getting ready.

The thread is going a different route. Stop it.

If you believe that you have the only saving message then quite using God as a cop out.

If you believe that tongues in Corinthians was anything other than Hebrew, prove it.

Timmy · #**235** 06-25-2007, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kutless

The thread is going a different route. Stop it.

If you believe that you have the only saving message then quite using God as a cop out.

If you believe that tongues in Corinthians was anything other than Hebrew, prove it.

You mean my 4 questions? I thought they were relevant, but I'll put them in a separate thread, if you like.

Kutless · #**236** 06-25-2007, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmy

You mean my 4 questions? I thought they were relevant, but I'll put them in a separate thread, if you like.

no no.

Stay.... would like a comment on the tongues as well.

Point 4. of your post especially applies.

Timmy · #**237** 06-25-2007, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kutless

no no.

Stay.... would like a comment on the tongues as well.

Point 4. of your post especially applies.

Cool, thanks.

My opinion on tongues in the Corinthians, whether it was Hebrew or not? Not sure. Haven't given it much thought.

I don't accept 1 Cor 13:1 as proof of any kind of heavenly language (tongues of angels), however. It's just rhetoric. The form is used three times, and in neither of the other two is the "though I" part of it literally true. It doesn't mean "even though I <whatever> and I really do <whatever>, . . .". More like "even if I were to <whatever>, which I don't really, of course, . . .". The absurdity of the premise is important to the rhetorical device: do I understand all mysteries? Of course not! It's impossible! Do I give my body to be burned? No way! Do I speak with the tongues of men and of angels? No! If anything, 1 Cor 13:1 implies that there is no such thing, at least as spoken by men.

Timmy · #**238** 06-25-2007, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crakjak

Probably won't hear see any response until after Sunday, these guys are pretty busy on Sunday.

Well, it's Monday!

Timmy · #**239** 06-25-2007, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by revrandy

Mark 16:16-18 (King James Version)
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

You mentioned v 18 but didn't quote it. Why not?

Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Why are snake handlers often criticized and ridiculed? Why are there no poison drinking churches? (Maybe there have been, but they didn't last very long?) How often do the sick recover when we lay hands on them, these days? If it isn't 100% of the time, does it mean we aren't real believers?

You seem to believe that Mark 16:16-18 supports speaking in tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit. Why are not the other items also evidence, and "required" in the Oneness Pentecostal doctrine, like tongues? (Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but I think OP teaches that tongues is required, right?)

crakjak · #**240** 06-25-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmy

You mentioned v 18 but didn't quote it. Why not?

Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Why are snake handlers often criticized and ridiculed? Why are there no poison drinking churches? (Maybe there have been, but they didn't last very long?) How often do the sick recover when we lay hands on them, these days? If it isn't 100% of the time, does it mean we aren't real believers?

You seem to believe that Mark 16:16-18 supports speaking in tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit. Why are not the other items also evidence, and "required" in the Oneness Pentecostal doctrine, like tongues? (Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but I think OP teaches that tongues is required, right?)

The truth is, verses 17 and 18, were not orginally in the Gospel of Mark, rather it was added later by a scribe. This is fairly well known among biblical scholars.

So I guess the snake handlers and poison drinkers are off the hook.