Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation. - Page 28

mfblume · #**271** 08-18-2010, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

They as individuals did not crucify Jesus though. Definetely not directly which is what Peter claimed someone did. Therefore Peter wasn't saying they did something that they didn't do.

They as a nation did crucify Jesus.

Brother, the context is plain. Whatever conclusion you want to draw from Peter's words, the fact is Peter said YE CRUCIFIED, they asked WHAT SHALL WE DO, and Peter said Repent. If you are right they would have said, "Wait a minute! We never directly crucified him. Go and tell someone else they crucified him and they need to repent, but do not tell some of us, since some of us did not do that." But they took his words, never argued with them, and asked what they should do as a result. You are really reaching here to avoid this, bro.

Peter: YE

People: WE?

Peter: REPENT

When did YE no longer mean YE? Peter told some people whom he called "YE" that they crucified the Lord, and that was sin people had to repent of. Obviously it is the ones to whom he preached. I say YOU when I speak to you, do I not? And the ones who asked what should they do were the ones Peter told to repent. Seems perfectly plain to me.

jfrog · #**272** 08-18-2010, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Brother, the context is plain. Whatever conclusion you want to draw from Peter's words, the fact is Peter said YE CRUCIFIED, they asked WHAT SHALL WE DO, and Peter said Repent. If you are right they would have said, "Wait a minute! We never directly crucified him. Go and tell someone else they crucified him and they need to repent, but do not tell some of us, since some of us did not do that." But they took his words, never argued with them, and asked what they should do as a result. You are really reaching here to avoid this, bro.

Peter: YE

People: WE?

Peter: REPENT

When did YE no longer mean YE? Peter told some people whom he called "YE" that they crucified the Lord, and that was sin people had to repent of. Obviously it is the ones to whom he preached. I say YOU when I speak to you, do I not? And the ones who asked what should they do were the ones Peter told to repent. Seems perfectly plain to me.

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

In Acts 2:36 "ye" refers to all the house of Israel. If all the house of Israel are directly responsible for Christ's crucifixion then so are the apostles for they were of the house of Israel. The fact is that no where in the story of Christ's crucifixion is every jew said to have taken part in it. In fact it is quite clear that every Jew did not. Did Peter or any of the other apostles? Surely you will answer no. But that is what Peter said, that all the house of Israel crucified Jesus. The fact is that not every Jew was involved in Jesus being crucified, the apostles being the best examples. So you must go back to the drawing board about applying the guilt of Christ's death directly to all individual jews.

mfblume · #**273** 08-18-2010, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

In Acts 2:36 "ye" refers to all the house of Israel. If all the house of Israel are directly responsible for Christ's crucifixion then so are the apostles for they were of the house of Israel.

You overcomplicate a simple issue. If Peter felt he addressed those people as the house of Israel in part, then so be it. The point is he said YE.

'Nuff said. You know you lost this one, bro.

jfrog · #**274** 08-18-2010, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

You overcomplicate a simple issue. If Peter felt he addressed those people as the house of Israel in part, then so be it. The point is he said YE.

'Nuff said. You know you lost this one, bro.

Lol. Whatever Blume. You at least try to answer questions most the time. But it doesn't take you too long to get to doing the same ole thing most others do. Avoiding the direct questions and just keeping on throwing out points as at if by avoiding the question and saying something else you have answered the question.

jfrog · #**275** 08-18-2010, 05:37 PM

All the individuals of Israel were not directly involved in Christ's crucifixion regardless of what Peter said. I don't believe Peter ever said they were though.

mfblume · #**276** 08-18-2010, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

Lol. Whatever Blume. You at least try to answer questions most the time. But it doesn't take you too long to get to doing the same ole thing most others do. Avoiding the direct questions and just keeping on throwing out points as at if by avoiding the question and saying something else you have answered the question.

Brother, the answer is obvious no matter how you slice it. Come on.

jfrog · #**277** 08-18-2010, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Brother, the answer is obvious no matter how you slice it. Come on.

The answer is obvious. In no way shape or form can it be argued or substantiated that all the individual jews were directly responsible for Christ's crucifixion.

Socialite · #**278** 08-18-2010, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lacey

Every person I've ever known to receive the Holy Ghost, always, without fail, spoke in another tongue. Seems that was also evident in the folks mentioned in the Bible who received it.

Would you have acknowledged them with "receiving the Spirit" otherwise?

That's a loaded observation don't you think?

They could have had an incredible experience, but after we listened for tongues, our futile efforts are capped up with the reassurance of "You were sooooooooo close." *hug*

Falla39 · #**279** 08-19-2010, 09:22 AM

Just as a mother giving birth in the natural, she listens for a certain sound,
a cry!
I believe the church (mother) also listens for a certain sound from the born-again
child of God. I believe other tongues are that sound of those born from above. It
is a sound from heaven! Natural man born again, from above. First that which is
natural, then the spiritual. Not the other way around. Except a MAN be born again....

I believe just as a woman and her doctor can together plan a natural abortion,
I believe that another spirit, can come into a church (mother) and perform spiritual
abortion, or even spiritual partial-birth abortion. Of course this procedure would be
planned by another spirit and the mother (church or individual) that accepted or
devised this "spiritual" plan. Who would have ever thought some "Christians"
would have ever accepted abortion, much less legalizing it.

I don't believe any kind of abortion was planned by Almighty GOD! An enemy
planned that!
Wouldn't want to be in any of their shoes!

Falla39

Digging4Truth · #**280** 08-19-2010, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falla39

Just as a mother giving birth in the natural, she listens for a certain sound,
a cry!
I believe the church (mother) also listens for a certain sound from the born-again
child of God. I believe other tongues are that sound of those born from above. It
is a sound from heaven! Natural man born again, from above. First that which is
natural, then the spiritual. Not the other way around. Except a MAN be born again....

I believe just as a woman and her doctor can together plan a natural abortion,
I believe that another spirit, can come into a church (mother) and perform spiritual
abortion, or even spiritual partial-birth abortion. Of course this procedure would be
planned by another spirit and the mother (church or individual) that accepted or
devised this "spiritual" plan. Who would have ever thought some "Christians"
would have ever accepted abortion, much less legalizing it.

I don't believe any kind of abortion was planned by Almighty GOD! An enemy
planned that!
Wouldn't want to be in any of their shoes!

Falla39

That's a nice analogy Sister Falla.

But, at the end of the day, it is simply an analogy and it is a flawed one IMO.

But taking it seriously for just a moment let's take a look.

We look for a sound. A cry. Okay... I'm not going to delve into that much.

But... if they don't cry... who is it that aborts them? Even partial birth abortions? It is those who look for the sound as absolute and total proof without which life is not believed to have occured.

Look... the baby is breathing... Yeah... but he didn't cry... so close. Too bad.

But there's life there. Yeah... but he didn't cry. Maybe he'll cry later.

And then those who believe that life can indeed bring a cry but that life does not absolutely need a cry to exist will be the ones who work with this life and bring it to full strength.

Not the cry seekers... for they do not believe life has come unless they hear a cry.

The term translated spirit is from the term Pneuma...meaning air. It takes air to cry... but a cry isn't the only expression of air. As long as there is air... there is spirit... if that air is used to cry... wonderful. But if there is no cry... but there is air (Pneuma... Spirit)... then there is life and I won't be caught denying that.

The cry is made possible by air.
Tongues are made possible by the Spirit (Pneuma)
When there is air/spirit/pneuma... and yet no cry... there is life and our job is to nurture that life. Not deny it's existence.